From carylcb at hotmail.com Tue May 1 00:50:18 2007 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (clcb58) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 00:50:18 -0000 Subject: Do animagi get to choose their form? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168151 Hi all, New to the group here -- I've been enjoying the discussions. I wonder if a wizard who learns to become an animagus gets to choose what animal they transform into or do they just get what they get, like with a Patronus? If they get to choose, I wonder why Peter Pettigrew would have chosen a rat that Sirius' dog could've eaten? I can't find anything in the canon about this, so I know everything will be speculation, but I'd love to read your thoughts. Thanks, clcb From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 01:10:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 01:10:21 -0000 Subject: DH info on the Marauders and Snape was Nitwit Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168152 wynnleaf: > Another comment that applies to several arguments of Dana's and > Alla's. There is an idea that we're going to learn some new > information in DH that shows how bad Snape was as a student -- > something that will show how culpable he was during that time that > those much maligned Marauders (huh?) were getting detentions right > and left, chasing around the countryside endangering the community, > and bullying people. > Alla: Yes, this idea comes first and foremost from JKR's quote about us learning more about the reasons of the hatred between Snape and Sirius. wynnleaf: > There's two problems with this. > > 1. JKR is not writing, nor going to write, "The Exhaustive History > of the Marauders and Snape" which covers their day-to-day activities > throughout school. So whatever she actually puts down on the page, > that's all we'll have to go by. No amount of suppositions ("Snape > could have been hexing people constantly. Just because we're not > told doesn't mean he wasn't," is no argument at all once the 7th > book is published. It's hardly any argument now. Because all we > have to go on is what we're told. And if we're given no evidence or > hint of a thing, we can't just suppose it to be true. Alla: Neri replied to that beatifully, but I just want to say what I said earlier. We **are** IMO learning more and more bad things about Snape with every book. Sure, they come in small doses, but I believe it is quite fair to think that even more of the bad things could be expected in book 7. I mean, really who could have expected that Snape created the curse that makes people bleed to death and I know for sure I had no clue that Snape was getting turned in the air by his **own** curse. I read the scene in OOP as ugly bullying for sure and I **love** Marauders dearly and hate Snape with passion. What I did not buy ever is that scene reflected true picture of their relationship and boy, what did I see in HBP? *I** saw at the very least a hint that Snape may have been not the victim of the bullies, but getting his just deserts. The fact that Snape was hit with his **own** curse may mean nothing to you, but to me it may be highly symbolic of universe hitting back Snape for all the deeds he did, which readers are not aware of yet. I may be wrong of course, but I do not believe that I am being unreasonable in expecting to learn more bad things in DH. Wynnleaf: > The books thus far have been primarily seen through Harry's point of > view. Through Harry, Snape is seen as really mean, nasty, and now > the evil traitor. Therefore any surprise twists for Snape will only > counter this picture, not support it. Otherwise, they aren't > surprise twists. > Alla: Eh, are all surprises that Harry will learn just have to be about Snape? I think that if Harry will learn that his father was not just as bad as he believed after Pensieve scene, it could be quite surprising for Harry. JMO. > From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 01:21:13 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 01:21:13 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168153 > >>dan: > > The DA begins as an educational organization - practicing arts > forbidden them, all with the purpose of teaching students how to > defend themselves from dangers they know are real, and many of their > families know are real, but which the state denies - just as the > state denied for decades global warming and so forth. In Harry > Potter, the evil of segragation, nationalist chauvanism, racism and > extremism, as signified by the DE, sharing as it does elements of > all these, all elements practiced in the rest of the witchwizard > world to a lesser extent - as demonstrated in the history of > creature rights, for example, in OotP - are tackled head on by the > students. Their story is the story, again I say, of the raw > emotional integrity of youth, which stumbles in its unpracticed way > toward verity. > Betsy Hp: Since montims and Pippin took on the first and third paragraphs of this post, I'll tackle the second. The problem I see with the DA, and with the "good guys" in the Potterverse in totality, is their inherent hypocrisy. They, unfortunately, share a lot of the evils you assign (correctly, IMO) to the Deatheaters. Yes, it's a bit more benign, but in some ways its very banality makes it more dangerous. The DA *was* segragated. No Slytherins were allowed, and no one who didn't agree to be completely loyal to Harry (and Dumbledore) was allowed. There was even a certain taint of "Hitler Youth" to the ruthless understanding that students would stand against their family if need be (Marietta). Harry is a slave owner. And he's not only not afraid of using his slave, he forces the slave to work against a family he loves. (Let's all imagine Lucius forcing Dobby to help him take down Harry. How would that come across?) Both Harry and Ron enjoy using magic against a powerless squib. Hermione calls a Centaur a horse without a blink. All three children are easily assuming their roles as the elite of their world. This all occurs after the DA, yes. But the exclusive and controlling nature of the DA foreshadows, I think, the rather distasteful path the Trio are heading down in HBP. JKR does do a beautiful job showing the raw emotionalism of youth. But I think she more shows us the *lack* of integrity and the danger of hypocrisy, rather than truth, such emotionalism leads to. (The way Hermione deals with her feelings for Ron encapsulates the problems with emotional youth, IMO.) The billion dollar question for me is whether JKR is doing this on purpose, or whether this stuff is sneaking in under her radar. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 02:19:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 02:19:53 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168154 > > Betsy Hp: > The problem I have with this sort of argument (and it's a very > popular one for the Prank, unfortunately) is that it suggests that > the only person with any sort of personal responsibility in this > scenario is Snape. Now, I'm a Snape fan, but even I have trouble > giving him a stronger moral or ethical sense and a greater > intelligence than Sirius. > > Because honestly, I doubt James was motivated totally by the urge to > protect Snape (though I do suspect James realized that Snape's actual > *life* was in danger, while that never seemed to occur to Sirius). I > suspect James was also motivated to protect Sirius from the > consequences of Sirius's actions. Actions that would have probably > landed Sirius in Azkaban. (Oh, and Lupin too, of course.) > > I do think Snape was responsible for his own lack of caution. But > shouldn't Sirius have some responsibility here too? And if the > feeling is that Snape dying would have been just desserts (sneaking > around to find out what fellow students are up to is something only > *Gryffindors* are allowed to do ), then a sixteen year old Sirius > spending the rest of his life in Azkaban for a crime he was actually > guilty for is also Sirius's just desserts. > > Personally, I think both boys were in over their heads, and more than > one innocent life was saved that night. Yay Prongs! Um, again! Only > earlier! > > Betsy Hp (loves Snape, and loves the amount of emotion Snape can > raise in people) > Alla: May I just say something? I think this one would be best to reply to, even though I am sort of talking about the thread in general, because I saw at least one person referring to my and Dana's arguments together and I am going to differentiate between myself and Dana's on this point for sure, even though I agree and support a great deal of her arguments :) There is absolutely no way I would say that Snape deserved to die if the only thing he did was to sneak on Marauders trying to get them expelled. NO, just no. If there is nothing else to be discovered, then Snape and Sirius responsibility in Prank night just cannot be compared IMO. Snape may be guilty in sneaking on them, but Sirius is guilty in reckless idiocy that could have lead to Snape death. Now I also believe very strongly that sneaking on Marauders is so very incomplete list of Snape offenses and we will learn that he was **at least** as guilty as Sirius that night, but if we learn nothing new, well, then hey, Sirius is not perfect, big deal, lol. I mean, personally I of course believe that at least three good "people" of Potterverse would have had much longer life expectancy if Snape would have dropped dead in his teens, and one good "kid" would have had much happier home life, but there is no way I would say Snape deserved to die and of course then there would had been no story, hehe. JMO, Alla From Estama02 at aol.com Tue May 1 02:51:25 2007 From: Estama02 at aol.com (secretkeeper24) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 02:51:25 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: <958956.87952.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168155 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, barb burke wrote: > > Some of the posters to this group forget that when > asked by Lily, I believe, why Severus was tormented > by the Mararuders, the reply was in essence "just > because he exists," not because he did anything which > I'm sure they would have been more than happy to enumerate. > > Barb > I usually lurk in this group, and even though this is a very volatile subject I figured I'd try to put in my own opinion. I don't see James' reply "just because he exists" as proof Snape never did anything to cause these 'attacks'. To cool, popular fifteen year old James, I think he found it sounded wittier to reply in those terms instead of stating to Lily just yesterday Snape did X, Y, and Z and that's why we are retaliating. I don't understand how in SWM some readers do not literally interpret Snape's words in calling Lily a mudblood (Snape didn't mean it...he was embarrassed), but then they turn around and take the words James says (while he's trying to impress unsuccessfully, mind you, the girl he likes) completely literally. ~Secretkeeper24 From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue May 1 02:54:25 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 02:54:25 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168156 > Dana: > And his fascination for the Dark Arts had nothing to do with it? I > rest my case Carol, and it is making excuses for someone's personal > choices by trying to reason that he might have made these choices > because he was pushed towards it due someone treating him unfairly > when he was young. Now we only have to wait for Neville or Harry to > put on a mask because Snape treated them unfairly too. wynnleaf Dana, the word noun "reason" does not have the same meaning as the noun "excuse," yet you are attempting to use them synonymously. A "reason" is in this case either 1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. or 2. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence. An "excuse" is, in this case: An explanation offered to justify or obtain forgiveness. So please refrain from saying that someone giving possible "reasons" for Snape's actions is therefore "excusing" those actions. The two things are not the same. Even if you happen to think they are the same, they are not and no amount of opinion will make them the same. > Carol: > > You know, your sarcasm isn't helping your argument. Needling the > > opposition is unlikely to persuade us to share your view. > wynnleaf Agreed. Beginning Debate 101, you know. > Dana: > No, it might not but it is actually fun to write and I am not trying > to persuade anyone because my opinion can be given regardless if > someone agrees with it, because I can interpret canon any way I like > just like you. Everyone is entitled to skip my posts if they don't > like the sarcasm. wynnleaf, who will take your above advice. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 02:56:45 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 02:56:45 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168157 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "secretkeeper24" wrote: > > I usually lurk in this group, and even though this is a very > volatile subject I figured I'd try to put in my own opinion. > > I don't see James' reply "just because he exists" as proof Snape > never did anything to cause these 'attacks'. To cool, popular > fifteen year old James, I think he found it sounded wittier to reply > in those terms instead of stating to Lily just yesterday Snape did > X, Y, and Z and that's why we are retaliating. > > I don't understand how in SWM some readers do not literally > interpret Snape's words in calling Lily a mudblood (Snape didn't > mean it...he was embarrassed), but then they turn around and take > the words James says (while he's trying to impress unsuccessfully, > mind you, the girl he likes) completely literally. Alla: Oh welcome to posting :) I agree with your general argument, but I believe that James words are not to be taken literally simply for plot based reason, hehe. I am thinking that by the end of book 7 we **will** know quite literally what James meant by " because he exists". It was IMO way too early to tell us the details, just as we learned more about both curses involved in Pensieve memory **only** in HBP. As Neri so nicely put, Levicorpus was overplayed and the curse that I believe was Sectusemptra was downplayed IMO. From suzchiles at gmail.com Tue May 1 03:27:02 2007 From: suzchiles at gmail.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:27:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4636B386.1020406@gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168158 wynnleaf wrote: > So please refrain from saying that someone giving possible "reasons" > for Snape's actions is therefore "excusing" those actions. The two > things are not the same. Even if you happen to think they are the > same, they are not and no amount of opinion will make them the same. Sorry, but I don't see where it is any list member's business to tell other list members what words they may use. We all have the right to disagree with each other's opinions and each other's use of language, but I don't think we have the right to tell anyone to "please refrain" from much of anything. My sincere apology if this is off-topic. Suzanne From belviso at attglobal.net Tue May 1 03:28:48 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:28:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do animagi get to choose their form? References: Message-ID: <00b201c78ba0$d5cb57d0$50ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168159 > clcb: > I wonder if a wizard who learns to become an animagus gets to choose what > animal they > transform into or do they just get what they get, like with a Patronus? > > If they get to choose, I wonder why Peter Pettigrew would have chosen a > rat that Sirius' > dog could've eaten? > > I can't find anything in the canon about this, so I know everything will > be speculation, but > I'd love to read your thoughts. Magpie: I'm pretty sure JKR explained this. She said that no, they can't chooose their form. I believe she said that was one of the risks of studying it, that you could put in a lot of work and then find out you were a warthog. -m From craigpb at fastmail.fm Tue May 1 02:16:10 2007 From: craigpb at fastmail.fm (Craig) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 02:16:10 -0000 Subject: Voldermort learning the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168160 > SSSusan: > > See, that's just it. I can't figure out how knowing the full > > prophecy WOULD change much. ??? So he'd know for certain > > (if he interprets it how DD & Harry did) that either he's gotta > > kill the little snot or the little snot's gonna kill him, but > > since he's ALREADY determined to kill the little snot, it > > wouldn't exactly mark a change in his strategy. > houyhnhnm: > Since *we* know the whole prophecy, we can see that LV's knowing > it would not change much, but Voldemort doesn't know what it is > he doesn't know. So, for all he knows, the rest of the prophecy > might contain the secret of Harry's defeat. Craig: They tried to get the prophecy, but once they were all destroyed, there was no longer any use. Snape probably knows it was Trelawney, but since she doesn't remember it anyway, kidnapping her would make no sense. Only Dumbledore knew it and he is sadly dead. Neither Snape or Voldemort could know that Harry, Ron and Hermione know it as well. Plus the prophecy wouldn't reveal anything new anyway. So that plotline was finished. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue May 1 03:42:50 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:42:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) References: Message-ID: <00e301c78ba2$cb7a9640$50ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168161 Doing some canon picks of my own, because apparently I can't stop myself! Dana: > And his fascination for the Dark Arts had nothing to do with it? I > rest my case Carol, and it is making excuses for someone's personal > choices by trying to reason that he might have made these choices > because he was pushed towards it due someone treating him unfairly > when he was young. Magpie: I think absolutely his interest in the Dark Arts was a factor, and that he started to get sucked into the blood purity thing as well at some point (whatever his reasons for doing that). But I would also imagine that his anger at the Marauders and other stuff were part of it too. That seems like just the sort of thing that would mix up with everything to make an angry kid like Snape. I don't think that makes the Marauders responsible for what Snape did, but they were clearly a big influence in his life. It's not their fault he still hasn't gotten over it either, but for whatever reason, Snape is shaped by them. It's not just a cause and effect where anybody who gets bullied ZAP! becomes a DE. Snape was bringing a lot to the table already. But everybody's actions have consequences. It's no surprise Snape still doesn't like these guys. > Dana: > It doesn't matter what his motives where, he couldn't do anything to > actively prevent Draco trying to kill DD, because the moment he would > do that the vow would kick in because Draco would fail his task. That > is what canon tells us and because Snape could not control Draco > because of the vow, his action put the entire school at risk if Draco > somehow succeeded to bring in the DEs. And as canon stands now Snape > omitted telling DD about the vow because DD is still telling Draco > that he doesn't believe Snape actually took one but just would tell > Draco this to win his trust. So DD was counting on Snape to deal with > the situation while Snape actually couldn't do anything. Magpie: Well, it's not exactly canon. First, Snape was free to do plenty of things that could have prevented Draco from completing his task, it seems to me. The only real problem from the Vow is that Snape needs to do it if it seems Draco will fail. Dumbledore doesn't seem surprised when Harry tells him about the Vow. It seems equally possible that Snape told him about it. We don't know. I assumed he did. Dana: He was just lucky it > wasn't too late for Kathy and he had no choice but to help Kathy > because if she had died then Draco was guilty of murder and he was > just cleaning up his mess, just as much as it was his duty to help, > it is not some admirable choice he made to help Kathy, he couldn't > just stand around and let the girl die. Magpie: I admit, this sounds like a stretch the same way I find the tiny window of time where Snape absolutely had to contact the Order in OotP while being somehow aware of just how long it should take Lucius to get the prophecy starting at that time a stretch. If Snape's the only person who could cure Katie, he could have let her die easily and just say that it was beyond him. Keeping Draco from being a murderer was, remember, Dumbledore's goal in HBP. So while I think DE!Snape was free to heal Katie too, so it's not proof he's DDM, saving Draco from being a murderer was working with DD. It's not proof of anything, but I also don't think it's something Snape had to do. Dana:> > He knew about Draco's task before the school year began so he knew > that Draco would be going to try to murder someone and because he > doesn't know how Draco is going to attempt it, this would increase > the risk of an innocent person inadvertently coming in harms way. Magpie: Yes, but this is DD's plan, so it doesn't say anything about Snape's loyalties. DD knows Draco's assignment too, and is not interfering. That's DD's plan. LV wants Draco to die and would be fine with Draco being caught. > Dana: > As I said in previous posts we do not see Snape repeatedly risking > his live because he never puts his cover at risk and even a fellow DE > accuses him of this. Him going to LV in GoF was not putting himself > in more risk then not going and he actually had more chances facing > LV then by defying him. Magpie: If Snape is DDM, then going back to LV was indeed risking his life. Spying on the maniac psycho wizard is risking your life. There's just no way it can't be. I know Voldemort is an idiot a lot of the time, but we can't remove all his teeth!:-) > Dana: > So at this moment it is suggested that Snape knew it was Draco's task > to bring DEs in to the castle, Snape just did not know how he would > manage it. Magpie: I think canon far more suggests that Snape had no reason to know. Draco's task is *not* to bring DEs into the castle. Draco's task is to kill Dumbledore. The Cabinet was Draco's secret plan to accomplish that fact, and he did not include Snape in it. So no, I don't think Snape had any reason to know about the DEs in Hogwarts at all, and just assumed his natural position as the most important DE once he got there. Snape did know about the task to kill Dumbledore, of course, and had vowed to do it if it looked like Draco would fail, or die himself. But I see no reason why Snape would have know about the DEs getting in until it happened, or that Draco was trying to do that. I don't even really know if DE!Snape would have wanted that plan to succeed if he knew about it. I'll have to look at the canon for the real details, but I don't recall Snape knowing exactly what was happening. It seems like he just followed the action and the DEs. All the Order members were trying to get up the stairs before Snape got there. I remembered it as Snape just running towards the action as anyone could do. Dana: > And still we have to believe he was taken totally by surprise and was > not able to find out what Draco was up to while again as stated above > he is there within a second after Harry attacks Draco. Magpie: Is that really a problem? Draco was crying in the boys' room when that happened, a room open to anybody. He has reason to be following Draco, but so does Harry. Assuming that Snape actually figured out the part Harry couldn't is introducing a totally new idea to canon there. There's nothing Snape does that depends on his knowing what Draco is up to. He could have run into the same problem as Harry--and JKR even thinks to introduce Draco's Occlumency in case anybody says "but why doesn't he just read his mind to find out what room he's in?" > Dana: > We don't see Snape risking his life because of the vow because he > finishes the task to prevent himself from dying and again canon does > not support the claim he killed DD for any other reason. Magpie: Taking a suicide pact is putting your life at risk. Even if Snape intended to kill Dumbledore himself (when he had to--he doesn't do it before then) he's still putting his life at risk. Anything could go wrong. Taking a UV to eat lunch is risking your life. It's a nutty thing! If Snape had been teaching a class when Sectumsempra had him, he would have presumably died. Oops. Dana: > What we do see is Snape not doing anything to prevent Draco from > performing his task and we see that Draco's attempts has already put > two students at risk. Magpie: And also Dumbledore--he doesn't want Snape or anyone interfering with Draco's attempts except in very small ways. Dana: The moment Snape took the vow he made himself > incapable of keeping anyone safe besides Draco and himself. Magpie: Yes and no--he does keep more people safe in the book. I agree he's tying himself down--given the Vow either Dumbledore or Snape will probably die. I'm not denying the Vow is a WTF? thing for Snape, but he is able to keep other people safe--even Dumbledore. Dana: > You might want to believe that saving Draco is worth more then the > lives of other people (including DD) but I do not and him taking the > vow does precisely that. Magpie: And Dumbledore's orders do that as well. DD says flat out that he's followed those priorities for Draco. Dana: > To me Snape was responsible because he knew Draco's task from the > start and as Draco implies himself bringing DEs in to the castle was > part of this task from the beginning too Magpie: Draco does not imply this. Canon implies--and never challenges--that Draco's task is to kill DD and Draco immediately begins trying to use the Cabinets to do it. There's no moment I can think of that suggests that Snape has anything to do with knowing that. On the contrary, the Cabinets are the important Ace up Draco's (and JKR's) sleeve. Dana: > If you get in a car while you have been drinking and you drive > yourself into a tree and lose the use of your legs because of it then > it was your own responsibility even if someone had lent you that car > to make it possible for you to drive one while you were drunk, it is > still your own choice to do so. Magpie: Is that somehow supposed to be Snape in the Prank? But he's not drinking and driving, he's following some kids in his class to see what they're up to, not knowing there's a monster at his school that they have magical immunity to--oh, and the boy he's following knows it and is trying to get him in there with the monster. Afawk he had no reason to think it was dangerous. Surely that's not only an unreasonable thing to describe as Snape's "choice" of life-threatening danger, but why wouldn't the same apply to the Marauders getting expelled? If Snape had gotten them expelled they would actually be getting expelled for something they'd actually done, wouldn't they? So how come that's Snape's fault and not their own choice (to do something expellable) because they don't deserve to get expelled just for doing something that could get them expelled, yet Snape deserves to be killed or maimed for life because he tried to get them in trouble? Really, imo, in both cases you have to identify the troublemaker. Yes, Snape was hoping to catch the Marauders doing something against the rules and probably get them detention (honestly, in this school it would take more than this to get someone expelled, as is proved in retrospect). But so, too, was Sirius taking action to bring Snape to the shack. All of them contributed to every situation. I don't think any of them deserved to die for it. secretkeeper: I don't see James' reply "just because he exists" as proof Snape never did anything to cause these 'attacks'. To cool, popular fifteen year old James, I think he found it sounded wittier to reply in those terms instead of stating to Lily just yesterday Snape did X, Y, and Z and that's why we are retaliating. Magpie: I agree. I imagine Ron and Harry might say the same thing in a similar situation about Malfoy. It doesn't have to mean "he's done nothing". It can also mean "he's done so many things I can't even begin to list them." -m From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Tue May 1 04:49:58 2007 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 04:49:58 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: A Reminder Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168162 Hey Everyone, We want to remind you that each of us reads the text differently and that can lead to heated debates. Please respect that not everyone sees canon in the same way or takes the same things from it. We are each entitled to our opinions. Yes, that's right fellow list members, we're asking you to *play nice*. When stating something that *is* opinion, please make it clear that you are doing so. Use of things like 'IMO', 'as I see it', 'I think', will help your fellow list members understand that you are stating opinion and not fact. When debating with other list members, remember to address the issues at hand without the use of disparaging or disrepectful remarks. And it's never okay to make personal remarks about the other list member's opinions, no matter how much you disagree with them! Thanks for your cooperation, The List Elves From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 1 05:15:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 05:15:15 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168163 secretkeeper24:> > I don't see James' reply "just because he exists" as proof Snape > never did anything to cause these 'attacks'. To cool, popular > fifteen year old James, I think he found it sounded wittier to reply > in those terms instead of stating to Lily just yesterday Snape did > X, Y, and Z and that's why we are retaliating. > > I don't understand how in SWM some readers do not literally > interpret Snape's words in calling Lily a mudblood (Snape didn't > mean it...he was embarrassed), but then they turn around and take > the words James says (while he's trying to impress unsuccessfully, > mind you, the girl he likes) completely literally. > Pippin: Nice to hear a new voice in the perennial debates, welcome! I interpret James's words literally because Lily's question, "What's he done to you?" sounds completely sincere. Lily didn't just drop in from the Planet Koozbain, after all. She'd been going to Hogwarts for five years. If Snape had a habit of picking on other people, especially Muggleborns, she'd know about it. She was a popular girl with a lot of friends, and she was certainly well up on James's interactions with other students. Snape can't have been a secret bully like Riddle, either, or people would have been frightened or awed when James turned him upside down. They wouldn't dare laugh, that's for sure. Her blink shows she's taken aback by Snape's use of the M word, so it can hardly be something Snape's in the habit of saying. Full disclosure, I once, in a moment of desperation, used a slur against a retarded person because her brother and the gang he was part of were tormenting me, while she stood innocently nearby. I had nothing against her at all, but I knew using that word would hurt her brother too. I apologized and I've been ashamed of myself ever since, but I can sure understand how Snape could have said that without having anything against Lily or muggleborns whatever. He could have said it because he thought it would hurt *James.* Lupin's statements about James's acquisition of the levicorpus spell sound particularly disingenous. If Snape knew that James had stolen the spell from him, how could Lupin not know? I can't see any reason for Snape to be lying about that in the midst of fleeing from Hogwarts, or for James to have concealed it from his friends. It's the sort of thing he'd have bragged about. Pippin From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue May 1 05:39:55 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:39:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who do you think will die in the last book? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0704302239j4d3a6929m86cd0a48cf7ae627@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168164 Tandra: I REALLY think that Harry just might. Which would suck but I think it's the only thing she can do to keep people from asking for more books post-Hogwarts Lynda: The word "no" comes to mind. I'm sure that it is in Rowling's vocabulary. We'll just have to wait and see. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 1 05:43:21 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 05:43:21 -0000 Subject: The Marauder's Forays / Snape v James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168165 Mike: I hope that JKR restores some of the lustre on > James armor in DH. Or I'll be feeling like Sherry, that JKR has > pulled the rug out from under Harry and killed his father all over > again. Pippin: I think JKR feels very strongly that hero-worship is a form of idolatry, and she's not having any. Harry needs to be able to accept his father as flawed and yet worthy of honor and loyalty, so that he can see himself in the same light. Idol!James has to die so that Human!James can take his place. I think what Dumbledore (and JKR herself) prizes as the highest form of courage is not risking your life but thinking for yourself. You can't do that if you've taken someone as your idol and convinced yourself that everything they do is okay. Pippin From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 1 06:59:00 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 06:59:00 -0000 Subject: The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168166 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > Possibly the British version reads differently, but in the American > edition, the PoA prophecy (the one that Harry hears firsthand) does > contain ellipses: > > "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. > His servant has been chained these twelve years. Tonight, before > midnight . . . the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his > master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater > and more terrible than ever he was. Tonight . . . before midnight . . > . the servant . . . will set out . . . to rejoin . . . his master" > (PoA Am. ed. 324, ellipses in original). > > The construction is very similar to that of the first prophecy except > that it's not the first line but the third, "Tonight, before midnight > . . . the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master," > that's repeated in slightly different form in the final sentence: > "Tonight . . . before midnight . . . the servant . . . will set out . > . . to rejoin . . . his master." Although the last sentence omits the > words "break free," the ellipses indicate pauses, not omissions. > Harry, as you've stated, heard the whole thing. > > We need to look at the OoP prophecy complete with ellipses (which > you've omitted) to see whether the same technique is being used there. > Let's put them back in: > > "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 . . . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will > have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the > hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . . . > . The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the > seventh month dies . . . ." (OoP Am. ed. 841) Geoff: For reference, the UK versions are almost the same as your quoted examples. They are in italics but otherwise in lower case except where capitals would be normal. The only differences are that each ellipsis is made up of three full stops only and - in the POA prophecy - there is *no* ellipsis in the third sentence, i.e. after the first occurrence of "Tonight, after midnight". I'm not sure whether this does indeed indicate missing material or merely pauses in Trelawney's delivery. The relevant Bloomsbury locations for UK colleagues are: POA ""Professor Trelawney's Prediction" p.239 UK edition OOTP "The Lost Prophecy p.745 UK edition" From Jen at alveymedia.com Tue May 1 05:31:37 2007 From: Jen at alveymedia.com (Jen Nielsen) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:31:37 -0600 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57172FB4-EF89-4CF9-B327-381C8B2A6653@alveymedia.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168167 > Tandra wrote: > I'm not really sure who is going to die, but I REALLY think > that Harry just might. Which would suck but I think it's the > only thing she can do to keep people from asking for more > books post-Hogwarts. Jen Replies: I'm already stressed about whether Harry will die, but the question of doing it to keep people from asking for more books doesn't seem to follow for me. A quick glimpse of fan fiction shows how many story spinoffs can be created that aren't necessarily about Harry. Regardless of what happens to Harry, people will want sequels for whoever their favorite surviving secondary character is. JK knows this. And she's also shown from the beginning that she's going to write the story she's always meant to write. Harry's life or death will be for what she considers the best interest of the story. Jen From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue May 1 08:32:36 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 08:32:36 -0000 Subject: The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Brothergib: > Therefore, maybe you should be asking yourself exactly which parts of > the prophecy DD 'allowed' Harry to hear. And therefore which parts of > the prophecy has Snape heard and how does this compare with what Harry > has heard. > > > Carol: > The question as to which parts *Snape* has heard can only be answered > if we (and Harry) have heard/read the whole thing (as DD tells him he > has). I agree with those who view DD's and Trelawney's versions of the > story as conflicting, but I don't think DD is lying to Harry about the > two of them being the only people who know the complete Prophecy. > > Certainly, DD has deprived Harry of an opportunity to see and hear the > Prophecy *in context* because he doesn't want Harry to know at that > point (or perhaps ever) that Snape was the eavesdropper. (And despite > any arguments I've heard so far to the contrary, it's hard to > reconcile DD's version of the story with Trelawney's, which does not > permit an interruption. Why she thinks young Snape was looking for a > teaching job at that time of year--late fall or possibly spring--is > also unclear; sherry-flavored hindsight, maybe.) But I don't think we > can conclude from the ellipses or the missing context or the > contradictory stories that anything is omitted from the Prophecy > itself. DD can make Trelawney rise from the Pensieve and speak the > Prophecy out of context, but I don't see how he could cause her to > omit words or sentences, nor do I think he would lie to Harry by > telling him that he knows the complete Prophecy if that were untrue. > > Carol, choosing to blame the gods or daemons (not demons!) of > inspiration for any lapses in inspired!Trelawney's sentence structure > if it isn't the result of typecoding or copyediting :-) > Brothergib again; I have posted previously on the subject of how DD and Trelawney's versions could match up, so I may as well repeat myself here. As far as DD was concerned he was only attending the meeting with Trelawney out of courtesy. He may or may not have been aware that Snape was outside the room at this time. However, it wasn't important since his meeting with Trelawney was not important. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that DD would have been caught out by Trelawney's prophecy. That Trelawney would have uttered a few sentences before DD realised what was happening. At this point he would place a charm on the door to prevent further eavesdropping. Then maybe he contacts Aberforth in some way or maybe he happens on Snape by chance. Trelawney finishes her prophecy, DD strides over to the door to discover the identity of the eavesdropper, and this is when Trelawney sees Snape. As for the prophecies themselves; POA prophecy - the pauses come at the end of the prophecy as Trelawney is finsihing off. OOTP prophecy - the pauses are throughout. As I said previously, I do think DD is capable of selecting which parts of his memory Harry hears. I think he wants Harry to understand that in the end it is between LV and Harry. That one has to defeat the other. That is vital info. But as I've said in the previous post - if Snape was implicated, then DD would HAVE to keep this info from Harry. If we believe that Snape is integral to LV's overall destruction, it is vital that LV gets no inkling that SS may be against him. Brothergib From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue May 1 09:08:31 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:08:31 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book? In-Reply-To: <57172FB4-EF89-4CF9-B327-381C8B2A6653@alveymedia.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168169 > > Tandra wrote: > > I'm not really sure who is going to die, but I REALLY think > > that Harry just might. > Jen Replies: > I'm already stressed about whether Harry will die, but > the question of doing it to keep people from asking for > more books doesn't seem to follow for me. Goddlefrood: I concur here with Jen. It would not be because of pressure from either publishers or medias we never name that Harry may die. JKR does not strike me as someone to do that. Harry's possibly dying is a tricky one to divine. It seems these books are all about Harry, the titles would give us the clue to that ;). My opinion is that if Harry dies it will be to go on to return to the bosom of his close friends and especially his family, although a satisfactory enough, but potentially technicolour yawn inducing ending, may be for his to marry Ginny and breed more Potters. There can never be enough crockery :-? As to who else might die I believe the duplicitous one will, it would be a good resolution for him whoever's side he's on. Others have been mentioned recently too. LV and Hagrid appear to be favourites for several. Rubeus being my personal favourite character is hoped to live by me :). The alchemical theorists need not be correct, after all ;) Red could equally well apply to one of the Weasleys, but I do think that too much emphasis is placed on alchemy for no better reason than the original title of the first book ;) One I would predict as dying is Fenrir Greyback, but others are more difficult to predict. Just a small two penn'orth Goddlefrood From jamess at climaxgroup.com Tue May 1 09:12:33 2007 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 10:12:33 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maraurders/he exists Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39EC0@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 168170 Pippin Wrote: Lupin's statements about James's acquisition of the levicorpus spell sound particularly disingenous. If Snape knew that James had stolen the spell from him, how could Lupin not know? I can't see any reason for Snape to be lying about that in the midst of fleeing from Hogwarts, or for James to have concealed it from his friends. It's the sort of thing he'd have bragged about. James: It's possible that snape had taught it to some other students and james had just picked it up from the. Looking at the social dynamic there it's not likely that the marauders would have believed Snape if he told them he invented it. Lupin does say something like "at times you couldn't move for being hoisted up by your ankle" (I don't have a book handy for the exact quote). So if the spell had become popular there is no reason to suggest James "stole" it from Snape rather than just picking it up around the school. Snape of course would see it very differently. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anopcfox1 at verizon.net Tue May 1 13:38:51 2007 From: anopcfox1 at verizon.net (anopcfox) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 13:38:51 -0000 Subject: A clue? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168171 I am posting for the first time--usually just lurk due to lack of time. I live in Middletown, Pa. This month on her website JKR gave us Helga Hufflepuff as her Wizard of the month. I was wondering if this is a clue about one of the remaining Horcruxes? anopcfox From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 14:04:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 14:04:26 -0000 Subject: A clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168172 anopcfox: > I am posting for the first time--usually just lurk due to lack of time. > I live in Middletown, Pa. > > This month on her website JKR gave us Helga Hufflepuff as her Wizard of > the month. I was wondering if this is a clue about one of the remaining > Horcruxes? Alla: Welcome to the list :) I totally think it is a clue of something, hehe. I mean, I am not sure I remember correctly, but I do not think that any other founders had been named as such, at least not yet. What else is significant about Helga? I mean, you can be right and that can be a clue about horcruxes, it can also be a clue IMO about upcoming unity of the houses, since Helga was the least exclusionary of all four, was teaching anybody else, etc. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue May 1 15:21:28 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:21:28 -0000 Subject: A clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168173 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > Welcome to the list :) I totally think it is a clue of something, > hehe. I mean, I am not sure I remember correctly, but I do not think > that any other founders had been named as such, at least not yet. Hickengruendler: You are right. Helga is the first one, which is great, since she's by far my favourite of the founders. :-) By the way, with her on the picture is her golden cup. Maybe we will see the other founders in the upcoming months until book 7. Slytherin in June, Gryffindor in July (since it's the Gryffindor month ;-) ), and Ravenclaw in August, since we don't know her relict and it would be too spoilerish to have it on the website prior to book 7. Alla: > What else is significant about Helga? I mean, you can be right and > that can be a clue about horcruxes, it can also be a clue IMO about > upcoming unity of the houses, since Helga was the least exclusionary > of all four, was teaching anybody else, etc. > Hickengruendler: I hope so. This is the reason, why she is my favourite. Why should I care for the three snobs? ;-) And I think, this subplot needs to be resolved, which is one of the reasons, why I expect a climatic battle in Hogwarts. From colwilrin at yahoo.com Tue May 1 15:11:31 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:11:31 -0000 Subject: Trevor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168174 Hi, I am also new to the list. Have been lurking for a few weeks and this is my first post. In preparation for Book 7, I have been rereading all the books and making some notes. I am about half way through Book 5 (chapter 15 to be exact) and I have noticed something very odd. In the first 4 books JKR mentions Trevor, Neville's toad, almost to a point of annoyance. Sometimes it was so frequent that I noted "what's the deal with Trevor...animagus?...something else". Now, in the first book where Trevor fails to come jumping through the pages...we have Umbridge who is described time and again as "toad- like, croaking, etc..." Could there be a connection? I haven't finished 5 yet...and I don't remember if he appears by the end, but in other books he was mentioned fairly early on. Just a thought Kathy D. From shmantzel at yahoo.com Tue May 1 15:40:22 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 08:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] A clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <741295.33334.qm@web56504.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168175 anopcfox wrote: ,_._,___ I am posting for the first time--usually just lurk due to lack of time. I live in Middletown, Pa. This month on her website JKR gave us Helga Hufflepuff as her Wizard of the month. I was wondering if this is a clue about one of the remaining Horcruxes? Dantzel replies: Gah! You beat me to it!!! I was also going to speculate whether JKR is planning to give us - well, not exactly spoilers, but a few helpful hints - on her website leading up to the release of the book. For instance, should we be looking at Hogwart's kitchens for clues? And this is a little silly, but how can food charms tie into the plot? ;0) --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lfreeman at mbc.edu Tue May 1 16:33:26 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (lmf3b) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:33:26 -0000 Subject: What Sirius and James thought of Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168176 Regarding the schooldays relationship in their 5th and 6th years (the bullying through the prank era), we should remember that this was in the thick of Voldemort's first reign, and it was likely well-known that his followers were predominantly ex-Slytherins (and parents of some of the current ones!) What if Sirius (who, after all, had more experience with Slytherian/potential DE's in his own family than James or Lupin) came to believe by their sixth year than Snape had actually joined the DEs? (Somewhat like Harry believed Draco had joined in HBP) while Lupin and James were skeptical of that, even if they weren't fond of the guy (just like Ron and Hermione were in HBP). That could be why James might be inclined to save Snape's life (just as Harry showed genuine horror and shame when he realized the SS spell could actually have killed Draco) while Sirius might be more inclined to think Snape, as a bona fide DE is "getting what he deserves." It's as if Sirius and James reflect two halves of Harry's personality, the rash and angry one of OOP versus the more controlled and compassionate one of HBP. Louise From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Tue May 1 16:24:37 2007 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:24:37 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168177 pippin wrote: > However, when the DA attempts to move beyond defense and take direct action, it fails spectacularly, and we are told that the mission was not only a failure but should never have been undertaken at all. But these are the words of a rather sad old man who will admit the reasons their mission should not have been undertaken - the Order itself should have done it, if they'd listened. The words are also rather a commentary after the fact, after the work has been done and in retrospect Dumbledore can see other alternatives. His reticence, his holding on to knowledge, he admits his own mistake. The mission was great success, in fact. They outed Voldemort, brought the DE together to be rounded up, forced the hands of the powers behind the scenes, including the Ministry and the Order, as it were, the conservative ones that wanted to risk nothing, and those who wanted to work "from the inside." They were duly rewarded for this achievement, in house points, just to make it clear. Pippin: > ... names of the Order members, many of which are associated with the Fabian Society. dan: Of course, Rowling has talked about Nesbit a few times as an influence, as her greatest influence, in fact, though narratively she holds rather closer to the colder voice of, say, Nabakov (another acknowledged influence). The Order does indeed represent the Fabian society. The DA, however, reflects something more passionate and confrontational. Exactly my point. dan From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Tue May 1 16:41:17 2007 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:41:17 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168178 Betsy wrote: > The DA *was* segragated. No Slytherins were allowed, and no one who didn't agree to be completely loyal to Harry (and Dumbledore) was allowed. There was even a certain taint of "Hitler Youth" to the ruthless understanding that students would stand against their family> if need be (Marietta). You've removed the only thing that matters here - the DA is working for good, not evil. This is not an aside, this is essential. Rowling is realistic, not idealistic - her world is partisan, she does not say loyalty is all one - loyalty to Voldemort and his cause is bad, loyalty to Dumbledore and his is good. This doesn't justify extremes of violence, but the DA doesn't either - they are focussed on outing what they know is going on behind the scenes. As for Marietta - what do you think the DE would have done with a traitor? So she gets snitch (heh) on her forehead. She gave information to collaborators that endangered the very essential mission the DA was on - to show the world the truth. Marietta's marking was roundly deserved. Betsy: > (The way Hermione deals with her feelings for Ron encapsulates the problems with emotional youth, IMO.) dan: The world is composed of people who are just a "unknowing" of their emotional world. It indicates that Hermione is human, and is capable of love at all, not that she's some kind of emotional cripple. Aren't all teenagers weird that way, and many adults? Betsy: > The billion dollar question for me is whether JKR is doing this on > purpose, or whether this stuff is sneaking in under her radar. dan: Rowling is slipping in under many readers radar, I think, a radical thesis of direct action. dan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 16:57:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:57:39 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168179 dan: > You've removed the only thing that matters here - the DA is working > for good, not evil. This is not an aside, this is essential. Rowling > is realistic, not idealistic - her world is partisan, she does not say > loyalty is all one - loyalty to Voldemort and his cause is bad, > loyalty to Dumbledore and his is good. This doesn't justify extremes > of violence, but the DA doesn't either - they are focussed on outing > what they know is going on behind the scenes. > Alla: I've always always thought that this is true in Potterverse as well. I thought that another thing that sort of supports that message was how Snape dessertion was viewed ( as good thing) since he deserted Voldemort and Peter's dessertion as bad thing. I mean I do not believe that Rowling encourages any loyalty to Voldemort whatsoever, IMO of course. Now of course I am not sure that Snape deserted dear Lordie at all, but that is a different story, heheh. I do think that she is going to unite the houses at the end, but with no loyalty to DE left in Slytherin house. Again IMO. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue May 1 17:40:49 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:40:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705011040j22d51abdv519b7412e4d7bc43@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168180 > > Betsy wrote: > > > The DA *was* segragated. No Slytherins were allowed, and no one who > didn't agree to be completely loyal to Harry (and Dumbledore) was > allowed. There was even a certain taint of "Hitler Youth" to the > ruthless understanding that students would stand against their family> > if need be (Marietta). > > dan: You've removed the only thing that matters here - the DA is working > for good, not evil. This is not an aside, this is essential. Rowling > is realistic, not idealistic - her world is partisan, she does not say > loyalty is all one - loyalty to Voldemort and his cause is bad, > loyalty to Dumbledore and his is good. This doesn't justify extremes > of violence, but the DA doesn't either - they are focussed on outing > what they know is going on behind the scenes. montims: In this respect, I think it's worth remembering that JKR worked for a while for Amnesty, and she has a link to Amnesty International on her website. This is an organisation that deliberately works to subvert the government of countries that practice human rights abuses. Active opposition to bad practices, regardless of the source or intentions of such practices. As to the "Hitler Youth" reference, I really think that parallel is to the Slytherin group that Umbridge grooms. Her whole sequence of edicts to me is very reminiscent of the way a totalitarion authority gradually erodes peoples' rights until they suddenly realise that they have none, and the use of a group of people in that authority's good graces while, or because, they spy on and intimidate their peers, is very chilling. Harry's DA was never (in Harry's mind at least) intended to be other than preparation for encountering the worst that LV could throw at the WW, through filling the gap left by Umbridge's abysmal teaching. Had their DA classes been conducted according to syllabus by a competent teacher, I believe DA would never have come about. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Tue May 1 18:24:12 2007 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 18:24:12 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Feedback Wanted re List Closure for DH Release Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168181 Hi Everyone, We are reposting this as a reminder that you can still weigh in on the subject if you would like: With DH arriving only three short months from now, the List Elves have been revisiting our decisions for prior book releases. We welcome listmember input on all aspects of how we can best serve the list in the first frantic days after July 21, but we particularly solicit comments how long the Main list (HPforGrownups) should be closed for elves and and listmembers alike to read the Deathly Hallows. (We expect that HPFGU-OTChatter will be open, but it will probably be a spoiler-free zone.) The Main list will be closed on Saturday, July 21. What we have not decided for certain is when the list will reopen. In 2003, the list was closed 45 hours, until 9 p.m. British Summer Time (BST) Sunday. This turned out to be inadequate for the elves to read and digest OOP before getting back to work. In 2005, the list was closed for 85 hours, until 1 p.m. BST Tuesday, a time that was selected with an eye to both giving the elves enough time to read the book and to choose a time when the maximum number of members in all time zones would be awake. We have polled the elves and determined that the earliest we could reopen would be Monday, July 23, around midday BST. This translates to early morning in the U.S. and roughly 10 PM Australian East Coast time. Before then there will be an insufficient number of elves available for duty. What we do not yet know is when you, the listmembers, will want the list open. When will you finish reading DH? Do you want the list to reopen at the earliest possible time, or do you want a little more time to contemplate? Is it important that the list reopen at a day and hour when you might be able to read and post? What day and hour would that be? Please let us know your thoughts over on our Feedback list, which can be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ Do Not Reply To This Message on this list or you will be requested to iron your hands! The List Elves From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 1 18:40:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trevor Message-ID: <23387271.1178044820545.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168182 From: colwilrin >In the first 4 books JKR mentions Trevor, Neville's toad, almost to a >point of annoyance. Sometimes it was so frequent that I >noted "what's the deal with Trevor...animagus?...something else". >Now, in the first book where Trevor fails to come jumping through the >pages...we have Umbridge who is described time and again as "toad- >like, croaking, etc..." Could there be a connection? I haven't >finished 5 yet...and I don't remember if he appears by the end, but >in other books he was mentioned fairly early on. Bart: I would assume that the WW would be able to tell the difference between a male toad and a female toad. I looked up the lifespan of toads, and found that they generally live up to 10 years (although seldom live anywhere NEAR that long in the wild). I must admit that it's strange that JKR dropped references to him, but my best guess is that, somewhere along the way, he croaked. Bart From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 1 19:06:40 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 19:06:40 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168183 Betsy Hp: > This statement confuses me. Are you saying Snape was the main > player in HBP, and Dumbledore was sort of stumbling along in his > wake? That Dumbledore knew something big was going down and just > assumed Snape would take care of it all? That doesn't really jell > with the charater of Dumbledore up until now. IMO, anyway. Dana: Yes, at least it is my interpretation of things when you read the conversation between Dumbledore and Draco. Pg 549 UKed paperback `As a matter of fact, I did,' said Dumbledore. `I was sure it was you.' `Why didn't you stop me, then?' Malfoy demanded. `I tried, Draco. Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you on my orders ?' `He has't been doing your orders, he promised my mother ?' `Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but -' End quote from canon And here is the reason why DD left it to Snape. Pg 552 `I appreciate the difficulty of your position,' said Dumbledore. `Why else do you think I have not confronted you before now? Because I knew that you would have been murdered if Lord Voldemort realised that I suspected you.' `I did not dare speak to you of the mission with which I knew you had been entrusted, in case he used Legilimency against you,' continued Dumbledore. End quote canon. In my opinion it is not yelling against DD as a character, as we have seen so far, to have Snape take care of things because he himself considers it to dangerous to approach Draco. He trusts Snape but we have seen DD make this mistake before when he did not teach Harry occlumency himself but left it to Snape. In both cases Snape failed. Betsy Hp: > One of the reasons I'm "smugly sure" (tm) that Snape is DDM is > because JKR *loves* to turn things around in the end. Honestly, if > Snape was supposed to be evil in the end, I'd have expected HBP to > end with Snape saving the day and everyone singing his praises. Dana: Although I totally understand this reasoning, I think personally JKR will not turn it around because she turned something else around instead and that is Harry being right, while he has been wrong so many times before. JKR makes the student outgrow the mentor making DD wrong and Harry right. I am not sure I understand what you mean by "if Snape was supposed to be evil in the end" because essentially it is the climax of book 6, where she pretty much exposes Snape's loyalties, while they have been murky from book 1 to 5. The books are about Harry and I believe why she choose to expose Snape in book 6, to make Harry right at the end of this book but then to have him learn (in DH) that even though he is right about Snape, not being on the side of the Order and him betraying DD (and maybe even Sirius), he can't let hatred rule his life and he can't take matters into his own hands and that taking revenge out of anger/ hatred is not a good thing, no matter how right you are. At the end of OotP (to me that is) she begins with seeding DD being wrong by trying to reason that Snape's hatred is not influencing his loyalties to such an extent that he would betray, the Order, DD or Harry, because of it. And he does so by making the illogical comparison that Sirius personal hatred for Kreacher was not what made Kreacher betray him but that somehow indifference was the cause of it all. DD downplays Snape's hatred for Harry (and his hatred for Sirius) and I believe it will be shown that DD was very wrong about underestimating that hatred. Betsy Hp: > What I find interesting is that *Dumbledore* sees Draco's life as > worth more than his own. (And possibly Katie's and Ron's, which is > a problem, I agree, but more with Dumbledore than Snape, since > Dumbledore is purportedly running this particular show.) Dana: DD seeing Draco's life more important then his own is his own personal choice to make but he definitely would not have wanted to put other people's life in danger because of it and why he gives Snape the task to take care of it because he deems it to dangerous for Draco to interfere himself. DD isn't running the show, he is failing to get control over the whole situation and he gets angry with Harry because Harry calls DD up on this seemingly lack of control, because he observes Draco is still able to work on his plan while no one seems to be actively preventing him from doing so, regardless of the many warnings Harry gives DD. DD put his trust in Snape to handle it but as we see in the conclusion Snape finishes the job, Draco was set out to do, instead. Betsy Hp: > While I do wonder what the Marauders did to cause Snape to hate > them (and vice verse, for that matter) I do agree that canon is > fairly quiet about the origins of the enmity. JKR drops plenty of > delicious hints that we're free to run with. But she's never > giving a crystal clear "and so it began" kind of reason. I'm not > sure that she ever will, quite frankly. I don't know that we need > one. Dana: I totally agree with you here and it is definitely left to a lot of speculation on the part of the reader to figure out how things, that are said about it, fit in the overall picture of what actually happened between all of them and the interactions they had with each other. Maybe you are right maybe we do not need one but I actually believe that it is this interaction what set the whole darn thing in to motion and it surely has made a big influence on Harry's life so far. So I personally would still like some resolution by understanding why things happened as they happened but of course that doesn't have to mean endless pages of marauder (all though I definitely would not mind this at all - without Snape ;o)) interactions with Snape just the outline of the pieces to make the puzzle fit. Betsy Hp: > However, Snape trying to catch the Marauders in wrong doing doesn't > seem equal to him deserving death, IMO. Nor does it seem equal to > Lupin becoming both a murderer and a cannibal. Which is what > bothers me most about the "Snape would have gotten what was coming > to him" argument. I mean, even if one agrees that Snape deserved > to be attacked and ravaged by a werewolf for sneaking about after > the Marauders Dana: Let me try to rephrase it by actually quoting Sirius comment because my take on this comment is different then what many readers use when they refer to it in their arguments. He never said `he deserved it', he used a different phrasing. POA Pg 261 UKed Paperback `*It* served him right,' he sneered. `Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to hoping he could get us expelled ' Severus was very interested in where I went every month,' Snape had seen me crossing the grounds with Madame Pomfrey one evening as she led me towards the Whomping Willow to transform. Sirius thought it would be ? er ? amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot on the tree-trunk with a long stick, and he'd be able to go after me. Well of course Snape tried it ' End quote canon Sirius could have actually meant that Snape deserved to be played a trick on and because nothing happened he can still feel he deserved the prank because he was too nosy for his own good. "Curiosity killed the cat" so to speak. It could be just "want to know what Remus is up to? Then fine here is how you can find out, have fun." The main problem is with the part Lupin tells us after Sirius's comment because Snape is either really not that bright as he wants to make himself and others believe or he could have known what he would find there. Sirius and his friends found out the nature of Lupin's condition when they where about 11 or 12 and Hermione found out in her third year (while not having more interactions with Lupin then Snape would have had). Lupin was hidden behind a murderous tree as I have stated before and brought there by the school nurse. DADA is Snape's favourite subject and we see that it was part of the OWL DADA exam and so I have real trouble believing that Snape could have not put two and two together. And so I believe that could have known what Lupin was doing there and if Snape still felt that it was more important for him to find a way to get the marauders expelled then to read the danger signs, then yes it would have served him right because it was none of his business to go there in the first place. Sirius never actually states that Snape should have been killed or deserved to be killed or bitten but he could still mean the guy deserved to be tricked. I know I have probably expressed myself poorly because I had no intention of suggesting Snape should have been killed but if he had been because he personally choose to go there then it was his own responsibility and it was not the joke that would be the cause of it but Snape's own desire in seeking revenge. As far as canon tells us, at this moment, Sirius did nothing more then tell Snape *how* to get in if he so much desired to know what Lupin was doing there. It was not Sirius that put Snape in harms way but Snape himself, especially with all the animosity flying around there was no reason for Snape to even listen to Sirius at all. To me there is a difference and I think it is why Sirius wasn't expelled not just to hide the incident away because DD could have made up a number of excuses for his expulsion without Lupin being mentioned. But DD's memory is as good as it ever was and why I think he was fully aware of Snape's own contribution in the whole ordeal. I also find it curious that it seems JKR downplays the actually danger Snape was in (in contrast to him dying I do not want to imply being a werewolf will not have any perminant affect on your life and that it can pretty much ruin it). It might just have been put in there to emphasis how easy it is to look past danger when so familiar with it or she actually put it in to emphasis that Werewolf killing their victims is a very rare occurrence. She makes Lupin suggest this too when she has him state pretty much the same as Ron that they *sometimes* kill to eat. (Chapter: a very frosty Christmas) HBP Pg 442 (chapter 22) `Well, their brother was attacked by a werewolf. The rumour is that their mother refused to help the Death Eaters. Anyway, the boy was only five and he died in St Mungo's, they couldn't save him,' `He died?' repeated Harry, shocked. `But surely werewolves don't kill, they just turn you into one of them? They *sometimes* kill,' said Ron, who looked unusually grave now. `I've heard of it happening when the werewolf gets carried away.' End quote canon Where did Harry get this information? Lupin told him something entirely different in PoA. Was it something he was taught in class or maybe he just thinks this because he has been so familiar with a friendly werewolf, that he can't imagine a werewolf could actually kill (he also saw a man bitten by one in St Mungo's when visiting Arthur in OotP and he did not die either). And if Harry, as a 16 year old in HBP, can develop this idea (even if it is his own and not taught) then it is actually not hard to imagine Sirius and his friends, who shared a dormitory with Lupin since age 11 and then roamed the grounds with him at age 15, would develop the same idea about Lupin being harmless? James might not have thought Snape's life was in danger in the sense of him dying but in the sense of preventing him from becoming a werewolf. I do think that James was more aware of the problems it caused Remus then Sirius did (so I agree with you). There are more ways to destroy a life then merely killing a man, DD tells us in OotP. It might have been the aftermath of it that makes Lupin believe that he actually could have killed Snape, maybe it was DD himself that enforced this idea upon the marauders or maybe Lupin's has developed this idea in to adulthood and maybe it was only Snape that believed he could have gotten killed (was in Lupin's face about it all the time). I know it is a lot of maybe's but still seeing Harry express himself this way while he has been told a different story altogether just three years before makes you wonder why JKR put this in and it surely influenced my take on the whole ordeal but I admit I should have expressed myself more clearly nonetheless. There is no canon to support that Lupin would have been punished for it at all because Greyback had been walking free all those years after biting numerous children including Remus, which is a commonly known fact. I do not think you can compare Buckbeak to Remus because Remus is still part human. The only one in real trouble would have been DD (besides Snape of course) because he allowed a werewolf to attend school and he probably would have lost his position because of it. To be honest I do not think Sirius would have gone to Azkaban for it because Snape still had free choice. Sirius's did not have responsibility when it comes to Snape's actions but he did have an moral responsibility to Remus and if Remus had attacked Snape (which he could not have been accountable for because he has no human control over his werewolf form) it would have been something that Remus would have had to life with the rest of his life, to know that he did to another what was done up on him. As far as we know Remus never has bitten and transformed another human into a werewolf and that is what Sirius would definitely have had a moral responsibility for because he told Snape how to get to him and they promised to keep each others secrets and Sirius rashness exposed that secret. And so indeed I agree that James probably saved Snape to safe both of his friends to have to life with the responsibility of their actions if things had gone wrong but not because Sirius was responsible for what Snape did. I truly believe that Sirius actually told Snape in an attempt to protect his friends from Snape's nosiness, in an attempt to make it stop once and for all (no not by having Snape killed) but he totally went about it the wrong way and it might have set the stage for future events to play out like they did. JMHO Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 19:10:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 19:10:19 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168184 Alla wrote: > There is absolutely no way I would say that Snape deserved to die if > the only thing he did was to sneak on Marauders trying to get them > expelled. NO, just no. If there is nothing else to be discovered, > then Snape and Sirius responsibility in Prank night just cannot be > compared IMO. Snape may be guilty in sneaking on them, but Sirius is > guilty in reckless idiocy that could have lead to Snape death. > Carol responds: Thanks for that concession, Alla. I admire your objectivity and fairness here. (BTW, I know that the book refers to Teen!Snape as Snape reflecting Harry's view of him, but I think the use of his last name causes some posters to forget that he's a kid, too. So if we excuse Sirius's rashness because of his youth, we should excuse Severus's rashness for the same reason. And, yes, it was rash to take up a dare from Sirius Black to enter the Whomping Willow whether or not he guessed that he'd meet a werewolf. It sounds, actually, like something a non-Animagus Sirius or James would do. "The risk was what made it fun for James.") Alla wrote: > I mean, personally I of course believe that at least three > good "people" of Potterverse would have had much longer life > expectancy if Snape would have dropped dead in his teens, and one > good "kid" would have had much happier home life, but there is no > way I would say Snape deserved to die and of course then there would > had been no story, hehe. Carol responds: Then again, if Severus had died as a teenager and the slightly older Snape hadn't made the double mistake of joining the Death Eaters and revealing part of the Prophecy to Voldemort, Voldemort would not have been vaporized and "the one with the power" wouldn't have been given the power to defeat him. Harry's parents might have been killed anyway, simply as members of the Order of the Phoenix, and the WW would have had no fourteen-year respite from Voldemort and his minions. Of course, Snape's action is not to his credit--nor, of course, is Pettigrew's betrayal of the Potters or Voldemort's murder of the Potters and attempted murder of Harry--but if it hadn't been for those unfortunate events, the situation in the WW would be much worse and possibly irremediable. Snape, regardless of his motives, is responsible for Harry's knowledge of Bezoars, which saved Ron's life. He taught Harry and the others Expelliarmus, which has proved useful on numerous occasions. He saved Harry's life in SS/PS, conjured the stretchers in PoA, and sent the Order to the MoM. True, Snape is partially responsible for Harry's being an orphan and having to face Voldemort at seventeen, but if the end result is that Voldemort is destroyed, then Snape's revelation of the partial Prophecy will turn out to be a blessing in disguise. (Remember the witches and wizards who were celebrating "This happy, happy day!" despite the fact that James and Lily Potter had been murdered. I don't like that, actually, but certainly the WW is better off after GH even if the Potters themselves are dead and Harry is orphaned. The same will be true when Harry ultimately defeats Voldemort thanks to the power given him by his mother's sacrifice even if Harry himself dies, which I hope he won't.) The point I'm trying to make is that it's a good thing young Severus didn't die as a teenager. There would have been no Godric's Hollow, no sacrifice, no scar, no Chosen One, if he (and Wormtail and LV) hadn't acted as they did. And though he can't bring the Potters back to life, Snape has since made up for that mistake numerous times, most notably in OoP: HRH and the other Trio would have been killed or captured by DEs at the MoM if not for Snape. (And DD would have died before HBP began if not for "Professor Snape's timely action.") Now granted, HBP sets up a new course of events involving Snape, a new set of actions to be called into account, in particular the UV and the killing of Dumbledore. But if the pattern holds, good will come out of evil there, too. Carol, who thinks that Sectumsempra and its complex countercurse, whcih Snape took the trouble to invent or discover, in some ways illustrate or symbolize the two sides of Severus Snape From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue May 1 19:36:28 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 19:36:28 -0000 Subject: Sirius's Intentions during the Prank (WAS: Excusing Snape of any responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168185 Dana: > I truly believe that Sirius actually told Snape in an attempt to > protect his friends from Snape's nosiness, in an attempt to make it > stop once and for all (no not by having Snape killed) but he totally > went about it the wrong way and it might have set the stage for > future events to play out like they did. zgirnius: I am honestly puzzled by this position. How would giving Snape the means to satisfy his nosiness about Lupin help the situation? Presumably if Sirius thought Snape was that nosy, he would expect Snape to act on the suggestion. The best-case scenario outcome of this would be that Snape would go in and see Lupin, and somehow extricate himself unbitted and alive, and without badly gurting Lupin in the process. But that would be far worse than the situation pre-Prank (from Sirius's point-of-view) - now Snape would know Lupin's secret. The only way I can see it at all being explainable in terms that do not make Sirius guilty of planning a murder is if he acted in anger, on the spur of the moment, without thinking through the consequences to any of the affected parties. From juli17 at aol.com Tue May 1 19:37:17 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:37:17 -0400 Subject: DH info on the Marauders and Snape In-Reply-To: <1178028648.2800.98546.m43@yahoogroups.com> References: <1178028648.2800.98546.m43@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C95A3F4338CCBE-620-1DA9@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168186 Alla: Eh, are all surprises that Harry will learn just have to be about Snape? I think that if Harry will learn that his father was not just as bad as he believed after Pensieve scene, it could be quite surprising for Harry. JMO. > Julie: I don't think all the surprises will be about Snape by any means, but I do believe the Pensieve scene is a typical representation of the interaction between Snape and the Marauders. We, and Harry, have already been told that Snape and James hexed each other every time they got the opportunity, so we Snape wasn't an "innocent" victim in the sense that he'd never done anything to James or the Marauders. Still, it doesn't change the fact that in this particular incident he was ganged up on and bullied by them. This is where the Marauders had the advantage, in numbers, and they clearly used it. Which again doesn't make Snape innocent, but it does make the Marauders bullies. IMO, Harry doesn't believe his father is "as bad" as he acted in the Pensieve scene, because both Lupin and Sirius made it clear that while the Marauders *did* act like bullying gits (not only to Snape), James matured and grew out of it. He didn't start out the man Harry worshipped, he *became* the man and father Harry still does love and worship, if not so blindly as before. That James made a clear choice to become a certain type of person makes him more admirable than if he'd simply been a saint all along, IMO. (And it's a deliberate contrast to Snape's initial choice to become an entirely different sort of person, IMO.) As for what we will learn about the Marauders and Snape in DH, I don't think it will be that the Pensieve scene or the Prank were misrepresented, or that Snape was somehow the guilty party in both instances. I believe what we will find out is *why* Snape and James (and Snape and Sirius) hated each other so much. Obviously they didn't all just meet on the train to Hogwarts as 11 year olds and immediately decide "I hate *that* kid and I'm going to toment him every chance I get for the next seven years." It was more than Snape knowing lots about the Dark Arts or James being a popular Quidditch player. *Something* initiated their mutual emnity, and that's what we really need to know (and Harry really needs to know) to understand their feelings and motivations, to see clearly why each of them acted as they did. IMO, 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 muellem at bc.edu Tue May 1 20:15:26 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:15:26 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168187 > Betsy Hp: > > One of the reasons I'm "smugly sure" (tm) that Snape is DDM is > > because JKR *loves* to turn things around in the end. Honestly, if > > Snape was supposed to be evil in the end, I'd have expected HBP to > > end with Snape saving the day and everyone singing his praises. > > > Dana: > Although I totally understand this reasoning, I think personally JKR > will not turn it around because she turned something else around > instead and that is Harry being right, while he has been wrong so > many times before. JKR makes the student outgrow the mentor making > DD wrong and Harry right. > > I am not sure I understand what you mean by "if Snape was supposed > to be evil in the end" because essentially it is the climax of book > 6, where she pretty much exposes Snape's loyalties, while they have > been murky from book 1 to 5. > colebiancardi: I think what Betsy is getting at is what JKR stated about the HBP book. In an interview, JKR stated that Book 6 and Book 7 are actually to be read as one big book. So, if Book 6's ending is only the half-way mark in one book, then Betsy is correct in her assumption(and mine as well) - if Snape was bad-to-bone, he would be a "hero" at the end of Book 6, with his true colors showing at the end of book 7 (the big bang!). This is a major hint from JKR, as in all of her books, the one that Harry suspects is evil and bad throughout most of the book, turns out not to be and vice versa. SS/PS - Harry suspected Snape throughout the whole book, when in fact, it was poor, stuttering Quirrell CoS - Tom Riddle - a good friend to Harry is really evil. Dobby as well can be used as an example as well - Dobby, to Harry's POV, is threatening his life and causing him much heartache. But in the end, Dobby is really a good house-elf and Riddle is LV PoA - Sirius & Scabbers(aka Wormtail, aka Peter) nuf said. GoF - Mad Eye Moody - friend of Harry & Neville; hates Snape & Karkaoff; turns out to be Barty Crouch Jr and big baddie OotP - tough sell here. Umbridge is bad from the beginning. Quite frankly, this book is rough as the baddies & the goodies are pretty squared away here. HBP and DH - to be read as one book, not two. At the middle of the "book" (the ending of HBP), Snape kills DD. He is evil, to Harry's POV. But is he really? I am not a ESE!Lupin fan, nor do I think there will be any major betrayals in DH (other than Peter saving Harry's life, betraying LV). So, who we thought was bad in HBP is not really the baddie. but again, that is jmho. colebiancardi From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue May 1 20:34:03 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:34:03 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168188 > Pippin: > > Lily didn't just drop in from the Planet Koozbain, after all. > She'd been going to Hogwarts for five years. If Snape > had a habit of picking on other people, especially Muggleborns, > she'd know about it. She was a popular girl with a lot of friends, > and she was certainly well up on James's interactions with other > students. Neri: Well, Sirius does explain in OotP that even when Lily was actually dating James, she didn't know all about his vendetta with Snape, and I don't see why would Sirius lie about this. But I suspect Lily knows enough about Severus's reputation in this scene and doesn't care. There's no indication that Snape interests her at all here. She just wants so much to pick an argument with James... > Pippin: > Her blink shows she's taken aback by Snape's use of the > M word, so it can hardly be something Snape's in the habit > of saying. Neri: Or she could blink because she expects him to have the brain of hold on the M word for once while she's helping him out of trouble. And that single blink is the only sign that Lily is surprised at all. In the next sentence she answers "coolly" and changes tack with ease. There's no surprised "I didn't think you're one of *those* Slytherins". > Pippin: > Lupin's statements about James's acquisition of the levicorpus > spell sound particularly disingenous. If Snape knew that James > had stolen the spell from him, how could Lupin not know? I > can't see any reason for Snape to be lying about that in the > midst of fleeing from Hogwarts, or for James to have concealed > it from his friends. It's the sort of thing he'd have bragged about. > Neri: One problem with this argument: Snape never actually blames James of *stealing* his spell. He only blames him of "turning my inventions on me", which James could have easily done without any knowledge that the spell was originally Snape's invention. I can't remember a single clue in canon that James indeed stole the spell directly from Snape. Neri Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 20:38:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:38:04 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book? In-Reply-To: <57172FB4-EF89-4CF9-B327-381C8B2A6653@alveymedia.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168189 Jen wrote: > > I'm already stressed about whether Harry will die, but the question of doing it to keep people from asking for more books doesn't seem to follow for me. A quick glimpse of fan fiction shows how many story spinoffs can be created that aren't necessarily about Harry. Regardless of what happens to Harry, people will want sequels for whoever their favorite surviving secondary character is. > > JK knows this. And she's also shown from the beginning that she's going to write the story she's always meant to write. Harry's life or death will be for what she considers the best interest of the story. > Carol responds: I agree that the last thing on JKR's mind is preventing the possibility of a sequel. She figured out the ending and drafted the final chapter long before she knew that the books would be a successful series. (The two characters whose deaths she didn't plan and the one she granted a reprieve are not likely to be HRH, whose fates were long ago determined.) Moreover, the final chapter is an epilogue, revealing what happens after Year Seven to those who survive. If that includes Harry, and I'm sure it will, we'll know whether he marries Ginny (and I predict he will), how many children they have, what he and his friends do for a living, and any other significant events in his adult life. She's going to tie up all the loose ends she can think of so that we won't have any questions about the characters' fates. (Motivations, however, will probably still be debatable!) Carol, who thinks that JKR will reward Harry for his sufferings and heroic defeat of Voldemort with a "happily ever after to the end of his days" ending, "none the worse for having been used before," as Bilbo says From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 1 20:57:46 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:57:46 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168190 colebiancardi: > I think what Betsy is getting at is what JKR stated about the HBP > book. In an interview, JKR stated that Book 6 and Book 7 are > actuallyto be read as one big book. So, if Book 6's ending is only > the half-way mark in one book, then Betsy is correct in her > assumption(andmine as well) - if Snape was bad-to-bone, he would be > a "hero" at the end of Book 6, with his true colors showing at the > end of book 7 (the big bang!). This is a major hint from JKR, as > in all of her books,the one that Harry suspects is evil and bad > throughout most of the book, turns out not to be and vice versa. Dana: To some extend I understood what she said but not in relation to the revelation of book 6, because JKR does not have to wait till book 7 to reveal Snape's loyalties. This is what JKR says about book 6 "Book 6 will be a "time for answers, not more questions and clues ." http://www.accio-quote.org/themes/book6.htm This means that the mystery and the big bang she is referring to doesn't have to be about Snape and of course she doesn't mind everybody thinking it will be because it will prevent people actually being busy with unravelling the true conclusion and the big bang of the series. It is precisely your statement (not it being yours but the essence of the idea you bring fort) here about Harry being wrong through out the books that makes me believe that JKR is turning it around. It is time for Harry to be right but wrong about the way he will let this being right influencing him. This is what is the important thing about what we learned about Lily in book 5 and what Harry has to do next. We will find out the significant information about Harry's mother in two parts: books 5 and 7. Both are "very important in what Harry ends up having to do." http://www.accio-quote.org/themes/potters.htm Lily stood up for Snape against someone she probably loved already and maybe she disliked Snape too but she did not let these things influence how she acted out for what she believed to be right, while James does act out his hatred for Snape, either for Snape himself or because of his hatred for the Dark Arts and Snape fascination with it. We see Sirius acting out his hatred and we see Snape acting out his hatred as well and it is time for Harry that even if his hatred has a true basis for it, to do the right thing. It is not time for Harry to be wrong about Snape one more time this will not be a big bang, we have been there done that. It is time for Harry to actually outgrow his mentors and make him able to oversee the situations as the actually are. DH will all be about Harry seeing the truth and understanding the true meaning of it all, a new Snape plot is not needed for DH to end with a bang. It might not even be Snape saving Harry but Harry saving Snape that would be a really big bang considering. JMHO Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 21:03:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:03:28 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705011040j22d51abdv519b7412e4d7bc43@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168191 montims wrote: Harry's DA was never (in Harry's mind at least) intended to be other than preparation for encountering the worst that LV could throw at the WW, through filling the gap left by Umbridge's abysmal teaching. Had their DA classes been conducted according to syllabus by a competent teacher, I believe DA would never have come about. Carol responds: I think you've made an important distinction here. Harry's (and Hermione's) view of the DA is different from that of its various members. Only a few people (Ron, Ginny, Ernie, Luna, the Twins) actually believe Harry's story that Voldemort is back, and unfortunately, IMO, Harry refuses point-blank to answer Zacharias Smith's challenge regarding what really happened to Cedric. Zacharias Smith is there to find out what happened. Cho is there because she likes Harry. Marietta is there because Cho "made" her come. Others are there because they believe, rightly, that Umbridge's class is a waste of time and they want real DADA skills, not to fight Voldemort (whose return most of them still don't believe in) but to pass their DADA OWL (most of them are in Harry's year--Marietta, unfortunately, has probably already passed her DADA OWL, so Umbridge's incompetence doesn't concern her). At any rate, only Neville and Luna still want the DA to continue into the following year. Not only have all but Ginny, Luna, and Dennis Creevey passed their OWLs, there's no need for the DA with a highly competent DADA teacher, Snape, teaching them what they need to know--even with Voldemort back. If Umbridge had taught what Snape is teaching, the DA would never have been formed. Carol, who thinks that the DA as a whole should not be credited with Hermione's motive in creating it or Harry's in teaching it From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 1 21:13:49 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:13:49 -0000 Subject: Sirius's Intentions during the Prank (WAS: Excusing Snape of any responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168192 zgirnius: > I am honestly puzzled by this position. > How would giving Snape the means to satisfy his nosiness about > Lupin help the situation? Presumably if Sirius thought Snape was > that nosy, he would expect Snape to act on the suggestion. > The only way I can see it at all being explainable in terms that do > not make Sirius guilty of planning a murder is if he acted in anger, > on the spur of the moment, without thinking through the consequences > to any of the affected parties. Dana: I think Sirius did act in the sper of the moment and that he had it with Snape always trying to find out what they are up to.. hoping he could get them expelled. And he absolutely did not think rational about the consequences (and the moral responsibility he had to Remus) but I do think he gave Snape the information because he expected Snape to be cured about him wanting to try to get his friends in to trouble. Dana From belviso at attglobal.net Tue May 1 21:20:28 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:20:28 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168193 tbernhard2000: > You've removed the only thing that matters here - the DA is working > for good, not evil. This is not an aside, this is essential. She gave > information to collaborators that endangered the very essential > mission the DA was on - to show the world the truth. Magpie: I thought part of Betsy's point was that working "for good" was important, but that it wasn't all there was to it. People can think they are working for good or be working for good and still do things wrong--and of course, deciding who's working for good and who's working for evil, in the real world, sometimes depends on what side you're on. It's probably not a good idea to just decide that whatever X says is the right thing is right, especially if you don't really know X, and yet there is an element of that here. >From Marietta's pov she's probably not doing what you're saying she's doing. Another problem with just saying that they're the good guys and therefore what they're doing is good, and what they're doing is for good so they are good is that the DA already tends to morph into whatever anybody needs it to be at the time in discussion. Even in canon it's different things--presented originally as a study group, but then it needs a leader and loyalty to Harry, etc. Even here you seem to be giving it a goal it doesn't have--a mission to show the world the truth. The DA isn't gathered to show anybody anything. How can they, when they're secret. Nor did they go to the MoM to out Voldemort--they went to save Sirius. (Not that the DA as a body went to the MoM--the members that went were probably the most personally devoted to Harry.) The point is that it's secret. The DA didn't do anything to Marietta either. Hermione did. The founders of the DA had plenty of good intentions and also made some mistakes. (We see that right from the beginning when Hermione's instincts about where to hold a secret meeting are wrong, I think tipping us off that she might not be so realistic when it comes to this stuff.) This also, imo, links to Betsy's point about Hermione and emotions: tbernhard2000: The world is composed of people who are just a "unknowing" of their emotional world. It indicates that Hermione is human, and is capable of love at all, not that she's some kind of emotional cripple. Aren't all teenagers weird that way, and many adults? Magpie: I don't quite get where the emotional cripple stuff comes in. Betsy was pointing out that a volatile teenager isn't necessarily somebody you'd want personally in charge of justice in the world. She wasn't saying that there was something wrong with Hermione having emotion. Not attacking somebody with birds because they kissed a girl who wasn't you wouldn't make you doesn't indicate you're an emotional cripple. And also yes, many adults can just lash out out of emotion-- but that's why we want some balance when it comes to the law and not raw emotion. We don't have to choose between two extremes. (I also wouldn't necessarily say that being emotional means one is "knowing" of one's emotional world.) -m From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue May 1 21:28:40 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 23:28:40 +0200 Subject: Meaning/Translation of "stopper death" Message-ID: <003c01c78c37$b0901130$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 168194 Preliminary note for the elves: This mail deals with a film and a translation, but it is not meant as a start for a discussion about one of these, which would be something for one of the other lists, as I well know. Hello everybody, maybe my question is simple to answer, maybe it is not and can lead to an interesting discussion of a 'famous' scene and quote from PS/SS. Here's the quote from Snape's first Potions lesson: "I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death -- if you aren't as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach." As far as I recall it, in every discussion up to now "stopper death" was interpreted as 'to stop death' or 'to put a stop to death'. That was my understanding as well - but yesterday I watched the German version of the film, and they translated it "den Tod verkorken" - that's "to cork death". I'm not a native speaker, but this translation/understanding seems to be reasonable. To brew a potion, to bottle it - and to put a stopper into the bottle. Now, this detail is not *that* important. But it was discussed widely, and interpreted as a kind of augury for later incidents - the Felix Felicis, or potions Snape brewed to save Dumbledore. But maybe the latter interpretation would be different if we would see the word "stopper" as a synonym of "cork" - on a bottle containing a deathly potion? Miles, waiting for Anglicists instructing him ;) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue May 1 21:28:55 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:28:55 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168195 I realize almost everybody on this list wants Harry to live, but they also want book 7 to be as good as it's possible to be. I believe these two wishes are incompatible. A good work or art should tie your emotions into a knot and Harry's death would do exactly that. Imagine just for the sake of argument that in 80 days or so as you come to the end of the book you suddenly realize that Harry Potter is dead; and we don't see him cavorting with his parents and Dumbledore in the afterlife, no, he's just dead. I believe that moment will stick with you. And worldwide there will be riots in the streets. How could any author resist making a sensation like that? Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 21:51:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:51:47 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168196 > tbernhard2000: > > You've removed the only thing that matters here - the DA is working > > for good, not evil. This is not an aside, this is essential. > > She gave > > information to collaborators that endangered the very essential > > mission the DA was on - to show the world the truth. > > Magpie: > I thought part of Betsy's point was that working "for good" was > important, but that it wasn't all there was to it. People can think > they are working for good or be working for good and still do things > wrong--and of course, deciding who's working for good and who's > working for evil, in the real world, sometimes depends on what side > you're on. It's probably not a good idea to just decide that > whatever X says is the right thing is right, especially if you don't > really know X, and yet there is an element of that here. From > Marietta's pov she's probably not doing what you're saying she's > doing. Alla: Well, yes, I agree with what you are saying RL wise. I do not necessarily agree about that in Potterverse. I always believed that JKR draws quite strong barriers between those working for good side and those working for bad side and that **she** gets to decide which side is good and which side is bad, you know? I am not talking about us as readers not being able to decide that for ourselves, I am just saying that IMO in JKR's world once she decided that one side is good, it is so done and the measure of what they do are different IMO. And while I may not share such view in RL, I can totally see it in Potterverse and be happy with it, you know? Have you read Martin's "Songs of Ice and Fire"? Several people highly recommended those series to me and I only recently decided to start rereading. I threw away the second book long time ago, since I could not find the characters to root for. If you did read them, you will know what I am talking about. I think Martin does portray very well how our views of the characters can change depending on their POV, and who is on what side gets very very murky. I believe that it is SO not the case in Potterverse, despite JKR greying some issues in OOP and HBP. I honestly believe that no matter how many mistakes good guys make, JKR does not intend to portray them as deserving same contempt as Voldemort and Co, even if they make pretty big mistakes, you know? I can obviously be wrong and if she does the big rug pulling in book 7 and tells us that Slytherins were prejudiced again and badly misunderstood all that time, I will eat a crow, truly I will. I will laugh and eat it :) And as I said, I think she does it quite convincingly, even if I find Martin's portrayal to be much more realistic. I mean, why would I ever feel something for Lucius Malfoy, even if he loves his son? I **know** that he stood by and watched a boy to be tortured and I am pretty sure that he participated in the torture of Muggles himself, so he is a **bad** very bad man to me, and nothing can redeem him in my eyes, even if JKR showed to me that yes, he is not a caricature evil. So what I am trying to say is even if Lucius Malfoy will be shown feeding homeless kittens ( exaggerating, but I hope you get my drift :)), I do not believe that JKR will intend for us to feel a great deal of sympathy for him. Not saying we cannot or should not, just that it is not an author's intent IMO. Same thing for example with mmmmmmm let's say Lupin :) While I am not buying that he betrayed anybody anywhere, of course he made some pretty bad mistakes - not in dismissing those mistakes because he is human, but truly bad mistakes. Do I think that JKR intends to forgive Lupin for those mistakes because he is on the **right** side? Yes, I totally do. So, I guess what I am trying to say in such long winded way that JKR does employ a double standard IMO and I see nothing bad with it "in Potterverse" Or let's take Hermione, hehehe. As you know, I also agree that Marietta getting what she got was richly deserved, but I also can see where the arguments that it was morally wrong coming from. But do I think that JKR does not intend to judge Hermione as harshly as some other characters? Yes, I do, because I absolutely think that even if what she did was morally wrong ( and I do not, I just understand the argument), I think it is **nothing** in comparison to, let's say, planning assasination attempts. JMHO, Alla From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Tue May 1 21:56:59 2007 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:56:59 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168197 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Message #168195 wrote: Eggplant: > I realize almost everybody on this list wants Harry to live, but >they also want book 7 to be as good as it's possible to be. I >believe these two wishes are incompatible. A good work or art >should tie youremotions into a knot and Harry's death would do >exactly that. "K": A living, happy Harry who is free to carry on with the rest of his life without being The Chosen One can be a very emotional moment for the reader. It's all a matter of opinion, isn't it? My daughter believes more as you do. She believes it would be a good twist for Harry to die and she loves the kid. Eggplant: >And worldwide there will be riots in the streets. How could >any author resist making a sensation like that? "K": Surely you jest? Right? Riots? Anyone who would do so needs to get a real life, IMO. Now the death of Snape I could understand. ;-) But alas, I believe he is doomed. As is Narcissa, Lucius, Bella, Voldemort and Hagrid. "K" From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 1 21:56:04 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:56:04 -0000 Subject: Sirius's Intentions during the Prank (WAS: Excusing Snape of any responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168198 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > > zgirnius: > > I am honestly puzzled by this position. > > How would giving Snape the means to satisfy his nosiness about > > Lupin help the situation? Presumably if Sirius thought Snape was > > that nosy, he would expect Snape to act on the suggestion. > > The only way I can see it at all being explainable in terms that > > do not make Sirius guilty of planning a murder is if he acted in > > anger, on the spur of the moment, without thinking through the > > consequences to any of the affected parties. Dana before: > I think Sirius did act in the sper of the moment and that he had it > with Snape always trying to find out what they are up to.. hoping > he could get them expelled. And he absolutely did not think > rational about the consequences (and the moral responsibility he > had to Remus) but I do think he gave Snape the information because > he expected Snape to be cured about him wanting to try to get his > friends in to trouble. Dana again: I want to add one thing just because Sirius wanted Snape to follow his suggestion thus not make him responsible for Snape actually doing precisly that. It was still Snape own choice to do so. JMHO Dana From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 22:03:54 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 22:03:54 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168199 > >>Betsy wrote: > > > > The DA *was* segragated. > > > >>dan: > You've removed the only thing that matters here - the DA is working > for good, not evil. This is not an aside, this is essential. Betsy Hp: And yet, the DA *doesn't* go up against the big evil (Voldemort). They go up against the MoM, which while described as misguided is never really described as full out evil. Fudge even comes back to seem a bit sympathetic in the beginning of HBP. Yes, Umbridge is a bad egg, but she could be seen as an example of ruthless self-righteousness taken to the extreme. She's Hermione's dark side. And so I *do* think the DA shows the early signs of becoming exactly like the MoM. A power that cannot be questioned, in total control of the information it shares. > >>dan: > Rowling is realistic, not idealistic - her world is partisan, she > does not say loyalty is all one - loyalty to Voldemort and his > cause is bad, loyalty to Dumbledore and his is good. This doesn't > justify extremes of violence, but the DA doesn't either - they are > focussed on outing what they know is going on behind the scenes. Betsy Hp: Actually, the DA is focused on learning. According to what the powers that be (ie the Trio, or Hermione) told their members, the DA was strictly a study club. > >>dan: > As for Marietta - what do you think the DE would have done with a > traitor? So she gets snitch (heh) on her forehead. She gave > information to collaborators that endangered the very essential > mission the DA was on - to show the world the truth. Marietta's > marking was roundly deserved. Betsy Hp: Heh. Speaking of justifing extremes of violence... So you're saying that branding the face of a teenage girl for listening to her family rather than the popular kids is *always* a good idea, and perfectly civilized too. I mean, as long as your cause is *good* of course. Not that the plebeians can *question*, of course. The fact that your cause is good should be understood. Any questioners should be physically threatened and/or punched in the nose (Zach Smith). And I'll say, that if the Deatheaters didn't go for straight out killing (which, I'm pretty sure they would) I can see them getting behind the sort of public humiliation a facial branding would give. > >>Betsy: > > (The way Hermione deals with her feelings for Ron encapsulates the > > problems with emotional youth, IMO.) > >>dan: > The world is composed of people who are just a "unknowing" of their > emotional world. It indicates that Hermione is human, and is capable > of love at all, not that she's some kind of emotional cripple. > Aren't all teenagers weird that way, and many adults? Betsy Hp: Well, no. I hope not. I generally think if a sixteen year old caused his or her love interest physical injury because of their own mixed up emotions that's not a normal or good thing. > >>montims: > In this respect, I think it's worth remembering that JKR worked for > a while for Amnesty, and she has a link to Amnesty International on > her website. This is an organisation that deliberately works to > subvert the government of countries that practice human rights > abuses. Active opposition to bad practices, regardless of the > source or intentions of such practices. Betsy Hp: Which makes me hopeful that JKR is aware of the questionable actions she's having her good guys take. Because I still think the less obvious bad behavior of the good guys could do a lot more damage than the very obvious bad behavior of the bad guys. For example, we all know murder (Karkaroff) is bad. But I've seen so many people that I otherwise think of as good people and good thinkers support what happened to Marietta. I mean seriously, would people *really* like to see that punishment added to their country's penal code? Would Amnesty International be cool with it? But because it was Hermione inflicting it on a "red shirt" (someone the readers had no emotional investment in) it becomes something "well deserved". Either JKR is very clever or very disturbing. I await DH to find out which is correct. > >>montims: > As to the "Hitler Youth" reference, I really think that parallel is > to the Slytherin group that Umbridge grooms. Her whole sequence of > edicts to me is very reminiscent of the way a totalitarion > authority gradually erodes peoples' rights until they suddenly > realise that they have none, and the use of a group of people in > that authority's good graces while, or because, they spy on and > intimidate their peers, is very chilling. > Betsy Hp: Oh yes, I wouldn't deny that. However, one of the things I found most chilling about the Hitler Youth is that it trained children to turn on their parents. I remember reading about it (or watching a media presentation in High School) and thinking that no matter how indoctrinated I might have become into something (and I could see how the Hitler Youth program would have been attractive to German children at that time) I would *never* betray my family. Never. I also recall that as a student (and heck even now, for that matter) if someone referenced their parents in a discussion it was time to start walking carefully. You don't just tell someone that their mom is an idiot or their father a bigot. Because if that person was any bit worth their salt you'd have just lost the argument. No matter what they might be leaning towards deciding, you've just challenged their family and anyone of character would stand with their family no matter the family's flaws. Of course it could be worked around, but not forced. Both Harry and Hermione (and Ron too, IIRC) tried to force people to stand against their families. Which was not something I admired either of them for, and sent up red flags to me as to their activities. Sure the DeathEaters are worse. But that doesn't make the DA a stand up club of truth and justice. > >>Betsy Hp: > > The billion dollar question for me is whether JKR is doing this > > on purpose, or whether this stuff is sneaking in under her radar. > >>dan: > Rowling is slipping in under many readers radar, I think, a radical > thesis of direct action. Betsy Hp: If JKR is in control of her message (and not a crazy shrew ) then I think her series will be one for the ages. If she's *not* in control of her message, and if therefore some of the more disturbing stuff (at least, disturbing as per me ) is given de facto author approval then I think her series will be one for Lupinlore's chipper. Betsy Hp (All opinions expressed above are my own. JKR was not hurt in this typing. ) From mros at xs4all.nl Tue May 1 22:07:29 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 00:07:29 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Meaning/Translation of "stopper death" References: <003c01c78c37$b0901130$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: <000701c78c3d$1c117bb0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 168200 Quick delurk... In Dutch, a 'stopper' or a 'stop' is a (usually glas) 'cork' for a (usually glass) bottle, especially of the 'apothekersfles' (a glass bottle/jar used by apothecaries to store medicine in) You can find examples of the apothekersfles or the stopfles on these pages: http://www.veilingkijker.nl/apothekersfles.html http://www.haijtema-authentiek.nl/hoofdrubrieken/01%20keramiek/01%20glas/A105%20fles.htm back to lurking..... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue May 1 22:13:20 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 22:13:20 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168201 wynnleaf I may be confusing my threads here, with several considering difficulties between Marauders and Snape, but here goes... Several posters have used Snape's creation of the Sectumsempra spell as a clue or evidence of his culpability while in school. The reasoning is that Snape said, based on seeing the effects of the cutting spell on Draco, that it was Dark Magic. Therefore Snape's creation of a Dark Magic weapon "for enemies" is evidence of his Dark side. This is rather interesting. There are two times that Snape accused Harry of using Dark Magic. Anyone recall *both?* One is of course when Snape finds Draco injured and Harry having used a cutting spell, which from the effects Snape immediately identifies as Dark. We, the readers, later learn that it was *Snape's* spell, so Snape's identifying the spell as "Dark" makes him culpable since he created it. But earlier, in POA, Snape also accused Harry of using Dark Magic. Snape found Harry with a parchment in his hands which could, to use Arthur's words, "think for itself" including identifying the holder and insulting the holder knowing personal characteristics of the holder. Snape also immediately identifies this object as clearly Dark. If we use the same logic as Snape's identifying of the effects of the cutting spell as Dark, we would have to say that Snape's assessment is just as seriously and honestly given as it was with Sectumsempra. Snape being a Dark Arts expert, we would have to believe his word on this just as much as his word on the cutting spell. Right? Sure, Lupin contradicts Snape in the POA scene, but since he was lying at the time to cover for Harry, we can't trust his comments at that moment. So the Map is just as likely then to be Dark Magic as Sectumsempra, at least as far as Snape's serious and honest assessment goes. And the Map has several rather Dark characteristics -- it thinks for itself, it enables the holder to invade the privacy of anyone at Hogwarts (can anyone believe the Marauders wouldn't have used it to see what couples were up to?), it enables the holder to break both major and minor rules easily, and it is opened by a vow to do "no good." So if we are going to take Snape's word about the cutting spell he sees the effects of in HBP as being a Dark Magic spell, then I don't think we can legitimately discard his word that the parchment he held in his hands in POA and which could for itself, was Dark also. The net result is that Snape created the Sectumsempra spell as a teenager and he identifies that spell as Dark Magic. The Marauders created the Marauders Map as teenagers and Snape also identified that as Dark Magic. His attitude when making both accusations toward Harry is similar and he seems to be giving his serious and honest assessment. I don't think it's a fair argument to say Snape's right about the cutting spell he saw on Draco, in believing Dark Magic was used to cause the injuries, but wrong about the parchment that can think for itself being Dark Magic. > Neri: > Well, Sirius does explain in OotP that even when Lily was actually > dating James, she didn't know all about his vendetta with Snape, and I > don't see why would Sirius lie about this. wynnleaf Sirius made it clear that he was talking about 7th year, when he said that James made sure their attacks on Snape were done away from Lily's eyes. By the way, James could not keep those attacks secret from her if a large portion were initiated by Snape - since presumably Snape had no reason to keep the attacks secret from Lily. Therefore the fact that Lily didn't ever hear about the attacks is some evidence that Snape was not initiating them in 7th year, only James. In any case, the attacks between the Marauders and Snape were much more public before 7th year, as Sirius made clear. So obviously Lily *did* know about them before. In fact, that's the whole point of what Sirius was getting at. She knew about them for years, but didn't know about them after 6th year. And yet she says, "what did he do to you?" Neri But I suspect Lily knows > enough about Severus's reputation in this scene and doesn't care. wynnleaf If she knew that Snape's reputation gave James an excuse for his actions, why would she ask him "what's he done to you?" Neri > There's no indication that Snape interests her at all here. She just > wants so much to pick an argument with James... wynnleaf There's a possibility you're correct in her primary object being to flirt with James through some sort of faked concern for James bullying another student. If so, it's a terrible indictment of Lily, imo, to take advantage of someone else's misfortune in order to push a flirting agenda with their tormentor. However, to go so far as to say "no indication that Snape interests her at all here," is going way too far when the whole point she's making is about James bullying behavior toward Snape. > > Pippin: > > Her blink shows she's taken aback by Snape's use of the > > M word, so it can hardly be something Snape's in the habit > > of saying. > > Neri: > Or she could blink because she expects him to have the brain of hold > on the M word for once while she's helping him out of trouble. And > that single blink is the only sign that Lily is surprised at all. wynnleaf I can't imagine Hermione being surprised at all if Draco called her a mudblood in such a situation, because she'd have heard it out of him enough already. So Lily's surprise blink indicates that she didn't expect that response from Snape. But if Lily *wasn't* surprised, why did she even come to help if a completely expected response from Snape was going to make her leave him "in the lurch," so to speak? A sort of inner thought of "I'm going to pretend to help him so I can have the opportunity to have a little confrontation with the guy I like, but then I'll leave as soon as Snape does the expected and makes a mean comment." Wow, I certainly hope Lily's not *that* kind of girl! Those types certainly do exist! And they'd probably die for their children, too, since women of all types love their children. But that just doesn't fit with other things we've heard about Lily. Dana In > the next sentence she answers "coolly" and changes tack with ease. > There's no surprised "I didn't think you're one of *those* Slytherins". wynnleaf I think the blink *was* the surprise. What would you expect? "Oh my gosh! I can't believe you said that!" No, a blink is quite enough to show Lily's surprise. > > > Pippin: > > Lupin's statements about James's acquisition of the levicorpus > > spell sound particularly disingenous. If Snape knew that James > > had stolen the spell from him, how could Lupin not know? I > > can't see any reason for Snape to be lying about that in the > > midst of fleeing from Hogwarts, or for James to have concealed > > it from his friends. It's the sort of thing he'd have bragged about. > > > > Neri: > One problem with this argument: Snape never actually blames James of > *stealing* his spell. He only blames him of "turning my inventions on > me", which James could have easily done without any knowledge that the > spell was originally Snape's invention. I can't remember a single clue > in canon that James indeed stole the spell directly from Snape. > > Neri wynnleaf I agree that there's not necessarily strong evidence that James directly stole Levicorpus from Snape. It was clearly a joke sort of spell that James could have picked up anywhere. If Snape used it in the Slytherin common room, the spell could have traveled around the school and in 24 hours been the rage. The "revelation" that the spell the Marauders used against Snape in the Worst Memory scene was created by Snape neither makes that scene less terrible an action of the Marauders, nor makes Snape in any way a worse guy. The spell isn't a bad spell. Like many spells, it's the way you use it. They used it conjunction with other spells to bully Snape. Their actions were awful. The spell wasn't. We do not know that the spell with which Snape cuts James cheek in the Worst Memory scene is Sectumsempra. It could be a precursor to Sectumsempra, or simply a smaller cutting spell. So we don't even know whether it's dark. As regards why Snape created Sectumsempra, many assume that "for enemies" meant it was for offensive actions against anyone Snape disliked. But the spell was written in the 6th year potions book and could have been created after the Shrieking Shack prank when Snape truly felt (rightly or wrongly) that his life was in danger and he needed a strong spell in case he was directly attacked with intent to kill. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 1 22:16:25 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 22:16:25 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168202 > Neri: > Well, Sirius does explain in OotP that even when Lily was actually > dating James, she didn't know all about his vendetta with Snape, and I > don't see why would Sirius lie about this. But I suspect Lily knows > enough about Severus's reputation in this scene and doesn't care. > There's no indication that Snape interests her at all here. She just > wants so much to pick an argument with James... Pippin: But if everyone knew about Severus's badass reputation, the laughter wouldn't be growing as it became clear that Sirius and James were getting the upper hand. People would be worried, as Harry usually is when he gets the worst of Snape, that Snape would be having his revenge. But they're obviously not. > Neri: > Or she could blink because she expects him to have the brain of hold > on the M word for once while she's helping him out of trouble. And > that single blink is the only sign that Lily is surprised at all. In > the next sentence she answers "coolly" and changes tack with ease. > There's no surprised "I didn't think you're one of *those* Slytherins". Pippin: That would just make her look weak, besides gratuitously insulting Slytherins in general. There's no indication in the scene that Snape used the word because he's a Slytherin. Nobody's ever even said that it's a word only Slytherins use, either. Remember, in CoS Ron didn't even know that Slytherin had started all this pureblood stuff. > Neri: > One problem with this argument: Snape never actually blames James of *stealing* his spell. He only blames him of "turning my inventions on me", which James could have easily done without any knowledge that the spell was originally Snape's invention. I can't remember a single clue in canon that James indeed stole the spell directly from Snape. > Pippin: Except that Snape says, "Like your filthy father" and not, "Like all the rest." Of course he could be wrongly blaming James, but that's different than not blaming James particularly. Remember everyone was doing levicorpus, not just James. And now a further word on that... Considering the structure of the whole SWM plot line. When Harry first approaches Lupin and Sirius in OOP, Lupin says, "I wouldn't like you to judge your father on what you saw there, Harry. He was only fifteen--" After indignantly dismissing this excuse, Harry hesitates but finally blurts out that his father had acted that way just because Sirius had said he was bored. Sirius immediately says "I'm not proud of it" which earns a sideways look from Lupin. Lupin then says that James and his friends were the height of cool and sometimes got carried away. Sirius interrupts to say that they were arrogant little berks. Sirius and Lupin then reveal that in seventh year, James had stopped hexing people for the fun of it, and only continued to hex Snape in retaliation because Snape was always hexing *him*. Now this is presumably Sirius's final word on the subject, being dead. But Lupin's not done yet. We hear from him again in HBP, and this time his argument is that levicorpus had a great vogue. Now, why have I gone through all this? To show that there really was no reversal between OOP and HBP. There's always been two different opinions about why James shouldn't be judged harshly. Sirius judged that their fifteen year old conduct wasn't something to be proud of, but James grew out of it. He stopped hexing Snape for fun, and only did it when he had a reason. But Lupin's opinion was and remains that James shouldn't have been judged harshly because everyone said it was cool and besides it was a vogue. Everyone thought it was cool???? Everyone was doing it??? Gimme a break! Any kid of mine that offered those shabby excuses would have got himself grounded for an extra week. But it's a perfect example of Lupin cutting his friends too much slack, IMO. Pippin From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue May 1 22:21:01 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 00:21:01 +0200 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott References: Message-ID: <016401c78c3f$00828310$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 168203 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Well, yes, I agree with what you are saying RL wise. I do not > necessarily agree about that in Potterverse. I always believed that > JKR draws quite strong barriers between those working for good side > and those working for bad side and that **she** gets to decide which > side is good and which side is bad, you know? Miles: Maybe there's a difference between the actions of adult and adolescent characters? I think you are right concerning the kids - it's a major point of criticism concerning the actions of the characters that it's only important whether s/he is good or evil - not what they do. The DA exclude Slytherins per definition - that's good. The IS consists exclusively of Slytherins - that's bad. Harry makes Kreacher working against Draco - which is a torture for him, but it seams to be ok, Hermione brands Marietta as a sneak - well done.... To be continued. JKR is much more demanding concerning the adult characters. Barty Crouch is definititely on the side of the good. But he is condemned because he uses draconian means in his fight - Moody is shown as a "good" Auror because he tries not to kill the DE he catches, whereas Crouch is 'punished' for trying to do the right things with bad means. Alla: > I am not talking about us as readers not being able to decide that > for ourselves, I am just saying that IMO in JKR's world once she > decided that one side is good, it is so done and the measure of what > they do are different IMO. Miles: I do not like this decision of JKR, but I agree with your observation, at least concerning the young characters. But maybe, if you see the HP series as a bildungsroman, one part of becoming adults is that the teenage heroes will have to face the consequences of their questionable actions like the adult characters in the series already have to? Which would be one twist for the final book. Miles From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 22:24:49 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 22:24:49 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168204 > wynnleaf > So if we are going to take Snape's word about the cutting spell he > sees the effects of in HBP as being a Dark Magic spell, then I don't > think we can legitimately discard his word that the parchment he > held in his hands in POA and which could for itself, was Dark also. > > The net result is that Snape created the Sectumsempra spell as a > teenager and he identifies that spell as Dark Magic. The Marauders > created the Marauders Map as teenagers and Snape also identified > that as Dark Magic. His attitude when making both accusations > toward Harry is similar and he seems to be giving his serious and > honest assessment. I don't think it's a fair argument to say > Snape's right about the cutting spell he saw on Draco, in believing > Dark Magic was used to cause the injuries, but wrong about the > parchment that can think for itself being Dark Magic. Alla: Snipped rather liberally, but I believe the point I am replying to is here. My assesment of Sectusemptra as Dark has nothing to do with Snape indentifying it as such, definitely not. Therefore I think Snape's identifying of Map as dark is irrelevant for all intents and purposes. It is of course only my opinion, but I of course disregard his evaluation of Map as dark and identify Sectusemptra as dark because Malfoy could have bled to death. It **feels** dark to me and has nothing to do with Snape's assesment of that curse. I mean I of course believe that he is right, LOL, but I would have identified it as dark even if he said nothing on the matter. JMO, Alla From k.coble at comcast.net Tue May 1 21:55:22 2007 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:55:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killfile? In-Reply-To: <8C95A3F4338CCBE-620-1DA9@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> References: <1178028648.2800.98546.m43@yahoogroups.com> <8C95A3F4338CCBE-620-1DA9@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <99FE4568-BC92-48E0-A890-393C65293DA6@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168205 Is there a way to killfile particular authors or threads? I got the ADMIN warning yesterday and I don't want to be directly insulting to anyone, but there are just several things I'd rather not be reading time and time again. I don't want to unsubscribe from a group I've enjoyed for the last six years or so, but I honestly would rather not have to wade through the same discussions brought up by the same people all the time. Katherine From irenetsui at yahoo.com Tue May 1 22:40:44 2007 From: irenetsui at yahoo.com (irenetsui) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 22:40:44 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168206 > > Neri: > > There's no indication that Snape interests her at all here. She > > just wants so much to pick an argument with James... > wynnleaf > There's a possibility you're correct in her primary object being to > flirt with James through some sort of faked concern for James > bullying another student. If so, it's a terrible indictment of > Lily, imo, to take advantage of someone else's misfortune in order > to push a flirting agenda with their tormentor. Irene Also, let's not forget that Lily was most probably a prefect at that time. So she might just be performing her prefect duty here to maintain order. From celizwh at intergate.com Tue May 1 23:12:11 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 23:12:11 -0000 Subject: DH: The cellphone on Rowling's website Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168207 Punch in the correct phone number on the cell phone and you are taken to an early draft for PS. Here's what I am wondering: Assuming that Rowling had the ending of the story in mind from the beginning and it was only how to get there that was subject to revision, is there anything the early draft can reveal about the plot resolution in DH? Spoiler******************** P O I L E R S A H E A D********************************************* Hint: There is only one phone number that has been given in HP. I transcribed the part I could read. After zooming in enough to read it, only the middle part was visible. The top and bottom were cut off. Without punctuation: Ancient art and science by argo pyrites And you end up not just with pure gold but also with a funny stone [???] Which is what I'm [on?] about, said harry. The philosopher's stone, yes. and it works too. {?] kept nicolas Flamel and his wife alive for almost 500 years. I know said harry but he's [???]. He was spotted at the opera in paris in 1762 and he was born back in 13 sometime. Ron whistled But he's dead now?,he asked Of course, said harry. Someone stole his stone [??] couldn't make any more elixir of life, could he? It takes awhile to make another stone and by that time I suppose he was just too old to live without his elixir until a new stone was redy. And now I'll tell you something else really weird.that I haven't told you up to now. The stone was found in my parents' safe at gringotts bank. But instead of the interested noises Harry had expected, Ron and Hermione simply stated at him What? said harry [hemming, hawing and foot shuffling I'm too lazy to transcribe] You don't think, he said suddenly and angrily that my parents stole the stone. Um said ron. Look said harry furiously that's like saying they murdered flamel. From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Tue May 1 23:31:19 2007 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 23:31:19 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168208 Betsy wrote: > So you're saying that branding the face of a teenage girl for listening to her family rather than the popular kids is *always* a good idea, and perfectly civilized too. dan: I said neither "always" nor did I separate the act of marking Marietta from her real and actual betrayal. It's not theoretical. No act is theoretical, ever. It's an act or it's a theory. Rowling abhors the theoretical, I'd say. Did Harry theorize about saving the others in the lake, in the second task? He did not theorize, he just did it, instinctively, cause he's got good heart and wants to help people. No system of beliefs is going to create that in and/or for him, or anyone else, and the act is more important than a library of instructive or moralistic literature. To be clear, I am trying to explicate what Rowling is saying, not judge her for her ethical understanding, though I suspect she is pretty much right on, in my opinion. Rowling's ethic is another discussion, which, while it may be the majority of some threads, is entirely irrelevant to what I am interested in in terms of the literary use of magic. The movies I referred to in the first part of this discussion reminded me that fairy tales and magic are tools all kids use to deal with very real situations - Bridge to Terabithia is about dealing with bullies, and with poverty, and ultimately, with death - Pan's Labyrinth is about dealing with state violence and repression, and a very, very dangerous step-father - in Rowling, of course, magic is to be taken quite literally - all the normal problems of adolescence and marriage, of society in general, are dealt with by magic - she turns magic into an instrument, a machine, so the humdrum can be dispensed with, and just the exciting, important parts of life can be discussed - starting with politics. I don't think Rowling is writing a critic of pure technique, or anything like that at all. She's writing a series of books where our hero only proceeds by breaking rules, challenging authority, forcing the issue at every turn, being confrontational, taking big risks, in the face of complacency by the ministry, agents of darkness in positions of power close to him and his friends (some of the DA teachers, for example), state ordered repression and quite possibly assasination attempts on his life (Umbridge), well-meaning but impotent adult mentor figures (the Order). He does this by stepping outside the bounds of this or that theory, this or that instruction. Courage, love, friendship, says Rowling, courage most of all. It was even courage let him follow the thoughts of Voldemort, and save Arthur, in spite of all the advice to ignore such things. Betsy: > I would *never* betray my family. Never. dan: But heroes do, in literature, very definitely betray their families, sometimes - Faramir, for example, or Sirius, even Seamus, and some hope Draco. dan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 23:44:41 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 23:44:41 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168209 Alla wrote: > > Snipped rather liberally, but I believe the point I am replying to is here. My assesment of Sectusemptra as Dark has nothing to do with Snape indentifying it as such, definitely not. Therefore I think Snape's identifying of Map as dark is irrelevant for all intents and purposes. It is of course only my opinion, but I of course disregard his evaluation of Map as dark and identify Sectusemptra as dark because Malfoy could have bled to death. It **feels** dark to me and has nothing to do with Snape's assesment of that curse. I mean I of course believe that he is right, LOL, but I would have identified it as dark even if he said nothing on the matter. Carol responds: Although I generally agree with wynnleaf, I'm going to surprise a few people by agreeing with Alla here. I'm not quite sure what Snape was up to by suggesting that the Marauder's Map was dark magic, but I think what he really suspected was that Lupin had some connection with it. (Ostensibly, he's summoning Lupin to his office because he's the DADA teacher and dark magic is his area of expertise, but since Snape in fact knows more about dark magic than Lupin does, I don't think that's what he was doing. He probably suspected that the map would provide Harry with a way into Hogsmeade; if so, better to let Lupin confiscate it, which in fact happened, than to let Harry have it.) Anyway, that whole scene feels to me as if Lupin and Snape are holding a silent dialogue, or as if each hears meaning in the other's words that Harry is oblivious to, rather than a straightforward dialogue. Snape almost certainly knows that Lupin is lying to him about the parchment being a Zonko's product, yet he lets Lupin take it *back.* ("Back?" When did Lupin have it before? Snape guesses, but Harry doesn't.) Which is not to say that the Marauder's Map in the wrong hands isn't dangerous. Crouch!Moody used it to kill his own father and cover his tracks. In contrast, when Snape asks Harry where he learned such Dark magic (Sectumsempra), he knows whereof he speaks. He invented that spell, and he's giving Harry a chance to tell the truth about the HBP's Potions book (without, of course, knowing that he's being questioned by the HBP himself). And, yes. The spell *feels* Dark because it *is* Dark. Unlike Levicorpus, which, as someone (wynnleaf?) said is primarily a joke spell like so many others that the kids use on each other, Sectumsempra is specifically designed "for enemies" and was probably invented either in retaliation for or as a defense against attacks by people Severus perceived as enemies, people who had, in his view, tried to kill him. (The little cutting spell that Severus uses on James can't be Sectumsempra. He is not "cut always." It causes no lasting damage, no scar on his forehead, no need for dittany or any complicated countercurse. There's no indication that he's even still bleeding as he speaks to Lily.) Dumbledore understands that the adult Snape's knowledge of the Dark Arts makes him invaluable as a Healer of those spells, not only Sectumsempra, for which he obviously either created or discovered a complex countercurse, but the curses in the opal necklace and the ring Horcrux. Snape, in this instance, is not engaging in a battle of wits with a colleague he knows to be a werewolf and suspects to be in league with a murderer. He is talking directly to Harry. And just as he later says, "No Unforgiveable Curses from you!" I think he is genuinely concerned here that Harry has used Dark magic. But he's also incensed that Harry is lying about it. At any rate, I agree with Alla that Sectumsempra is Dark and I don't think Harry needed Snape to tell him that. After all, there's blood all over the floor and Draco would have died had Snape not saved him. Carol, still wondering where JKR is going with the idea of Snape as Healer as revealed in HBP From skosmoskijr at yahoo.com Tue May 1 23:51:22 2007 From: skosmoskijr at yahoo.com (SKosmoskijr) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 23:51:22 -0000 Subject: Snape as Ultimate Hero Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168210 I have been reading the posts for years but this is my first contribution so please be gentle. Have been re-listening to the audio of POA and was caught by the conversation where Fudge is explaining the Black/Potters backstory. He mentions that Dumbledore had a spy who alerted him that the Potters were the next target, and that sent them into hiding. I believe Snape was the spy....then, BEFORE the Potters death. Here's my theory. Snape was a double agent working for Dumbledore long before any of this. As a master occlumens (even better than LV if we believe that Snape is good) he could even have heard the entire prophecy and kept that from LV if he wanted to. His alerting DD to what was being planned for the Potters was his way of repaying the life debt to James, but it failed when Pettigrew became the secret keeper. At this point Snape was powerless to save either James or Lily without showing his hand and he has lived with that debt and guilt for 18 years. I think when the books are resolved we will find that Snape was working hand-in-hand with DD as his right hand in the battle against LV and when Snape is sacrificed (gives himself up to save Harry) they will all be ashamed of what they thought of him when the truth of his role/involvement comes out. OK.....let me have it.... From celizwh at intergate.com Tue May 1 23:55:26 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 23:55:26 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168211 Dana: > Harry saving Snape that would be a really > big bang considering. houyhnhnm: My Heart's Desire for DH. Harry saving Snape would create enough love magic to turn Voldemort into a sticky brown puddle. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue May 1 23:58:19 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:58:19 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470705011658q5bf45602l8b5e4bf479fb9006@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168212 Some of the posters to this group forget that when asked by Lily, I believe, why Severus was tormented by the Mararuders, the reply was in essence "just because he exists," not because he did anything which I'm sure they would have been more than happy to enumerate. Barb ================= Jeremiah: Well, Barb, kids trying to be "cool" while picking on someone won't talk about thinkgs like "hw transfigured my bed sheets into dirty underwear... while I was sleeping in it!" They would, however, say something flippant and cavalier like "'cause he exists." It's a very cruel thing to say. It denotes how deeply one despises another. To address other points in this thread, yes, I too wondered how James learned Levicorpus but I would assume, as Remus & Sirius say to Harry that it is one of those spells that became popular. Snape does say that Harry's dad used Snape's inventions against him (Snape). I'm sure Snape shared some "secrets" and that one got around. It may even be a reason Snape became such a loner. We don't know yet. I never questioned Jame's words because I have heard them before from bullies. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 23:24:09 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 23:24:09 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168213 Dana: To some extend I understood what she said but not in relation to the revelation of book 6, because JKR does not have to wait till book 7 to reveal Snape's loyalties. This is what JKR says about book 6 "Book 6 will be a "time for answers, not more questions and clues ." http://www.accio-quote.org/themes/book6.htm This means that the mystery and the big bang she is referring to doesn't have to be about Snape and of course she doesn't mind everybody thinking it will be because it will prevent people actually being busy with unravelling the true conclusion and the big bang of the series. *** Montavilla47: I looked up that quote, which I found with a bit more context. This is a bit more of the quotation: "A lot happens in the sixth book and a lot of questions are answered. I really have a sense that we are nearly there and it is time for answers, not more questions and clues, although obviously there are a few clues as I am not quite finished yet." And this is where I found it: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 Based on the larger quotation, I tend to disagree with your conclusion that we are done with Snape as a mystery. The thing we got answers about in HBP was how Voldemort was able to survive the rebounded Avada Kadavra. We also got answers to a few side issues, such as where Wormtail has been, how Snape survived his initial visit to Voldmort, whether Ron and Hermione ever get together, etc. Montavilla47 From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Wed May 2 01:29:34 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 01:29:34 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168214 eggplant wrote: > I realize almost everybody on this list wants Harry to live, but they > also want book 7 to be as good as it's possible to be. I believe these two wishes are incompatible. A good work or art should tie your > emotions into a knot and Harry's death would do exactly that. Kvapost: Come on now ;)), JKR is not exactly Stephen King. I'd rather see her write something knot-tyeing about Harry meeting his parents behind the Veil (and then blissfully coming back). Eggplant: > Imagine just for the sake of argument that in 80 days or so as you > come to the end of the book you suddenly realize that Harry Potter is > dead; and we don't see him cavorting with his parents and Dumbledore > in the afterlife, no, he's just dead. I believe that moment will stick with you. Kvapost, who imagined this: Nope, it won't stick with me, I actually do not read and re-read HP series because of Harry, he doesn't interest me much as a character and it's be just disappointing. It'd rob me of living years and years daydreaming about possible parallel world, the WW, somewhere close, and (glancing at HP series on my bookshelf) wondering about "what is Harry and all the characters are up to now". :) After all, the series is set up in present time, we're Harry's contemporaries. :) Don't tell me he's fictional, I know that. Kvapost, who prefers life anyday From celizwh at intergate.com Wed May 2 01:50:33 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 01:50:33 -0000 Subject: Snape as Ultimate Hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168215 -SKosmoskijr: > He mentions that Dumbledore had a spy who alerted him > that the Potters were the next target, and that sent them > into hiding.I believe Snape was the spy....then, BEFORE > the Potters death. Here's my theory. > Snape was a double agent working for Dumbledore long > before any of this. As a master occlumens (even better > than LV if we believe that Snape is good) he could even > have heard the entire prophecy and kept that from LV if > he wanted to. houyhnhnm: I think you are right about Snape being the one who alerted Dumbledore to the fact that the Potters were being targeted. It just seems so glaringly obvious. It's the other shoe. If Snape came to DD out of remorse over his contribution to the Potters' peril--and there is no reason to doubt the truthfulness of that statement, only that it tells the whole story--then it seems very likely that he brought that information to Dumbledore and that he continued to report anything he could learn about the Potter conspiracy. I agree, too, that there is something dodgy about the two accounts of the eavesdropping incident we've been presented with. The problem with Snape knowing the entire prophecy is that DD tells Harry in the Weasley's shed that the only two people *in the whole world* who know the entire prophecy are standing in that smelly, spidery broom shed. So that lets out Snape unless 1. *Harry* hasn't been told the whole prophecy and the two people in question are Dumbledore and SpiderAnimagus!Snape on DD's hat. (I like this one a lot.) 2. Dumbledore is already dead and Snape is impersonating him. 3. Dumbledore is lying. (He has promised never to tell Harry an outright lie and I believe him.) 4. DD is still alive but Snape is impersonating him. Snape made no such promise. 5. Snape heard *most* of the prophecy, but missed the last few words that were basically restating the beginning. He knows more than he told Voldemort, but he didn't hear *all* of the prophecy, so what DD told Harry was not technically a lie. (The most plausible possibility, I suppose.) I can't think of any more. From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Wed May 2 02:00:54 2007 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 19:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book?. Message-ID: <529705.9801.qm@web81202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168216 Witherwing: Are the Weasleys, the largest wizard family in sight, likely to remain in tact by the end of the war? I fear for Molly, partly because of *The Woes of Mrs. Weasley" (chapter nine, OotP) - if she is living in constant fear of her loved-ones dying, maybe it would be kinder to have her die first, and partly because I think the impact on the family would be enormous, and our sympathies great. I hope it is either both of the twins, or neither, because facing the rest of one's life without one's twin sounds merciless. -Witherwing From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 02:16:59 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 02:16:59 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168217 > >>Betsy wrote: > > So you're saying that branding the face of a teenage girl for > > listening to her family rather than the popular kids is *always* a > > good idea, and perfectly civilized too. > > > >>dan: > I said neither "always"... Betsy Hp: Eep, no you didn't. I'm um, not really sure why I threw the "always" in there. Heh, I even emphasized it for some odd reason. Sorry about that. > >>dan: > nor did I separate the act of marking Marietta from her real and > actual betrayal. It's not theoretical. No act is theoretical, ever. > It's an act or it's a theory. Rowling abhors the theoretical, I'd > say. Did Harry theorize about saving the others in the lake, in the > second task? He did not theorize, he just did it, instinctively, > cause he's got good heart and wants to help people. No system of > beliefs is going to create that in and/or for him, or anyone else, > and the act is more important than a library of instructive or > moralistic literature. Betsy Hp: Okay. Except Hermione doesn't intinctively brand Marietta with a rather long lasting mark. She researches, plans and lies to have the mark occur. So while there *is* an action there's thinking or theorizing as well. And I do disagree with the dismissal you seem to be giving to the act of thinking or theorizing. While action is important I think the action of thinkers is far more powerful and probably more likely to be positive than the knee-jerk or instinctual actions of non-thinking folks. (Though of course this isn't always the case.) I'd like to think that if Hermione had discussed the hidden trap she was put into the DA sign up sheet, Ron and Harry may have talked her out of it. (Or they might not have. Sometimes both boys are a bit too comfortable with cruelty, IMO.) > >>dan: > To be clear, I am trying to explicate what Rowling is saying, not > judge her for her ethical understanding, though I suspect she is > pretty much right on, in my opinion. Rowling's ethic is another > discussion, which, while it may be the majority of some threads, is > entirely irrelevant to what I am interested in in terms of the > literary use of magic. > > ...in Rowling, of course, magic is to be taken quite literally - > all the normal problems of adolescence and marriage, of society in > general, are dealt with by magic - she turns magic into an > instrument, a machine, so the humdrum can be dispensed with, and > just the exciting, important parts of life can be discussed - > starting with politics. Betsy Hp: Hmm, while I agree that magic in literature can (and most often does) stand in for a lot of different things, can help children codify and comprehend some major life concepts (death, fear, sexuality, puberty, etc.), I do have a hard time seeing the magic in Potterverse doing such things. Maybe because, despite the setting, Potterverse seems to *lack* a great deal of magic to me. It's such a bleak and brutal world, and not in a fairytale kind of way. I personally see more magic in "The Secret Garden" where in a literal way no actual magic exists. On a different note, it's very hard for me to seperate ethics from politics. I cannot determine whether a political philosophy is viable for me unless I can determine its ethical stand, both theoretically and practically. So for me personally, I cannot try and grasp JKR's political message (if there is one) unless I also grapple with the ethics involved. > >>dan: > I don't think Rowling is writing a critic of pure technique, or > anything like that at all. She's writing a series of books where our > hero only proceeds by breaking rules, challenging authority, forcing > the issue at every turn, being confrontational, taking big risks, in > the face of complacency by the ministry, agents of darkness in > positions of power close to him and his friends (some of the DA > teachers, for example), state ordered repression and quite possibly > assasination attempts on his life (Umbridge), well-meaning but > impotent adult mentor figures (the Order). Betsy Hp: But the problem is that I also see JKR writing a series of books where the hero defines himself by and is dependent upon one the most powerful authority figures in the books. Where the hero uses stereotyping, elitism and cronyism to determine whether people are "with him" or "against him". And where the rights of those who are "against him" are dismissed as non-existent. > >>dan: > He does this by stepping outside the bounds of this or that theory, > this or that instruction. Betsy Hp: Well, I'm not going to argue that Harry is a thinking man. > >>dan: > Courage, love, friendship, says Rowling, courage most of all. It was > even courage let him follow the thoughts of Voldemort, and save > Arthur, in spite of all the advice to ignore such things. Betsy Hp: And it was courage that lead Harry and his friends into the hands of adult DeathEaters, where most of his friends were injured, one was tortured, and his Godfather was killed. The flip side of the "courage" coin, and the danger of not thinking things through. JKR is actually pretty consistent in giving with one hand, and taking with the other. > >>Betsy: > > I would *never* betray my family. Never. > >>dan: > But heroes do, in literature, very definitely betray their families, > sometimes - Faramir, for example, or Sirius, even Seamus, and some > hope Draco. Betsy Hp: Huh? Faramir *betrayed* his family? (I could well be mis- remembering here. I'm not nearly as knowledgable about the LotR series as others on this list. I'll be interested to hear if this is correct.) But on to Potterverse characters... Sirius does betray his family. And he and his family all end in death and destruction. The story of the house of Black is a tragic tale. As is the story about the house of Crouch for that matter. Another tragic end to a family where son betrays his father (and mother for that matter). I honestly hope Draco *doesn't* take that particular path. I have a feeling that if he has to turn his back on his family (especially after all the hell he went through to *protect* his family) the Malfoy house will end tragically as well. I'd prefer to think Draco will continue his appointed role of family saviour and perhaps bring his family out of Voldemort's grasp and onto a better path. Oh, and Seamus doesn't betray his mother. He *disagrees* with her, and IIRC, persuades her to change her mind. But he doesn't betray her. Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Wed May 2 02:39:01 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 02:39:01 -0000 Subject: DH: The cellphone on Rowling's website In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168218 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Punch in the correct phone number on the cell phone > and you are taken to an early draft for PS. Here's > what I am wondering: Assuming that Rowling had the > ending of the story in mind from the beginning and it > was only how to get there that was subject to revision, > is there anything the early draft can reveal about the > plot resolution in DH? > > Spoiler******************** > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > A > H > E > A > D********************************************* houyhnhnm: Well, here's what I think. I think the philosopher's stone is going to turn out to be more important than I had thought and will figure in the solution to one or more mysteries in DH. Many people will have gotten there already, I don't doubt, but I had always thought of the PS as nothing more than the MacGuffin of book one. The second thought that ocurred to me is the possibility of Dumbledore using the elixir himself, and the one or two other examples of wizards living into extreme old age being just instances of misdirection. If Dumbledore began to die when the stone was destroyed (He was much younger than Nicolas Flamel, after all, and may have been able to last a few years longer), then the question of guilt for his death is moot. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed May 2 03:04:47 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 03:04:47 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168219 - > > wynnleaf > > > So if we are going to take Snape's word about the cutting spell he > > sees the effects of in HBP as being a Dark Magic spell, then I > don't > > think we can legitimately discard his word that the parchment he > > held in his hands in POA and which could for itself, was Dark > also. > > > > The net result is that Snape created the Sectumsempra spell as a > > teenager and he identifies that spell as Dark Magic. The Marauders > > created the Marauders Map as teenagers and Snape also identified > > that as Dark Magic. His attitude when making both accusations > > toward Harry is similar and he seems to be giving his serious and > > honest assessment. I don't think it's a fair argument to say > > Snape's right about the cutting spell he saw on Draco, in believing > > Dark Magic was used to cause the injuries, but wrong about the > > parchment that can think for itself being Dark Magic. > > Alla: > > Snipped rather liberally, but I believe the point I am replying to is > here. My assesment of Sectusemptra as Dark has nothing to do with > Snape indentifying it as such, definitely not. Therefore I think > Snape's identifying of Map as dark is irrelevant for all intents and > purposes. It is of course only my opinion, but I of course disregard > his evaluation of Map as dark and identify Sectusemptra as dark > because Malfoy could have bled to death. wynnleaf JKR has not outlined for us *what* makes something Dark Magic. Katie Bell isn't bleeding, but the necklace was Dark Magic. Crucio doesn't cause bleeding, but pain. On the other hand, so can other spells that aren't necessarily Dark. Crucio is Dark and Stupify is not, and I'm not sure why. Crucio is also an unforgivable in part because there's no countercurse, but a lot more is Dark than unforgivables. Imperius is Dark, but doesn't kill or physically injure. Instead it controls a person. My point is that we don't really know what makes something Dark and something else not Dark. I agree that in all likelihood, as soon as Snape sees all that blood pouring out *that's* what makes him think it Dark Magic, even perhaps before he's realized exactly which spell -- his own -- did it. But just because we can fairly easily theorize what makes Sectumsempra Dark doesn't mean that we can assume that the Map is not Dark, or at least that it's elements of thinking for itself and acting as a universal voyeur to the castle doesn't have at least Dark elements. Carol I'm not quite sure what Snape was up to by suggesting that the Marauder's Map was dark magic, but I think what he really suspected was that Lupin had some connection with it. wynnleaf While it may be true that Snape only accused Harry of using a Dark object just to get at Lupin, in the same way we could theorize that Snape only accused Harry of using Dark Magic on Draco (an accusation he made prior to seeing that Harry got the spell out of the potions book), in order to find a way to berate him even further. We don't actually *know* whether the cut on James is a small form of Sectumsempra -- which after all means "cut always" not "bleed always," so we needn't expect James to keep bleeding -- or some other spell entirely. We don't know if Snape was being completely sincere in calling Sectumsempra "Dark" (I assume he is), but if we are going to assume that Snape was sincere about that to the extent that we start judging teen!Snape on inventing it, then we ought to at least consider that Snape could be just as sincere in calling the Map Dark, in which case we ought to consider wondering about the Marauders as well. Point is, the readers aren't the authorities on what's Dark or not, JKR is. And she has made Snape an expert on the subject, yet has not shared that expert knowledge with the reader. If Snape says one spell is Dark and another object is Dark, why should we use one such pronouncement to judge him by, while tossing the other aside as not possibly dark because we, the readers, didn't see any blood and we'd like to assume Snape probably didn't mean it? If we want to believe Snape was sincere about one, but not the other, fine. But I wouldn't then go further and take only the assessment that suits our version of who we want to see in a negative spin, and apply his assessment to that person, while disregarding his assessment that affects the other person(s). To me, it starts to get arbitrary. Carol In contrast, when Snape asks Harry where he learned such Dark magic (Sectumsempra), he knows whereof he speaks. wynnleaf We don't know whether Snape walked into the bathrooms and thought "lots of slashes and blood. This must be the result of Dark Magic," or "that's the results of Sectumsempra! Nothing else has that effect," and already knowing Sectumsempra was Dark, Snape knew Harry had used Dark Magic. See? We don't know if Snape automatically identified Sectumsempra, or if he only knew that all the blood indicated *some* sort of Dark spell and it took looking into Harry's mind to figure out exactly which spell he'd actually used. So Snape may have initially decided Dark Magic was in use, not because he knew at once he'd created the spell, but because he recognized Dark effects (just like Alla said even she knew it must be Dark). In a similar way, he could have been recognizing Dark aspects of the parchment (map). By the way, I *don't* think he knew it was something connected with Lupin. "Moony" could have been a hint if Snape noticed, because he knew Lupin was a werewolf, but the other names would just be confusing. If Snape had really thought the parchment was some strange device of Lupin's, I don't think he'd have even called Lupin in. I think he'd have investigated the parchment himself. Would Snape really think that Lupin would floo over and tell him all about it, if it was something of Lupin's? Certainly not! That is of course just my opinion and I do realize that one could be read several ways. wynnleaf From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed May 2 03:35:25 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 03:35:25 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168220 wyynleaf: > By the way, I *don't* think he knew it was something connected with > Lupin. "Moony" could have been a hint if Snape noticed, because he > knew Lupin was a werewolf, but the other names would just be > confusing. zgirnius: Actually, Snape should know that Prongs was James Potter, as well. Sirius used the nickname right in the middle of Snape's Worst Memory (I mean the part of it where Snape is being attacked - so he certainly heard it). Not to mention that Sirius's public use of the nickname in front of half the year suggests he commonly used it in public. When he says 'directly from the manufacturers', I think he means the Marauders. He probably figures Harry may have inherited it. I also think he may well also have recognized the style of insult preferred by the manufacturers. I always thought his reason for dragging Lupin into it was similar to his typical style of dealing with Harry's transgressions - giving him a chance to come clean. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed May 2 03:36:28 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 23:36:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott References: Message-ID: <009501c78c6b$133072c0$aa8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168221 > Betsy Hp: > Huh? Faramir *betrayed* his family? (I could well be mis- > remembering here. I'm not nearly as knowledgable about the LotR > series as others on this list. I'll be interested to hear if this is > correct.) Magpie: I would never think of Faramir as betraying his father. He disagrees with him. It seems like there's a big difference between doing something somebody doesn't want you to do and actual betrayal. Faramir and his father are on the same side throughout. Faramir just thinks it's more important to do what's right than to follow his father's wishes on this thing. I get the same impression as you do about the families in the Potterverse, though, that families are important. The hatred in the Black family seems like something that generally caused pain and misery and death for all involved. And I wouldn't be surprised if JKR intentionally had Draco look after his family's interest. Dumbledore is offering to protect all three of them, perhaps only to get Draco. But I did get the feeling that Rowling was for once showing how Draco's love for his family could be a strength and maybe wouldn't consider it a step in the right direction for him to want to ditch them, as he often does in fanfic. -m From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 03:48:28 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 03:48:28 -0000 Subject: Meaning/Translation of "stopper death" In-Reply-To: <003c01c78c37$b0901130$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168222 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > As far as I recall it, in every discussion up to now "stopper > death" was interpreted as 'to stop death' or 'to put a stop to > death'. That was my understanding as well - but yesterday I watched > the German version of the film, and they translated it "den Tod > verkorken" - that's "to cork death". > > I'm not a native speaker, but this translation/understanding seems > to be reasonable. To brew a potion, to bottle it - and to put a > stopper into the bottle. zanooda: I'm not a native speaker either, so I won't even try to discuss what meanings the word "stopper" can have, but I can tell you that it was translated the same way into Russian. I wouldn't trust their translators much, but in this case I don't blame them, because English-Russian dictionaries give only one meaning of this word - stopper (noun) means cork, stopper (verb) means to cork a bottle. So they (Germans as well as Russians) just translated it literally. I bought PS in French a couple of days ago, and their translation of this passage is even more straitforward. Snape says that he can "enfermer la mort dans un flacon". Unlike English, German and Russian, French include the word "flagon" (flacon) into this expression, so it definitely sounds like Snape puts death (mort) into a bottle (flacon) and then corks the bottle. This is all just to give you information on some other languages for comparison, because, honestly, I don't think it is important how translators understood what JKR wrote, the important thing is what *she* meant when she wrote it :-). From belviso at attglobal.net Wed May 2 03:54:35 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 23:54:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization/Stopper Death References: Message-ID: <00a501c78c6d$99fe4410$aa8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168223 >> Magpie: >> I thought part of Betsy's point was that working "for good" was >> important, but that it wasn't all there was to it. People can think >> they are working for good or be working for good and still do > things >> wrong--and of course, deciding who's working for good and who's >> working for evil, in the real world, sometimes depends on what side >> you're on. It's probably not a good idea to just decide that >> whatever X says is the right thing is right, especially if you > don't >> really know X, and yet there is an element of that here. From >> Marietta's pov she's probably not doing what you're saying she's >> doing. > > > Alla: > > Well, yes, I agree with what you are saying RL wise. I do not > necessarily agree about that in Potterverse. I always believed that > JKR draws quite strong barriers between those working for good side > and those working for bad side and that **she** gets to decide which > side is good and which side is bad, you know? Magpie: Sure--but does her identifying the good side mean she's saying that her good side is above reproach and never makes a mistake or does anything wrong? It seems to me she does the opposite. James and Sirius seem very clearly on the good side to me, but I think she put them clearly in the wrong in the Pensieve. She even, I think, seems to have no problem with having them be bad *because* of their ideals, like by having James hate Snape for his interest in the Dark Arts and perhaps see that as justification for his own bullying. So sure there is difference in things that the two characters are doing. It's not just that we would like Draco to change sides because he'd be coming to the good side, while we don't like Peter for changing sides because he was going to the bad side. The two of them are also doing different things. Peter was protecting his own skin, for instance, and letting his friends die to do it. If Draco had been able to take DD's offer, by contrast, he would be rejecting murder for glory while still caring about his family. I think JKR has a very clear idea of the good and bad sides--but I think she's also very in control of what people are doing moment to moment and I'm not sure she thinks the good guys always have to be right. And even if she did think somebody was right or wrong, a reader could disagree. For instance, if JKR thought James was awesome in bullying James in the Pensieve because she hates Snape, it wouldn't become right just because it's her universe. Some things are always going to be subjective. Alla: > Have you read Martin's "Songs of Ice and Fire"? Magpie: I haven't--but people have recomended it to me too. Alla: > > I believe that it is SO not the case in Potterverse, despite JKR > greying some issues in OOP and HBP. > > I honestly believe that no matter how many mistakes good guys make, > JKR does not intend to portray them as deserving same contempt as > Voldemort and Co, even if they make pretty big mistakes, you know? Magpie: I don't think so either--but I don't think it always comes down to having the same contempt. In fact, when I think back on fandom discussions, ironically, most disagreements don't even come down to Voldemort's side vs. good guys, because the actual official Voldemort people don't have much of a part. Gryffindor vs. Slytherin is more common, I'd think--though it's also sometimes Gryffindor vs. Gryffindor. And though some people do absolutely hold the Gryffindors in contempt or consider them no better than the Slytherins, in my experience more often it's more like "The Slytherins are bad here, but here's why the Gryffindors aren't impressing me here." Alla: > I mean, why would I ever feel something for Lucius Malfoy, even if he > loves his son? Magpie: Heh--well, I feel something for him. But I don't think he's good. I feel empathy for the mess he's gotten himself into, though I couldn't defend any of his actions. But that doesn't mean when I'm reading about another character I'm going to always compare him/her to Lucius in my head when judging his/her actions. Alla: > Do I think that JKR intends to forgive Lupin for those mistakes > because he is on the **right** side? > > Yes, I totally do. > > So, I guess what I am trying to say in such long winded way that JKR > does employ a double standard IMO and I see nothing bad with it "in > Potterverse" Magpie: But is it really a double standard? Because I don't think Lupin's forgiven because he's on the right side. I think JKR forgives Lupin's mistakes because she understands what he did and why and ultimately finds them forgivable. It's hard to find a situation to contrast this with because in general the guys on Voldemort's side do bad, often unforgivable things they don't regret anyway. But to take an absurd example, I don't think Lupin would be forgiven if he had been molesting students during PoA because he was on the right side. Umbridge isn't a Death Eater. She isn't on Voldemort's side--the Ministry's position is against Voldemort. But she was a bad guy. Alla: > But do I think that JKR does not intend to judge Hermione as harshly > as some other characters? Yes, I do, because I absolutely think that > even if what she did was morally wrong ( and I do not, I just > understand the argument), I think it is **nothing** in comparison to, > let's say, planning assasination attempts. Magpie: Actually based on things I've read I think many people would be fine with Hermione planning an assassination attempt because she's on the right side. But I don't think the side she's on covers it. My feelings about Draco's assassination attempt and Hermione's hex are completely different because there's a lot more factors than just what side they were on. Miles: I do not like this decision of JKR, but I agree with your observation, at least concerning the young characters. But maybe, if you see the HP series as a bildungsroman, one part of becoming adults is that the teenage heroes will have to face the consequences of their questionable actions like the adult characters in the series already have to? Which would be one twist for the final book. Magpie: I agree. Though MWPP gives me hope. It seems like many in that generation are cursed by never getting over their adolescent challenges. zanooda: I'm not a native speaker either, so I won't even try to discuss what meanings the word "stopper" can have, but I can tell you that it was translated the same way into Russian. I wouldn't trust their translators much, but in this case I don't blame them, because English-Russian dictionaries give only one meaning of this word - stopper (noun) means cork, stopper (verb) means to cork a bottle. So they (Germans as well as Russians) just translated it literally. Magpie: I've never thought of "stopper" in that sentence in English meaning anything other than this one--to cork a bottle. There is no word "to stopper" that just means to stop or cease in English. So "to stopper death" to me either means Snape is saying he can teach people how to put a cork in death (and so stop the flow) or put death in a bottle and put a cork in it. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 04:03:37 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 04:03:37 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168224 --- In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168202 > > Pippin: > > But if everyone knew about Severus's badass reputation, the laughter > wouldn't be growing as it became clear that Sirius and James were > getting the upper hand. People would be worried, as Harry usually > is when he gets the worst of Snape, that Snape would be having > his revenge. But they're obviously not. Mike: Harry is a kid facing an adult, professor Snape. Big difference between that dynamic and Snivellus as just another schoolyard kid, whether or not he had a reputation. And Neri's point seemed to me to be that Lily doesn't care *what* Snape's rep may be. I'm not sure if I'm getting what you're driving at here. Snape wasn't a bully, so James must have been one? > > Neri: > > One problem with this argument: Snape never actually > > blames James of *stealing* his spell. He only blames him of > > "turning my inventions on me", which James could have easily > > done without any knowledge that the spell was originally Snape's > > invention. > > > Pippin: > Except that Snape says, "Like your filthy father" and not, "Like > all the rest." Of course he could be wrongly blaming James Mike: But Harry's "filthy father" did use Levicorpus on Snape. That *is* what Snape accuses Harry of trying to repeat. It seems to be mostly conjecture, quite unsupported in canon, for James to be the one to have discovered this was Snape's invention. > Pippin: > But Lupin's opinion was and remains that James shouldn't have > been judged harshly because everyone said it was cool and > besides it was a vogue. > > Everyone thought it was cool???? Everyone was doing it??? > > Gimme a break! > > Any kid of mine that offered those shabby excuses would have > got himself grounded for an extra week. But it's a perfect example > of Lupin cutting his friends too much slack, IMO. Mike: I believe Lupin was responding to Harry's not-so-subtle inquiry of whether or not James may have invented the spell. I really don't see him making a judgement call on the harshness of the spell or the uses of it. What slack is Lupin cutting James in this conversation? Harry wasn't referring to any particular usage of it, and Lupin was just explaining that anybody could have been the inventor of the spell. And his remark that "you couldn't move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle" seems to imply that it was used on him too. Yet he speaks about it "reminiscently". Not as if it was some big crime to have used it. Further, if James had been the one to have swiped it from Snape, do you think Lupin would have withheld that info from Harry? Don't answer that. What am I thinking? I forgot for a minute there who I was addressing. ;D Of course he would, eh Pippin? LOL ************************************************** In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168130 > Pippin: > Knowing this, there's something disturbing about, "Forward, Neville, and finish him off!" and "the boggart exploded, burst into a thousand tiny wisps of smoke, and was gone." What would we say of Lupin's method if Neville's boggart was Jews? Mike: You are undoubtedly making reference to Salazar Moses and his distant relative Tom Solomon Riddle, who incidently grew up to be the most feared Rabbi amongst the 13 tribes. But after that rogue band of Hasidic Jews had confused and befuddled Neville's parents into becoming wandering Hari Krishna singers, unable to acknowledge Neville with his poor karma, I completely understand Neville's fear of Jews, especially those bearded ones. This may be a slight stretch here, but I am searching furiously for some canon to back me up. ;) ***************************************************** In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168201 > wynnleaf: > But earlier, in POA, Snape also accused Harry of using Dark Magic. Snape found Harry with a parchment in his hands which could, to use Arthur's words, "think for itself" including identifying the holder and insulting the holder knowing personal characteristics of the holder. Snape also immediately identifies this object as clearly Dark. Mike: Welll, by this logic, all of the paintings in the WW are Dark Magic since they can all do those things that the Map can do. wynnleaf continued: If we use the same logic as Snape's identifying of the effects of the cutting spell as Dark, we would have to say that Snape's assessment is just as seriously and honestly given as it was with Sectumsempra. Snape being a Dark Arts expert, we would have to believe his word on this just as much as his word on the cutting spell. Right? Mike: Wrong :-) Snape doesn't imply the Map of is "full of Dark Magic" until after it insults him, signing the insults with the MWPP monikers. Snape knows who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs are. The Marauders use their nicknames freely, Sirius calls James "Prongs" in SWM. Snape knew who Harry meant in OotP when he says "they've got Padfoot". Hell, even Voldemort knew who "Wormtail" was. Their nicknames are not a secret. Snape also thinks that Harry could have gotten the Map "directly from the manufacturers". I don't think there is any doubt that Snape who made the Map, even though he didn't know it was a map, at that time. wynnleaf: Sirius made it clear that he was talking about 7th year, when he said that James made sure their attacks on Snape were done away from Lily's eyes. By the way, James could not keep those attacks secret from her if a large portion were initiated by Snape - since presumably Snape had no reason to keep the attacks secret from Lily. Therefore the fact that Lily didn't ever hear about the attacks is some evidence that Snape was not initiating them in 7th year, only James. Mike: If Sirius is telling the truth about James hexing Snape on into their 7th year, then he is also telling the truth when he says, "Snape was a special case. I mean, he never lost an opportunity to curse James". Also, Sirius said that Lily "didn't know too much about it,..." Not that Lily knew *nothing* about it, just that "James didn't take Snape on dates with her and jinx him in front of her, did he?" (OotP, p.671) *************************************************** Other than waving back at him from pictures and the Mirror of Erised, the only time Harry sees his parents in close to real life is in Snape's Worst Memory. And that scene was not particularly flattering for either of them. This is why I have hope that JKR will redeem James and to a lesser degree Lily for Harry. Having said that, everyone in the scene were still teenagers, full of piss and vinegar. And it was one scene, and not suppose to reflect James nor Sirius in a very good light. It was also suppose to make us, like Harry, feel a twinge of sympathy for Snivellus, imo. Yeah, James was probably arrogant and to some degree a "bullying toerag" (quoting young Lily). And Sirius admits it. But, a short time after SWM, James pulls Severus away from the Shack and a transformed Lupin. Can such a nasty person that we see in the SWM be reformed so quickly to risk his life for the same boy that he hates just for existing? This is why I think it is unfair to completely paint young James with this dark brush, based on this one scene that JKR gave us with the intention of eliciting sympathy for Snivelly. A quick aside here. We don't know who openned the hostilities between Sevie and James. But my money is on the first year that knew more curses than half the seventh years and was part of a gang of much older Slytherins. I know that comes from Sirius, but he doesn't sound like he is fondly reminiscing about his early days at Hogwarts. No, he sounds like he's remembering him and James coming out on the short end of the stick in some early encounters. My confirmation comes in the form of Ron. He had five older brothers, a couple of them not shy about using unkind magic. Yet Ron still doesn't know diddly and can't do squat in his first year. I think James, with no older brothers, would not be in much better shape than Ron was in his early years. As Neri said, we were being set up with regards to Snape, especially in Ootp. Only to be slapped down in HBP. Were we also being set up, to a lesser degree, with regards to the young MWPP? Mike From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed May 2 04:13:47 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 04:13:47 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168225 wynnleaf > Point is, the readers aren't the authorities on what's Dark or not, > JKR is. And she has made Snape an expert on the subject, yet has not > shared that expert knowledge with the reader. If Snape says one spell > is Dark and another object is Dark, why should we use one such > pronouncement to judge him by, while tossing the other aside as not > possibly dark because we, the readers, didn't see any blood and we'd > like to assume Snape probably didn't mean it? > > If we want to believe Snape was sincere about one, but not the other, > fine. But I wouldn't then go further and take only the assessment > that suits our version of who we want to see in a negative spin, and > apply his assessment to that person, while disregarding his assessment > that affects the other person(s). To me, it starts to get arbitrary. wynnleaf I see that I have been unclear in my comments above. I do not mean that anyone that sees Snape's assessment of Darkness in one instance as an honest assessment and the other as not, is therefore applying an arbitrary call (one is important, the other is not) simply to spin a character in a negative direction. For instance, I'm not saying that Carol is trying to spin Snape in a negative way. I would have to be delirious or something! :D What concerns me is that many posters use Snape's negative assessment of Sectumsempra as an opportunity to condemn him through his own words. But when he makes negative assessments of anything regarding the Marauders, the same readers often completely reject his assessment as biased, or otherwise unreliable due to ulterior motives. wynnleaf > By the way, I *don't* think he knew it was something connected with > Lupin. "Moony" could have been a hint if Snape noticed, because he > knew Lupin was a werewolf, but the other names would just be > confusing. If Snape had really thought the parchment was some strange > device of Lupin's, I don't think he'd have even called Lupin in. I > think he'd have investigated the parchment himself. Would Snape > really think that Lupin would floo over and tell him all about it, if > it was something of Lupin's? Certainly not! That is of course just > my opinion and I do realize that one could be read several ways. zgirnius: Actually, Snape should know that Prongs was James Potter, as well. Sirius used the nickname right in the middle of Snape's Worst Memory (I mean the part of it where Snape is being attacked - so he certainly heard it). Not to mention that Sirius's public use of the nickname in front of half the year suggests he commonly used it in public. wynnleaf While you could be correct about Snape having been familiar with the nickname "Prongs," I wouldn't expect Snape to remember it from the Worst Memory unless he reviews that memory in a pensieve regularly. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect him to recall the use of a nickname in the midst of such a stressful moment. wynnleaf > From bergermeister99 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 01:51:26 2007 From: bergermeister99 at yahoo.com (bergermeister99) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 01:51:26 -0000 Subject: Snape as Ultimate Hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "SKosmoskijr" wrote: > Snape was a double agent working for Dumbledore long before any of > this. As a master occlumens (even better than LV if we believe that > Snape is good) he could even have heard the entire prophecy and kept > that from LV if he wanted to. His alerting DD to what was being > planned for the Potters was his way of repaying the life debt to > James, but it failed when Pettigrew became the secret keeper. At this > point Snape was powerless to save either James or Lily without showing > his hand and he has lived with that debt and guilt for 18 years. I > think when the books are resolved we will find that Snape was working > hand-in-hand with DD as his right hand in the battle against LV and > when Snape is sacrificed (gives himself up to save Harry) they will > all be ashamed of what they thought of him when the truth of his > role/involvement comes out. bergermeister99: That is not a bad theory. I will just say this(and people have probably already thought of this). To have DD completely trust Snape, there is only one possible thing that Snape could have done. Snape invoked and took the unbreakable vow with Dumbledore to protect Harry Potter by what ever means(even if that meant having to kill Dumbledore) This is evident in book one when Snape tries to save Harry from falling off his broom during quidditch. It also makes sense in that Snape couldn't have hurt Harry in the end of Book 6. People will say that Snape said that LV wanted Harry for himself, but we know that is not the real reason. If LV wanted him for himself then he would have not tried to get professor Quirrel to kill Harry in book 1. So, unless JKR says different, it doesn't say anywhere that a person can't bind themselves to 2 non conflicting unbreakable vows. From toonmili at yahoo.com Wed May 2 04:06:53 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 04:06:53 -0000 Subject: Snape as Ultimate Hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168227 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "SKosmoskijr" wrote: > I think when the books are resolved we will find that Snape was > working hand-in-hand with DD as his right hand in the battle against > LV and when Snape is sacrificed (gives himself up to save Harry) they > will all be ashamed of what they thought of him when the truth of his > role/involvement comes out. Tonmili: The title really attracted me this post. I believe that Snape will be the one to kill Voldemort. I don't think Harry can kill anyone, even Voldemort. Harry will destroy all the Horcruxes but it will be Snape to do the deed. I always have related the image of Snape destroying the snake in COS to Snape killing Voldemort. I think Harry and Snape will have thier peace before either die. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 2 04:39:34 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 04:39:34 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book?. In-Reply-To: <529705.9801.qm@web81202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168228 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Scalf wrote: > > Witherwing: > > Are the Weasleys, the largest wizard family in sight, > likely to remain in tact by the end of the war? > > I fear for Molly, partly because of *The Woes of Mrs. > Weasley" (chapter nine, OotP) - if she is living in > constant fear of her loved-ones dying, maybe it would > be kinder to have her die first. > > I hope it is either both of the twins, or neither, > because facing the rest of one's life without one's > twin sounds merciless. > > -Witherwing JW: The chapter cited above is the foreshadowing that makes me certain that at least one Weasley will die. In fact, if I read the book only to learn that all Weasleys survive, I will assume I had been the victim of a hoax, and will go out to seek a copy of the REAL book. Witherwing's (the reader, not the character) reaction to the possibility of either Fred or George (not both) not surviving is very typical among readers. I am therefore 90% sure that is how it will go down, for the sake of generating maximum drama. Similarly, no characters should make any long-term loans to Hagrid. If RH does survive (low probability imho), it will be because Grawp saves him in an act of sacrifice. More probably, Hagrid's death incites Grawp into a rage that results in a significant turning point in a siege of Hogwarts, or some other dramatic battle. Thankfully, this will justify the story of Grawp written in OOTP. Without such justification in DH, we might all conclude that JKR should have cut that story out and saved a lot of trees (the fictional ones Grawp destroyed and the real ones that were killed in printing millions of books). Hagrid's death was foreshadowed by Aragog's funeral scene at Hagrid's hut. I interpret another hint in the quotes from the interview in which JKR names the characters with whom she would want to have dinner. From ida3 at planet.nl Wed May 2 05:12:43 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 05:12:43 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168229 > Montavilla47: > > I looked up that quote, which I found with a bit more context. > This is a bit more of the quotation: > > "A lot happens in the sixth book and a lot of questions are > answered.I really have a sense that we are nearly there and it is > time for answers, > not more questions and clues, although obviously there are a few > clues as I am not quite finished yet." > > And this is where I found it: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 > > Based on the larger quotation, I tend to disagree with your conclusion > that we are done with Snape as a mystery. > > The thing we got answers about in HBP was how Voldemort was able to > survive the rebounded Avada Kadavra. We also got answers to a few > side issues, such as where Wormtail has been, how Snape survived his > initial visit to Voldmort, whether Ron and Hermione ever get together, etc. > > Montavilla47 Dana: When she said your left with a mystery at the end of the book, she could very well have been talking about R.A.B. because that is the mystery that it left at the book. I'm not trying to persuide you to think otherwise about there being more to Snape then HBP has shown us but JKR's hints can be interpretted in many different ways too, it is not proof that it will all be about Snape and to be honest I do not think it will be but that is just my opinion. Dana From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed May 2 05:30:54 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 05:30:54 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168230 > Dana: > I'm not trying to persuide you to think otherwise about there being > more to Snape then HBP has shown us but JKR's hints can be > interpretted in many different ways too, it is not proof that it will > all be about Snape and to be honest I do not think it will be but > that is just my opinion. zgirnius: It seems to me that a better indication about Snape's role and importance in DH is not interview comments which are generalizations about Book 6, but what she has actually said about Snape and Book 7. Because she went on record about it right after HBP was published. > Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet Interview: > MA: OK, big big big book six question. Is Snape evil? > JKR: [Almost laughing] Well, you've read the book, what do you think? > ES: She's trying to make you say it categorically. > MA: Well, there are conspiracy theorists, and there are people who will claim - > JKR: Cling to some desperate hope [laughter] - > ES: Yes! > MA: Yes! > ES: Like certain shippers we know! >JKR: Well, okay, I'm obviously ? Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort. I can't answer that question because it's a spoiler, isn't it, whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that I can't. And let's face it, it's going to launch 10,000 theories and I'm going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I'm evil but I just like the theories, I love the theories. zgirnius: I conclude from this first, that Rowling does consider Snape's loyalties at the end of Book 6 to be one of the mysteries she has put into the books. Both because she refuses to answer the question, and because she states that the answer is a spoiler. My other conclusion is that Snape will play an important role in Book 7, he's not going to be dropped, with his role ended. Because Harry cares about him now, perhaps even more than he cares about Voldemort. And they will meet in person in the book, in a scene that is bound to be dramatic, interesting, and important to the story. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 2 05:52:57 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:52:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who do you think will die in the last book?. In-Reply-To: References: <529705.9801.qm@web81202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0705012252o168d80bby88af5092019242f1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168231 Eggplant: I realize almost everybody on this list wants Harry to live, but they also want book 7 to be as good as it's possible to be. I believe these two wishes are incompatible. A good work or art should tie your emotions into a knot and Harry's death would do exactly that. Lynda: As would many many other possible storyline/plot twists. Harry's death just isn't the only possible way to end the book and still have it be a "good work of art". Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 2 06:43:01 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 06:43:01 -0000 Subject: Meaning/Translation of "stopper death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168233 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > > > As far as I recall it, in every discussion up to now "stopper > > death" was interpreted as 'to stop death' or 'to put a stop to > > death'. That was my understanding as well - but yesterday I watched > > the German version of the film, and they translated it "den Tod > > verkorken" - that's "to cork death". > > > > I'm not a native speaker, but this translation/understanding seems > > to be reasonable. To brew a potion, to bottle it - and to put a > > stopper into the bottle. > > > zanooda: > > I'm not a native speaker either, so I won't even try to discuss what > meanings the word "stopper" can have, but I can tell you that it was > translated the same way into Russian. I wouldn't trust their > translators much, but in this case I don't blame them, because > English-Russian dictionaries give only one meaning of this word - > stopper (noun) means cork, stopper (verb) means to cork a bottle. So > they (Germans as well as Russians) just translated it literally. Geoff: Th definition in my dictionary is: "Stopper > noun 1 a plug for sealing a hole 2 a person or thing that stops > verb seal with a stopper." As a native UK English speaker, I would use the noun as probably a glass top or cork in a bottle and in its use in "Philosopher's Stone", Snape is most certainly using it as a verb. It is one of a series of verbs used, all used metaphorically..... "...to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death..." (PS "The Potions Master"p.102 UK edition) From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed May 2 06:49:48 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 06:49:48 -0000 Subject: JKR question about Cloak (Was: Concealment - a MAJOR Motif) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168234 "julie" wrote: > > Aussie now: > > > > I have looked for theories about the never asked question to > JKR ... > > Why did DD have the Invisibility Cloak if he could be invisible > > without it? ... > > > > Neville, however, was a very important person to hide. > > > > DD was not sure if the Potter's or Longbottom's son was the target, > > so both would have been hidden. > > Julie: > ... If or when Voldemort found their (Potter's) hiding place > they could hide under the cloak (or if it's not large enough > for all three, at least Lily and Harry). Unless Voldemort > has the power to see through the cloak (which I don't recall > reading), then he'd assume the Potters had moved on to a > new hiding place. ... > > ... while the IC could have been used to protect Neville, > why wouldn't the Longbottoms also be in a safe house > with a Secret Keeper--Dumbledore perhaps--protecting its > location?) > Aussie: Voldemort himself is the greatest Occlemist in the WW. Unless those under the IC were stunned, Voldy could find them even without Mad Eye Moody's eyeball. The Longbottoms were Aurers. At that time of Death Eaters attacking everywhere, they couldn't disappear without the contents of the professy becoming known. ... And are we any closer to know WHY DD HAD THE CLOAK? From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed May 2 07:28:35 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 07:28:35 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168235 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > on James can't be Sectumsempra. He is not "cut always." ... > There's no indication that he's even still > bleeding as he speaks to Lily.) > Aussie: I agree. The "sempra" part is "always". So the spell in the memory was the little brother of "Sectumsempra". But was that ... and for that matter ... all the notaions in the Potions book from young Severus? Why not from his dear sweet mother? Lupin suggested to check the edition's date and worked out it pre- dated Severus. It would have been Elaine's and many of the notaions hers as well. I seem to remember someone saying Snape came to Hogwarts knowing more Dark spells than most older kids. His mummy must have been quite a Dark Teacher herself. Getting back to Sectumsempra, what enemies was that for? for the werewolf? ... Snape still had the Potions book in the cabinet, so may have refered to and added notations through the years .. not just in his 6th year at Hogwarts. --------------------------- And about the Map being Dark ... what if the Map was one of the few good things that Pettigrew could do? It may have been Peter's Dark Journey. I think this because some areas don't show on the map - Hagrid's Hut (since Peter could hide there undetected) - Room of Requirements (since Draco disappeared off the map) - Chamber of Secrets (the twins would have searched for Ginny and not found her) To plot places on the map, the drawer has to be there to add it in. So how come Slytherin's Common Room shows up? Could the Rat have sneaked in? If the Map was mainly Peter's doing and was truely Dark, I wonder when Peter started his course towards the Dark side (oops, Did i just use a line from Star Wars?) Aussie From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 2 08:28:34 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:28:34 -0000 Subject: Some Pointers? (Incorporating Re: JKR question about Cloak) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168236 > Aussie: > Voldemort himself is the greatest Occlemist in the WW. Goddlefrood: He's only stated as being a good Legilimens, one of the best two, he and DD ;). That he may have good Occlumency skills too is not actually established, although he did something that prevented the link to Harry that prevailed throughout OotP by the time HBP opened. This is clear from Harry's own thoughts on the subject and is confirmed by DD to Harry. There's too little to go on to state with certainty, IOW, if LV is a good Occlumens or not. What is clear enough is that some are good at one cognitive type skill without necesarily being good at the other (meaning Occlumency and Legilimency, just for clarity). > Aussie: > The Longbottoms were Aurers. At that time of Death Eaters > attacking everywhere, they couldn't disappear without the > contents of the professy becoming known. Goddlefrood: Well, agreed the Longbottoms were Aurors, but the attack on them took place about a year after LV's downfall at Godric's Hollow. >From the Pensieve scene relative to the four culprits who tortured Frank and Alice into insanity I formed the impression that Bella, her husband and her brother-in-law had been suspected of having been DEs after LV's downfall, but like Lucius, had got off on an Imperius Curse defence. Barty Crouch Jnr, in my divination had not been suspected of being a DE prior to his having been caught together with Bella. Even during their sentencing proceedings it is clear that the most surprised person in the Chamber is Barty Crouch Snr, despite his efforts to keep things businesslike. He may never have fully believed his son was a DE, at least until the point where he was killed ;) by him. This is not an unusual viewpoint that I take, it is strengthened somewhat by the circumstances surrounding the swap of Barty Jnr and his mother. If Barty Snr is to be accepted on face value as having been the most obsessed dark wizard catcher, which his son in the guise of Mad-Eye says (so maybe not a wholly unbiased testimony :)), then is it likely that he would have capitulated, and he did capitulate, to his wife's dying request and sprung Barty Jnr from Azkaban ?. It certainly left an odd feeling with this reader ;) Why could the Longbottoms not have disappeared without the contents of the Prophecy becoming known? Perhaps you might care to expand somewhat on that point and clarify it. It is, after all, established canon, and barring other speculations for the purposes of this reply, that Dumbledore and Harry were the only two to know the full contents of the same. While JKR has said something about Neville being the other boy to whom the Prophecy could have referred, it has not been said that any whom the Prophecy may have concerned were aware of its contents back in the day, except perhaps in a vague way that meant they may have known that to remain in the open was not a good idea ;) > Aussie: > ... And are we any closer to know WHY DD HAD THE CLOAK? Goddlefrood: Not so far :), but we are to divine why DD had the Invisibility Cloak when HE HIMSELF could become invisible without one. I have had some thoughts on this previously, although I have chosen to keep them obscured from all but a select few, thus far ;) I'll not go too deeply into the reasoning behind what follows, but to put it simply James may have given his cloak to DD for several reasons, some of which are in this list: (i) DD had asked to borrow it for some Order business, perhaps so that someone could keep an eye on something, like in OotP with the DoM entrance. (ii) Same as above, but so that someone could keep an eye on the general location of someone or some people who were thought in need of having an eye kept on them. This could well even include a person or persons hidden by a certain charm, it would be safe enough to posit, as I do, that it is not necessary to see a *particular* location in order to be able to keep watch over the general area of that *particular* location in case some visitors who were not supposed to be in that general area showed up uninvited (except by rats ;)) (iii) James may have given it because he had no use for it himself at the time, although this may seem less likely. (iv) At the more bizarre end of the scale James may have given it to DD because his need for it was greater than James's as James had some inkling of and preparedness for his own death. Why then let LV get his hands on it? Give it to DD for safekeeping to later pass it on to Harry, which he in fact did do in PS/SS. All the above have problems, not the least of which is that Mad-Eye also probably had one or two Invisibility Cloaks lying around ;). Would this meet the case, perhaps? Any other thoughts out there? Goddlefrood wondering if Barty Jnr may turn up as a leading Dementor or Inferi in DH :-? From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 2 08:42:30 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:42:30 -0000 Subject: Some Pointers? (Incorporating Re: JKR question about Cloak) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168237 > Goddlefrood: > That he may have good Occlumency skills too is not actually > established, although he did something that prevented the > link to Harry that prevailed throughout OotP by the time HBP > opened. This is clear from Harry's own thoughts on the subject > and is confirmed by DD to Harry. Goddlefrood: Doh, yes LV did use Occlumency against Harry to sever the mind link (or is that a different book altogether :-?). It is not clear, though, that he is the greatest Occlumens as stated in an earlier post I hope that's now clear to you, Goddlefrood, in case you hadn't noticed earlier #-o From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 2 10:24:35 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 10:24:35 -0000 Subject: The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168239 There seem to be basically two schools of thought here about the prophecies; one insists that the first prophecy is incomplete and has possibly been "doctored" by Dumbledore and others who equally insist that it is complete. I suspect that we all accept the second prophecy to be complete because Harry heard it himself and we, as readers, are totally privy to that revelation. In the case of the earlier message, some group members place a great deal of emphasis on the use of ellipses in the wording and suggest that they indicate missing sections. I had an on-group and off-list discussion with Carol about its wording. In the UK Bloomsbury editions ? which I am inclined to consider `primus inter pares' ? the OOTP prophecy only contains capital letters when referring to the Dark Lord and for the very first word of the message. Where an ellipsis occurs, except for the last one where Trelawney begins to repeat the prophecy, it is possible to read straight through them to give one sentence, albeit a rather lengthy one with a lot of conjunctions. I personally doubt that a sensible clause could have been removed from an originally extended message. Just a couple of notes to reinforce my view about the messages being complete. Like some other members, I doubt whether Dumbledore intended to adjust the prophecy for Harry's consumption. In view of the limited contact between them during OOTP, it is likely that this would not have been done prior to the Ministry battle and bearing in mind the situation when the prophecy is revealed, Dumbledore had no time to produce an edited version. Harry has just lost his godfather; he is emotionally overcome, physically battered and Dumbledore's conversation kicks off as soon as he arrives back. The other point is in the way in which the messages are delivered. Looking at the first message: `Relieved, Harry got up, picked up his bag and turned to go, but then a loud, harsh voice spoke behind him. "It will happen tonight." Harry wheeled around. Professor Trelawney had gone rigid in her armchair, her eyes were unfocused and her mouth sagging . and then Professor Trelawney spoke again, in the same hatsh voice, quite unlike her own.' (POA "Professor Trelawney's Prediction" p.238 UK edition) And at the second: `But when Sybill Trelawney spoke, it was not in her usual ethereal, mystic voice but in the harsh, hoarse tones Harry had heard her use once before.' (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.741 UK edition) Now, compare that with: `And when the creature spoke, it used Harry's mouth so that in his agony, he felt his jaw move "Kill me now, Dumbledore " Blinded and dying, every part of him screaming for release, Harry felt the creature use him again "If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy "' (OOTP "The Only One He Ever Feared" pp.719-20 UK edition) In all these three instances, the speaker is having their voice manipulated, Trelawney by whatever is producing the prophecy, Harry by Voldemort's possession. In both cases, the messages contain pauses probably caused by this external force; hence the ellipses in the written record. I may be proved wrong by DH but my own feeling at the moment is that, as in previous instances, we are niggling away at minutiae in JKR's narrative which even not exist Geoff Finishing with an ellipsis just for fun. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 2 11:52:00 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 11:52:00 -0000 Subject: What the Fabians? - DA / Order Thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168240 > > Pippin: > > ... names of the Order members, many of which are > > associated with the Fabian Society. > dan: > Of course, Rowling has talked about Nesbit a few times > as an influence, as her greatest influence The > Order does > indeed represent the Fabian society. The > DA, however, reflects something more passionate and > confrontational. Exactly my point. Goddlefrood: This had caught my eye t'other day and had me wondering a little :-? The Fabians, other than obviously having that nomenclature also had one Emmeline Pankhurst, the suffragette, Frank Podmore, who suggested the original name of the Society, and probably, although largely coincidentally, some others with names alike to some in the Order. There have been throughout the life of the Fabians several thousands of members, so that link to the Order could well be of little consequence. If it is, and with the underlying tenet of the Fabians being originally, but admittedly not so much later, (although to an extent) the research, discussion and publication of Socilaist ideas. It developed later to include the promotion of a policy of gradual change as opposed to revolutionary change. My opinion of it is that it has largely failed in that too. The main thrust behind changes in the UK after WWII in particualr was due to the consensual political system that prevailed during the 40s, 50s and 60s, and which there appears to be a movement back towards with "New" labour and its, for want of a better word, ideals having moved more to the centre to appease the more conservative members of British society (that's not the party led by one D. Cameron, btw ;)) The Order has not yet been shown, and may never be, to have not operated in a fairly revolutionary manner. It certainly was revolutionary in the sense that, while acting for the same purpose as the MoM (at least I hope so :)), it did take a differing path to fulfil that aim. Quite radical really, IMO. If anything, and this is also my opinion naturally, the underlying political tenet, if any, in the books is rather more liberal, with the Ministry impressing me as having a somewhat laissez faire attitude, unless pressed to action as it currently is ;), and also had been quite clearly at points during the first rise of Voldemort. Thinking particularly here of the powers granted to the Aurors by Barty Snr and the imprisonment without trial, and I've stated that before in the list, of Sirius. These essays have been of interest, but I must say that I do not really think JKR is trying to suggest any particular political belief system to her readers. The DA too has not come across as any more active than the Order, IMO it is simply because we see nearly everything from Harry's PoV, or have done up to now, that this view might be reached. I'd wager that in its time, and especially during the course of Voldemort's first rise, the Order was every bit as active and ran in where angels feared to tread, so to speak, as the DA does or has. The Order was certainly not slow once on the scene to wrap up the confrontation at the DoM (largely through DD at the end admittedly), and they patrolled the school corridors on the night DD and Harry left Hogwarts, without the DA apparently knowing :-) I'm certainly not about to go and join any passive or agressive protests due to any perceived message in the books so far, not that that would be a great idea anyway, living as I do under a military regime curently, with a "Safety Decree" in effect ;). Not sure whose though, theirs of the populaces, but I digress. The above are brought in as observations only, nothing more. Goddlefrood aka Hubert Bland for the evening, far from bland guy, great Fabian and monocle wearer :-B From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed May 2 13:37:46 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 13:37:46 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168241 > > >JKR: Well, okay, I'm obviously ? Harry-Snape is now as personal, if > not more so, than Harry-Voldemort. I can't answer that question > because it's a spoiler, isn't it, whatever I say, and obviously, it > has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that > I can't. And let's face it, it's going to launch 10,000 theories and > I'm going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I'm evil > but I just like the theories, I love the theories. > > zgirnius: > I conclude from this first, that Rowling does consider Snape's > loyalties at the end of Book 6 to be one of the mysteries she has put > into the books. Both because she refuses to answer the question, and > because she states that the answer is a spoiler. > > My other conclusion is that Snape will play an important role in Book > 7, he's not going to be dropped, with his role ended. Because Harry > cares about him now, perhaps even more than he cares about Voldemort. > And they will meet in person in the book, in a scene that is bound to > be dramatic, interesting, and important to the story. > wynnleaf What do we know that JKR is planning to address about Snape in DH? Well, let's think of everything JKR has remarked upon that we have yet to find out about Snape. zgirnius has already pointed out her quote above, so we *know* that Harry and Snape will meet and it will be pretty important since she considers anything that hints at that spoilers. She's said that Harry is "now ready to go out fighting. And he's after revenge." The "revenge" part is more likely to be Snape than Voldemort, especially since JKR has said that Harry's hatred of Snape is more personal than toward Voldemort. Harry's seen Voldemort as Enemy #1 for years, but JKR's added the personal revenge in now and that's more about Snape, who Harry blames for Dumbledore's death and also indirectly for Sirius' death. She said Snape's been loved by someone -- so she's probably going to tell us who. She implied strongly that we'd learn more about the werewolf prank, and that obviously involves Snape. She has pretty clearly set up the question of why Dumbledore trusted Snape, so she's going to be revealing that. Included in those questions are mysteries that she's set up such as what the forest conversation was about that Hagrid overheard - so naturally there will have to be a revelation about that. She's set up questions about what happens to Draco, and we know that Draco left with Snape, so there again, she'll need to answer questions that involve Snape. She wouldn't tell us what Snape's patronus or boggart is, as that would give too much away. Therefore she'll probably be telling us one or both of those in Book 7. Obviously there will have to be some scene where one or both are important in order for that revelation to occur. And it has to be of some import, or she would have revealed it previously. She has seemed to agree with at least Rushdie's assertion that "everything follows" from whether or not Snape is good or bad. So with all these comments, it certainly does sound like Snape will figure prominently (on or off stage) in Deathly Hallows. Another thing I believe is important. JKR has stated on a few occasions that she rewrote the first chapter of PS/SS about 10-15 times. She re-wrote it over and over because each time she felt she was revealing too much. She has said that if she put all of those chapters together the "whole plot" would be revealed. But what did she mean by the "whole plot?" Obviously she didn't mean the whole story of Harry growing up, going to Hogwarts, learning to be a wizard, multiple confrontations with Voldemort and other bad guys. What she seems to have meant was the whole of what occurred prior to placing Harry at the Dursleys. Yet JKR called that the "whole plot." What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that JKR considers the backstory -- in particular that time period of the Marauders up to the Potter's deaths -- absolutely integral to the "whole story." It's not just LV showing up and AKing James and Lily. There's a lot more to it, and it is so important that it could be called the "whole story." Does that include Snape? I'd suggest that it's very likely. Especially when for some reason it appears to be important that we'll learn a bit more about the werewolf prank and why Sirius and Snape loathed each other so much. In other words, the backstory seems to be crucial, and we've got a lot left to learn. And Snape is critical to that backstory. So, yeah, based on all of the above, including zgirnius' comments, I think we're guaranteed to find Snape fairly integral to DH. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 2 16:08:04 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 16:08:04 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168242 > Mike: > Harry is a kid facing an adult, professor Snape. Big difference > between that dynamic and Snivellus as just another schoolyard kid, > whether or not he had a reputation. Pippin: Well, which is it, was Snape just another schoolyard kid, or was he the kid who knew more curses than half the seventh years, adults by WW standards, when he got to Hogwarts? It might be all the same to Lily, who was notably brave, but would it be all the same to everyone else? I thought the point under discussion was whether JKR planned to repair the Marauders' tarnished image by showing that Snape had in some measure earned a drubbing by terrorizing the other kids. She doesn't seem to be laying any ground work for it. No one in the scene or recalling it afterwards seems to be treating Snape as if he has a reputation for attacking people unprovoked, or for heavy-handed retaliation against anyone who laughs at him. > Mike: > I believe Lupin was responding to Harry's not-so-subtle inquiry of > whether or not James may have invented the spell. I really don't see > him making a judgement call on the harshness of the spell or the uses > of it. What slack is Lupin cutting James in this conversation? Pippin: The slack of indicating that hexing people for fun was okay because it was cool and everyone was doing it. My point is that adult Sirius never made this argument, and we can't expect to hear it from him in the future because he's dead. It's not a reversal for Lupin to make it, because he was saying more or less the same thing in OOP, though he didn't press this competing view on Harry when Sirius contradicted it. Reading carefully, JKR didn't present one view of the Marauders in OOP and then start to reverse it in HBP. She's presented two views all along. I don't know which will win out, but I can't believe that JKR is any happier with "well it was cool and everybody was doing it" than I am. But I could be wrong. There is a reversal, IMO, concerning Sirius's attitude towards his treatment of Snape,but it happens between PoA and OOP. Sirius goes from "It served him right" to "I'm not proud of it." It sounds as if Sirius grew up, finally. JKR describes him as a case of arrested development, and says that Lupin "seems" more mature. But Lupin is still justifying the Marauders' actions with childish excuses in HBP, which might be what JKR meant by "seems" rather than "is". Mike: Can such a nasty person that we see in the > SWM be reformed so quickly to risk his life for the same boy that he > hates just for existing? This is why I think it is unfair to > completely paint young James with this dark brush, based on this one > scene that JKR gave us with the intention of eliciting sympathy for > Snivelly. Pippin: In OOP, Harry went almost instantly from considering whether to turn Dudley into something with feelers to risking his life to save him, and this even as Dudley, misunderstanding, was punching him. I at least am not completely painting James with a dark brush by saying that he deserved to be called a bully, and that his attack on Snape might have been undeserved, because I believe that he *did* change. He went from a fifteen year old who pursued emotional satisfaction more or less instinctively and without regard for the consequences, to a sixteen year old who who chose the greater but less immediate reward of protecting innocent life. I think from JKR's point of view not only James but everyone is capable of making that kind of change, provided they have the courage to attempt it. But unfortunately people can change in the other direction also, and innocent men do not always remain thus. But taking Harry's POV, it looks as if James and the whole WW would have been better off if James had let Snape meet his fate. Hands up, anyone who doesn't think *that* is going to be reversed. I thought so. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed May 2 17:18:09 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 17:18:09 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168243 wynnleaf: > She implied strongly that we'd learn more about the werewolf prank, > and that obviously involves Snape. Jen: I have high hopes for this one tempered by disappointment in the past when my ideas about something JKR said weren't the same as what she meant. Like this comment from the World Book Day chat(2004): Lucy: what happened to Wormtail? JK Rowling replies -> You'll find out in book six. Technically that's true, we did find out Wormtail was staying with Snape and it seemed a little fishy. I just thought there would be more to it! Here's a comment about the Prank, from the same chat: Kyla: What made Sirius decide to send Snape to the Willow? JK Rowling replies -> Because Sirius loathed Snape (and the feeling was entirely mutual). You'll find out more about this in due course. Was she saying she would tell more about their loathing, the reason why Sirius sent Snape or more about the Prank itself? She might replay the entire night because we haven't seen how James turned from an 'arrogant berk' into a family man, Order member and someone who died a heroic death. But she might also be thinking her second-hand stories about James over the first 5 books tell that story already. And as for the Prank itself, is the key piece of missing information what the person asked, what made Sirius do it? If so, then she's saying we'll see more about *why* they loathed each other so much (a girl, Regulus, something with respective families??). If the life debt played a role in Snape's turn back to DD then I'd guess we're going to see James stopping Snape and how that got set up. wynnleaf: > Another thing I believe is important. JKR has stated on a few > occasions that she rewrote the first chapter of PS/SS about 10-15 > times. She re-wrote it over and over because each time she felt she > was revealing too much. She has said that if she put all of those > chapters together the "whole plot" would be revealed. > > But what did she mean by the "whole plot?" Obviously she didn't mean > the whole story of Harry growing up, going to Hogwarts, learning to > be a wizard, multiple confrontations with Voldemort and other bad > guys. What she seems to have meant was the whole of what occurred > prior to placing Harry at the Dursleys. Yet JKR called that > the "whole plot." Jen: On this particular point JKR could have been referring to the Horcruxes and the Harry/LV final ending. I took her comment to mean she was worried about giving too much away about the night at Godric's Hollow, what kept Harry from being killed and LV dying, and what 'bit' entered Harry that night--a soul piece, powers, what?? Any of that information would have made it possible to figure out after book 1 the the stuff being speculated about after book 6. Jen From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 2 15:31:35 2007 From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (hutchingslesley) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 15:31:35 -0000 Subject: Snape and the prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168244 Hi, This is my first post so please treat me kindly. I think Snape proved himself to DD when he heard the prophecy that Trelawney gave during her interview. We were led to believe that Snape only heard half of this before being thrown out, but Trelawney states in HBP that Trelawney was aware of Snapes evesdropping and as she's not aware when she gives a prophecy, then Snape must have heard it all. I think Snape was coming to DD that night to turn against LV and with the information from the prophecy Snape and DD hatched a plan to rid themselves of LV by only giving LV enough of the prophecy to hang himself with. I also think the plan went wrong when Pettigrew was made the Potters secret-keeper as I think DD was trying to keep the Potters safe until Harry was old enough to take on LV. hutchingslesley From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 17:53:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 17:53:25 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book?. In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705012252o168d80bby88af5092019242f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168245 > Eggplant: > > I realize almost everybody on this list wants Harry to live, but they > also want book 7 to be as good as it's possible to be. I believe these > two wishes are incompatible. A good work or art should tie your > emotions into a knot and Harry's death would do exactly that. > > > Lynda: > > As would many many other possible storyline/plot twists. Harry's death just > isn't the only possible way to end the book and still have it be a "good > work of art". Alla: Yep, I brought couple of times before the example of Odyssey as being "good work of art", to put it mildly, where the hero survives and comes home and the one which I love dearly. I also remember studying the Epic of Gilgamesh, when I was in school and do not think that Gilgamesh dies in any versions of it either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh While I do not keep this one in my personal library at home that was certainly not due to the fact that I do not like it, quite the contrary. I think both of those count as good literature, LOL and Rowling's work can be counted as such regardless of whether Harry lives or dies. Whether Harry lives or dies , I think is just personal preference, nothing more than that. But when argument is made that **unless** Harry dies, Rowling's work just cannot be a good literature, well, I would like more support for that. JMO, Alla From sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 17:40:16 2007 From: sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com (sarah barthell) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 17:40:16 -0000 Subject: Do animagi get to choose their form? In-Reply-To: <00b201c78ba0$d5cb57d0$50ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168246 > Magpie: > I'm pretty sure JKR explained this. She said that no, they can't >chooose > their form. I believe she said that was one of the risks of studying >it, > that you could put in a lot of work and then find out you were a >warthog. Well if that were true Rita Skeeter would have turned into a mosquito. sbarthell From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 18:34:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 18:34:20 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168247 Eggplant wrote: > > > > I realize almost everybody on this list wants Harry to live, but they also want book 7 to be as good as it's possible to be. I believe these two wishes are incompatible. A good work or art should tie your > emotions into a knot and Harry's death would do exactly that. Alla responded: > Whether Harry lives or dies , I think is just personal preference, > nothing more than that. > > But when argument is made that **unless** Harry dies, Rowling's work just cannot be a good literature, well, I would like more support for that. Carol notes: To be fair, Eggplant isn't saying that Harry must die for the last book to qualify as a good work of art. He's saying that a good work of art must tie the reader's emotions into a knot and that Harry's death would do that. Of course, the whole tying emotions into a knot criterion is subjective, but I must admit that it's what I also want and expect. (But I certainly want to be able to laugh as well as cry; one thing that I love about JKR's book is the unexpected bits of humor that keep popping up.) But, certainly, there are other ways to bring the reader to tears (or as near to tears as they'll allow themselves to go) than Harry's death. For me, one of the most emotional moments in HBP is the sudden understanding between Fleur and Molly (Molly's realization that Fleur's love for Bill is genuine, which amounts to an acceptance of Fleur as a daughter-in-law, and Fleur's recognition and acknowledgement of that acceptance, none of which Harry comprehends). No death is involved, though Bill has come close to death. What's involved is an understanding between rivals for Bill's affection who understand that there's room for both, but the love of the future wife must to some degree supersede the love of the mother, who must let her son go, must let him live his own life and find his own happiness. Obviously, what happens to Harry in DH will be different from that moment in many respects. All I'm saying is that if a good book requires our emotions to be tied in knots (and that in itself is, to use Alla's words, a matter of personal preference), that knot of emotion need not be caused by Harry's death. There will be deaths, of course, and if we're not moved by the death itself, we will be moved (I assume and hope) by the pain of the surviving characters, not only Harry but, for example, Mrs. Weasley, whose Boggart and clock seem to foreshadow death for some member of the Weasley family (not Ron, please). But an understanding between Snape and Harry could also be emotionally charged, whether or ot one of them dies. (And, no, I'm not talking about a Snape who suddenly becomes kind and sweet-natured!) Harry's pain at having to kill someone, even Voldemort, could be emotionally charged. He's going to feel a sense of loss, and so is the reader, no matter what happens. At any rate, a good work of art (make that literature) does not require the protagonist to die, or all novels with first-person narrators (with one exception I can think of, where the author cheats by changing to an impersonal narrator) are by definition bad art. Of course, a tragedy in which the protagonist didn't die wouldn't be a tragedy, the HP books are not "Oedipus Rex" or "Macbeth" or "Othello." No reader that I know of is expecting Harry's character flaw(s) to bring about his doom. And the protagonist of a Bildungsroman doesn't die; he grows up and lives to enjoy his newly acquired maturity. Harry isn't James, who lives just long enough to show that a bully can become a hero. I predict that Harry will learn from the mistakes of the previous generation, and his own mistakes, and live. But his suffering along the way, and his encounters with other characters, will provide all the emotional knots we need to be satisfied with DH if that is our criterion for a good work of art or literature. Carol, who will, of course, not dismiss DH as "a good work of literature" if Harry dies but will judge it by other criteria (appeal to the emotions being one of them) From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 2 18:36:25 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:36:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do animagi get to choose their form? Message-ID: <25852097.1178130985243.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168248 Magpie: >> I'm pretty sure JKR explained this. She said that no, they can't >chooose >> their form. I believe she said that was one of the risks of studying >it, >> that you could put in a lot of work and then find out you were a >warthog. Sarah: >Well if that were true Rita Skeeter would have turned into a mosquito. Bart: At least she didn't turn into Paul McCartney. If she wanted to turn into a dog with wings, she would have.... oh, well, let's not speak ill of the dead. More on-topic, we currently know almost as many unregistered animagi as there are registered ones. And people keep wanting throw yet another UA into the mix. It reminds me of the scene from LIFE OF BRIAN, where only men are allowed to stone people to death, and the entire execution squad is composed of women wearing fake beards. Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed May 2 19:13:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 19:13:38 -0000 Subject: Meaning/Translation of "stopper death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168249 --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > > > --- "Miles" wrote: > > > > > > > > > As far as I recall it, in every discussion up to > > > now "stopper death" was interpreted as 'to stop > > > death' or 'to put a stop to death'. ... the German > > > version of the film, and they translated it "den > > > Tod verkorken" - that's "to cork death". > > > > > > ... this translation/understanding seems to be > > > reasonable. To brew a potion, to bottle it - and > > > to put a stopper into the bottle. > > > > > > zanooda: > > > > ... I won't even try to discuss what meanings the > > word "stopper" can have, but I can tell you that > > it was translated the same way into Russian. ... > > > Geoff: > Th definition in my dictionary is: > "Stopper noun 1) a plug for sealing a hole 2) a person > or thing that stops; verb seal with a stopper." > > ..., Snape is most certainly using it as a verb. It > is one of a series of verbs used, all used > metaphorically..... > > "...to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death..." > (PS "The Potions Master"p.102 UK edition) > bboyminn: "Metaphorically" is the key. Snape is speaking, not literally, but in symbols. People are always confused about 'stopper death', but no one every question the likelihood of literally 'bottling fame, or 'brewing glory'. He may be able to brew potions that are related to or affecting 'fame' or 'glory', but unlikely to be taken literally. So, since Snape is speaking symbolically, there is a difference between what he says and what he means. Literally, 'stopper death' means 'put a cork in it', but symbolically, what does that mean? So, as far as the translations in question, they did get it right, but again, do those translation transfer the subtle subtext and hidden meaning behind Snape's statement. I think they reasonable do, though not knowing the languages in question, I can't say there was or wasn't a better way to do it. Some assume 'stopper death' means to contain death in a bottle as in a poison. He can contain a substance in a bottle that can cause death. The other interpretation is that Snape can contain a substance in a bottle that will restrain death. To contain it in the sense of holding it back or restraining it or keeping death at bay. In other words, a means of preventing eminent death. So, 'stopper death' can mean to cause death or to prevent death. Personally, I think it means that, within certain limits, this magic potion can hold off or prevent eminent death. Again, within limits. So, the translations certainly seem to have understood what Snape said, but without knowing the various languages intimately, I can't say whether the did the best job of transferring Snape's underlying meaning. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Wed May 2 20:50:48 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 16:50:48 -0400 Subject: The GUT of HP (was Excusing Snape of any responsibility ) In-Reply-To: <1178120500.1347.28243.m46@yahoogroups.com> References: <1178120500.1347.28243.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C95B12B27F0BF3-12EC-6A22@webmail-dd18.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168250 zgirnius: It seems to me that a better indication about Snape's role and importance in DH is not interview comments which are generalizations about Book 6, but what she has actually said about Snape and Book 7. Because she went on record about it right after HBP was published. > Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet Interview: > MA: OK, big big big book six question. Is Snape evil? > JKR: [Almost laughing] Well, you've read the book, what do you think? > ES: She's trying to make you say it categorically. > MA: Well, there are conspiracy theorists, and there are people who will claim - > JKR: Cling to some desperate hope [laughter] - > ES: Yes! > MA: Yes! > ES: Like certain shippers we know! >JKR: Well, okay, I'm obviously ? Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort. I can't answer that question because it's a spoiler, isn't it, whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that I can't. And let's face it, it's going to launch 10,000 theories and I'm going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I'm evil but I just like the theories, I love the theories. zgirnius: I conclude from this first, that Rowling does consider Snape's loyalties at the end of Book 6 to be one of the mysteries she has put into the books. Both because she refuses to answer the question, and because she states that the answer is a spoiler. My other conclusion is that Snape will play an important role in Book 7, he's not going to be dropped, with his role ended. Because Harry cares about him now, perhaps even more than he cares about Voldemort. And they will meet in person in the book, in a scene that is bound to be dramatic, interesting, and important to the story. Julie: I think answering the Snape questions will lead to the GUT (Grand Unifying Theory) of Harry Potter, which will pull all the various clues and plotlines together. What caused the enmity between Snape and the Marauders, the big thing we don't know about Lily, whatever relationship might have been between Snape and Lily, who Snape might have loved or been loved by, who else was at Godric's Hollow and why, why DD had James's Invisibility Cloak, why DD trusts Snape..maybe even how Hagrid is involved, where Lupin was between his school years and his year as the DADA professor, and some other plot points that don't necessarily appear related. I have this feeling that if we could identify that one important element we're missing, then all the pieces would fall in place. I could be wrong of course, and maybe the solution won't be as elegant and all-encompassing as I am assuming. But I think it will be, and this is why JKR has had so much fun dropping clues and reading all our desperate --and disparate--theories. It's *one* answer that explains (almost) everything, and she knows we won't guess that answer. I'd be happy to read any GUT ideas out there! Julie, eagerly anticipating that "AHA!" moment in DH when it finally becomes clear what JKR's been up to all along. ________________________________________________________________________ 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 mahlers.com at mahlers.com Wed May 2 17:36:41 2007 From: mahlers.com at mahlers.com (W. K. Mahler, Mahlers.com) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:36:41 -0400 Subject: Snape and the prophecy References: Message-ID: <019f01c78ce0$733b5660$2f01a8c0@mahlerscom> No: HPFGUIDX 168251 > hutchingslesley: > I think Snape proved himself to DD when he heard the prophecy > that Trelawney gave during her interview. We were led to believe > that Snape only heard half of this before being thrown out, but > Trelawney states in HBP that Trelawney was aware of Snapes > evesdropping and as she's not aware when she gives a prophecy, > then Snape must have heard it all. William K. ahler Responds http://www.queenwords.com/lyrics/songs/sng04_08.shtml In an alternate analogical way, perhaps that link above will assist you to your conclusions. Much like Snape, Freddie Mercury was often a misunderstood individual with Persian roots. It is highly theorized, believed and acknowledged that much like any prophecy / prophet / mad man inner workings, that AIDS / HIV was develped by Nazis during WW2 and spread to simians within Africa. Although Snape was apparently an evil wizard and outwardly seems to be so, during his first introduction to the Harry Potter series, I believe Harry has grown to have an uneasy trust and alliance with Snape, not truly knowing the actual motives of Snape's actions, the deep core of it all. "Always remember that you are absolutely unique, just like everyone else." William K. Mahler, http://www.mahlers.com Singer - Songwriter - Photographer - Webmaster Yahoo Instant Messenger ID: mahlerscom reply: mahlers dot com at mahlers dot com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 21:15:57 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 21:15:57 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG ) In-Reply-To: <00a501c78c6d$99fe4410$aa8c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168252 > Alla wrote: > > Well, yes, I agree with what you are saying RL wise. I do not > > necessarily agree about that in Potterverse. I always believed that > > JKR draws quite strong barriers between those working for good side > > and those working for bad side and that **she** gets to decide which > > side is good and which side is bad, you know? > > Miles: > Maybe there's a difference between the actions of adult and adolescent > characters? Alla: Point well taken, actually. Miles: > I think you are right concerning the kids - it's a major point of criticism > concerning the actions of the characters that it's only important whether > s/he is good or evil - not what they do. The DA exclude Slytherins per > definition - that's good. The IS consists exclusively of Slytherins - that's > bad. Harry makes Kreacher working against Draco - which is a torture for > him, but it seams to be ok, Hermione brands Marietta as a sneak - well > done.... To be continued. Alla: Ah. But you see but to me it is not a major point of criticism at all, it is more a surprise for me in a sense that usually literary choice like that sends me straight on the road of rooting for the characters author wants me to hate or seems to want me to hate anyways. The easiest example is of course about Slytherin. Here is my long explanation of why the fact that Slytherin seem to be portrayed as bad house does not bother me at all. I mean, really when I stop and think, there is no way the eleven year old who comes to school can be evil, right? I mean, no matter how much of evil philosophy they absorbed at home, this is absolutely not possible that one quarter of WW youngsters, who come to Hogwarts are future DE. Sure, there are bad kids, even at eleven year olds, kids who kill, who do evil things, but it is just absurd that every year Hogwarts gets steady stream of little evils coming in IMO. So, I should feel for them, pity them, right? Oh, but in this instance, it is SO wrong. I mean wrong for me, not for anybody else. I will never buy the argument that JKR is a bad writer in large part because she manipulates me so very well and I still think that she plays fair, heheeh. What does JKR do with House Slytherin? The first kid she makes me to meet is Draco Malfoy. I hated him on the spot, hated him, hated him, hated him. Oh, and in case anybody wonders that initially had so very little to do with Harry, it is not even funny. I despised him, I think first and foremost for passing a judgment on the person (Hagrid) he never even met, I despised him for being a snob and of course it increased and increased and when he was happy to participate in Buckbeak travesty, I would not have shed a tear if he dropped dead. And then in CoS we learn that the founder of that great House decided that muggleborn kids who were in the most need of protection in dark times of persecution, in most need of learning the craft, etc, well, were not just deserving of his house, but Hogwarts just should not have admitted them at all. Wonderful guy that Salasar was. Of course I am writing as I see his views, not anybody else. Oh, and let's not forget that he left a little snaky in Hoggwarts when he left to kill Muggleborns. So, after I have all of this information, and again, if Salasar's name was misused, etc, I will be happy to reevaluate, but so far I do not have any information to the contrary, for the life of me I cannot think of other houses attitude towards Slytherins as prejudice, I think of it as defensive reaction to future killers, to bigots, etc. I mean, after all JKR makes sure to make "muddblood" as password to their dorms even in our days. And here again, this thought that all Slytherin kids just cannot be bad, even if their founder had evil philosophy, but what does JKR do? Does she make me meet **any** of those kids, who are not wanting to follow Voldy and Co? Well, no she really does not. All whom we see is Draco Malfoy and his cronies, no? That is why while my rational mind realizes that all Slytherin kids just cannot be bad, I cannot have one iota of sympathy for them as literary characters, because well, I never met them. Sure in real life I will make damn sure that I meet the other kids besides the likes of Draco Malfoy before I pass a judgment on the whole House of them, but in the book, I cannot help but think that maybe I never met them, because JKR means for Draco Malfoy to be the typical representative of Slytherin house and if this is true, boy I find this house to be very bad. And truly, if she wanted me to feel something for Slytherins in general, she could have done so very little and again, they did not even have to interact with Harry much. Like say they played with Slytherins instead of Hufflepuffs, when Harry was in the hospital and when they came to visit Harry, his friends would have been so very surprised that somebody from Slytherin team wanted a rematch because it would not have been fair. Harry could have been shocked, etc, and even forgotten about that, but it could have been planted in reader's mind that yes, there are not only Draco Malfoys in Slytherin, but good kids as well, OR again somebody from Slytherin could have been chosen in TWT and also behaved OK, etc. I mean she did it with Durmstrang, she showed me Krumm and Dark Arts or not, I know that good kids do exist there. Instead, what does JKR doing with episodic characters? Oh, yes, even the one who shows up just to substitute for Draco in HBP says *M** word. I think she truly means to show that majority of the house at least shows this philosophy. So, where was I? Just trying to say that what JKR is doing with kids does not bother me much, because she is doing it so well IMO. Miles: > JKR is much more demanding concerning the adult characters. Barty Crouch is > definitively on the side of the good. But he is condemned because he uses > draconian means in his fight - Moody is shown as a "good" Auror because he > tries not to kill the DE he catches, whereas Crouch is 'punished' for trying > to do the right things with bad means. Alla: I do agree, I guess, but here is another thought. Is she more demanding because that is how it meant to be or is it because she just wants to show adults generation as more screwed up? Because it is kids story, kids are center stage eventually and adults have to take a back seat. Maybe precisely that is why there are should be no Barties in young generation? > > Alla: > > > > Well, yes, I agree with what you are saying RL wise. I do not > > necessarily agree about that in Potterverse. I always believed that > > JKR draws quite strong barriers between those working for good side > > and those working for bad side and that **she** gets to decide which > > side is good and which side is bad, you know? > > Magpie: > Sure--but does her identifying the good side mean she's saying that her good > side is above reproach and never makes a mistake or does anything wrong? It > seems to me she does the opposite. James and Sirius seem very clearly on the > good side to me, but I think she put them clearly in the wrong in the > Pensieve. She even, I think, seems to have no problem with having them be > bad *because* of their ideals, like by having James hate Snape for his > interest in the Dark Arts and perhaps see that as justification for his own > bullying. Alla: Sure, good side is not above reproach, otherwise I would have lost the interest in the books real fast, but what I am trying to say is that the amount of slack the guys on the good side getting are more, if that makes sense. Their basic character does not change despite mistakes they are making, if that makes sense. James and Sirius are on the wrong side in the pensieve, it is for sure, but I believe for example that their reasoning for hating Snape as dark arts expert will get more justification in book 7. I could be wrong of course. Magpie: > So sure there is difference in things that the two characters are doing. > It's not just that we would like Draco to change sides because he'd be > coming to the good side, while we don't like Peter for changing sides > because he was going to the bad side. The two of them are also doing > different things. Peter was protecting his own skin, for instance, and > letting his friends die to do it. If Draco had been able to take DD's offer, > by contrast, he would be rejecting murder for glory while still caring about > his family. Alla: Erm... I was actually comparing Peter and Snape, not Peter and Draco, not that you cannot compare Peter and Draco of course, but I believe that when we are comparing Peter and Draco, they ARE doing exactly the same things with the amount of information we have. IMO of course. Peter is betraying his friends and Snape is betraying his friends, no? The **only** difference is to whom those friends are being betrayed, no? Magpie: > I think JKR has a very clear idea of the good and bad sides--but I think > she's also very in control of what people are doing moment to moment and I'm > not sure she thinks the good guys always have to be right. And even if she > did think somebody was right or wrong, a reader could disagree. Alla: Sure reader can disagree as I believe I said in my previous post. Did I give the impression that I was arguing this somehow? I am sorry if I did. It certainly was not my intention . But I am not concerned with whether reader will disagree with it or not for the purpose of this discussion, I am just trying to figure out what JKR is doing, that's all. Believe me, I myself have **a lot** more bones to pick with Dumbledore for example than I suspect JKR does and this is another good example IMO of good guys being given much more slack than bad guys. Let's take another absurd hypothetical, let's imagine that Voldemort is putting a baby of one of his followers in abusive home to protect this baby's life. I am having a hard time that Voldemort would be patted on the back by either JKR or readers and forgiven for that, because this baby had to suffer so much, no? Why, if you ask me, because Voldemort is evil overlord and that is what he is supposed to do, but since Dumbledore is **good** the reasons for what he did should stand scrutiny, etc. Ugh. I am rambling again, but please ask questions if you lost me. Magpie: For > instance, if JKR thought James was awesome in bullying James in the Pensieve > because she hates Snape, it wouldn't become right just because it's her > universe. Some things are always going to be subjective. Alla: Sure, but all that I care about for the moment is what IS right for JKR and what is not. >> Alla: > > I mean, why would I ever feel something for Lucius Malfoy, even if he > > loves his son? > > Magpie: > Heh--well, I feel something for him. But I don't think he's good. I feel > empathy for the mess he's gotten himself into, though I couldn't defend any > of his actions. But that doesn't mean when I'm reading about another > character I'm going to always compare him/her to Lucius in my head when > judging his/her actions. Alla: Ah. But you see I think JKR does indeed have that comparison in mind, whether you ( or any reader) are doing it or not. I can be wrong obviously, but that is the impression I get. And I am one of those readers who find myself making those comparisons often, because I feel that JKR intends me to. > Magpie: > But is it really a double standard? Because I don't think Lupin's forgiven > because he's on the right side. I think JKR forgives Lupin's mistakes > because she understands what he did and why and ultimately finds them > forgivable. It's hard to find a situation to contrast this with because in > general the guys on Voldemort's side do bad, often unforgivable things they > don't regret anyway. But to take an absurd example, I don't think Lupin > would be forgiven if he had been molesting students during PoA because he > was on the right side. Umbridge isn't a Death Eater. She isn't on > Voldemort's side--the Ministry's position is against Voldemort. But she was > a bad guy. Alla: Sure, I do not think that Lupin would be forgiven for that either, but that is why I believe JKR does not make her good guys **murder** anyone. (Well there is one debatable event, LOL, but you get my drift) There are some things that good side just does not do IMO, but the mistakes that good side **does** are IMO viewed by the author in the different light. Sure, Umbridge is not DE ( although frankly I will not be surprised if she will turn out to be one, hopefully not), but she crossed the line in the things that good guys just do not do, no? She sent dementors on Harry and tried to torture him, etc. > Alla: > > But do I think that JKR does not intend to judge Hermione as harshly > > as some other characters? Yes, I do, because I absolutely think that > > even if what she did was morally wrong ( and I do not, I just > > understand the argument), I think it is **nothing** in comparison to, > > let's say, planning assassination attempts. > > Magpie: > Actually based on things I've read I think many people would be fine with > Hermione planning an assassination attempt because she's on the right side. > But I don't think the side she's on covers it. My feelings about Draco's > assassination attempt and Hermione's hex are completely different because > there's a lot more factors than just what side they were on. Alla: Well, I do not know if many people will be fine with it, I know I will not be. I am completely fine with her hexing the traitor, because that is how I define what happened, but I certainly will not be fine with her killing anybody. I believe that JKR intends me to make those comparisons, that do not mean that any reader should, you know? That hexing a traitor is admirable action, even if not perfectly executed and assassination attempt is not. And of course I do not have a private line to JKR, LOL or anything like that, I am just curious about her intent and trying to interpret it. JMO, Alla From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed May 2 21:33:05 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 21:33:05 -0000 Subject: The GUT of HP (was Excusing Snape of any responsibility ) In-Reply-To: <8C95B12B27F0BF3-12EC-6A22@webmail-dd18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168253 > Julie: > I think answering the Snape questions will lead to the GUT (Grand > Unifying Theory) of Harry Potter, which will pull all the various > clues and plotlines together. What caused the enmity between > Snape and the Marauders, the big thing we don't know about Lily, > whatever relationship might have been between Snape and Lily, > who Snape might have loved or been loved by, who else was at > Godric's Hollow and why, why DD had James's Invisibility Cloak, > why DD trusts Snape..maybe even how Hagrid is involved, where > Lupin was between his school years and his year as the DADA > professor, and some other plot points that don't necessarily > appear related. > > I have this feeling that if we could identify that one > important element we're missing, then all the pieces would > fall in place. I could be wrong of course, and maybe the > solution won't be as elegant and all-encompassing as I am > assuming. But I think it will be, and this is why JKR has > had so much fun dropping clues and reading all our desperate > --and disparate--theories. It's *one* answer that explains > (almost) everything, and she knows we won't guess that answer. > > I'd be happy to read any GUT ideas out there! > wynnleaf I couldn't agree more! That's what I was getting at when I said that I think the backstory of the Marauders up through and maybe immediately following the Potter's deaths is absolutely integral to the story. It's not just some color for the background -- it's likely the reasons for why so much of Harry's story was put in motion in the first place, as well as explaining Snape, Dumbledore, and the living Marauders actions in the HP series. Sure, this is Harry's story. But a lot of Harry's story involves reacting to the other players and their actions. Harry thinks he knows all he needs to about their motivations and actions, but obviously JKR is keeping a lot hidden, so Harry clearly doesn't know everything. Yes, there's some Grand Unifying Story. It would really be sort of messy to have just lots of odds and ends background "facts" to explain the odds and ends mysteries about Snape, the Marauders, Petunia, Lily and the rest. Much better to have a unifying story that's been kept hidden, that answers most of the backstory mysteries and adult character motivation mysteries. I've got a theory or two, but I really hope that my theories *aren't* close to what JKR has in mind. What I hope is that the unifying story is not something too easily guessed or too melodramtic. I'm really hoping that aspects of it will be quite surprising, even to those of us who have envisioned or read scores and scores of theories. It would be fun, however, to read a few theories of the Grand Unifying Theory. Not to be picked apart for "why it wouldn't fit canon," but just to see if some of us can come up with theories that really pull things together and answer most of the backstory mysteries. wynnleaf From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 2 21:26:29 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (jadon) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 21:26:29 -0000 Subject: Hermione in Umbridge's lessons Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168254 Do we know what Hermione does in Umbridge's lessons after the second in which she tells Umbridge she's read the whole theory book? jadon From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 21:55:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 21:55:18 -0000 Subject: Meaning/Translation of "stopper death" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168255 bboyminn wrote: > > "Metaphorically" is the key. Snape is speaking, not literally, but in symbols. People are always confused about 'stopper death', but no one every question the likelihood of literally 'bottling fame, or 'brewing glory'. He may be able to brew potions that are related to or affecting 'fame' or 'glory', but unlikely to be taken literally. > > Some assume 'stopper death' means to contain death in a bottle as in a poison. He can contain a substance in a bottle that can cause death. > > The other interpretation is that Snape can contain a substance in a bottle that will restrain death. To contain it in the sense of holding it back or restraining it or keeping death at bay. In other words, a means of preventing eminent death. > > So, 'stopper death' can mean to cause death or to prevent death. Personally, I think it means that, within certain limits, this magic potion can hold off or prevent eminent death. Again, within limits. Carol responds: Right. Snape, bless his poetic soul, is speaking metaphorically. He can teach his more gifted students (presumably not first-years) to "bottle fame and brew glory" in the sense that they can brew and bottle potions which, if drunk, will have those effects, just as Felix Felicis is not really liquid luck but a potion that temporarily makes the drinker lucky and a love potion is not bottled love but merely a potion that temporarily causes the drinker to become infatuated. (Warning to Potions students: Don't trust to bottled fame or brewed glory!) The question is whether "stopper death" is metaphorical in the same way. Does it merely mean a potion that can cause death (no temporary effect like bottled fame or brewed glory)? Is he boasting that he can teach his students to brew and bottle poisons, in which they can then literally put a stopper? Although he certainly *can* teach them to brew poisons, I don't recall his doing so. In any case, that seems like an odd boast, especially since "stopper death" is in the climactic final position ("bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death"), suggesting that it's the greatest achievement of the three. Wouldn't HRH have whispered after class about a teacher they thought was planning to teach them to brew poisons? Or does Snape mean, as Steve suggests, a potion that will hold off imminent death (as Phoenix tears, Unicorn blood, and Bezoars also do in their very different ways) or perhaps a brewed, bottled, and stoppered antidote that will save someone from poison? (He certainly can and does teach his students to brew antidotes, particularly in GoF.) On the one hand, "stopper death" could simply mean to put death (poison) in a bottle and stopper it--which Snape certainly could teach them to do (if the MoM and DD allowed it). On the other hand, the ambiguous wording and the climactic position of the phrase suggests something less sinister and less mundane, blocking or stopp(er)ing death as you would stop the flow of a liquid by corking the bottle. The fact that Snape questions Harry about both Bezoars, a near-universal antidote, and the ingredients needed to brew the Draught of Living Death suggests, but by no means proves, that the second meaning is the one he has in mind. The Draught of Living Death is not an antidote, of course, but it isn't bottled death in the same sense as a poison is, either. In fact, it fits better with the other two examples, bottled fame and brewed glory, than either poisons or antidotes because, if brewed correctly, its effects are temporary and reversible. It's "death" in a (stoppered) bottle in the same sense that Felix Felicis is "liquid luck." It is and it isn't. In short, while I'm not sure of Snape's exact meaning, I'm pretty sure he's not telling his brand-new students that he can teach them to make poisons. Carol, who believes that the Draught of Living Death will play a role in DH regardless of Snape's intended meaning in SS/Ps From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed May 2 22:20:31 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 22:20:31 -0000 Subject: Some Pointers? (Incorporating Re: JKR question about Cloak) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168256 Aussie: > > ... And are we any closer to know WHY DD HAD THE CLOAK? Goddlefrood: > Not so far :) > I'll not go too deeply into the reasoning behind what follows, > but to put it simply James may have given his cloak to DD for > several reasons, some of which are in this list: > > > (iv) At the more bizarre end of the scale James may have given > it to DD because his need for it was greater than James's as > James had some inkling of and preparedness for his own death. > Why then let LV get his hands on it? Give it to DD for > safekeeping to later pass it on to Harry, which he in fact did > do in PS/SS. > > All the above have problems, not the least of which is that > Mad-Eye also probably had one or two Invisibility Cloaks > lying around ;). SSSusan: What you have written here at the end, Goddlefrood, is what makes me inclined towards option (iv). Whether Moody had an Invisibility Cloak or two lying about would actually be irrelevant to James if his reason for placing his own in DD's care were his own preparedness for and expectation of the likelihood of his death. *Perhaps* he also felt keeping the IC with him unnecessary, if he trusted in the FC to hide them, and might well have believed an extra IC with the Order was a good thing. But if not that, then the possibility that he was ensuring its passing on to Harry seems a strong one to me. Siriusly Snapey Susan From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Wed May 2 23:01:10 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 01:01:10 +0200 Subject: Meaning/Translation of "stopper death" References: Message-ID: <00af01c78d0d$c72c77e0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 168257 > bboyminn: > "Metaphorically" is the key. Snape is speaking, not > literally, but in symbols. People are always confused > about 'stopper death', but no one every question the > likelihood of literally 'bottling fame, or 'brewing > glory'. He may be able to brew potions that are > related to or affecting 'fame' or 'glory', but unlikely > to be taken literally. (...) > Some assume 'stopper death' means to contain death in > a bottle as in a poison. He can contain a substance in > a bottle that can cause death. > > The other interpretation is that Snape can contain a > substance in a bottle that will restrain death. To > contain it in the sense of holding it back or > restraining it or keeping death at bay. In other words, > a means of preventing eminent death. > > So, 'stopper death' can mean to cause death or to > prevent death. Personally, I think it means that, > within certain limits, this magic potion can hold off > or prevent eminent death. Again, within limits. Miles: Simple question: why? He is talking about "making" fame - not averting it. About "producing" glory - not avoid it. Why should he talk about stopping death - instead of brewing a deathly potion, bottle and cork it? If we understand "stopper" as a verb (following Geoff's understanding upthread), there is no reason to read Snape's remark as one about an antidote. This would be a logical breach in this row. Now, JKR could have intended a logical breach - but if so, why? So many people understand this quote as does, widely interpreting it concerning HBP and Snape helping Dumbledore to survive the injuries after the Horcrux destruction. Just to put a wild speculation into the discussion - we know of a probably deathly potion in HBP, the green one in the cave. Could it be Snape's work? And if so, could it be important for DH? Miles, still not happy with the answer to his question ;) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed May 2 23:03:04 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 23:03:04 -0000 Subject: Humor: The GUT of HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168258 --- "wynnleaf" wrote: > > > > Julie: > > I think answering the Snape questions will lead to > > the GUT (Grand Unifying Theory) of Harry Potter, > > which will pull all the various clues and plotlines > > together. ... > > > > ... > > > > I'd be happy to read any GUT ideas out there! > > > wynnleaf > ... > > Yes, there's some Grand Unifying Story [GUS]. It > would really be sort of messy to have just lots of > odds and ends background "facts" to explain the odds > and ends mysteries about Snape, the Marauders, Petunia, > Lily and the rest. .... > > ... bboyminn: Wynnleaf, could we possibly change your idea to - Grand Amalgamating Theory ? Amalgamate - To combine into a unified or integrated whole; unite. That way we can have GUT and GAS, now if someone could only come up with a BEANS theory, we could then have - BEANS... GUT... and GAS... the perfect trilogy of theories. Back on topic (marginally), this what a love about the last book of a good series. How everything falls into place. All the mysterious characters lurking in the shadows come out into the light and reveal themselves for who they truly are. That was one of the best things of the 'Bartimaeus Trilogy' by Stroud; seeing all the pieces fall together in the end. I'm really looking forward to this in the last HP book. Even if I don't like the ending, I'm sure JKR will pull the pieces together masterfully. For what it worth; though I doubt very much. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 23:09:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 23:09:24 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168259 Alla wrote: > Peter is betraying his friends and Snape is betraying his friends, no? > > The **only** difference is to whom those friends are being betrayed, no? Carol responds: You're talking about DDM!Snape betraying the DEs being the same as Peter betraying the Potters, right? But if Snape did betray his friends by spying on Voldemort for Dumbledore, he's primarily risking his own life, not theirs, both in VW1 and after GoF. Even if he gave DD names of DEs, which DD then gave to the MoM (and we don't know whether that actually happened), the DEs (none of them innocent victims) would then be arrested and sent to Azkaban to prevent them from committing further crimes. That's very different from revealing your friends' location to a Dark Lord who wants to murder them and their innocent child. Similarly, sending the Order to the MoM rescue Harry and his friends may constitute a betrayal of Snape's DE friends because it results in Lucius et al. being sent to Azkaban, but the primary purpose for sending the Order was to rescue six kids who otherwise would have been killed or captured by DEs. So, no, I don't think it's just a matter of which side you're betraying. Also, betraying a Dark Lord who has murdered and tortured dozens of people in the hope of bringing about that Dark Lord's fall is different from betraying the friends who have entrusted their own safety to you by making you their Secret Keeper. I don't think it's the same thing at all. Alla: > Let's take another absurd hypothetical, let's imagine that Voldemort is putting a baby of one of his followers in abusive home to protect this baby's life. > > I am having a hard time that Voldemort would be patted on the back by either JKR or readers and forgiven for that, because this baby had to suffer so much, no? > > Why, if you ask me, because Voldemort is evil overlord and that is what he is supposed to do, but since Dumbledore is **good** the reasons for what he did should stand scrutiny, etc. Carol responds: Lovely absurd hypothetical. But I don't think that putting a baby in an abusive home *to protect the baby* is what evil overlords are supposed to do. Evil overlords are supposed to kill babies. So, I don't know about you, but I would praise Voldemort for putting the baby's life above everything else, including his own interests and the baby's happiness. I would wonder what was in it for Voldemort, actually. :-) > Alla: > > Sure, I do not think that Lupin would be forgiven for that either, but that is why I believe JKR does not make her good guys **murder** anyone. (Well there is one debatable event, LOL, but you get my drift) There are some things that good side just does not do IMO, but the mistakes that good side **does** are IMO viewed by the author in the different light. Carol responds: But Sirius Black was planning for nearly a year to murder Peter Pettigrew and Remus Lupin was ready to help him do it. Aren't they good guys? Wouldn't they still have been good guys if Harry hadn't stopped them from committing murder? (They would probably have had their souls sucked, considering that one was an escaped convict and the other a werewolf, but that's beside the point.) Wouldn't JKR have wanted us to believe that they had committed an evil deed for a good cause (or partially good cause--revenge and protecting Harry)? And Mad-Eye Moody also has killed at least once though that was self-defense, not murder. Even if he used an AK to do it, he's still a good guy, right? It seems as if it's not the action or the side you're on but the motive that counts most. Carol, who has lost track of the main argument and is consequently just reacting to particular points From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed May 2 23:33:33 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 23:33:33 -0000 Subject: Meaning/Translation of "stopper death" In-Reply-To: <00af01c78d0d$c72c77e0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168260 --- "Miles" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > "Metaphorically" is the key. Snape is speaking, not > > literally, but in symbols. People are always > > confused about 'stopper death', but no one every > > question the likelihood of literally 'bottling fame, > > or 'brewing glory'. He may be able to brew potions > > that are related to or affecting 'fame' or 'glory', > > but unlikely to be taken literally. > > (...) > > > Some assume 'stopper death' means to contain death > > in a bottle as in a poison. ... > > > > The other interpretation is that Snape can contain > > a substance in a bottle that will restrain death. > > To contain it in the sense of holding it back or > > restraining it or keeping death at bay. In other > > words, a means of preventing eminent death. > > > > So, 'stopper death' can mean to cause death or to > > prevent death. Personally, I think it means that, > > within certain limits, this magic potion can hold > > off or prevent eminent death. Again, within limits. > > Miles: > Simple question: why? > He is talking about "making" fame - not averting it. > About "producing" glory - not avoid it. Why should > he talk about stopping death - instead of brewing a > deathly potion, bottle and cork it? > If we understand "stopper" as a verb ..., there is no > reason to read Snape's remark as one about an antidote. > This would be a logical breach in this row. ... > > ... bboyminn: Snape is speaking and functioning on many levels. First he is introducing first year students to the subject of Potion, so he chooses a potions metaphor - Brew, Bottle, Cork/Stopper. Next, he is trying to impress his students with his subject, so he ties in grandiose subjects like- Fame, Glory, and Death. Now it is unlikely that Snape, as a character, intended to drop any long term hints to his students, but Snape, as the voice of the /author/, could very well be doing just that. Now Snape could just as easily have said 'stopper life'. Again, that could be interpreted to mean 'stop (contain, restrain) life' or it could be, it contains a substance that is 'life giving'. In other words, life taking or life giving. I interpret 'stopper death' the same way. It means either the bottle contains death, or the bottle contain a substance that can /contain/ death; 'contain' in this sense meaning to restrain or hold back. So, death giving, or death restraining. Those are the two logical interpretations, I perfer 'death restraining'. I'm not saying I'm right, though I feel I am; I'm just stating my preference. But regardless of which you prefer, you must remember that Snape is speaking on many levels and in many contexts. He speaks as a Potions teacher to students he is trying to impress. He also speaks as the voice of the author. And 'stopper death' is just as open to interpretation as 'bottle fame' and 'brew glory'. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 01:21:42 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 01:21:42 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168261 > Pippin: > Well, which is it, was Snape just another schoolyard kid, or was > he the kid who knew more curses than half the seventh years, > adults by WW standards, when he got to Hogwarts? Mike: I thought I had given my answer. I'll try again. I picture the Sevie v James dynamic quite parallel to Draco v Harry. Think back to the dueling club. Draco conjures a venomous snake with prompting from Snape. By the sixth year, the most we've seen Harry conjure has been water. And I don't think Snape is *that* good of a teacher. I think Draco knew many more spells than Harry did, in the early years, despite Ron's exhortations in PS/SS to the contrary. But Harry is able to hold his own because of his quick reflexes, even though he can only retaliate with a tickling charm. Harry and Draco have a few dust-ups in the hallways, don't they? Probably not unlike James and Sevie. Do any of their other classmates seem scared of Draco? Say Ernie McMillan, or Zach Smith? It doesn't seem so to me. Neither do I think the other kids were scared of Severus in his schooldays. But neither Harry nor James would be wise to turn his back on Draco or Severus, imo. In fact, Draco got ferretized for taking a shot at Harry while Harry's back was turned. I bet if it had been Harry doing the ferretization of Draco he would have gotten quite a few laughs, just like James got with Severus. Of course, Moody scares the hell out of the kids, so they just observe in silence, until they get to lunch that is. :) Even Dumbledore draws a parallel between Harry-Draco and James- Severus. The **possible** difference *might* be that Draco has CrabbenGoyle for allies and Snape *may* have had more powerful allies in upper class Slytherins. > Pippin: > I thought the point under discussion was whether JKR planned > to repair the Marauders' tarnished image by showing > that Snape had in some measure earned a drubbing by terrorizing > the other kids. Mike: Not some nebulous *other* kids, and not "terrorizing". Specifically MWPP and probably moreso just the PP. And an ongoing and to be continued hexing war between these combatants. Yes, it is my hope that JKR explains more about the prank, and thereby clears up some of the motivations. I do not expect more about SWM to come out. I only said that one scene, labelled Snape's Worst Memory, does not comprise the whole of the ongoing battle between James and Severus. And we did not get to see Snape's Best Memory. > Pippin: > The slack of indicating that hexing people for fun was okay because > it was cool and everyone was doing it. Mike: OK, I understand that, but methinks you are using the wrong example when you refer to the "Frosty Christmas" conversation as proof. Lupin is already responding to Harry's question in the key of Half-Blood Prince. Lupin is explaining that just because James used it, that's no reason to believe that James invented it. Lots of people used it. He's not speaking to the "everybody was doing it, so it was OK for James". He's speaking to the "James didn't invent it and he's not the HBP". I see no excusing by Lupin. I don't even see him addressing the morality of using this hex. And this isn't a particularly egregious hex, either. > Pippin: > Reading carefully, JKR didn't present one view of the Marauders > in OOP and then start to reverse it in HBP. She's presented two > views all along. I don't know which will win out, but I can't > believe that JKR is any happier with "well it was cool and > everybody was doing it" than I am. But I could be wrong. Mike: Good point on the dual views of the Marauders. But I don't see a lot of people saying it was OK for the Marauders because "everybody was doing it". I hear most people saying "the Marauders were the *only* ones doing it and it's not OK". I feel mightily outnumbered trying to point out that the Marauders surely *weren't* the only ones doing it, and that the memory was Snape's *Worst*. If we were to get Snape's *Best*, does anyone think we would see James getting the better of Severus? Dumbledore tells Harry the dynamic was not unlike that between him and Mr Malfoy. Does Harry always start the fights between himself and Draco? Different circumstances, I admit. But I certainly don't buy Angel!Severus. > Pippin: > > > But taking Harry's POV, it looks as if James and the > whole WW would have been better off if James had let Snape > meet his fate. Hands up, anyone who doesn't think *that* > is going to be reversed. > > I thought so. Mike: ::Raising my hand (I think):: Are you asking if the WW would have been better off without Snape's part in things? If that is the question, then my hand stays up. Snape doesn't deliver the prophesy, we don't get the murders of James and Lily and no "chosen one". (Canon as it stands now. Not necessarily my take on things, but that's for a different discussion) So the wizarding world doesn't get a shortcut to ridding itself of Voldemort through the agony of one boy. Good! The adults and that damn Ministry has to get it's feces collated and get off their collective duffs to affect a strategy to defeat Voldemort. Since when should they be relying on one boy to save their bacon. Of course, we have no story either. So thanks Snape, but I still hope you suffer horrible pain in your attempt to redeem yourself. And it won't matter to me because, if it's actually the case that you killed Dumbledore, then your are not redeemable, in my eyes. Even in war the reasons for *killing* your commanding officer are few and far between, and you didn't have one of those reasons. Period. Oh, and if it turns out that you didn't kill Dumbledore... I still hope you suffer a great deal of pain... and we'll talk about the redemption part after. ;D :D Mike From belviso at attglobal.net Thu May 3 01:39:09 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 21:39:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maraurders/he exists References: Message-ID: <005b01c78d23$d93b1c50$0698400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168262 > Mike: > I thought I had given my answer. I'll try again. > > I picture the Sevie v James dynamic quite parallel to Draco v Harry. > Think back to the dueling club. Draco conjures a venomous snake with > prompting from Snape. By the sixth year, the most we've seen Harry > conjure has been water. And I don't think Snape is *that* good of a > teacher. I think Draco knew many more spells than Harry did, in the > early years, despite Ron's exhortations in PS/SS to the contrary. But > Harry is able to hold his own because of his quick reflexes, even > though he can only retaliate with a tickling charm. > > Harry and Draco have a few dust-ups in the hallways, don't they? > Probably not unlike James and Sevie. Do any of their other classmates > seem scared of Draco? Say Ernie McMillan, or Zach Smith? It doesn't > seem so to me. Neither do I think the other kids were scared of > Severus in his schooldays. > But neither Harry nor James would be wise to > turn his back on Draco > or Severus, imo. In fact, Draco got ferretized for taking a shot at > Harry while Harry's back was turned. Magpie: I have to say, I don't think you can make this specific comparison, because Draco simply hasn't been said to have the kind of reputation Sirius gives to Snape. He and Harry are evenly matched dueling throughout the books. The only time one of them really seems to be better is, imo, at the end of OotP. Turning your back on the Twins isn't a good idea either--they like hitting from behind too. Draco doesn't have the history of rep even they have. He fights with Harry, and after one argument shoots a hex at him from behind, (and he hexes Neville with a leg-locker in first year) but he's not particularly known for hexing people. I'm sure the Gryffindors would have laughed if Harry turned Draco into a ferret, but the school has never been afraid of Draco hexing them because he isn't known for doing it. He's a very different kid than Snape.Most of his bullying is social. Mike: > > Even Dumbledore draws a parallel between Harry-Draco and James- > Severus. The **possible** difference *might* be that Draco has > CrabbenGoyle for allies and Snape *may* have had more powerful allies > in upper class Slytherins. Magpie: If they were anything like Crabbe and Goyle they didn't actually do much.:-) That said, I do agree that Snape/MWPP was an on-going fight probably more like Harry and Draco, definitely. Draco is kind of the silent fourth party in the SWM scene--it's his taking Snape away that gives Harry access to the Pensieve. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Thu May 3 01:42:53 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 21:42:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG ) References: Message-ID: <005f01c78d24$5e61b830$0698400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168263 Alla: > > Erm... I was actually comparing Peter and Snape, not Peter and Draco, > not that you cannot compare Peter and Draco of course, but I believe > that when we are comparing Peter and Draco, they ARE doing exactly > the same things with the amount of information we have. IMO of course. Magpie: Oops! But now, when it comes to Peter/Draco I don't see how they're doing the same thing based on the info we have. We do have some information on what both characters did and Peter and Draco are making completely different choices (with different choices about murder) besides just switching sides. I can't imagine Voldemort even allowing the choice Draco gets, or Dumbledore offering the one Peter makes. I would think that if we are supposed to see the good side differently, this is essential. Choosing the good side should, imo, involve choosing actual better values, even beyond just not caring about blood. I didn't realize you meant Snape, but even with him, if he did change sides the way we're told he did, even with the more limited information we have, DDM!Snape's not making the same choice as Peter that I can see. Alla: > Peter is betraying his friends and Snape is betraying his friends, no? > > The **only** difference is to whom those friends are being betrayed, > no? Magpie: I think there are more differences than that, including how they're betraying and their motivations for doing it. I don't think Peter and Snape have too much in common, personality-wise. And I wouldn't be surprised if Lucius didn't hate Snape the way the Marauders hate Peter, if he found out he'd switched. Alla: > Let's take another absurd hypothetical, let's imagine that Voldemort > is putting a baby of one of his followers in abusive home to protect > this baby's life. > > I am having a hard time that Voldemort would be patted on the back by > either JKR or readers and forgiven for that, because this baby had to > suffer so much, no? > > Why, if you ask me, because Voldemort is evil overlord and that is > what he is supposed to do, but since Dumbledore is **good** the > reasons for what he did should stand scrutiny, etc. Ugh. I am > rambling again, but please ask questions if you lost me. Magpie: I agree that Voldemort doing it would be viewed completely differently, and he'd have different motivations and probably view the baby differently. > Alla: > > Ah. But you see I think JKR does indeed have that comparison in mind, > whether you ( or any reader) are doing it or not. I can be wrong > obviously, but that is the impression I get. And I am one of those > readers who find myself making those comparisons often, because I > feel that JKR intends me to. Magpie: That would be really really unfortunate--for me, anyway--if that's what she was doing. Because that would suggest (and I've read this criticism) that her good guys really weren't very good, that they couldn't stand on their own as any kind of role models, and so must be surrounded by extreme cartoon bad guys in order to look good. It would also make me worry for the WW once the DEs and Voldemort are gone and there's nobody to be worse than them anymore. > Alla: > > Sure, I do not think that Lupin would be forgiven for that either, > but that is why I believe JKR does not make her good guys **murder** > anyone. (Well there is one debatable event, LOL, but you get my drift) > There are some things that good side just does not do IMO, but the > mistakes that good side **does** are IMO viewed by the author in the > different light. Magpie: So what kind of light is it, exactly? I mean, the good side doesn't murder (though they've been accused of reckless endangerment), but you can get some pretty serious ethical problems without murdering somebody. If the good guys are the people we're reading about it seems odd to not pay attention to the actions they're doing beyond just comparing them to the maniacs. Sure there are things the bad side does that the good side never would (and some things both sides might do), but if that's the best they can say for themselves, that's not all that admirable. That would make them, in the word of Jabootu, "designated heroes." They're heroes primarily because they've been designated heroes by the story. Alla: >> Magpie: >> Actually based on things I've read I think many people would be > fine with >> Hermione planning an assassination attempt because she's on the > right side. >> But I don't think the side she's on covers it. My feelings about > Draco's >> assassination attempt and Hermione's hex are completely different > because >> there's a lot more factors than just what side they were on. > > > Alla: > > Well, I do not know if many people will be fine with it, I know I > will not be. I am completely fine with her hexing the traitor, > because that is how I define what happened, but I certainly will not > be fine with her killing anybody. > > I believe that JKR intends me to make those comparisons, that do not > mean that any reader should, you know? That hexing a traitor is > admirable action, even if not perfectly executed and assassination > attempt is not. Magpie: So just to be clear, which comparison do you mean? Are you saying that you're supposed to think, on your own reading it, that Hermione's disfiguring Marietta for telling about her club is good on its own, and that Draco's assassination attempt is bad on its own? Or that if you think Hermione's hex is bad you're supposed to think "but at least it's not an assasination attempt--that would be bad." Because it seems like with the first JKR just has to write it persuasively or not, and if it doesn't fly, it doesn't fly. With the second, I can't really make that work for me. It didn't even occur to me to think about any Slytherins when I was reading about Marietta and the hex. I'm not sure what JKR would say about it, actually. She certainly puts that kind of logic (though it's not always so logical) into Hermione's own mouth when she wants to justify herself. But I never think about her when I'm reading. She seemed to write Draco more sympathetically in HBP when he was trying to assassinate Dumbledore, and while obviously the attempt in itself was never presented as anything but wrong I didn't feel like she was wagging her finger at him throughout the story. Thank goodness--she'd be a horrible writer if she couldn't ever step into the mindset of somebody different than the people representing herself. By contrast, I didn't think Marietta's hexing has been presented all that sympathetically. It could be something that JKR had fun doing without wanting it to set an example for readers. Like she says she has fun torturing Umbridge and writing Snape. It seems to me that maybe the different ways we're looking at it is where the line between good and bad is. In the part I snipped you talked about the Slytherins and how we'd never seen any good ones so you didn't mind them painted as all bad, that it wasn't prejudice etc. Where as I have never even really seen why people ever thought there needed to be a "Good Slytherin" (by which we mean friends or wanna be friends with Harry) because the point for me is that the Slytherins that we already see are not all "bad" any more than the Gryffindors are just "good." I think that's supported by the Hat talking about the houses needing to unite so that Slytherin is no longer the Shadow house that embodies all the negative qualities of the society. As the Hat says, just getting rid of Slytherin may have quieted things down, but it wasn't a good peace. That situation does mean that the Slytherins are the negative house. They are the ones that really need to change the most--but it's not, imo, about just finding better kids for Slytherin. I think your feeling that we're supposed to compare the Gryffindors' actions to the Slytherins to see them as good supports this idea too. That seems like the way Shadows work. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 01:48:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 01:48:53 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168264 > > Pippin: > > Well, which is it, was Snape just another schoolyard kid, or was > > he the kid who knew more curses than half the seventh years, > > adults by WW standards, when he got to Hogwarts? > > Mike: > I thought I had given my answer. I'll try again. > > I picture the Sevie v James dynamic quite parallel to Draco v Harry. Alla: Yes, agreed. It is funny that after OOP many wondered whether Dumbledore meant that Harry meant to be compared to Snape and James to Draco. I never did. I think in that way parallels mean to be the same. IMO of course. Mike: > But neither Harry nor James would be wise to turn his back on Draco > or Severus, imo. In fact, Draco got ferretized for taking a shot at > Harry while Harry's back was turned. Alla: I always think of Draco trying to scare Harry off his broom among other things. He knew how Harry reacts towards Dementors, didn't he? I do not believe it is a stretch to think that Draco realised that Harry would fall down and even though wizarding kids can fall down, I do not think that Harry would have very safe trip. > Mike: > I feel mightily outnumbered trying to point out that the Marauders > surely *weren't* the only ones doing it, and that the memory was > Snape's *Worst*. Alla: Mike, Mike, Mike I am always here :) And actually, yes, after Luoin's words I totally believe that most of the school was doing it as harmless joke, nothing more. It certainly looked more than that in Pensieve scene, but as Neri noted blood on James face was also very nicely unnoticed. What I am saying is that this hex can USED as harmless and not, I guess. I am also very happy that I am not the only one to wish Snape horrible pain and I SO hope he has at least some of the misery and suffering that he brought on at least four people in last book ( and NO I do not count Sirius in it yet, but I strongly suspect that I will be free to do so after last book, hehe) Alla. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 02:10:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 02:10:36 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG ) In-Reply-To: <005f01c78d24$5e61b830$0698400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168265 > Magpie: > So just to be clear, which comparison do you mean? Are you saying that > you're supposed to think, on your own reading it, that Hermione's > disfiguring Marietta for telling about her club is good on its own, and that > Draco's assassination attempt is bad on its own? Or that if you think > Hermione's hex is bad you're supposed to think "but at least it's not an > assasination attempt--that would be bad." Because it seems like with the > first JKR just has to write it persuasively or not, and if it doesn't fly, > it doesn't fly. With the second, I can't really make that work for me. It > didn't even occur to me to think about any Slytherins when I was reading > about Marietta and the hex. Alla: Only responding to some points, I think I reached agree to disagree on others. I would say probably a combination of both - I guess, I would say that the hex is okay on its own, not perfect, but okay, understandable, etc, but when we think about what bad guys do, assasination attempts, etc, then any issues that I may have had with the hex, pale in comparison. I cannot explain it any better, am afraid. Magpie: She seemed to write Draco more sympathetically in HBP when he was > trying to assassinate Dumbledore, and while obviously the attempt in itself > was never presented as anything but wrong I didn't feel like she was wagging > her finger at him throughout the story. Thank goodness--she'd be a horrible > writer if she couldn't ever step into the mindset of somebody different than > the people representing herself. By contrast, I didn't think Marietta's > hexing has been presented all that sympathetically. Alla: See, that is something I would never be able to see - meaning how you can see Draco more sympathetically when he was cooking up a murder than the girl who tries to protects her friends against traitor. My opinion obviously. Magpie: > Where as I have never even really seen why people ever thought there needed > to be a "Good Slytherin" (by which we mean friends or wanna be friends with > Harry) Alla: Eh, NO. **We** really do not mean that - I at least do not. I thought I gave an example of what to me good Slytherin would look like and really I would require no or very little communication with Harry. I guess just the minimum to notice or even his friends telling him about that with great surprise. Let me restate my examples again. For example, good Slytherin would have asked for rematch of the Quidditch match when Harry was injured because it would have not been fair like Cedric did OR good Slytherin in TWT would have done something similar to what Harry did - meaning saving somebody else's hostages. That kind of things - selfless things, they do not have to do **anything** with Harry or at least as much as it is needed for POV to be noticed. Magpie: because the point for me is that the Slytherins that we already see > are not all "bad" any more than the Gryffindors are just "good." Alla: I understand, and the point for me that Slytherins that we see - Draco Malfoy and ..... who? Among kids, I mean are really really horrible. I want to see somebody better than that, but I am guessing that I probably be stuck with redemption of Malfoy. Am afraid for me it is not good enough to change the opinion of Slytherin, hehe. Among adults we at least have Regulus and Andromeda. Oh, even that will do for me - to see Andromeda once. Magpie: I think > that's supported by the Hat talking about the houses needing to unite so > that Slytherin is no longer the Shadow house that embodies all the negative > qualities of the society. As the Hat says, just getting rid of Slytherin may > have quieted things down, but it wasn't a good peace. > Alla: I have no doubts that she is moving towards the unity of the houses. I do believe though that she should have given hints of the Slytherins in general earlier to make it persuasive. So far, even her choice of words about Slytherins in the interview is very telling to me. When asked by Mellissa and Emerson about Slytherins in general, she did not even say that they are **just as good as any other house". She said, that they are not all bad. I think that despite trying to give a message that all houses are equal at the end on the emotional level Slytherin will also be a secondary house for her, sort of House of former evil that reformed and therefore it reflects in her writing about them. Obviously just my opinion. Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu May 3 02:50:09 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 02:50:09 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168266 > Pippin: > > But Lupin's opinion was and remains that James shouldn't have > been judged harshly because everyone said it was cool and > besides it was a vogue. > Neri: But Lupin is the one Marauder who cuts Snape slack too, even when it's very hard to do. You called, Severus? *Professor* Snape he fought very hard against my appointment, but he has his reasons he cost me my only job, but no big deal he's superb Occlumens we should trust him because Dumbledore does I'll never forget how he prepared the Wolfsbane Potion for me... So does ESE!Lupin has some intricate motive to make James, Sirius *and* Snape look good? What is this motive, I wonder? Or, could it simply be Remus the prefect again, wanting everybody to put past differences behind and live together in peace? > wynnleaf > > If she knew that Snape's reputation gave James an excuse for his > actions, why would she ask him "what's he done to you?" > Neri: Perhaps in order to start an argument with James, even though she knows well what Severus has done to him. Or because she really doesn't know. You think this is unreasonable? Then tell me, how do you explain that neither James, nor Lily, nor Sirius ever mention in one word the blood on James's face and robes. As if it doesn't exist. As if Severus didn't cause it to happen right in front of their eyes. Is this reasonable? This is something you can't blame on ESE!Lupin, you can only blame it on Ever-So-Sneaky!JKR. She was obviously downplaying the part of this curse until she could spring it on us again. And this is hardly the only important detail in this scene that was reversed. In fact, I have trouble recalling any other scene in the series that was so reversed in a later book, and that's even *before* JKR had the chance to explicitly revisit it after the tower. And I haven't even mentioned yet that JKR has never actually told us that James indeed took off Severus's pants. Oh, the incredible power of a strategically placed ellipsis let the readers believe what they want to believe... let their sick imagination run wild... Probably after OotP most believed that James had done it. Anybody wants to lay bets now? Lets face it, what we do see in this scene is deliberately misleading. It was described by an unreliable, sneaky, manipulative narrator with an agenda, and this agenda was to make the Marauders look bad and Snape look good, so we'd all believe he's on our side until the tower. And you want me to believe that poor little Snapy hadn't done anything wrong to James just because Lily asks "what's he done to you"? Well senora , me got smart, me no buying it anymore. Neri From belviso at attglobal.net Thu May 3 03:59:04 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 23:59:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG ) References: Message-ID: <00b001c78d37$64bbb790$0698400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168267 Alla: > > See, that is something I would never be able to see - meaning how > you can see Draco more sympathetically when he was cooking up a > murder than the girl who tries to protects her friends against > traitor. My opinion obviously. Magpie: I think I had sympathetic to him for the same reason JKR did. I saw the situation through his point of view. He's a very flawed character trying to step up and be a man within his own family's framework. His father's been dishonored and he wants to make it right. He's doing it in a way that's objectively immoral and wrong--and runs up against all of that in the story. Based on the place he started out, this character is suffering and growing up and learning some hard truths and becoming better than when he started, even if he's not becoming great compared to other people. Why wouldn't I be able to enter into a story of a kid in this situation? If I wasn't there with Draco in his story there wouldn't actually be much to HBP. Bad protagonists can be sympathetic and tragic. This set up has loads of potential for sympathy. I don't even have to adopt different values to get into it, because of the nature of the story arc. In terms of *how they're written,* (which was what I was talking about) yes I think that Draco's story is written more sympathetically that the minor business of the hex. My point was just that it's not like JKR is going out of her way to make us feel for Hermione and her hex. Hermone just promises revenge on anybody who rats on her and then it happens and we don't see her reaction to Marietta, who doesn't even have any lines so we don't have any reason to dislike personally. Hermione's doing fine. Alla: > > Eh, NO. **We** really do not mean that - I at least do not. I > thought I gave an example of what to me good Slytherin would look > like and really I would require no or very little communication with > Harry. I guess just the minimum to notice or even his friends > telling him about that with great surprise. Let me restate my > examples again. For example, good Slytherin would have asked for > rematch of the Quidditch match when Harry was injured because it > would have not been fair like Cedric did OR good Slytherin in TWT > would have done something similar to what Harry did - meaning saving > somebody else's hostages. Magpie: Yes, I understood what you meant--though I think that would also translate to "cool by Harry and on his side." Magpie: > because the point for me is that the Slytherins that we already see >> are not all "bad" any more than the Gryffindors are just "good." > > Alla: > > I understand, and the point for me that Slytherins that we see - > Draco Malfoy and ..... who? Among kids, I mean are really really > horrible. I want to see somebody better than that, but I am guessing > that I probably be stuck with redemption of Malfoy. Am afraid for me > it is not good enough to change the opinion of Slytherin, hehe. Magpie: And that's where I disagree. They are all the things they seem to be. They're still not all bad and need to be brought back into the school and rehabilitated. The challenge, imo, isn't to just find some kids who fit the mould of our heroes and slap a green tie on them. There's no challenge in that, and it just avoids the problem that's set up. It avoids the whole conflict the story seems to run on. JKR has centered her problem in Slytherin and, imo, it's the problem that needs to be dealt with. It doesn't change anything to just isolate the bad element further by coming up with a Slytherin within Slytherin. It's not the physical section of the castle that needs rehabilitation, or the name. Some people think Hufflepuff is a house full o' duffers and that's unfair, but it's not a major conflict. > Alla: > > I have no doubts that she is moving towards the unity of the houses. > I do believe though that she should have given hints of the > Slytherins in general earlier to make it persuasive. > > So far, even her choice of words about Slytherins in the interview > is very telling to me. When asked by Mellissa and Emerson about > Slytherins in general, she did not even say that they are **just as > good as any other house". She said, that they are not all bad. > > I think that despite trying to give a message that all houses are > equal at the end on the emotional level Slytherin will also be a > secondary house for her, sort of House of former evil that reformed > and therefore it reflects in her writing about them. Magpie: I'm not sure what you mean by Slytherin being a secondary house. I'm sure she'll always arbitrarily consider Gryffindor the best, but I think she also loves Slytherin and that's why so much of the heart of her story is there--*because* it's a house of former evil reformed. That can be far more meaningful and more dramatically won. I think that's why when JKR for the first time actually centered the story of an HP book on somebody not HP, and made a character besides HP change, it was a Slytherin and a bad guy. And why everything keeps leading back to Snape. -m From Estama02 at aol.com Thu May 3 04:30:24 2007 From: Estama02 at aol.com (secretkeeper24) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 04:30:24 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168268 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > > > wynnleaf > > > > If she knew that Snape's reputation gave James an excuse for his > > actions, why would she ask him "what's he done to you?" > > > > Neri: > Perhaps in order to start an argument with James, even though she > knows well what Severus has done to him. Or because she really doesn't > know. I'm starting to think Lily really did not know all that much about the Snape/James feud. Lupin explains after Harry asks if James stopped hexing Snape that "Snape was a special case" when Lupin and Sirius are talking to Harry about the SWM scene. Then Sirius mentions that "She didn't know too much about it..." I believe you could interpret this that generally Lily was never aware of what went on between James and Snape. Maybe the fights between Snape and MWPP wasn't generally done in the public eye. Snape didn't really seem that concerned about how close he was to the Marauder's after the OWLS, as if he knew they generally didn't try to hex him with so many people around. It isn't until James calls out to Snape, that Snape even seems worried that they are near him. And even though a lot of students around them turned to watch, again I don't think this means it's happened before a scene like this, it's just that James and Sirius are popular ('the height of cool') and everyone is interested to see what they are doing. Also even though Lily yells at James for 'hexing people in the hall for the fun of it" - it seems like a general comment, and does not say that she's seen him do this to Snape before. So in general what I am again trying to point out is it is possible that Lily didn't know the backstory or the reasons James disliked Snape or about Snape's actions, so that is why she asked James 'what's he done to you?". She really doesn't know. If this is the case then it is still possible for James' answer about 'the fact that he just exists' to not be read as literal. ~Secretkeeper From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu May 3 04:40:07 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 04:40:07 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168269 > Mike: > I thought I had given my answer. I'll try again. > > I picture the Sevie v James dynamic quite parallel to Draco v Harry. > > > Harry and Draco have a few dust-ups in the hallways, don't they? > Probably not unlike James and Sevie. wynnleaf The problem here is that you have absolutely not a scrap of evidence that there were dust-ups in the hallways anything akin to Harry and Draco. With Harry and Draco, we always have either Harry and Draco one on one (HBP on train), or the Trio against Draco with Crabbe and Goyle. We have not only no examples, but not a bit of evidence that James and Snape ever had a "dust-up" one on one, nor do we have any evidence that Snape battled the Marauders with any help. Sirius and Lupin never mention Snape having any help, nor do we see any evidence of friends to help in the pensieve scene, and Snape specifically says he was always alone. Nor do we have any evidence of James hexing anyone else by himself. Even in the detention files with "dust-ups" (useful expression) with other students, James always seemed to have at least Sirius with him. Mike > But neither Harry nor James would be wise to turn his back on Draco > or Severus, imo. wynnleaf The *only* evidence that we have that James might have been wise not to turn his back on Snape is Sirius and Lupin's comments about Snape giving "as good as he got." Since that remark was in the context of their attacks on Snape, we have in 6 books no evidence that Snape was sneaking around hexing them. In fact, all the Marauders ever mention is Snape sneaking around trying to get them expelled. Why don't they mention his sneaking around looking for a chance for their backs to be turned to attack them? Mike > Even Dumbledore draws a parallel between Harry-Draco and James- > Severus. The **possible** difference *might* be that Draco has > CrabbenGoyle for allies and Snape *may* have had more powerful allies > in upper class Slytherins. wynnleaf I would not be so quick to lay out the comparison as James to Snape = Harry to Draco. It's interesting that whenever in the past few posts anyone has used this comparison, they've had Harry to Draco equating with James to Snape. Why that particular order? Why not Harry to Draco equating with Snape to James? Well, obviously I think because posters assume that the correlation is that Harry responds to Draco the way James responded to Snape, and Draco responds to Harry the way Snape did to James. But guess what? That's not the way Dumbledore arranged the order of the comparison. Harry said, "he [Snape] hated my father." and Dumbledore said, "not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy." If you were simply going by the order of the comparison, it would be Snape-James compared to Harry-Draco, or more specifically, Snape hating James is like Harry hating Draco. So if anyone wants to use Dumbledore's words to prove a point, you should not *assume* that Dumbledore means that James was to Snape as Harry is to Draco. He could easily have meant that Snape responded to James much like Harry did to Draco. Indeed, that is the order that is set up in the comments. What I think many readers want is to come up with something that gives a better reason for the Marauders to hex Snape rather than just "he exists." So readers imagine -- and even hope -- that JKR will in Book 7 show us something Snape was doing in school that would show he was just as guilty as the Marauders in perpetuating the feud, and that he somehow brought on their hexing by some nastiness on his part. But as yet JKR has had numerous avenues to show us Snapes supposed guilt and hasn't done it. She never had Sirius or Lupin tell about Snape bullying other kids. She never had Sirius or Lupin mention Snape's supposed bias against non-purebloods. She doesn't have Sirius or Lupin give examples of unprovoked attacks by Snape. She did not allow James to give Lily any excuse in the Worst Memory scene other than "he exists." She did not have James or Sirius in the Worst Memory scene accuse Snape of anything. She has Sirius tell Harry that Snape was never suspected of being a Death Eater -- showing us quite clearly that the Marauders never suspected it either, for all Sirius' comments that Snape was into the Dark Arts. When JKR wrote the scene of Filch's detention files, she had the perfect opportunity to reveal a few of Snape's detentions, where she could show us some of *his* misdeeds. But she didn't show us any. Face it. JKR has had lots of opportunities to have the Marauder's directly accuse Snape in both memory and in Harry's present. She's had ample opportunity to show us records of Snape's youthful hexing. But she hasn't done it. She had the opportunity in writing about the werewolf prank to have Sirius voice accusations about Snape's culpability in getting himself into trouble. She didn't do it. We only hear that Snape was trying to get them expelled -- when in fact, the Marauder's were committing an offense that could merit expulsion. The only real wrongdoings she has shown us about young Snape is 1. sneaking out to the whomping willow following Lupin, who was also engaged in serious wrongdoing on most full moon nights (and Snape's rulebreaking here pales in comparison to the Marauders or even the Trio's rulebreaking) and 2. creating Sectumsempra for enemies, which could have been created as a purely defensive spell after Snape became convinced (and he *was* convinced) that students tried to kill him. We know that Snape created numerous minor hexes, but have no record of any offensive or unprovoked fighting on Snape's part and therefore have no evidence that he used those hexes for anything other than defense. Sure, he may have used them offensively, but we have no evidence of it. And JKR has had plenty of scenes where she could easily have given that evidence. I think there's a tendency to want Snape to be like Draco so that James could then be compared in a favorable light with Harry. But the evidence of canon doesn't support that. In POA, Sirius said in the Shrieking Shack that Peter was drawn to the "biggest bully in the playground." Sirius meant Voldemort, but who was Peter following before Voldemort? James and Sirius. Maybe when James quit being a bully is when Peter went looking for another bully to follow. wynnleaf From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu May 3 05:00:37 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:00:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168270 Wynleaf: When JKR wrote the scene of Filch's detention files, she had the perfect opportunity to reveal a few of Snape's detentions, where she could show us some of *his* misdeeds. But she didn't show us any. Sherry: As if Snape would have allowed Harry to see any of his own detentions when he's in the midst of trying to further rip Harry's respect and love for his father to pieces. Yeah, noble guy Snape. This was one of the scenes when I most deeply despised Snape, and one for which no matter what his true loyalties, I would never forgive him. I never got the idea that he did it for anything good for Harry. No it seemed to me that he did it out of his mean petty childish attitude toward Harry solely because of who his father was. And until HBP, I believed Snape was a sick twisted bastard, but ultimately on Dumbledore's side. Anyway, if JKR is trying to set people up with big revelations about Snape, as Mike was trying to point out, I think--forgive me Mike if I misrepresent--she purposely set it up to keep Snape looking like the poor helpless innocent victim. That's a definite set up, I think, an image that I hopefully expect to be torn down in the last book. Frankly, for me, if Snape is a huge part of DH, I may have to rethink if I even want to read it. I read the books to follow Harry's adventures, and not to read even more pages about a jerk like Snape. He's had far too much page time already. I'm one who normally roots for the underdog, so to speak, but I've had too many scenes of Snape being cruel and vindictive to children, not to mention the murder of Dumbledore, to care one bit about what happens to him or his character arc. Just my opinion, of course. Sherry From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu May 3 05:56:23 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 05:56:23 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168271 > Wynleaf: > When JKR wrote the scene of Filch's detention files, she had the perfect > opportunity to reveal a few of Snape's detentions, where she could show us > some of *his* misdeeds. But she didn't show us any. > > Sherry: > As if Snape would have allowed Harry to see any of his own detentions when > he's in the midst of trying to further rip Harry's respect and love for his > father to pieces. wynnleaf Your case is built on assumption with no canon support. There is no evidence that Snape tampered with the files or had any detentions. You are 1. assuming files were there indicating Snape's never before mentioned detentions and then 2. assuming that Snape removed these imagined detention records. Assuming evidence existed which JKR has not even hinted at, and then assuming a character destroyed or removed said evidence is not, in my opinion, a convincing argument as it has absolutely no canon support -- only a chain of unsupported assumptions. Sherry Yeah, noble guy Snape. This was one of the scenes when I > most deeply despised Snape, and one for which no matter what his true > loyalties, I would never forgive him. wynnleaf Regardless, Snape's motives aren't the question here. The point is that there's no evidence that Snape ever had a detention and JKR (who can easily control what Snape does with detention files, you know :D ) could have chosen to allow Harry to find at least one or two detention file of Snape's, but that didn't happen. JKR's choice. Sherry > Anyway, if JKR is trying to set people up with big revelations about Snape, > as Mike was trying to point out, I think--forgive me Mike if I > misrepresent--she purposely set it up to keep Snape looking like the poor > helpless innocent victim. That's a definite set up, I think, an image that > I hopefully expect to be torn down in the last book. wynnleaf But she *doesn't* make him look helpless. She spent an entire book gradually showing us that he was an extremely gifted kid with a remarkable ability to create spells, including some very powerful spells. So we *know* Snape wasn't helpless. And she has then made sure we know that he became a very powerful adult wizard. No, she hasn't set up some picture of Snape as "helpless." Nor has she set up some picture of "innocence," making sure we can see that he could develop powerful spells and had a strong interest in at least DADA if not Dark Arts, and obviously he later joined Voldemort. Sherry, you make it sound like JKR has given us this picture of young!Snape as being like Neville. But on the other hand, many posters seem to think her picture of Snape is more like Draco. Obviously those are two polar opposites. So whatever JKR is doing, I don't think she's setting up some obviously "helpless, innocent, victim" to overturn -- or if that's what she wants to do, she must have failed dreadfully. Besides that, remember that it's not -- on paper -- the reader whose opinion JKR must overturn. Yes, that often occurs. But on paper, it's *Harry,* the protagonist, who must have his opinion overturned. And Harry *certainly* doesn't see Snape as ever some "helpless, innocent, victim." Harry sees Snape as completely despicable and guilty as sin. And it's Harry whose opinion JKR will be overturning. wynnleaf From ida3 at planet.nl Thu May 3 07:00:53 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 07:00:53 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168272 secretkeeper24: > I'm starting to think Lily really did not know all that much about > the Snape/James feud. Lupin explains after Harry asks if James > stopped hexing Snape that "Snape was a special case" when Lupin and > Sirius are talking to Harry about the SWM scene. Then Sirius > mentions that "She didn't know too much about it..." I believe you > could interpret this that generally Lily was never aware of what > went on between James and Snape. Dana: I have a different take on Sirius's comment about Lily not knowing too much about it. I think it has everything to do with Lily's take on James's inflated head and James not wanting to risk rubbing her the wrong way by being in Snape's face when she was around. Personally I do think she knew perfectly well what the animosity was between the marauders and Snape and why she uses the phrase "Snivellus" herself when Snape insults her. She also says to James, `You're as bad as he is.' (pg 571 OotP) and then goes on to elaborate her point about James arrogance. Is she just stating it because Snape called her a "filthy mudblood"? I don't think so but that is just my take on it of course. Sirius specifically implies that Snape and James hated each other from the start and I do not think Lily is to dumb to have picked up on it (this incident takes place at the end of the 5th year meaning they had been hating each other for pretty much 5 years that is a little to long a time for their animosity to go unnoticed, JMHO). Maybe she couldn't appreciate it this time because she was aware that part of the reason for James's attack on Snape was him trying to impress her. Maybe the whole incident had nothing to do with Lily standing up for Snape but maybe she wanted to make it known to James that if he wanted to impress her, then this was not the way to go. She had noticed James playing with the snitch and we know he hadn't done that before because earlier in the scene Sirius asked James where he got it and James replied that he nicked it, so to me this indicates Lily was watching James as much as he was watching her. Even Harry noticed that he was trying to impress the girls. And if James hadn't played with the snitch before then Lily mentioning him playing with it, indicates she saw the whole event unfold before her eyes and thus that there appeared no reason for James to have a go at Snape (at least not this time) Besides Lily doesn't say "what's he *ever* done to you?" but just "what's he done to you?", which to me can mean precisly that what's he done to you *this time*. JMHO Secretkeeper: > So in general what I am again trying to point out is it is possible > that Lily didn't know the backstory or the reasons James disliked > Snape or about Snape's actions, so that is why she asked > James 'what's he done to you?". She really doesn't know. If this is > the case then it is still possible for James' answer about 'the > fact that he just exists' to not be read as literal. Dana: I think it is extremely unlikely that Lily did not know the backstory because James and Sirius where not the most inconspicuous guys around and they did not particularly made attempts to hide their actions. JMHO Dana From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 3 09:16:25 2007 From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (hutchingslesley) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 09:16:25 -0000 Subject: Do animagi get to choose their form? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168273 > clcb wrote: > I wonder if a wizard who learns to become an animagus gets > to choose what animal they transform into or do they just > get what they get, like with a Patronus? lhutch1 Replies: Hi, If they dont get to choose what they become they very conveniently seem to turn into what they need to be, eg; Pettigrew into a rat so he can freeze the whomping willow, Sirius and James into large animals to keep a werewolf under control, (POA) and Rita Skeeter into a beetle/bug which must have been very convenient. In PS/SS we saw how McGonagall naturally blended in on Privot Drive as a cat although it would have worked better if she wasn't reading a map! If they don't get to decide what they change into I think there must be an element of the subconscious about it and the same with the Patronus because in HBP it is mentioned that tonks's Patronus changed when she was unhappy. From jamess at climaxgroup.com Thu May 3 11:14:52 2007 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:14:52 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do animagi get to choose their form? Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39EDA@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 168274 > clcb wrote: > I wonder if a wizard who learns to become an animagus gets > to choose what animal they transform into or do they just > get what they get, like with a Patronus? lhutch1 Replies: Hi, If they dont get to choose what they become they very conveniently seem to turn into what they need to be, eg; Pettigrew into a rat so he can freeze the whomping willow, Sirius and James into large animals to keep a werewolf under control, (POA) and Rita Skeeter into a beetle/bug which must have been very convenient. In PS/SS we saw how McGonagall naturally blended in on Privot Drive as a cat although it would have worked better if she wasn't reading a map! If they don't get to decide what they change into I think there must be an element of the subconscious about it and the same with the Patronus because in HBP it is mentioned that tonks's Patronus changed when she was unhappy. James Writes: I've thought about this quite a bit before. I think rather than the subconscious mind playing a direct part in choosing the form, the form is more of an outward expression of who and what you are inside. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 11:31:05 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:31:05 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG ) In-Reply-To: <00b001c78d37$64bbb790$0698400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168275 > Alla: > > > > Eh, NO. **We** really do not mean that - I at least do not. I > > thought I gave an example of what to me good Slytherin would look > > like and really I would require no or very little communication with > > Harry. I guess just the minimum to notice or even his friends > > telling him about that with great surprise. Let me restate my > > examples again. For example, good Slytherin would have asked for > > rematch of the Quidditch match when Harry was injured because it > > would have not been fair like Cedric did OR good Slytherin in TWT > > would have done something similar to what Harry did - meaning saving > > somebody else's hostages. > > Magpie: > Yes, I understood what you meant--though I think that would also translate > to "cool by Harry and on his side." Alla: I wonder how many times I should repeat myself that **NO** it does not translate for me in "cool by Harry and on his side"? :) I mean you are free of course to not believe me, but then aren't we taking each other words as true sort of by default or our conversations sort of become meaningless? When I am telling you - **this** is what I mean and you are telling me - no, that is what you Alla, really mean? Sorry, I do not mean to sound annoyed, you know I like you very much, but I do not think that anybody can read my mind better than me :) I wanted to see some **objectively** good things and something that ca be mentioned in passing by Harry or his friends only because Harry is POV, you know? But it does not even HAVE to be mentioned by them? Teacher can mention say, I do not know that Slytherin saved somebody, Harry can hear it, be briefly surprised and **forget all about it**, but reader will remember, suggestion would be planted in my mind. I **do** remember you know that Andromeda left her family and married Muggleborn. I do remember what Regulus did and Harry did not even meet them yet. I am able to appreciate Slytherin doing a good deed regardless of whether such Slytherin ever becomes friend of Harry. > Magpie: > And that's where I disagree. They are all the things they seem to be. > They're still not all bad and need to be brought back into the school and > rehabilitated. The challenge, imo, isn't to just find some kids who fit the > mould of our heroes and slap a green tie on them. There's no challenge in > that, and it just avoids the problem that's set up. It avoids the whole > conflict the story seems to run on. Alla: My question is again **who** are they? Forget about Draco Malfoy for a second and tell me which Slytherin kids you met that are not bad. I understand that certainly realistically there are good kids there, they just have to be. But where are they in the book? Whom else do we meet but DE kids? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 11:41:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:41:26 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168276 wynnleaf: > What I think many readers want is to come up with something that gives > a better reason for the Marauders to hex Snape rather than just "he > exists." So readers imagine -- and even hope -- that JKR will in Book > 7 show us something Snape was doing in school that would show he was > just as guilty as the Marauders in perpetuating the feud, and that he > somehow brought on their hexing by some nastiness on his part. Alla: Sorry, wynnleaf but professor Trelawney does not give you good grade as to figuring out intentions of this reader ;) This reader at least does not **wants** or **hopes** for James to have a better reason for hexing Snape. I gave my reasons numerous times why I think (think - not hope at all) that "why he exists"") may translate or may not in something very definitive. I could care less if marauders were bullies in their youth - I would not love them as characters any less, you know? And of course I believe that their good deeds and heroic deaths are so much more than bullying in their youth, that I will easily forgive them that. I do not need my favorite characters to be perfect, you know? In the book I mentioned couple of times, my favorite character murdered his family by torturing them. So, if it turns out that two of my favorite characters bullied without provocation the greasy git, I will live, really :) But I have good faith reasons to believe that it was not quite so. Wynnleaf: > > But as yet JKR has had numerous avenues to show us Snapes supposed > guilt and hasn't done it. Alla: Yes, and as Neri said in OOP blood on James face went unnoticed by anybody. Plot constraints I think. Let's wait till book 7 and we shall see then :) JMO, Alla. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 3 14:49:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 14:49:49 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168277 > > Mike: > But neither Harry nor James would be wise to turn his back on Draco > or Severus, imo. Pippin: But in the Pensieve that's exactly what happens. Snape wanders outside, parks himself in the shade to study his exam paper, and the Marauders take no notice of him at all until Sirius gets bored and James is looking for something to liven him up. At which point, Sirius has to "turn his head" to look at Snape. In fact, even after the conflict starts, James turns his back on Snape to talk to Lily. "Behind [James] the Impediment Jinx was wearing off." Also, "Go out with me and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again" doesn't make it sound as if Snape is the one keeping things stirred up. > > Pippin: > > I thought the point under discussion was whether JKR planned > > to repair the Marauders' tarnished image by showing > > that Snape had in some measure earned a drubbing by terrorizing > > the other kids. > > Mike: > Not some nebulous *other* kids, and not "terrorizing". Specifically > MWPP and probably moreso just the PP. And an ongoing and to be > continued hexing war between these combatants. Pippin: JKR has had three opportunities to say that James was just retaliating for previous incidents in an ongoing war. The character who finally delivers this information to Harry is going to have to have a really good reason for keeping it back, or we're going to be thinking that JKR cheated. Care to speculate on what it might be? Nor were Harry and Draco having any kind of a hex war when Dumbledore compared them to James and Snape, IIRC, Draco had never even tried to hex Harry at that point. Mike: And we did not get to see Snape's Best Memory. Pippin: But we will, since we're going to find out why Snape's patronus would be a spoiler. > > Pippin: > > The slack of indicating that hexing people for fun was okay because > > it was cool and everyone was doing it. > > Mike: > OK, I understand that, but methinks you are using the wrong example > when you refer to the "Frosty Christmas" conversation as proof. Lupin > is already responding to Harry's question in the key of Half-Blood > Prince. Lupin is explaining that just because James used it, that's > no reason to believe that James invented it. Lots of people used it. : > He's not speaking to the "everybody was doing it, so it was OK for > James". He's speaking to the "James didn't invent it and he's not the > HBP". Pippin: But Lupin seems not to understand at first that Harry is wondering if James might be the HBP. When Harry says, "My dad used it, I saw him in the Pensieve, he used it on Snape." Lupin's smile is "a little too understanding" --and then he makes to excuse James's conduct. Then Lupin looks into Harry's face and finally gets it, "James was a pureblood, Harry, and I promise you, he never asked us to call him "Prince." Mike: And this isn't a particularly egregious hex, either. Pippin: Well, that depends, doesn't it? Hermione didn't think it was benign, and she's not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to retaliatory hexing. > > Pippin: > > But taking Harry's POV, it looks as if James and the > > whole WW would have been better off if James had let Snape > > meet his fate. Hands up, anyone who doesn't think *that* > > is going to be reversed. > > > > I thought so. > > Mike: > ::Raising my hand (I think):: > Are you asking if the WW would have been better off without Snape's > part in things? If that is the question, then my hand stays up. Snape > doesn't deliver the prophesy, we don't get the murders of James and > Lily and no "chosen one". (Canon as it stands now. Not necessarily my > take on things, but that's for a different discussion) Pippin: If I understand you correctly, you do expect this view of James's actions to change by the end of Book Seven, yes? That's what I was asking. Does anyone think that in the end it will be shown that Snape's life wasn't worth saving? Mike: . Even in war the reasons for *killing* your commanding officer are few and far between, and you didn't have one of those reasons. Period. Pippin: I believe there is a documented case (though unfortunately I don't have the reference) in which a soldier shot his mortally wounded commanding officer in order to convince the enemy he was a turncoat. The soldier was acquitted of murder. If Snape has information which is vital to Harry's victory, and which cannot be given to Harry yet because of the mind link, and if Dumbledore was beyond saving, then what else should Snape have done? Mike: > Oh, and if it turns out that you didn't kill Dumbledore... I still > hope you suffer a great deal of pain... and we'll talk about the > redemption part after. ;D > Pippin: See, I think JKR believes that wanting to make people suffer, even guilty ones, is a base instinct. And she's going to make danged sure that by the time she's done, we think so too. Just IMO, likewise. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Thu May 3 15:15:16 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 15:15:16 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168278 > > Magpie: > > Yes, I understood what you meant--though I think that would also > translate > > to "cool by Harry and on his side." > > > Alla: > > I wonder how many times I should repeat myself that **NO** it does > not translate for me in "cool by Harry and on his side"? :) I mean > you are free of course to not believe me, but then aren't we taking > each other words as true sort of by default or our conversations > sort of become meaningless? When I am telling you - **this** is what > I mean and you are telling me - no, that is what you Alla, really > mean? Sorry, I do not mean to sound annoyed, you know I like you > very much, but I do not think that anybody can read my mind better > than me :) Magpie: I'm not telling you what *you* mean at all. I know *you* just mean that the Slytherin would be shown doing noble things whether or not they had anything to do with Harry. I was making a comment about the way things usually seem to work in canon so far, not on any hidden meaning in your post. There are even characters who are basically on Harry's side, or at least not against him, who still get slotted as not good because they're not good enough on that score. So I realize what you're saying, I'm just saying that the way the books have been so far we don't usually see people just being presented as generally good who don't usually also wind up pretty cool with Harry. Just as Regulus, if it turns out he struck a blow for Voldemort, will probably be cool by Harry (he is an ally even if he didn't know it, and was never an enemy). I know that *you* can appreciate a Slytherin doing a good deed without being a friend of Harry. > > Magpie: > > And that's where I disagree. They are all the things they seem to > be. > > They're still not all bad and need to be brought back into the > school and > > rehabilitated. The challenge, imo, isn't to just find some kids > who fit the > > mould of our heroes and slap a green tie on them. There's no > challenge in > > that, and it just avoids the problem that's set up. It avoids the > whole > > conflict the story seems to run on. > > Alla: > > My question is again **who** are they? Forget about Draco Malfoy for > a second and tell me which Slytherin kids you met that are not bad. > I understand that certainly realistically there are good kids there, > they just have to be. But where are they in the book? Whom else do > we meet but DE kids? Magpie: I'm talking about these very DE kids. My point is that you are defining "good" as a kid that you put into the good rather than the bad category. I am saying that the kids you consider to be bad-- Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Montague, Pansy, Blaise, Theo and any other faceless kids we have seen, are not simply "bad." That the house is defined by these kids we see in it, and that they must be brought back into the fold and the school made whole. It's the potential good in them that matters to me, not potential other students in their house, something I think is backed up by JKR not creating ones that break the stereotype much. -m From horadesiesta at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 3 14:54:30 2007 From: horadesiesta at yahoo.co.uk (horadesiesta) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 14:54:30 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168279 > Eggplant wrote: > > > > > > I realize almost everybody on this list wants Harry to live, but > they also want book 7 to be as good as it's possible to be. I believe > these two wishes are incompatible. A good work or art should tie your > > emotions into a knot and Harry's death would do exactly that. Clara here, first-time poster, I would just like to point out that JKR is managing to entertain both adults and children with her literature, and I feel sure that she has taken her younger readers into consideration when planning the final outcome of book 7. Carol said (and it?s a shame to snip the rest): > But, certainly, there are other ways to bring the reader to tears (or > as near to tears as they'll allow themselves to go) than Harry's > death. For me, one of the most emotional moments in HBP is the sudden > understanding between Fleur and Molly (Molly's realization that > Fleur's love for Bill is genuine, which amounts to an acceptance of > Fleur as a daughter-in-law, and Fleur's recognition and > acknowledgement of that acceptance, none of which Harry comprehends). > No death is involved, though Bill has come close to death. What's > involved is an understanding between rivals for Bill's affection who > understand that there's room for both, but the love of the future wife > must to some degree supersede the love of the mother, who must let her > son go, must let him live his own life and find his own happiness. > SNIP Clara adds: - I feel that Molly?s "sacrifice" of letting her son marry Fleur may well be overshadowed by a darker one. Motherhood/saving your children is a recurring theme in these books, and I personally think that Fridwulfa, Hagrid?s giantess mother may come to the rescue in book 7. > From random832 at gmail.com Thu May 3 15:39:57 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 11:39:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705030839s500699dfp8f1c6e6113598f91@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168280 [of, i can only assume, Levicorpus] > Mike: > And this isn't a particularly egregious hex, either. > > Pippin: > Well, that depends, doesn't it? Hermione didn't think it was > benign, and she's not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes > to retaliatory hexing. IIRC The worst Hermione, founder of the DA, had to say about it, was "it's probably not ministry-approved" (honest answers, everyone, who didn't want to smack her for that line?). And there's evidence that she's opposed to the HBP on principle for her own reasons, having nothing to do with an objective analysis. --Random832 From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 3 16:08:53 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 16:08:53 -0000 Subject: Who are the Good Slytherins? was Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168281 > Alla: > > My question is again **who** are they? Forget about Draco Malfoy for > a second and tell me which Slytherin kids you met that are not bad. > I understand that certainly realistically there are good kids there, > they just have to be. But where are they in the book? Whom else do > we meet but DE kids? Pippin: They are the ones who stood to drink to Harry in GoF. We know that Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle and many of the other Slytherins refused. But not all of them. We don't know the refusers by name, but then we don't even know two of the Gryffindors in Harry's own year. As for whom we've met, Blaise, Pansy, Marcus Flint, Adrian Pucey, Bletchley and Terrence Higgs do not have DE fathers, AFAWK, and that's just from the first book, I suppose there are more. As far as I know, none of the above have done anything terrible. They play a rough game of Quidditch, and Flint took part in trying to distract Harry, but as for thinking that a phony dementor would make him fall off his broom, c'mon. They were all on the train with Harry, they know what a real dementor feels like, and any kid older than eight who thinks they could produce an effect like that just by putting on a costume would be as cracked as Moody's old Foe-glass. We also know that the kids in Draco's compartment scarcely dream of joining Voldemort. Doubtless they expect that everyone will have to join Voldemort if he wins, but I don't see any of them except Draco plotting to bring that about. When Draco boasts of his secret mission, who offers to help? Crabbe and Goyle don't seem like eager volunteers. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Thu May 3 16:14:41 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 16:14:41 -0000 Subject: Generational parallels (was: Re: Maraurders/he exists) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168282 > wynnleaf > I would not be so quick to lay out the comparison as James to Snape = > Harry to Draco. It's interesting that whenever in the past few posts > anyone has used this comparison, they've had Harry to Draco equating > with James to Snape. Why that particular order? Why not Harry to > Draco equating with Snape to James? Well, obviously I think because > posters assume that the correlation is that Harry responds to Draco > the way James responded to Snape, and Draco responds to Harry the way > Snape did to James. > > But guess what? That's not the way Dumbledore arranged the order of > the comparison. Harry said, "he [Snape] hated my father." and > Dumbledore said, "not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy." If you were > simply going by the order of the comparison, it would be Snape- James > compared to Harry-Draco, or more specifically, Snape hating James is > like Harry hating Draco. So if anyone wants to use Dumbledore's words > to prove a point, you should not *assume* that Dumbledore means that > James was to Snape as Harry is to Draco. He could easily have meant > that Snape responded to James much like Harry did to Draco. Indeed, > that is the order that is set up in the comments. > Magpie: I'm snipping other good stuff to just bring this up, because this is something I love JKR does in the books--I think she loves to misdirect us with generational parallels. There are enough likenesses to always make us look for more where they aren't there. I remember when Harry first sees his father in the Pensieve and he describes looking at James like "looking at himself with deliberate mistakes." Deliberate mistakes--JKR isn't ever just rewriting the Marauders generation. Dumbledore is, imo, speaking the truth when he says what he says about Snape hating James using Harry and Draco for comparison, but as you point out, he doesn't specifically keep the order the way we might expect it. Nor does he tell Harry that he was like James and Snape was like Draco. I remember it seemed like everybody used to assume it was Harry to Draco as James to Snape, but after the Pensieve many people suddenly thought the "surprise" was that James was Draco and Snape was Harry. But in reality, imo, none of these kids is the other, though they mirror different aspects of each other in different ways. We get into trouble, imo, when we try to make them the same to fit the pattern. ITA that Snape has never been shown to be helpless or innocent (particularly not in the eyes of Harry, who counts the most). He can't both be the last generation's Neville and the last generation's Draco. Nor can Draco be both James and Snape. Nor was Neville this generation's Peter just because of certain similarities of type. The Harry/Draco hatred had a specific beginning and we have an idea why both boys hate each other that comes from their specific personalities--and I don't think it could directly translate to Snape and James, who were two totally different people. I wouldn't be surprised if Snape and James had their own very specific basis for hatred, even if nobody immediately would remember it after years of battling. (Even if there wasn't a specific incident both boys would speak specifically about what they hated about the other person, why he was so worthy of hatred, just as Harry could say about Malfoy and vice versa.) Nor has the Harry/Draco hatred developed in the same way, due to different personalities, different circumstances--and even the influence of the past, because Snape himself has an effect on it by playing his own role with both boys. At this point Harry and Draco both seem to have actually progressed a little in ways James and Snape never did. There especially doesn't seem to be that same level of frustration on either of their parts that still appears to drive Snape. By HBP we're clearly dealing with a totally different dynamic that said to me that I shouldn't just imagine Harry/Draco twenty years earlier. So while I do think sometimes it's helpful to make comparisons, it's also easy to go too far with them, filling in one relationships with bits pulled from the other when there's no basis for it. (Not only do we have no evidence of dust-ups of the type Harry and Draco have had a few in canon, we have no evidence of the kind of thing described for Snape and James with Harry and Draco.) Iow, the mistakes are deliberate--because they're not mistakes. We shouldn't "fix" the parts that aren't the same. That leads to distorting the characters. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 16:49:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 16:49:46 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168283 Pippin wrote: > Nor were Harry and Draco having any kind of a hex war when Dumbledore compared them to James and Snape, IIRC, Draco had never even tried to hex Harry at that point. Carol responds: While I'm generally on your side in this discussion, I don't think this statement is quite correct. Setting aside the Duelling Club in CoS, in which they hexed each other under controlled conditions (controlled by Snape, not the inept Lockhart), Draco had tried to hex Harry from behind and been turned into a ferret for it. Also, Draco, with his cronies as backup, had approached HRH on the Hogwarts Express and insulted them, stating that they were on the losing side, and been hexed for their pains. There's also the Densuageo incident in GoF. That hex was aimed at Harry but collided with Harry's hex (both were deflected; Draco's hit Hermione and Harry's hit Goyle). Granted, however, they're not hexing each other before or after every class. > Pippin: > Well, that depends, doesn't it? Hermione didn't think it [Levicorpus] was benign, and she's not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to retaliatory hexing. Carol: True regarding Hermione. Funny thing. She's a good guy, but she certainly does retaliate, both against Marietta and Ron (not to mention blackmailing reporters and temporarily keeping them in jars). So maybe JKR is a little *too* tolerant of retaliatory hexing. Nevertheless, I don't see Levicorpus *in itself* as any worse than the jinxes and hexes that the kids routinely use on each other, from Petrificus Totalus (used by Hermione against the innocent Neville in SS/PS) to Densuageo and whatever hex Harry used to cover Goyle with boils (of course, his intended target was Draco, but that's beside the point). Levicorpus is embarrassing when it's used to humiliate someone (Teen!Severus or the Muggle woman at the QWC), but if Lupin is telling the truth, it was a popular hex in their fifth year. Certainly, Ron isn't upset when Harry accidentally uses it on him, once he gets over his initial surprise. He even thinks it's funny. Hermione, OTOH, is not fond of the HBP, who is (inadvertently) helping Harry to outperform her in Potions (and I do understand her resentment here). And Harry is using one of the Prince's hexes, Langlock, on a defenseless Squib. Consequently, she wants nothing to do with even the innocuous Muffliato. So she associates Levicorpus with Death Eaters. As I understand that scene, however, the DEs in general were using the Hover Charm, Wingardium Leviosa, to suspend the Muggles over their heads. One of them used a different charm or hex to spin a child around, and another (someone suggested it might be Lucius Malfoy) uses Levicorpus to flip Mrs. Roberts over and expose her drawers (much as Severus's greying underwear was exposed in his worst memory), So, IMO, Levicorpus in itself is not worse than, say, the Prince's own toenail hex or the other hexes and jinxes (Jelly Legs, Rictussempra, the tickling charm) etc. that the kids routinely use against each other. But, like Stupefy and Impedimenta and many other neutral spells, it can be put to bad use by bullies and Death Eaters. (So, for that matter, can the Marauder's Map, which was used by Barty Crouch Jr. to help him murder his own father.) Carol, who agrees with Pippin that JKR believes in forgiveness, not revenge, and that Harry's forgiveness of Snape will be of great importance in DH From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu May 3 19:02:10 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 19:02:10 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168286 > Pippin wrote: > > Nor were Harry and Draco having any kind of a hex war when > Dumbledore compared them to James and Snape, IIRC, Draco had never > even tried to hex Harry at that point. > > Carol responded: > While I'm generally on your side in this discussion, I don't think > this statement is quite correct. zgirnius: And I generally agree with both you you as well on this subject. :) I believe that Pippin's point is that Dumbledore made the comparison of the Harry/Draco and Snape/James relationships (or whichever order the reader prefers ;) ) at the end of PS/SS. Examples from CoS through HBP are therefore not relevant to Dumbledore's thought process at the time he makes the comparison. He could not have had a hex war in mind when making the comparison. Personally, I think all he was saying was that Harry and Draco detest each other, as did James and Snape. Presumably his goal was to get Harry to understand Snape's motivations, since that is what he went on to discuss. In that sense, he was asking Harry to compare himself to Snape, I would guess, to think how he might react to being saved by Draco. Harry, however, got a headache just thinking about it. ;) We as readers are of course free to more broadly try to make the parallel work one way or the other based on events from all six books, but I think this can be argued both ways and probably does not contribute greatly to our understanding of the James/Snape relationship. Many particulars of that relationship are known to be different from Harry and Draco's, no matter who you cast in which role. Reasoning from the evidence that we have actually *about* them seems likely to be more productive, to me. For example, there are parallels in background between James and Draco. Both are purebloods, and have wealthy and indulgent parents. (Lucius may set standards for Draco, but then I am sure the Potters did likewise for James. Lucius does, however, buy top of the line brooms for his whole Quidditch team). And the corresponding parallel exists between Harry and Snape. Both are half-bloods, both *may* have been raised among Muggles (I think there is evidence to suggest this about Snape), and both were poor (Harry in the sense that the Dursleys, while comfortably middle class, give him as little as they can get away with). On the other hand, there are also parallels Between Harry and James that are mirrored between Snape and Draco as well. House being the most obvious. Another is the Prank/Sectumsempra: both Draco and Snape are nearly killed by their adversaries (apparently unintentionally in both cases). But then there are things that just don't fit no matter how we try to match the characters up- we don't have a scene comparable to the Worst Memory at all for Harry and Draco. Harry and the Trio could be paralleled to James and the Marauders, fast friends sticking up for one another and all, but Snape appears to have lacked a Crabbe and Goyle. His "Slytherin gang" appear to have been older students, among whom it is unthinkable he would have been a leader in the way Draco seems to be among students in his own year. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 19:48:17 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 19:48:17 -0000 Subject: Sevie vs. James Dynamic (Was: Maraurders/he exists) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168287 Mike: I picture the Sevie v James dynamic quite parallel to Draco v Harry. Think back to the dueling club. Draco conjures a venomous snake with prompting from Snape. By the sixth year, the most we've seen Harry conjure has been water. And I don't think Snape is *that* good of a teacher. I think Draco knew many more spells than Harry did, in the early years, despite Ron's exhortations in PS/SS to the contrary. But Harry is able to hold his own because of his quick reflexes, even though he can only retaliate with a tickling charm. Montavilla: The funny thing about comparing the S/J dynamic with the H/D one is that everyone seems to equate Harry with James and Draco with with Severus. That's backwards, as I see it. Sirius said that Snape was always sneaking around, trying to get the Marauders in trouble. But Draco only really tried to get Harry in trouble in PS/SS--by setting him up with the duel. When he catches them outright he doesn't tell anyone. It's only that Draco gets caught out of bed that causes them McGonagall to catch Harry and the others. On the other hand, the Trio is definitely sneaking on Draco in CoS (a book in which he confines himself to evilling getting a spot on the Quidditch team and casting a scary spell during a duel). In PoA, Draco pulls a prank by dressing up as a Dementor and tells whem Harry's head appears in Hogsmeade--although, judging by his terrified reaction, that might have been less about getting in trouble and more him thinking Harry had been decapitated by the Madman Sirius Black. In GoF, more pranking by Draco and again no sneaking. In OotP, an abuse of prefect power--at which point sneaking is irrelevant. He doesn't need to tell on Harry, he can take the points directly. And, in HBP, Draco is done with Harry--it's Harry who can't stop obsessively following Draco around, sneaking, trying to get him in trouble.... Sound familiar? Moreover, Harry is the half-blood raised in a muggle neighborhood. Draco is the pureblood from a well-to-do family. Both of them have their entourages, so it's a little hard to judge on that score. But Harry often feels alone, while Severus was literally alone in SWM. Draco's never without Crabbe and Goyle (they're even there in HBP, although they don't know what's going on). Harry has been an outcast at times within Hogwarts and was very much the weird oddball in his former school. Dumbledore never specified who was who in the Snape/James feud that seemed so much like Harry and Draco. But, if pressed, he might admitted that James was more the Draco in the feud than the Harry. Montavilla47 From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu May 3 20:08:54 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 20:08:54 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168288 wynnleaf As regards my post and others recently, including Magpie's post on the Generational Parallels thread, I agree that one cannot take these supposed character parallels too far, even if they are specifically mentioned in canon, such as Dumbledore's comment which seems more likely to be relating Snape's hating James to Harry hating Draco. I certainly don't think James is much of a parallel to Draco. However, I do think JKR created an intentional parallel between James and Dudley. The Marauder's attack on Snape in the Worst Memory scene is much more like an attack of Dudley and his gang on Harry than it is like any other of the wizard to wizard attacks we've seen in HP. Like Dudley and his gang, James attacks (at least in the context of that particular scene), without provocation. The attack is from James and Co. against one person. The reasoning is "because he exists." Dudley attacks Harry with his gang to help out. Dudley attacks Harry simply because he's "a freak" which seems akin to Sirius attributing some of the Marauder's dislike of Snape to his being "an oddball." Other parallels between Dudley and James include both being only sons. Dudley is spoiled by his parents. James is "pampered" by his parents (JKR's word -- hey, they gave their son, who was constantly in detention, an invisibility cloak. How spoiled can you get?). And last, JKR makes the parallel definite by giving Dudley a friend named Piers (Peter), who has a face like a rat. It's a clear parallel. Piers follows Dudley as the "biggest bully of the playground" (Sirius' comment on Peter following Voldemort) in Little Winging and Peter follows James as the "biggest bully of the playground" at Hogwarts. Would I push that parallel even further? No, I wouldn't. We have no evidence that James' parents were horrible like the Dursleys. Piers is Dudley's best friend while Peter is a sort of "hanger on" with the Marauders. James apparently matured to the extent that Lily loved and married him. We haven't seen any sign of that in Dudley so far. Dudley appears to be a coward. James is not a coward. So the parallel is by no means complete. But it's pretty obvious, especially with Piers and Peter both being rats of a sort, that JKR intends a parallel. Now what does that say for Snape, eh? wynnleaf From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 20:25:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 20:25:42 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > wynnleaf > I certainly don't think James is much of a parallel to Draco. > > However, I do think JKR created an intentional parallel between > James and Dudley. > > The Marauder's attack on Snape in the Worst Memory scene is much > more like an attack of Dudley and his gang on Harry than it is like > any other of the wizard to wizard attacks we've seen in HP. Like > Dudley and his gang, James attacks (at least in the context of that > particular scene), without provocation. The attack is from James > and Co. against one person. The reasoning is "because he exists." > > Dudley attacks Harry with his gang to help out. Dudley attacks > Harry simply because he's "a freak" which seems akin to Sirius > attributing some of the Marauder's dislike of Snape to his being "an > oddball." > Would I push that parallel even further? No, I wouldn't. We have > no evidence that James' parents were horrible like the Dursleys. > Piers is Dudley's best friend while Peter is a sort of "hanger on" > with the Marauders. James apparently matured to the extent that > Lily loved and married him. We haven't seen any sign of that in > Dudley so far. Dudley appears to be a coward. James is not a > coward. > > So the parallel is by no means complete. But it's pretty obvious, > especially with Piers and Peter both being rats of a sort, that JKR > intends a parallel. > > Now what does that say for Snape, eh? Alla: What does that say for Snape? I don't know - I am guessing something good, if one buys parallel between James and Dudley. If one does **not** buy parallel between James and Dudley in any way, then I have no idea frankly what that says about Snape. The major flaw I see in the parallel that you developed is that several people brought up the reasoning why pensieve scene may not turn out to be all that reliable. Then analogy does not work at all for me, because I see no reason to think that Dudley attack on Harry can be unreliable either. But I will tell you this - if after book 7 pensieve scene will stays on with the same degree of reliability as it stayed after OOP, I will agree with your parallel. I think that there would be far more *understandable* reasons for that attack than attack by Dudley, but I can be wrong. JMO, Alla. From goodasitgets at insightbb.com Thu May 3 17:55:15 2007 From: goodasitgets at insightbb.com (Ronda) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 17:55:15 -0000 Subject: General comments and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168290 Annemflynn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137425: > I too think DD faked his own death. The first potion Harry made > successfully with the assistance of the HBP was Draught of the > Living Dead, which is, I believe, what DD drank in the cave. Snape > looked at DD for a split second on the tower before doing the AV > curse. I think : We are seeing more and more that Snape is a pretty > powerful wizard. We already know that he is quite the accomplished > Leglilmens and Occlumens, as is DD, which Malfoy is not and would > thus miss this whole transaction. If DD didn't hide his thoughts at > that moment, he could have conveyed to Snape that he drank the > Draught of the Living Dead. Snape, not only as potions master, but > also a DADA instructor would have known how to react to that. JKR > spent a lot of time on silent spells in this book. I think that's > the loophole. If he didn't mean the AV curse and did a silent spell > at the same...It could be my grief talking though. I think we'll be > seeing shades of Romeo and Juliet here. Plus, there's the only > Phoenix thing DD has going. I mean, there's got to be something to > that. Again, it could be my grief talking... > > I still think Snape is on the side of good. None of his curses hit > Harry. I have full confidence in Snape's dueling ability to know > that had he wanted to hit his mark, he would. He had the chance to > take Harry prisoner for LV, but didn't. Ronda: I just joined the list and was looking for other posts to confirm my own thoughts...YAY!!!! here it is...a post from long past...most of what I am also thinking anyway..sorry to those who didn't agree with this! Thank you to the original poster! There is so much that DD wanted Harry to hear and see on the lightning struck tower...and DD's trust and absolute command from DD that Snape be who Harry brought to him...and all we learned about nonverbal spells...J.K has soooo much she wants us to figure out on our own but thankfully she leaves a fairly thick trail of clues for us too. From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 20:03:33 2007 From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 20:03:33 -0000 Subject: The REAL Spy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168291 Ok. Now I know this might have been discussed in this forum before. but I can't seem to find any real in depth talk about it in the archives. So forgive me if any of you feel that reading this question was just a big 30 second waste of your life! But J.K. has said that reading the book VERY carefully leads to tons of clues as to what will happen in the next instalment. Seeing how this is book number 7, it's safe to say she's provided us all the clues we need by now. Reading the book has implied that someone seems to be a traitor in the castle. And from past books, the majority of the traitors have the same first and last initials i.e. Peter Petegrew & Severus Snape. Something I was discussing with my friend is the likely outcome of Professor Minerva McGonagall being the next traitor. I myself am prone to not seeing anything at ALL bad in Prof. McG! She's my fav character and save Harry and Hagrid, she was the most loyal to DD! Just wondering your thoughts on this? Also P.S...A lil off subject but I don't come on here A LOT, and things move way too fast for me to try and keep up. But I personally believe that Hagrid (blocking a killing curse for Harry), Harry (brought back to life, a magical death of some sort), and Wormtail (paying his debt to Harry) will be the three major people who die in the last book. Mitchell From inspirit at ptd.net Thu May 3 21:05:58 2007 From: inspirit at ptd.net (Kim) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:05:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The REAL Spy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2237E20958A74A3E8532E4B13F7B2ED9@KimsNewBaby> No: HPFGUIDX 168292 Mitchell considers: ...And from past books, the majority of the traitors have the same first and last initials i.e. Peter Petegrew & Severus Snape. Something I was discussing with my friend is the likely outcome of Professor Minerva McGonagall being the next traitor. I myself am prone to not seeing anything at ALL bad in Prof. McG! She's my fav character and save Harry and Hagrid, she was the most loyal to DD! Just wondering your thoughts on this? Kim's thoughts: I think the initials hint has merit but I too, love McGonnagall so I wonder... I've always thought the Bloody Baron might be the dark wizard Grindelwald (did I get that right?) Could he travel to Voldemort and offer information? Even if he isn't Grindelwald, he's frightening enough as The Bloody Baron. Naturally we'd have to assume Dumbledore would know the history of the house ghosts but he let so many "under qualified" DADA teachers in that I can imagine him missing this, as well. And the initials BB fit. Kim... shooting in the dark in a vain attempt to clear McGonnagal of any suspicion whatsoever. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu May 3 21:42:12 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 21:42:12 -0000 Subject: General comments and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronda" wrote: > > Annemflynn wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137425: > > I too think DD faked his own death. > > Ronda: > I just joined the list and was looking for other posts to confirm my > own thoughts...YAY!!!! here it is...a post from long past...most of > what I am also thinking anyway..sorry to those who didn't agree with > this! J.K has soooo much she wants us to figure out on our own but >thankfully she leaves a fairly thick trail of clues for us too. JW: I agree that JKR leaves a fairly thick trail of clues for us. Here's one from an event in NYC last summer. At this charity event, JKR and other authors performed readings from their books, and JKR answered questions from the audience. In response to a question from Salmam Rushdie, a member of the audience that night, JKR said: "But I see that I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore is definitely ... dead (crowd gasps)"... "But I think I need - you need - all of you need to move through the five stages of grief (crowd laughs), and I'm just helping you get past denial." She also said that "DD will NOT do a Gandalf." You can find the entire transcript of the event at www.accio-quote.org Now, of course you are free to interpret this any way that you need to. IMHO I believe JKR is trying to oh sooo subtly tell us that DD is no longer alive and will not revive. I expect that we will hear from the dead headmaster by way of his portait, his pensieve thoughts, and probably time travel that he performed when he was alive. Remember that peculiar watch he wore...? From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 20:56:04 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 20:56:04 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168294 > Alla: > The major flaw I see in the parallel that you developed is that > that several people brought up the reasoning why pensieve scene > may not turn out to be all that reliable. > I think that there would be far more *understandable* reasons > for that attack than attack by Dudley, but I can be wrong. Ryan: In what sense could the pensieve scene be unreliable? I actually hadn't considered the parallels Dudley/James parallels before. It does make sense, though. Harry must've hated having to sypmathize with Snape in that situation. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 22:13:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 22:13:37 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168295 Neri wrote: Then tell me, how do you explain that neither James, nor Lily, nor Sirius ever mention in one word the blood on James's face and robes. As if it doesn't exist. As if Severus didn't cause it to happen right in front of their eyes. Is this reasonable? > > This is something you can't blame on ESE!Lupin, you can only blame it on Ever-So-Sneaky!JKR. She was obviously downplaying the part of this curse until she could spring it on us again. Carol responds: Apparently Yahoo has eaten the response I wrote to this post last night (unfortunately for me since I spent a lot of time researching the canon!). However, I'll try again. I agree, Neri, that we can't blame this one on ESE!Lupin. But I don't think we can blame the unreliable narrator, either. Since the Pensieve is, according to JKR, an objective record of events, the only bias would be from the narrator reflecting Harry's pov. Frankly, the narrator makes only a few Harrycentric comments (e.g. "Snape was clearly unpopular"). Most of the rest is objectively narrated, with the focus on James's words and actions (reflecting Harry's own focus on James). Let me say at the outset that I don't believe that this scene reflects a typical Severus/MWPP interaction. I think it's his worst memory, assuming that the title is accurate, because it occurred in front of the entire fifth-year class, he did not, in this instance, have an opportunity to defend himself; and a Gryffindor girl with a crush on James added to his humiliation by trying to rescue him. JMO. As for the de-emphasis on the cut that James received, I think it's because the cut is not important. The narrator notes it once in passing--a gash appears on James's cheek and his robes are spattered with blood. James reacts to it only by casting Levicorpus. He does not so much as cry out in pain or raise a hand to his cheek. Harry thinks no more about it; none of the characters in SWM remarks on it, nor do Lupin and Black bring it up when Harry, seeing his father as a bully and Snape as his victim, brings up the incident. They're too busy remembering James playing with the Snitch and ruffling his hair to give much thought to Severus. It's clear, however, that they're vaguely ashamed of their own behavior in that scene: "Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?" asks Lupin. "Did I ever tell you I thought you were out of order?" To which Black replies, "Yeah, well, you made us feel ashamed of ourselves sometimes" (671). Clearly, Severus was not going around attacking them with Dark magic. They, themselves, acknowledge their behavior (and, by implication, James's) to be unjustified. Let's look at the scene itself. Sirius and James catch Severus off-guard. (Note that Sirius becomes very still, "like a dog that has scented a rabbit.") James addresses "Snivellus," who reaches for his wand (Harry notices his quick reflexes, perhaps developed as the result of previous attacks), but evidently their wands are already out. James casts Expelliarmus. Sirius attacks their disarmed opponent with Impedimenta. They insult Severus as he struggles against the jinx. When he reacts by swearing and threatening, James hits him with a Scourgify, "making him gag, choking him," again attacking a downed and disarmed opponent who has as yet done nothing to them (in this scene), at least). Lily yells at them to leave him alone. We get the exchange in which Lily asks what Severus has done to James and James makes his "he exists" excuse. Severus finds his wand and strikes back with the cutting hex, causing a gash on James's face and a spatter of blood. James, annoyed but evidently in no great pain, retaliates with Levicorpus (Severus's own nonverbal hex, which James for mysterious reasons know and perhaps deliberately uses against him). Rather than turning on Severus for using this "Dark" curse (whose effects none of them consider serious enough to remark on). Lily orderd James to let Severus down, which he does, but Sirius promptly hits him with Locomotor Mortis. Lily shouts, "LEAVE HIM ALONE!" and James, unfazed by Severus's hex but evidently unwilling to give up his fun, says, "Ah, Evans, don't make me hex you." She repeats her order to take the curse (note the word "curse" for "jinx" here) off him. James obeys and tells "Snivellus" that he's lucky Evans was there. Humiliated by this suggestion, Severus makes his infamous "Mudblood" retort, to which Lily, evidently not understanding why her help was not appreciated, replies to his generic insult with a personal one. James roars at him to apologize. Lily says that Lily doesn't want *him* to make Severus apologize. She gives her reasons why James is as bad as Severus and stalks off. James calls out after her but she doesn't return and asks rhetorically, "What's up with her?" Sirius responds that she apparently thinks James is "a bit conceited," at which James rounds on Severus, turns him upside down again, and threatens to take off his pants OoP Am. ed. 649). Nowhere do we have any indication that we're not seeing the whole episode here, that somehow exculpatory evidence can be introduced to make James and Sirius look like anything other than arrogant bullies. Harry's reaction to the scene is horror at his father's behavior and sympathy for Snape (650). To return to the cutting hex, to which no one pays attention in this scene. Sectumsempra means "cut forever." There's no indication that James is cut forever. Not only is there no further mention of blood but no one mentions a visit to Madam Pomfrey for dittany to prevent scarring. No one utters the countercurse (which, in any case, only Severus would know--it's not written in the margins of his Potions book like the countercurse to Levicorpus). My impression is that this little cutting hex, which does minimal damage and is not considered important enough to be mentioned by anyone, is not the admittedly Dark Sectumsempra, which is marked "for enemies" and requires a complex countercurse to reverse. Most likely, this incident and the somewhat later "Prank," which endangered Severus's life (yes, he could have been killed rather than transformed into a werewolf in the confinement of the Shrieking Shack with no help at hand) and which he regarded as a murder attempt, spurred him to modify the cutting hex into something deadlier, either as a defense against further attacks or as retaliation. It's clear, however, that he never used it on them or he'd have been expelled (as Harry would have been had Draco died). It seems likely, and this is just my opinion, that Snape invented (or researched) the elaborate counterspell later, probably after he'd "returned to our side." At any rate, I don't think that either the curse or its countercurse had been invented at the time of the SWM. Surely, we'd have heard about it if Severus had been forced to sing or chant the countercurse to Sectumsempra to heal James's cheek. Neri seems to think that HBP turns the SWM scene on its head, showing Teen!Snape as the inventor of Dark spells. IMO, it does no such thing. It shows Harry empathizing with the HBP, not knowing that he's Severus Snape, regarding him as a clever friend who helps him in Potions class, teaches him useful spells like Muffliato, and amuses him with mischievous hexes like Langlock and the toenail hex (not to mention reminding him of Snape's lesson on Bezoars, which ultimately saves Ron's life). It's only Hermione who sees the HBP's sense of humor as at all sinister, and she (with some justification) resents Harry's use of the book to get high marks from Slughorn that he doesn't deserve. Yes, Sectumsempra is Dark, but the countercurse is not, and it's a good thing for both Harry and Draco that Snape and only Snape discovered Draco lying in a pool of his own blood and knew instantly how to save his life. Nor are the other spells the HBP invented any darker than the spells the kids routinely use on each other: Densuageo, for example, or even Petrificus Totalus, which Hermione uses on the innocent Neville in SS/PS. And the potions hints are not at all dark; instead, they are very real improvements on a fifty-year-old textbook (thirty years old when Severus uses it). And without that snarky Bezoar joke stirring the memory of Harry's first Potions class with the adult Snape saved Ron's life. So I don't think that JKR is downplaying the cutting hex only to show it again in HBP (the effects are too different for them to be the same spell), nor do I think that anything we learn about the Half-Blood Prince casts a new light on SWM (James and Sirius are still bullies, Remus still a moral coward, Peter still a fawning worshipper of the biggest bully on the playground, Severus still a studious boy attacked without provocation and publicly humiliated). It does, however, provide us with a glimpse of the Half-Blood Prince, a boy that Harry might have liked were it not for the traditional rivalry between Gryffindor and Slytherin and the difference in their ages, a boy who starts out clever and imaginative and very suddenly, with one single spell, shows a surprising new side. As the narrator, reflecting Harry's pov, says, "It was as though a beloved pet had turned suddenly savage" (HBP Am. ed. 525). *Suddenly* *turned* savage, out of the blue. Something happened to cause that change, something to do with "enemies." Almost certainly, that something was either this humiliating incident, or, more likely, the "murder" plot that really could have led to Severus's death (or to his becoming a werewolf). Carol, noting with happy surprise that she agrees with Neri regarding Fenrir Greyback but unable to agree in this instance From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 22:47:54 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 22:47:54 -0000 Subject: First Impression of Draco (was:Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168296 > >>Alla: > > What does JKR do with House Slytherin? The first kid she makes me > to meet is Draco Malfoy. I hated him on the spot, hated him, hated > him, hated him. Oh, and in case anybody wonders that initially had > so very little to do with Harry, it is not even funny. I despised > him, I think first and foremost for passing a judgment on the > person (Hagrid) he never even met, I despised him for being a > snob... Betsy Hp: This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a different first impression of Draco. My first thought was actually, "ah, here's Harry's soon to be best friend". Of course, I was looking at PS/SS as a sort of "school days" genre with a magical twist. And in my experience with that sort of story the protagonist almost always hates and despises the person destined to become their bosom friend. So I spent the entirety of PS/SS waiting for the Harry and Draco equivalent of fighting a troll in the bathroom. I thought the dragon was going to be it. (And gosh, it came *so* close.) And then I thought it'd happen in CoS (especially with Draco being Harry's representative of the WW in the opening chapters there). I think it was finally OotP that broke me of looking for that "and from then on they were inseparable" scene. But anyway, that expectation encouraged me to look at Draco's introduction in a different light. Sure *Harry* might see him as a snob, but since he's going to be Harry's best friend by the end of the year, there's obviously something more going on here. So I saw a nervous kid doing his best to get to know this other boy and doing it in all the wrong ways and won't they share a chuckle about this on graduation day. I do wonder though, JKR *must* have read "school days" books before. I mean, she's British and she's spoofed the genre in other ways in her books. So did she *mean* to get her readers (at least, some of them) thinking that way during this scene? I'd be surprised, I think, if she didn't. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 23:09:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:09:45 -0000 Subject: Wormtail's silver hand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168297 Here's a fanciful scenario to entertain the Snape-lovers (though really, it's about Peter Pettigrew): Fenrir Greyback is attacking Harry as he did in HBP. Snape, in deep cover as a DE, surreptitiously takes Rat!Wormtail out of his pocket, whispers, "Now!" and tosses the rat onto the ground next to Greyback. Wormtail transforms into a man and grapples with Greyback and receives his death wound from Greyback's teeth but at the last second kills Greyback with his silver hand, fulfilling his life debt and ridding the WW of one of its most revolting and dangerous enemies. (Exit Snape, with his role in the incident undetected.) Okay, it probably won't happen exactly that way, especially the Snape connection, but surely both Peter's life debt to Harry and his silver hand are among the clues that JKR planted in the earlier books, pieces of Peter's character arc that will come together in DH. We know that the silver hand won't be used to kill Lupin (JKR has already answered that question), but how else might he use it? Does anyone else think that the silver hand and the life debt are tied together? If so, how? If not, why not? If the silver hand isn't a weapon for slaying vampires, erm, werewolves, what else might it be? Carol, remembering Peter crushing the twig with his silver hand in the graveyard scene and expecting him to crush something living in DH From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 23:06:25 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:06:25 -0000 Subject: Magic on Privet Drive Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168298 Ok so I've just stared reading OoTP again. (for the second time in a month and a 1/2 lol) And IDK why I didn't see it before, but if Harry's house is under such surveillance, then how did his Guard get away with all the magic that was being done in the house? Yes I know they were all of legal age, but shouldn't the ministry have detected the use of magic in the house at that point? Especially after Harry had just done magic not too long before. Wouldn't it be under closer scrutiny? If anyone has an answer to this please let me know. Tandra From skosmoskijr at yahoo.com Thu May 3 23:31:47 2007 From: skosmoskijr at yahoo.com (Stan Kosmoski) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 16:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape as Ultimate Hero Message-ID: <784858.57102.qm@web51611.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168299 " bergermeister99: That is not a bad theory. I will just say this(and people have probably already thought of this). To have DD completely trust Snape, there is only one possible thing that Snape could have done. Snape invoked and took the unbreakable vow with Dumbledore to protect Harry Potter by what ever means(even if that meant having to kill Dumbledore)" I think you have hit on it, but the vow was not with DD but rather with James to repay the life debt. That would explain why SS has been working to keep Harry alive and why he hates it so much....he has to. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 23:52:50 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:52:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP (was:Re: Maraurders/he exists) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168300 > >>Sherry: > As if Snape would have allowed Harry to see any of his own > detentions when he's in the midst of trying to further rip Harry's > respect and love for his father to pieces. Betsy Hp: Isn't it odd though, that knowing his father pulled pranks and served detention for them would bother Harry? After everything he's heard about James from McGonagall, Sirius and Lupin and with the Marauders' Map in hand, shouldn't Harry *enjoy* pouring through records of his father's boyhood exploits? I wonder if it's tied to Harry's reluctance to seek out information on his parents. Maybe he's uncomfortable with the idea of seeing his parents as actual human beings and prefers to keep them high on their pedestals: untouchable and coldly perfect. Perhaps it will be sign of Harry's adulthood when he's finally willing to get to know the real James and Lily? I wonder how it is that Snape realized that Harry, friend of the Weasleys, wouldn't think too keenly of his father as a prankster? > >>Sherry: > Yeah, noble guy Snape. > Betsy Hp: I actually do think Snape is a pretty noble man. He's never struck me as the type to torment innocents just to get his jollies. He's set this detention for Harry after witnessing Harry cut Draco open with a fairly brutal hex. And after Harry expresses worry that Draco's near death will ruin Gryffindor's chances at the Quidditch Cup. And later, (after Gryffindor has won the Quidditch Cup and Harry has a new girlfriend) Harry seems more bothered by the time he's spending in detention. So that's what Snape needles him about. "...[Snape] was keeping Harry later and later every time, while making pointed asides about Harry having to miss the good weather and the varied opportunities it offered." [HBP scholastic p.539] The detention Harry is doing seems to be of the "make work" variety. (Does Hogwarts *really* need those old records of detentions from years ago?) It seems more like something designed to make Harry miserable than something designed to "teach" Harry. Snape can't beat empathy into Harry's head, but he can make sure that Harry remembers the outcome of his fight with Draco as something bad rather than glorious. So I think that was more Snape's motivation than any scheme to get Harry to dislike James. Just get Harry to pay attention to the fact that he's being punished. That no matter how his fans spin it (and they *do* spin it, that very same day) what Harry did to Draco is causing Harry some bad times and therefore he might not want to do something like that again. Betsy Hp From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Thu May 3 23:56:01 2007 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:56:01 -0000 Subject: Magic and Madness Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168301 When Rowling came out a couple years ago against caged beds, I thought to look into connections with psychiatric treatment in her books. If you search back "bedlam" on this list, you'll find a couple references to that institution - one by grannybat (84415) that places standard practise at St. Mungo's as roughly equivalent to Bedlam, though more comfortable, and one by Angel (86828), that posits Merope (unnamed and unknown, pretty much, at the time) being sent to someplace roughly equivalent to Bedlam. Tom O'Bedlam speaks in riddles - according to the poem. Remembering this when we come across the first mention of Voldemort's name in COS is interesting, is it not? I was actually gleeful. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_O'Bedlam for the poem.) There are many characters incapacitated by magic (the Longbottoms, the sociopathic celebrity/cult figure Gilderoy Lockhart routinely alters peoples minds, until that backfires) and the function of dementors is to alter the psychic space of prisoners. Potions that force one to tell their truth are routinely employed in the narrative, and love potions and such are as commonplace as chewing gum. The second task of the Triwizard Tournament rips through the event as sport and strikes as close to emotional home as it can. This isn't any game as we know them. In OotP, we learn finally that direct mental manipulation is another art that can be taught, and seems less rare than we might have believed. It's not illegal, either, like the Imperius curse. Apparently, in the witchwizard world, mind altering spells are commonplace. You could almost read the whole HP narrative as a course of psychiatric treatment being applied to patient Harry - presumably with the goal of integration in some form - the trio becoming like one, or HP and LV as opposites canceling each other, or the like. In the back of the narrative, the sorting hat hints and hints about unity among the houses, about working together. But perhaps this is just an extension of something that is happening to our hero on his journey. dan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 00:00:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 00:00:30 -0000 Subject: No UV for DD and Snape (Was: Snape as Ultimate Hero) In-Reply-To: <784858.57102.qm@web51611.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168302 bergermeister99 wrote: > > To have DD completely trust Snape, there is only one possible thing that Snape could have done. Snape invoked and took the unbreakable vow with Dumbledore to protect Harry Potter by what ever means (even if that meant having to kill Dumbledore)" Carol responds: I don't think we can say that there's only one possible thing that Snape could have done. JKR is always surprising us. But I, for one, seriously doubt that Dumbledore, who believes in second chances and in choices, not compulsion, would ever bind anyone with an Unbreakable Vow, which would mean the death of the person who broke it. Trust is about believing in the other person, having confidence that he will do the right thing. Narcissa chose to bind Snape with an Unbreakable Vow because she *didn't* fully trust him, and his life was less important to her than her son's. (DD's wasn't important to her at all.) Note the imagery in the last paragraphs of "Spinner's End," hellish imagery of fiery chains and ropes. That, and the death of the person who breaks the vow (if Ron is correct, and he's our only authority), suggests to me that the Unbreakable Vow is Dark magic. Narcissa, a Death Eater's wife and Dark Lord supporter whose son may die if he fails to fulfill the Dark Lord's will is not above using it. In fact, she says that she's desperate and will do anything to save her son (aside from, it appears, risking her own life). She's certainly willing to risk Snape's. And Bellatrix, herself a DE for whom Dark magic is routine, has no objection to binding Snape to such a vow (though by doing so, she's implicating herself in her sister's scheme to go behind the Dark Lord's back, as Snape surely has in mind when he invites her to be their Bonder, the only other option being Wormtail, who has been banished from the room and, I suspect, magically barred from overhearing the conversation). In any case, a UV evidently requires a Bonder (which strikes me as a dark parody of a minister uniting a couple taking their wedding vows in the sacred *bonds* of holy matrimony), and who would have fulfilled that role for DD and Snape? McGonagall, who trusts Snape only because DD does once she finds out that he's been a Death Eater? Clearly not. She states that she doesn't know the "ironclad reason" for DD's trust in Snape. Hagrid, whom DD would trust with his life but would be foolish indeed to trust with a secret not protected by a Fidelius charm? I seriously doubt that Dumbledore's complete trust in Snape has anything to do with magical compulsion. I think he genuinely believed, even as Snape was casting the Avada Kedavra, that Snape was loyal to him. And I believe that trust was merited. Carol, who thinks that a UV is an example of the kind of magic DD would never resort to, first mentioned by McGonagall in SS/Ps From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 01:05:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 01:05:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP /Slytherins LONG READ AT YOUR OWN RISK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168303 > > >>Sherry: > > Yeah, noble guy Snape. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I actually do think Snape is a pretty noble man. He's never struck > me as the type to torment innocents just to get his jollies. Alla: I am **honestly** trying to understand the view that Snape would never torment an innocent just to get his jollies, I really am, but when from so many pages I see Snape doing just that and in something which I just don't see how it can be interpreted differently, it is really hard to understand where you are coming from. I understand your POV so much better now on quite a few issues, I think, but I am afraid this one will always be a great mystery for me. The following could be read as sarcastic, it is actually **not**, truly. It is more like utter disbelief I am feeling when I am typing it. Like if you think of something which is canon fact for you and somebody comes out with some interpretation which I am trying to figure out and have no clue how. Same thing for me here. Respect your view and all that, but feeling a bit frustrated that am unable to understand. I mean Snape would never torment an innocent just to get his jollies. I mean, would he attack a boy who just came to the whole new world on his lesson, even when the boy is quite likely to be nervous? I mean, who Snape? I mean, would he take away the book from that boy who was reading outside? No, because that would be silly. Would he belittle boys' father to his face, whose death he took part in? No, he is too noble for that, LOL. And Snape would never make fun of that boy, who wants Dumbledore help to help the dying man, no, that would be so not Snape. :) And Snape would never break the potion that the boy made, no, he would never do it. After all, grown man exercising vengeance on the child, would be just that - tormenting innocent? Oh, and of course Snape would never threaten to poison another boy's toad and would never assign him a detention to cut those other lizards/toads. And I see Snape actually enjoying not just the fact that Harry reading James and Sirius' detentions - NO, I see him enjoying reminding Harry that they are both dead ( the record of their great achievements remains). I mean, Harry still may be grieving, but let's rub it in Snape. I find so very despicable, sigh. I mean, as I mentioned couple of times before I am able to grasp when people see different degree of wrongness of Snape's treatment of Harry. Like I see him as disgusting child abuser and somebody sees him like a jerk and even a jerk on DD side, I get it. But when Snape's treatment of Harry is characterized as **nobble**, I find it mind boggling, personally. Sorry! Again, respect and all that, just do not get. But that is of course just my opinion. Betsy: > So I think that was more Snape's motivation than any scheme to get > Harry to dislike James. Just get Harry to pay attention to the fact > that he's being punished. That no matter how his fans spin it (and > they *do* spin it, that very same day) what Harry did to Draco is > causing Harry some bad times and therefore he might not want to do > something like that again. Alla: And the record of their great achievements remains. I think him saying speaks to the fact that Snape was first and foremost enjoying reminding Harry that his father and his father figure are dead. I find it especially ironing that we know that Snape took part in the death of James, at least claims to take part in the death of Sirius and AKed Dumbledore - Harry's last remaining father figure. > Magpie: > I'm not telling you what *you* mean at all. I know *you* just mean > that the Slytherin would be shown doing noble things whether or not > they had anything to do with Harry. I was making a comment about the > way things usually seem to work in canon so far, not on any hidden > meaning in your post. There are even characters who are basically on > Harry's side, or at least not against him, who still get slotted as > not good because they're not good enough on that score. So I realize > what you're saying, I'm just saying that the way the books have been > so far we don't usually see people just being presented as generally > good who don't usually also wind up pretty cool with Harry. Just as > Regulus, if it turns out he struck a blow for Voldemort, will > probably be cool by Harry (he is an ally even if he didn't know it, > and was never an enemy). I know that *you* can appreciate a > Slytherin doing a good deed without being a friend of Harry. Alla: Oh sorry. I see what you mean now. Sure it is often true, because I do believe that often enough standards of being on good side are applied as being good. I disagree that it is always true though, because while I see what you mean for example about Regulus, who may become Harry's ally and friend, etc, I think Andromeda's rejecting purebloodism and marrying mugleborn is likely to have nothing to do with Harry. I can be wrong of course. But even if it has nothing to do with Harry, I think it is a wonderful example of showing that Slytherin rejecting their philosophy that muggleborns are second hand, etc. Oh, maybe that would work for me as well - somebody briefly mentioning that pureblood from Slytherin dates Muggleborn, **any** muggleborn, lol, which has nothing to do with Harry. Would this deed be cool by Harry and his side? I guess so, but this is also I believe an objective showing, etc. And no, I do not mean Draco and Hermione, LOL. Oh maybe that is too clich? . Maybe even to show that say Seamus has friend in Slytherin. Something, anything to show that not everybody shares that philosophy. > Magpie: > I'm talking about these very DE kids. My point is that you are > defining "good" as a kid that you put into the good rather than the > bad category. I am saying that the kids you consider to be bad-- > Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Montague, Pansy, Blaise, Theo and any other > faceless kids we have seen, are not simply "bad." That the house is > defined by these kids we see in it, and that they must be brought > back into the fold and the school made whole. It's the potential > good in them that matters to me, not potential other students in > their house, something I think is backed up by JKR not creating ones > that break the stereotype much. Alla: Ah. Got it now. So you are basically saying that there is good in those kids, we just do not see it. Okay, I was just honestly trying to make sure that I am not missing anything from canon and not missing any kid I forgot about doing something spectacular. You are basically talking about those kids doing good things and reader seeing it. Okay, that may well be. Are you talking about rehabilitating them, since you said about potential good or you think they are good as it is now? I am just trying to find out how is this potential good you see in them can come through in one book? Maybe it is time to agree to disagree, because if those are good kids, then Slytherin house sounds to me like rather sorry bunch of losers. But if they all reject Voldemort at the end of book 7, I will eat my yummy crow, I promise again :) That is why I think so many people wanted to see the good Slytherin, because they saw nothing good in the Slytherins we encountered so far and I am certainly among those people. I mean, picture is certainly a bit more diverse among the adults, but kids are all losers big time, if you ask me. I suppose you can say that the ideology that they serve does not define them as individuals? But to me it really really does, even if they feed homeless kittens in their spare time ( Sorry for using that analogy again, but I cannot seem to come up with something better) Obviously, just my opinion. > > Alla: > > > > My question is again **who** are they? Forget about Draco Malfoy for > > a second and tell me which Slytherin kids you met that are not bad. > > I understand that certainly realistically there are good kids there, > > they just have to be. But where are they in the book? Whom else do > > we meet but DE kids? > > Pippin: > They are the ones who stood to drink to Harry in GoF. We know that > Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle and many of the other Slytherins refused. > But not all of them. We don't know the refuses by name, > but then we don't even know two of the Gryffindors in Harry's own > year. Alla: Well, yes, I agree this would count, but again ? not even names for them. We don't know who they are, no? Just feels almost like nothing. Pippin: > As for whom we've met, Blaise, Pansy, Marcus Flint, Adrian Pucey, > Bletchley and Terrence Higgs do not have DE fathers, AFAWK, and > that's just from the first book, I suppose there are more. > > As far as I know, none of the above have done anything terrible. > They play a rough game of Quidditch, and Flint took part in > trying to distract Harry, but as for thinking that a phony > dementor would make him fall off his broom, c'mon. > > They were all on the train with Harry, they know what a real > dementor feels like, and any kid older than eight who thinks > they could produce an effect like that just by putting on a > costume would be as cracked as Moody's old Foe-glass. Alla: They may not have done something terrible, although they did not anything good either if you ask me and I do think that every one of them who did make an appearance portrayed rather badly in everyday life. Didn't Pansy called Ginny Muddblood in HBP or was it Blayse? The *name characters** sure, I agree, they could be good kids, but that is my point. I want to **see** them doing something, not just being named. And as to Marcus, well, we have to agree to disagree as well and I was under impression that he does have DE father, are you sure that he is not? But he is such a bully IMO in any event. Pippin: > We also know that the kids in Draco's compartment scarcely dream > of joining Voldemort. Doubtless they expect that everyone > will have to join Voldemort if he wins, but I don't see > any of them except Draco plotting to bring that about. When > Draco boasts of his secret mission, who offers to help? > Crabbe and Goyle don't seem like eager volunteers. Alla: Sorry, Pippin, but that lovely compartment sounded to me as much scene of DE wannabes as it could be. They **liked** to hear what Draco was saying, no? As to nobody offered to help, did Draco ask? They IMO thought that whatever LV orders should be just done and if Draco received that particular honor. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri May 4 01:45:59 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:45:59 EDT Subject: Sirius's Intentions during the Prank (WAS: Excusing Snape of any res Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168304 >zgirnius: How would giving Snape the means to satisfy his nosiness about Lupin help the situation? Presumably if Sirius thought Snape was that nosy, he would expect Snape to act on the suggestion. The best-case scenario outcome of this would be that Snape would go in and see Lupin, and somehow extricate himself unbitted and alive, and without badly gurting Lupin in the process. But that would be far worse than the situation pre-Prank (from Sirius's point-of-view) - now Snape would know Lupin's secret. The only way I can see it at all being explainable in terms that do not make Sirius guilty of planning a murder is if he acted in anger, on the spur of the moment, without thinking through the consequences to any of the affected parties. Nikkalmati Why don't we see any hint of regret from Sirius when he views the Prank from a "presumably" adult POV. He never says anything about realizing it turned out badly and could have turned out worse. He doesn't express any regret to Lupin or indicate he could have gotten James killed or DD fired or Lupin expelled or, oh yes, Snape could have been killed (unless that was the original idea).:>) By the time he got out of Azkaban Sirius should have realized at least that it had been a bad idea, but we are given no hint Sirius feels that way. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From MadameSSnape at aol.com Fri May 4 01:48:55 2007 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:48:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The REAL Spy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168305 In a message dated 5/3/2007 5:08:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, inspirit at ptd.net writes: Kim... shooting in the dark in a vain attempt to clear McGonnagal of any suspicion whatsoever. ------------------------------- Sherrie here: If I might point out, the Fat Friar also has alliterative initials - as do all four of the Founders, Cho Chang, Luna Lovegood, Parvati and Padma Patil, Pansy Parkinson, William Weasley... Sherrie "What's got YOUR wand in a knot?" - Hermione Granger, HARRY POTTER & THE GOBLET OF FIRE ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From toonmili at yahoo.com Fri May 4 01:32:52 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 01:32:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP /Slytherins LONG READ AT YOUR OWN RISK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168306 Alla: > And I see Snape actually enjoying not just the fact that Harry > reading James and Sirius' detentions - NO, I see him enjoying > reminding Harry that they are both dead ( the record of their great > achievements remains). Toonmili: I think Snape was enjoying the idea that Harry was hero-worshiping the HBP- who is him. He's was finally getting respect form Harry even though Hary doesn't know it is him. He at the same time is hitting home the idea that James is a bully. But I think It's interesting to note the people's whose Names wasn't on the cards. Harry never came across Snape's name. Sirius said that Snape was just as much a bully as James but yet we saw no evidence of it. But Snape did choose the set of cards for Harry to sort. I must have been cards that he knew he wasn't in. Wich leads me to think that there was a point when Snape was not bullying people. But we'll notice too that Lily never had a detention. All that time James spent in detention and all that time Lily and Snape didn't spend in detention...hmm I think this also plays into his remarks about Harry missing all the opportunities the the fine weather provided. I guess it was just like James... From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri May 4 02:07:04 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 02:07:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP /Slytherins LONG READ AT YOUR OWN RISK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168307 > > Betsy Hp: > > I actually do think Snape is a pretty noble man. He's never > struck > > me as the type to torment innocents just to get his jollies. > > Alla: > > I am **honestly** trying to understand the view that Snape would > never torment an innocent just to get his jollies, I really am, but > when from so many pages I see Snape doing just that and in something > which I just don't see how it can be interpreted differently, it is > really hard to understand where you are coming from. zgirnius: Surely you have read the other interpretations, and can intellectually comprehend that others hold them, even if you find them unconvincing? I mean, I will go through your list but it sounds like this will not be productive. First day of class - alternate explanation. Snape does this every year to someone, not because he enjoys it greatly, but because it is his teaching style. He is sending the message that kids will learn, or else, in this class. He does not care if this makes them nervous, he figures that will just motivate them not to draw his attention, which can be achieved, in his view, by coming to class prepared and following instructions. Taking the book - he did say it is a rule. Surely, you can understand that someone might believe this statement? Belittling James? That is certainly not nice, he does it on several occasions, some of which are more understandable than others. He had a role in James's death, and I think he recognizes and regrets that, but it is clear also that he also blames James for this. I do not believe this is because Snape is a sadist and looking for reasons to hurt Harry, but because this is his own psychological defense mechanism to deal with his guilt; one we see explicitly in action in Harry in HBP. In GoF he wanted Harry to tell him what was going on with Crouch, which Harry did not want to do. He was not making fun of Harry. In OotP, you suppose he broke the potion, this is not shown in the book as Harry's back is turned. Nothing Snape does regarding Neville and his potions difficulties is in my opinion motivated by a desire to cause pain. I think Snape would like nothing better than to be quit of teaching Neville, because he is frustrated by what seems to him an inability or complete unwillingness to pay attention to what he is doing. I find the descriptions of him in clear contrast to descriptions of Dolly Dearest, who *is* a sadist, and is delighted when Harry, or someone else, gives her the opportunity to punish them. Snape is annoyed. The detentions in HBP, Snape does not even watch what Harry is doing. He sits at his desk working. This does nto suggest enjoyment to me. > Alla: > But when Snape's treatment of Harry is characterized as **noble**, > I find it mind boggling, personally. Sorry! Again, respect and all > that, just do not get. zgirnius: *That* is the nature of your problem, then. I believe Betsy HP was expressing an overall judgment of Snape, not just his actions towards Harry as a teacher. I would agree Snape is a jerk to Harry (and gape incredulously at his characterization as a child abuser, it seems, with all due respect, that people are reading a different edition from mine, with some other character named Snape). Though he is a jerk, I do not believe sadism is a primary, or even secondary, motive for how he acts with regards to Harry. Dislike, frustration, anger, guilt, sure. I also think he risked exposing himself to Voldemort as a spy by sending the Order to save Harry (and Neville) in OotP, too. And I believe he has done other difficult and dangerous things to help the 'good side', the first of which would have been to warn Dumbledore about the Potters and switch sides. And to me, this matters a lot more. So I would second BetsyHP. From penhaligon at gmail.com Fri May 4 02:25:47 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 19:25:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] First Impression of Draco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463A99AB.3010707@gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168308 > > Betsy Hp: > This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a different first > impression of Draco. My first thought was actually, "ah, here's > Harry's soon to be best friend". Panhandle here: I think that role was filled by Hermione. Panhandle From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 02:32:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 02:32:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP /Slytherins LONG READ AT YOUR OWN RISK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168309 > zgirnius: > Surely you have read the other interpretations, and can > intellectually comprehend that others hold them, even if you find > them unconvincing? I mean, I will go through your list but it sounds > like this will not be productive. Alla: That's the thing. Of course I can comprehend that others hold them and respect that fact, it is just I do not understand how others arrive at them. Like what I brought as an example many times - I disagree that Snape DD!M, but I sure understand how the clues can be interpreted that way. Zgirnius: > First day of class - alternate explanation. Snape does this every > year to someone, not because he enjoys it greatly, but because it is > his teaching style. He is sending the message that kids will learn, > or else, in this class. He does not care if this makes them nervous, > he figures that will just motivate them not to draw his attention, > which can be achieved, in his view, by coming to class prepared and > following instructions. Alla: Sure, I would understand that. If we had support that every year Snape does that, meaning picks up a victim and does that to the child. If I would read from older students that, I would certainly get that interpetation. The thing is I did not. Zgirnius: > Taking the book - he did say it is a rule. Surely, you can understand > that someone might believe this statement? Alla: No, I actually don't. It sounds too absurd for me to even entertain the possibility to be true. I understand that others may believe it, just do not see the reasoning for that. Zgirnius: > In GoF he wanted Harry to tell him what was going on with Crouch, > which Harry did not want to do. He was not making fun of Harry. Alla: Harry wanted to see Dumbledore and Snape was stopping him from doing it and smirking, no? Zgirnius: > In OotP, you suppose he broke the potion, this is not shown in the > book as Harry's back is turned. Alla: Well, to me it is the same as the book, I believe that it is suggested so clearly that nothing else comes to my mind and of course Snape's "Ooops" makes it even stronger for me. Zgirnius: > The detentions in HBP, Snape does not even watch what Harry is doing. > He sits at his desk working. This does nto suggest enjoyment to me. Alla: Do you make anything of Snape's and the record of their greatest achievement remains? Any feeling behind that remark? > > Alla: > > But when Snape's treatment of Harry is characterized as **noble**, > > I find it mind boggling, personally. Sorry! Again, respect and all > > that, just do not get. > > zgirnius: > *That* is the nature of your problem, then. I believe Betsy HP was > expressing an overall judgment of Snape, not just his actions towards > Harry as a teacher. Alla: Then it is :) Because even that I can understand, meaning in relation to Snape serving DD, etc, but if his teaching of Harry is described as noble that I do have trouble understanding. But oh well, I will live with it. Because really I had agreed to disagree many times, but as I told Betsy, I was able to see her POV on many things these days clearer than before, I am happier when I can see where opposing POV arrives from, here I do not see canon supporting it and do not understand the interpretations. Like how to put it? We cannot help which characters we like and which we dislike and we cannot often explain it logically, but when character's actions are being characterised as noble or bad, there is often reasoning for that and I am trying to grasp it. Never mind, not making much sense. > zgirnius: >I would agree Snape is a jerk to Harry (and gape > incredulously at his characterization as a child abuser, it seems, > with all due respect, that people are reading a different edition > from mine, with some other character named Snape). Alla: Heeee, yes this feeling I so know. Zgirnius: Though he is a > jerk, I do not believe sadism is a primary, or even secondary, motive > for how he acts with regards to Harry. Dislike, frustration, anger, > guilt, sure. Alla: Right, I always thought that his smirking shows sadistic enjoynment. But again, that I can get too. Disagree but understand, it is the **noble** teaching is what makes me boggle. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 02:37:52 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 02:37:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168310 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I actually do think Snape is a pretty noble man. He's never > > struck me as the type to torment innocents just to get his > > jollies. > > > >>Alla: > I am **honestly** trying to understand the view that Snape would > never torment an innocent just to get his jollies, I really am, but > when from so many pages I see Snape doing just that and in > something which I just don't see how it can be interpreted > differently, it is really hard to understand where you are coming > from. Betsy Hp: Well, I'm pretty sure I won't change your mind but let me go through the various examples you've raised and try and see if I can't explain how I look at Snape in those scenes. As I say, I doubt you'll *agree* with me, but it might help clarify my thinking? Maybe? > >>Alla: > > I mean, would he attack a boy who just came to the whole new world > on his lesson, even when the boy is quite likely to be nervous? Betsy Hp: This is the first potions lesson in PS/SS. And I think everything that occurred there was Snape's normal teaching method. I'd bet every first year got to hear that speech and I'll bet every first year class had near impossible questions thrown at them. It's Snape's "pay attention, this will not be an easy course and I will be *extremely* demanding" moment. That he singled out Harry (because I'm fairly sure he spread his questions around normally) has nothing to do with Snape enjoying watching Harry suffer, IMO. Snape is going on the offensive trying to head Harry's ego (and the class's hero-worship) off at the pass. Does Snape misread Harry? Yes. Harry wasn't buying all the sighing and giggling and fainting his classmates (and teachers) were doing around him; it made him uncomfortable if anything. But Snape did not know that. But I don't see this as Snape enjoying watching Harry squirm for the sake of making a small child squirm. Especially since Harry *doesn't* squirm. (Actually, I thought he was very Snape-like in his refusal to fold when faced with overwhelming odds. Oh, those two. ) > >>Alla: > ...I mean, would he take away the book from that boy who was > reading outside? Betsy Hp: This is in PS/SS when Snape confiscates Harry's library book. I know we disagree on this, but I read this as library books not being allowed outside (believable knowing the librarian ). Harry is annoyed, not tormented and Snape doesn't seem to be enjoying himself. > >>Alla: > > Would he belittle boys' father to his face, whose death he took > part in? Betsy Hp: The first time Snape mentions James is in PoA. And if he was worried that an adult was using his own knowledge of James to put that boy in danger (Lupin enticing Harry to leave Hogwarts and fall into Sirius's clutches) then I'd expect nothing less. (I did a long post on this, I'll have to dig it up; it's full of juicy canon.) > >>Alla: > > And Snape would never make fun of that boy, who wants Dumbledore > help to help the dying man, no, that would be so not Snape. :) Betsy Hp: This is in GoF when Harry is trying to fetch Dumbledore to assist Mr. Crouch. Eh, he mocks Harry a bit. Didn't strike me as all that bad behavior, and it doesn't keep Harry from reaching Dumbledore. > >>Alla: > And Snape would never break the potion that the boy made, no, he > would never do it. > Betsy Hp: This was in OotP after the Pensieve incident. Hee! Yeah that was fairly bad, I suppose. Snape was pretty pissed at Harry at the time. For reasons I did understand. It was petty (even if it was just a case of not stopping the potion from rolling off the desk) but I wouldn't call this the case of an evil man tormenting a poor innocent. It was just an adult sticking it to a snotty pain in the ass kid. Not admirable (but, um, kind of funny). > >>Alla: > > Oh, and of course Snape would never threaten to poison another > boy's toad and would never assign him a detention to cut those > other lizards/toads. Betsy Hp: See, this takes place in PoA when Neville goes through what I think is his biggest school crises. Snape had a choice of either trying to reach a failing student, or letting that student fail. (And I'm not sure that a student failing 3rd year potions wouldn't get kicked out of Hogwarts.) Snape, as a good teacher, took on the challenge and did his damnedest to reach Neville. His methodology was grabbing Neville by the scruff of his neck and dragging him through potions. And I'm betting neither Snape nor Neville enjoyed themselves very much. But Neville does better in Potions after this year. So I actually award Snape points for this bit. > >>Alla: > > And I see Snape actually enjoying not just the fact that Harry > reading James and Sirius' detentions - NO, I see him enjoying > reminding Harry that they are both dead (the record of their great > achievements remains) > Betsy Hp: Harry doesn't read it this way. So if that was Snape's goal he failed. Which actually says to me that this wasn't Snape's goal, because Snape wouldn't give up. He'd come up with other ways to twist the knife (like Harry, Snape's not big on quitting ). Instead, he turns his attention to reminding Harry that he's missing lovely days out on the grounds. Also, Snape's far too noble than to torment Harry in that way. He'll stick to making digs about Harry's intelligence and/or potions skills. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Fri May 4 02:46:30 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 22:46:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's detention in HBP /Slytherins LONG READ AT YOUR OWN RISK References: Message-ID: <00e301c78df6$6d2e2380$ad92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168311 Alla: Oh, maybe that would work for me as well - somebody briefly mentioning that pureblood from Slytherin dates Muggleborn, **any** muggleborn, lol, which has nothing to do with Harry. Would this deed be cool by Harry and his side? I guess so, but this is also I believe an objective showing, etc. And no, I do not mean Draco and Hermione, LOL. Oh maybe that is too clich . Maybe even to show that say Seamus has friend in Slytherin. Something, anything to show that not everybody shares that philosophy. Magpie: I agree that would work--but I think JKR has chosen against it. She *has*, imo, made Slytherin the house that represents certain bad ideals--which is why I think I agree with your saying that you don't mind making certain generalizations about them. Fanfic authors often have Slytherin be just another house that's more integrated and often has cool students that become friends with the Trio (or are just cool on their own), but JKR has introduced a lot of Slytherins, even if a lot of them are just names, and they are usually reflect some of the bad things Harry associates with them, even if they're not all aggressively bad. I think Slytherin definitely could be the kind of house we sometimes see in those kinds of stories, but it's not easy. And it's the challenge of the books. Slytherin *isn't* just a normal house where Harry's happened to have met people he doesn't like. Slytherin is there to reflect a lot of things that have to be dealt with. > Magpie: > I'm talking about these very DE kids. My point is that you are > defining "good" as a kid that you put into the good rather than the > bad category. I am saying that the kids you consider to be bad-- > Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Montague, Pansy, Blaise, Theo and any other > faceless kids we have seen, are not simply "bad." That the house is > defined by these kids we see in it, and that they must be brought > back into the fold and the school made whole. It's the potential > good in them that matters to me, not potential other students in > their house, something I think is backed up by JKR not creating ones > that break the stereotype much. Alla: Ah. Got it now. So you are basically saying that there is good in those kids, we just do not see it. Okay, I was just honestly trying to make sure that I am not missing anything from canon and not missing any kid I forgot about doing something spectacular. You are basically talking about those kids doing good things and reader seeing it. Okay, that may well be. Are you talking about rehabilitating them, since you said about potential good or you think they are good as it is now?I am just trying to find out how is this potential good you see in them can come through in one book? Magpie: I guess what I'm saying is that I think Slytherin is like the Shadow house. If Hogwarts represents the world, Slytherin is the side of it that's acting as the Shadow, just as Harry gets Shadowed by a lot of the specific Slytherin antagonists. So that side has to be integrated back into the whole. That would both mean other houses taking a different view of Slytherin and Slytherin changing. Everyone has some responsibility for everyone else. That sort of thing. Of course this doesn't just mean Slytherin was misunderstood. They have to change for their own good as well as the school's. I remember reading HBP it just struck me as important that JKR had Draco say Mudblood and Dumbledore said not to use that word because even if he was (allegedly) going to be killed, it still mattered. Alla: Maybe it is time to agree to disagree, because if those are good kids, then Slytherin house sounds to me like rather sorry bunch of losers. Magpie: I'm rejecting the whole idea that we should be looking for which ones are the "good kids." I think the problems with Slytherin have been going on for a long time and reflect a lot of stuff going on in this society. I think they all probably will reject Voldemort because they'll be nothing left of him. But I don't think JKR has to have Slytherins completely change. She just has to show us that things can change and will be different. That's why, imo, it's good to be focusing on the kids that are the worst of them. I don't think Draco was a loser in HBP. He was the kid he was with the wrong-headed beliefs he had and did his best and didn't completely fail and even started to get a clue about a lot of things he was wrong about. I happily entered into the storyline where Draco was the protagonist and thought he was worth something--just as I think Snape is worth something. They're not attractive, but that, imo, again is what makes them Shadows. They're representing all the stuff that's repulsive and repressed and denied, and they're ugly and grotesque and underdeveloped and keep shoving themselves in everybody's face. Anything the heroes have issues with and reject is what they represent (even when it might seem contradictory). Alla: Didn't Pansy called Ginny Muddblood in HBP or was it Blayse? Magpie: Blaise called her a Blood-traitor (Mudbloods are Muggleborns...err, if you're a Pureblood supremist, that is). -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 02:59:22 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 02:59:22 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168312 > > Mike: > > Harry and Draco have a few dust-ups in the hallways, don't they? > > Probably not unlike James and Sevie. > > wynnleaf > The problem here is that you have absolutely not a scrap of evidence > that there were dust-ups in the hallways anything akin to Harry and > Draco. > We have not only no examples, but not a bit of evidence that > James and Snape ever had a "dust-up" one on one, nor do we have any > evidence that Snape battled the Marauders with any help. Mike: I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with. Is it the "in the hallways" part, or just the general "dust-up"? I did say "probably" as in, it's a guess. But I don't think I'm positioned too far out on the limb to say that Severus and James had a few altercations before SWM. Where or how they occurred, I could only guess and don't think it is too important. That is, as long as I'm right in my *guess* that not every altercation was initiated by James. But you are right, we have only Sirius' testimony and Snape's continual disparaging of James on which to base our assumptions, and neither is unbiased. As for Snape getting help, all we know is what Sirius told us about that "gang of Slytherins" that Snape ran with. Again an assumption on my part, but I didn't picture those "nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters" types as organizing picnics by the lake with the giant squid. Whether they helped Snape out of some jams, I have no canon, only a sense that that is what JKR wanted to convey when she had Sirius speak these words. > wynnleaf > The *only* evidence that we have that James might have been wise not > to turn his back on Snape is Sirius and Lupin's comments about Snape > giving "as good as he got." Mike: Ooh, not exactly. You may not think it counts because festivities had already commenced, but when James turns his attention to Lily in SWM, Snape gets off a junior Sectumsempra (a Sectumsomtimes?) on James. wynnleaf > Why don't they mention his sneaking around looking for a > chance for their backs to be turned to attack them? Mike: Actually, Lupin, in the floo conversation after SWM said; ... "he [Snape] never lost an opportunity to curse James..." That sounds like Snape did take his shots when conditions favored him. Note, it was Lupin and not Sirius that said this. > wynnleaf > I would not be so quick to lay out the comparison as James to Snape > = Harry to Draco. > Why not Harry to Draco equating with Snape to James? > > But guess what? That's not the way Dumbledore arranged the order of > the comparison. Mike: I like your re-arrainging for the senior/junior parallels. I think it could prove a fruitful exercise to start from this point and speculate both what it might portend for Harry - Draco as well as backtracking to fill in some of the blank spots on Snape - James. So, lets pair up the half-bloods (Harry & Severus) and the pure- bloods (Draco & James) and see what that hints at in our look back. Harry (nee Snape) gets harassed on the train home at the end of GoF, and with help from some older Gryffindors (Slytherins) clobber Draco (nee James) and pals. Hmmm? One year later, a seemingly alone Harry (Snape) is walking down the train corridor when Draco (James) tries to lay a trap for him. But a bunch of friends come to Harry's (Snape's) aid and clobber Draco and Co. (James and Co.). Hmmm, again. Finally, Draco (James) catches Harry (Snape) unawares and hexes him before Harry (Snape) can use his wand. While Draco (James) has Harry (Snape) in a helpless position, he takes the opportunity to exact a little revenge. The encounter ends with Harry (Snape) in a rather embarrassing position. Hmmmm, sounds sort of familiar. > wynnleaf > She has Sirius tell Harry that Snape was never suspected of > being a Death Eater -- showing us quite clearly that the Marauders > never suspected it either, for all Sirius' comments that Snape was > into the Dark Arts. Mike: Not quite. Sirius said that as far as he knew, Snape was never *accused* of being a Death Eater. And he continues by saying "not that that means much", that Snape was "clever and cunning enough to keep himself out of trouble." (GoF, p.531) Sirius doesn't sound at all like he didn't suspect Snape, rather he sounds like he thought Snape easily could have been a DE but was cunning enough to keep it hidden. Turns out he was right, if I'm reading that passage correctly. > wynnleaf > Sure, he may have used them offensively, but we have no > evidence of it. And JKR has had plenty of scenes where she could > easily have given that evidence. Mike: Here's where I diverge. I just don't see where JKR could have slid in some of Snape's misdeeds into the story. Therefore, I can't see many if any scenes where JKR would have comfortably fit in Bad!Snape. But you see, I don't think Snape was the lead aggressor in the war vs. the Marauders. I don't at all disagree with you on this point. I also imagine that at least in the later school years, Snape was very much on his own and did his best to avoid James and Co. I'm just not convinced that this was always the case. At least, younger Sevie might not have shied away from encounters with James. > wynnleaf > I think there's a tendency to want Snape to be like Draco so that > James could then be compared in a favorable light with Harry. But > the evidence of canon doesn't support that. > > In POA, Sirius said in the Shrieking Shack that Peter was drawn to > the "biggest bully in the playground." Sirius meant Voldemort, but > who was Peter following before Voldemort? James and Sirius. Maybe > when James quit being a bully is when Peter went looking for > another bully to follow. Mike: I left these two paragraphs, not to respond, but to say that this was a strong and compelling closing. Also, it wraps up a very strong post. The thing about this forum is that I read your post and pick out the things I disagree with snip them and respond. So it looks like I pretty much disagree with your post in it's entirety. But that's not the case. I found much more to agree with in your post than to disagree with. And some that looked like my disagreement was really just my take on the way I read things. Not that yours was wrong, only different from mine. Even though I used it against you I think your postulation whereby you compare Snape to Harry and not Draco is a very intriguing and original perspective. And I do think exploring this avenue has a real potential for profit. So I congratulate you, wynnleaf, for your theorizing. Mike From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 03:00:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 03:00:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP /Slytherins LONG READ AT YOUR OWN RISK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168313 Zgirnius: > > In GoF he wanted Harry to tell him what was going on with Crouch, > which Harry did not want to do. He was not making fun of Harry. > > Alla: > Harry wanted to see Dumbledore and Snape was stopping him from doing > it and smirking, no? Carol: Snape must have known that Dumbledore was right behind him. Yes, he was giving Harry a hard time, pretending to doubt his story, but at the same time he was keeping him where he was so that he would be there when Dumbledore finished descending the staircase. Had Snape not kept Harry there, Harry would have gone off on a fruitless search of some other corridor. I'm not sure, but I *think* that snape didn't want to speak the password in front of Harry to let Harry go up the stairs. There was, after all, no point in doing that with DD already on this way down. In fact, Snape actually stops Harry from running down the wrong corridor. "Perhaps Dumbledore was in the staff room? He started running as fast as he could toward the staircase. "'POTTER!' "Harry skidded to a halt and looked around. Snape had just emerged from the hidden staircase behind the stone gargoyle. The wall was sliding shut behind him as he beckoned Harry back toward him. "'What are you doing here, Potter?' "'I need to see Professor Dumbledore!' said Harry, tunning badk of the corridor and skidding to a standstill in front of Snape. (GoF Am. ed. 557) Now granted, when Harry tells Snape that Mr. Crouch has just turned up in the forest (not, perhaps, the most plausible situation even though it's true), Snape does ask him "What is this rubbish?" followed by a statement he knows to be false, that the headmaster is busy (he's actually coming down the stairs). Snape's pretense of not believing Harry (he's a Legilimens, after all) keeps Harry standing at the bottom of the stairs, trying to convince Snape that Crouch is out of his mind, until DD arrives only a few minutes later, if that. (I doubt that the entire dialogue took more than a minute.) Had Snape not stopped him and kept him there, Harry would have run off fruitlessly to search for DD in the staff room. Far from delaying Harry, Snape actually saved him time. Carol, who agrees with Zgirnius's other responses but thought that this one needed more support and development From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 03:00:28 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 03:00:28 -0000 Subject: First Impression of Draco / Slytherin In-Reply-To: <463A99AB.3010707@gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168314 > >>Betsy Hp: > > This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a different first > > impression of Draco. My first thought was actually, "ah, here's > > Harry's soon to be best friend". > > > >>Panhandle here: > I think that role was filled by Hermione. Betsy Hp: Hmm, no I'd say Hermione does that more for Ron. Though even with Ron the reaction isn't visceral enough, IMO. Generally there's some sort of fisticuffs or tussling before the moment of forever friends. > >>Magpie: > > They're not attractive, but that, imo, again is what makes them > Shadows. They're representing all the stuff that's repulsive and > repressed and denied, and they're ugly and grotesque and > underdeveloped and keep shoving themselves in everybody's face. > Anything the heroes have issues with and reject is what they > represent (even when it might seem contradictory). Betsy Hp: IOWs, Slytherin is Hogwarts' (or the WW's) Mad Woman in the Attic? The question isn't "is she really mad?" but "why is she mad?", right? Betsy Hp (up *way* past her bed time but finding it hard to look away from Clive Owen, even unbathed. Especially unbathed? ) From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Fri May 4 03:12:09 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 03:12:09 -0000 Subject: The REAL Spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at ... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/3/2007 5:08:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > inspirit at ... writes: > > Kim... shooting in the dark in a vain attempt to clear McGonnagal of any > suspicion whatsoever. > > > > ------------------------------- > Sherrie here: > > If I might point out, the Fat Friar also has alliterative initials - as do > all four of the Founders, Cho Chang, Luna Lovegood, Parvati and Padma Patil, > Pansy Parkinson, William Weasley... > > Sherrie > Anne Squires adds: Not to mention Mad-Eye Moody, Dudley Dursley, Gregory Goyle, Colin Creevey, Dedalus Diggle, Ted Tonks, Filius Flitwick, Florean Fortescue, Moaning Myrtle, Poppy Pomfrey, Stan Shunpike... I'm sure there's more... Also, the traitor in GOF is Barty Crouch Jr. who does not not have alliterative initials. From carylcb at hotmail.com Fri May 4 03:03:23 2007 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (clcb58) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 03:03:23 -0000 Subject: Do animagi get to choose their form? In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39EDA@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168316 > James Writes: > I've thought about this quite a bit before. I think rather > than the subconscious mind playing a direct part in choosing > the form, the form is more of an outward expression of who > and what you are inside. clcb58: I agree. So I wonder how all of the fuss over Harry having Lily's eyes might play into this? Do you suppose she might also have been an animagus...perhaps an owl? From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri May 4 04:31:29 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:31:29 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR question about Cloak (Was: Concealment - a MAJOR Motif) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705032131u4b8ae415ib5574f30fd2cb603@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168317 Aussie: I have looked for theories about the never asked question to > JKR ... > > Why did DD have the Invisibility Cloak if he could be invisible > > without it? ... Lynda: I never even really wondered about why Dumbledore had the IC, because the text tells us that Harry's father left it in his possession and DD gave it to Harry at what he considered the proper time. So the question never occurred to me since I had been given the answer in the text and it worked out as an operation for the book. Harry needed a way to get around without being spotted. Dumbledore gave him the cloak that Harry's father had left in his care to be given to his son at the proper time. 'Nuff said. Anything more will be revealed by the author at the proper time. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 05:07:20 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 05:07:20 -0000 Subject: First Impression of Draco (was:Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168318 Betsy Hp: This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a different first impression of Draco. My first thought was actually, "ah, here's Harry's soon to be best friend". Montavilla: I came rather late to the Draco fan club--but he was the character who most intrigued me leading into HBP. I was intensely curious what the boy whose Dad was just sent to prison because of Harry Potter was going to do next. I decided to track every Draco moment through the books. I didn't get through it, because I only started about a week before HBP was released, but I realized one thing: What really sold me on Draco was that moment on the train when he offered Harry his friendship. Sure, it's in a completely obnoxious way, but it seemed genuine. And Harry's response was such a put-down. It's the first mean thing that Harry does--even though he's just defending Ron and I love him for that. But it feels very significant. And by "significant" I don't mean "foreshadowing Harry's descent into irredeemable brattiness." I mean it was a moment when Harry could have avoided making an enemy with a little tact and he chose to take a stand instead. It does feel like that moment needs to come back eventually. For good or bad. Montavilla47 From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri May 4 05:25:53 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 05:25:53 -0000 Subject: First Impression of Draco (was:Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a different first > impression of Draco. My first thought was actually, "ah, here's > Harry's soon to be best friend". Dondee: Draco made a serious blunder when he insulted Hagrid in Madame Malkin's but the fatal error was when he insulted Ron on the train. Next to the Mirror of Erised scene, Harry's introduction to the Weasleys and to Ron in The Journey from Platform Nine and Three- quarters is, IMO, the most tender and poingant sceen in PS/SS. Harry has met this boy who is so like and unlike him - his very first friend of his age who belongs to this wonderful, charming, teasing, loving family, who has grown up around magic, and yet is full of doubts and fears and has a lot to learn. In a short ammount of time they tell each other their life stories and bond over pumpkin Pasties and Quidditch, Chocolate frog cards and Every Flavor Beans. Poor Draco diddn't have a chance to compete with that even if he had gotten off on the right foot with Harry in Madame Malkin's. Side note: It has always irked me that people read into Ron being the thing Harry values most in GOF that must mean that Harry has homesexual feelings for Ron. Just because you love someone of the same sex does not auttomatically mean that you want to jump their bones! ::exasperated sigh:: Okay, I'm fine now. Cheers, Dondee From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri May 4 05:41:36 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 05:41:36 -0000 Subject: Magic on Privet Drive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168320 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > Harry's house is under such surveillance, then how did his Guard get > away with all the magic that was being done in the house? > > Yes I know they were all of legal age, but shouldn't the ministry have > detected the use of magic in the house at that point? Especially after > Harry had just done magic not too long before. Wouldn't it be under > closer scrutiny? > > If anyone has an answer to this please let me know. > > Tandra > Dondee: This is something that has puzzled me as well. I have had two thoughts about this. The first is that the Order has an insider at the Ministry in the department where they monitor magical occurences in *restriced* areas and he/she prevented another alarm from going off. Second, that there is some sort of magic cloaking charm that the Order did to hide the fact that magic was being performed on Privit Drive. Cheers, Dondee From mros at xs4all.nl Fri May 4 06:38:55 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 08:38:55 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's detention in HBP References: Message-ID: <001101c78e16$e30e0500$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 168321 > >>Alla: > > I mean, would he attack a boy who just came to the whole new world > on his lesson, even when the boy is quite likely to be nervous? Betsy Hp: >>This is the first potions lesson in PS/SS. And I think everything that occurred there was Snape's normal teaching method. I'd bet every first year got to hear that speech and I'll bet every first year class had near impossible questions thrown at them. It's Snape's "pay attention, this will not be an easy course and I will be *extremely* demanding" moment. That he singled out Harry (because I'm fairly sure he spread his questions around normally) has nothing to do with Snape enjoying watching Harry suffer, IMO. Snape is going on the offensive trying to head Harry's ego (and the class's hero-worship) off at the pass. Does Snape misread Harry? Yes. Harry wasn't buying all the sighing and giggling and fainting his classmates (and teachers) were doing around him; it made him uncomfortable if anything. But Snape did not know that.<< Marion This was actually the scene in which Snape stole my hart and I disliked (to say the least) Harry for ever. Because this is what happened to me too, when I was twelve. Let me explain. In the book we see that all the kids are listening in rapt attention to the fascinating teacher (and he *is* fascinating in a way any kid would agree with with his dungeon full of creepy stuff, his theatrical appearance and his soft wellspokeness I know I'd be rivetted!) *All* the kids? No, we are told that right after his speech Harry and Ron (the Hollywood Star Famous Boy and the kid brother of those Twin Hellions) 'turn to eachother with their eyebrows raised. Well, in my country (and I'm sure this is true of the States, Australia, Germany and what have you that you, my listsibs, hail from) raising your eyebrows to one another when somebody in authority is speaking means "who the hell is *this* weirdo". So I was not surprised when Snape whirled and singled out Harry to answer a few basic questions about the stuff that was evidently in their first Potions Book. Because this happened to me when I was a kid. Thirty years ago, when I was twelve, I had a very strict-but-fair English teacher (most of my teachers were strict-but-fair; the one or two who tried to be all jolly and 'nice' were bullied away by us horrid kids) One day, when she was explaining something in front of the blackboard, the girl sitting next to me whispered something to me. I ignored her. She did it again. I whispered back something like "lay off, she'll here us" and at that moment the teacher whirled, say me whisper to my neighbour and stated loudly, "Ah, Miss Ros apparantly knows what I'm trying to teach you all since she has seen fit to talk during my class. Well, Miss Ros, why don't come in front of class and explain to the students what I've been trying to teach you all." The next two minutes were among the most embarrassing of my life. I stammered and stuttered and was sent back to my seat properly chastised and firm in my mind never to talk during class again. Did I hate my teacher? No! Did I think she 'picked' on me? No!! (I've had a sister who picked on me and bullied me - believe me, I know the difference. A picker *keeps* on picking mercilessly, even when you're down, *especially* when you're down. My teacher didn't do that and neither does Snape for that matter) An interesting detail: this English teacher of mine was the only teacher I was ever afraid of (even before the whisper incident) and I myself did not understand *why* she scared me so. She was pretty young and had these very heavily madeup eyes (her entire sockets were blacked in). Then, one day, outside of schoolhours, I saw her riding her bike *without her makeup on* and I litterarily thought, "She's just a woman" and I ceased to be afraid of her, totally. It wasn't until a few years ago, when I yet again got a shock from zapping to a Discovery Channel program about aliens and suddenly saw an artist rendation of a 'Grey' alien, when I connected the dots. When I was three years old my bullying sister had scared me with a carnival (what you might call a Halloween) mask of a skeleton skull face. That mask 'lived' in the broomcloset and afterwards, for *years* I had nightmares of that mask and that closet. I simply was not afraid of my *teacher*, I was afraid of her heavy dark eye makeup! Which shows how childhood fears are often totally irrational. But back to Harry and Snape. *I* was not angry or defiant towards my teacher, but Harry is and this is (one of the things) what put me off him for good. I can't *stand* brats who seem to think they know better than their teachers. Those Lauren Cooper (Catherine Tate character) types. And it goes from bad to worse, from "why don't you ask Hermione" to "no need to call me sir". I half expected Harry to tell Snape " Am I bovvered?" half of the time. (http://www.all4humor.com/videos/funny-videos/i-am-not-bothered.html) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 17:03:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 17:03:48 -0000 Subject: First Impression of Draco (was:Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168322 Alla wrote: > > > > What does JKR do with House Slytherin? The first kid she makes me to meet is Draco Malfoy. I hated him on the spot, hated him, hated him, hated him. Oh, and in case anybody wonders that initially had so very little to do with Harry, it is not even funny. I despised him, I think first and foremost for passing a judgment on the person (Hagrid) he never even met, I despised him for being a snob... > > Betsy Hp: > This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a different first impression of Draco. My first thought was actually, "ah, here's Harry's soon to be best friend". > > Of course, I was looking at PS/SS as a sort of "school days" genre > with a magical twist. And in my experience with that sort of story > the protagonist almost always hates and despises the person destined > to become their bosom friend. Sure *Harry* might see him as a snob, but since he's going to be Harry's best friend by the end of the year, there's obviously something more going on here. > Carol responds: My reaction was somewhere between the two. Draco seemed like an ordinary wizard boy, one who was placed there to introduce concepts like Quidditch and the school houses. He did seem overindulged and slightly Dudleyish (saying that he'd bully his father into buying him a broom), but not all that terrible. At least he had enough manners to sau "Sorry" when Harry said that his parents were dead and "See you at Hogwarts, then." And "I say! Who's that man?" sounded schoolboy British to me, meaning exactly what a British schoolboy would say in that situation. Granted, referring to Hagrid as "a sort of servant" sounded a bit upper-class snobbish, but I thought he was just repeating what he had heard his parents say. I certainly didn't hate him on the spot, but I didn't expect him to become Harry's best friend, either. He seemed (not that I consciously thought about it) to be an expository device, giving Harry an idea of what life was like at Hogwarts. I did think it was curious that he specifically asked for Harry's surname, though (presumably to link him to some wizarding family he was familiar with) rather than his name (meaning first and last) as any kid of my acquaintance would do. And I noticed that JKR strategically interrupted the dialogue at that point, as if the blond boy's reaction to Harry's name would be revealing. And, of course, we do get that delayed reaction on the train. At any rate, I think that scene shows Draco as he would be with a kid who *wasn't* Harry Potter and about whom he had no preconceptions. It would be interesting to get Ernie Macmillan's reaction to "Imagine being sorted into Hufflepuff" if his family has a tradition of being sorted into that house. He might also have reacted negatively to Draco's hope of being sorted into Slytherin, which might have been a bit of a wake-up call for a boy to whom Slytherin is normal and expected. Not that he would think less highly of Slytherin, but he'd be aware of the hostility toward it of the other houses. No doubt he learned that soon enough! Carol, who only felt that "hate, hate, hate" reaction toward Umbridge with her cruel detentions, "Moody" Crucioing the spider despite Neville's reaction, and (sorry, MWPP fans!) James and Sirius in SWM From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 4 17:31:32 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:31:32 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The REAL Spy Message-ID: <33464814.1178299892595.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168323 From: anne_t_squires >Not to mention Mad-Eye Moody, Dudley Dursley, Gregory Goyle, Colin >Creevey, Dedalus Diggle, Ted Tonks, Filius Flitwick, Florean >Fortescue, Moaning Myrtle, Poppy Pomfrey, Stan Shunpike... I'm sure >there's more... That's IT! The traitor in DH is going to be.... Stan Shunpike! Who do we suspect less than him? Mrs. Figg? Getting a little more serious (but I would not put it past JKR to make Stan a real DE), it has been well demonstrated that it is difficult to detect if someone is under the Imperius Curse. Now, good people (such as Rosie) have been subverted to help evil while appearing good on the outside. What if an evil person is subverted to act as a good person. That would be a way that a DE could gain the confidence of the OOP; the DE allows him or herself to be Imperiused to the point where s/he actually believes him/herself to be one of the good guys. This opens the door to a BUNCH of people being DE agents, notably: 1) Lupin, who was missing all those years. 2) Minnie the Cat, who you may note Dumbledore holds at more of a distance than would be likely for his assistant and ally. 3) Hagrid. Knew Tommy way back when, and would be a tempting target. Certainly, Hagrid has GOT to be smarter than he pretends to be. And there are those mysterious nocturnally visits. At the very least, he should know almost as well, if not better, than Sluggy how much that stuff in his cabin is really worth. 4) Cousin Deadly. Was really magic, but was "cured." Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 17:42:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 17:42:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168324 Betsy Hp wrote: > This is the first potions lesson in PS/SS. And I think everything that occurred there was Snape's normal teaching method. I'd bet every first year got to hear that speech and I'll bet every first year class had near impossible questions thrown at them. It's Snape's "pay attention, this will not be an easy course and I will be *extremely* demanding" moment. > > That he singled out Harry (because I'm fairly sure he spread his questions around normally) has nothing to do with Snape enjoying watching Harry suffer, IMO. Snape is going on the offensive trying to head Harry's ego (and the class's hero-worship) off at the pass. Does Snape misread Harry? Yes. Harry wasn't buying all the sighing and giggling and fainting his classmates (and teachers) were doing around him; it made him uncomfortable if anything. But Snape did not know that. Carol responds: I agree completely. Note that Hermione is excited by the class and *wants* to answer the questions. His snubbing of her does nothing to dull her desire to learn as much as she can and do as well as she can in Potions. Also, the fact that a Muggleborn who probably received her books at the same time Harry did knows the answers to these questions shows that the information about them is in the books assigned. (Bezoars, of course, would not be discussed in "1,000 Magical Herbs and Fungi," as Harry wrongly assumes, but they're probably mentioned in "Magical Drafts and Potions.") At any rate, a teacher as organized as Snape, who has been teaching (as of SS/PS) for ten years, probably has certain well-rehearsed routines that he uses with every class (though perhaps, as Betsy suggests, he usually asks more than one student his three pre-test questions). McGonagall always transforms into a cat in front of her third-years. Trelawney, it seems, predicts the death of a student every year. All of the teachers give little speeches about the importance of OWLs (or dismissing them as mundane, in Trelawney's case). At any rate, Snape knows the value of drama, and these questions do establish exactly what Betsy suggests, that students are expected to read the books, know the material, and pay attention. That Snape chose to focus on Harry does reveal him as just an ordinary kid to his classmates, but that's not a bad thing. It certainly strips Draco, et al., of any delusions that he might be a Dark Lord in the making for the DEs to rally around in the absence of Voldemort. It also allows Harry to cultivate real friends instead of having to deal with a fan club following him around at all times. (True, he has Colin Creevey in CoS, but Colin is not in his year. And we see with Viktor Krum and others how inconvenient and annoying a perpetual fan club can be. Harry doesn't *want* to be a celebrity, so, deliberately or not, Snape does him a favor by stripping away the aura of celebrity from Day One.) I wonder, by the way, how different the reaction of the students, and of Snape, would have been if Harry had thoroughly read and absorbed the material. I also wonder whether Draco knew the answers to the questions. I'll bet he at least knew what a Bezoar was. At any rate, if Harry had not had preconceptions about Snape and Slytherin, he might simply have regarded Snape as a strict teacher like McGonagall. Instead, he forms the idea that Snape is picking on Gryffindor, especially after Neville somehow melts Seamus's cauldron and Snape, in frustration at seeing the students covered with boils, calls him an idiot boy. Had, say, Justin Finch-Fletchley (a Muggleborn) been in Harry's place, he would probably have reacted differently. Then, again, since his name was down for Eton, he might have known the answers. Ernie Macmillan (a pureblood Hufflepuff) would also have known them. Sigh. The plot demands an increasing antagonism and misunderstanding between Harry and Snape, which begins here, if not with Snape's supposedly making Harry's scar hurt. I can only hope it's resolved at last in DH. Carol, who would probably have responded much as Hermione did had Snape been her teacher From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 4 17:51:26 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] First Impression of Draco (was:Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic...) Message-ID: <31847399.1178301086825.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168325 Dondee: >Draco made a serious blunder when he insulted Hagrid in Madame >Malkin's but the fatal error was when he insulted Ron on the train. Bart: And Harry could probably not react in any other way. To him, Draco was the WW equivalent of the Dursley's. One might be seduced into becoming that which one hates the most, but it just does not happen that quickly, or easily. Now, had Draco known the circumstances in which Harry was raised, and had been encouraged by the Ass (OK, who gets THAT reference?), he MIGHT have been able to turn him into a Slytherin ("What a fate, to be raised among muggles, like a mudblood! They were mean to you because they knew how much better you were than them. Let me show you what a REAL wizard is like!"). My best guess is that it was no coincidence that Harry ran into the Weasleys, although I'm certain that Mollywobbles didn't know that. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 18:15:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 18:15:41 -0000 Subject: Snape as Noble teacher/ Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168326 > Magpie: > I'm rejecting the whole idea that we should be looking for which ones are > the "good kids." I think the problems with Slytherin have been going on for > a long time and reflect a lot of stuff going on in this society. I think > they all probably will reject Voldemort because they'll be nothing left of > him. But I don't think JKR has to have Slytherins completely change. She > just has to show us that things can change and will be different. > > That's why, imo, it's good to be focusing on the kids that are the worst of > them. Alla: I think I like it better than I thought initially. Would it be fair to restate your position as something like that you do not dispute the badness in those kids and house Slytherin in general, you just think that there is also goodness in them that needs to be brought to the surface or at least the potential goodness that others need to see and reconcile with Slytherins? > Alla: > > Didn't Pansy called Ginny Muddblood in HBP or was it Blayse? > > Magpie: > Blaise called her a Blood-traitor (Mudbloods are Muggleborns...err, if > you're a Pureblood supremist, that is). Alla: Oh, DUH. Why would mudblood come to my mind in regards to Ginny, have no idea. Thanks. > Betsy Hp: > Well, I'm pretty sure I won't change your mind but let me go > through the various examples you've raised and try and see if I can't > explain how I look at Snape in those scenes. As I say, I doubt > you'll *agree* with me, but it might help clarify my thinking? Maybe? Alla: Right, it is not about changing my mind or yours ( obviously if that sometimes happens, that is cool, but that is so not what I am after :)). > > > >>Alla: > > > > I mean, would he attack a boy who just came to the whole new world > > on his lesson, even when the boy is quite likely to be nervous? > > Betsy Hp: > This is the first potions lesson in PS/SS. And I think everything > that occurred there was Snape's normal teaching method. I'd bet > every first year got to hear that speech and I'll bet every first > year class had near impossible questions thrown at them. It's > Snape's "pay attention, this will not be an easy course and I will be > *extremely* demanding" moment. > > That he singled out Harry (because I'm fairly sure he spread his > questions around normally) has nothing to do with Snape enjoying > watching Harry suffer, IMO. Snape is going on the offensive trying > to head Harry's ego (and the class's hero-worship) off at the pass. > Does Snape misread Harry? Yes. Harry wasn't buying all the sighing > and giggling and fainting his classmates (and teachers) were doing > around him; it made him uncomfortable if anything. But Snape did not > know that. > > But I don't see this as Snape enjoying watching Harry squirm for the > sake of making a small child squirm. Especially since Harry > *doesn't* squirm. (Actually, I thought he was very Snape-like in his > refusal to fold when faced with overwhelming odds. Oh, those two. ) Alla: But look at what you wrote though :) I am going to say something about this and then just cut all other explanations because you know what you wrote anyways and ask a question. How does what you wrote here shows noble teacher's behavior? I mean, teacher is not supposed to downsize child's ego, no? He is supposed to make him interested in learning, etc. And Harry read his books, etc. He is excited, curious. He views Snape as having a gift to keep class quiet and here he comes. But whatever I am just saying that I do not get how this behavior can be considered noble, even in your interpretation that is. And with other examples it gets even better. It seems like with scene in GoF we agree that Snape was mocking Harry and that OOP scene was bad as well, we jjust disagree as to "degree of badness", no? But then you go ahead and characterize Snape as noble teacher towards Harry. So, I am just not seeing where it is coming from. And with Neville, I just want to say that IMO JKR showed very nicely by mentioning that Neville had detention with Snape again in GoF that nothing that Snape did in PoA helped Neville one bit. Like what Zara said - I do get "Snape as jerk", you know? Look, as I said it is obviously my problem, not yours, I just always find it frustrating for myself when I do not understand something, that is all :) We will I guess eventually leave it at agree to disagree and maybe one day I will have a revelation and understand this line of reasoning. It is like, I don't know, say somebody interpets that Dudley is being noble when he attacks Harry. I would respect that somebody feels that way, I would just be having a very hard time to figure out why. >> > Alla: > > Harry wanted to see Dumbledore and Snape was stopping him from doing > > it and smirking, no? > > Carol: > > Snape must have known that Dumbledore was right behind him. Yes, he > was giving Harry a hard time, pretending to doubt his story, but at > the same time he was keeping him where he was so that he would be > there when Dumbledore finished descending the staircase. Had Snape not > kept Harry there, Harry would have gone off on a fruitless search of > some other corridor. Far from delaying > Harry, Snape actually saved him time. Alla: I know this interpetation. But that is sort of makes Snape's tormenting the innocent just to get his jollies argument stronger, IMO. If Snape was standing there to make sure Harry will wait till DD comes down, what should he had done unless he wants to make fun of Harry just **for the sake of having fun at his expense** I think he should have said - wait Potter, Dumbledore is coming. What does he do instead? Not that. That tells me that he wants to have fun at Harry's expense to enjoy it. No matter how upset Harry is and how much in need of help he is. IMO of course, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri May 4 18:57:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 18:57:23 -0000 Subject: Magic on Privet Drive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168327 --- > ... why I didn't see it before, but if Harry's house > is under such surveillance, then how did his Guard get > away with all the magic that was being done in the > house? > > Yes I know they were all of legal age, but shouldn't > the ministry have detected the use of magic in the > house at that point?... > > If anyone has an answer to this please let me know. > > Tandra > bboyminn: Whenever, I come to something in the books that seems to be inconsistent, I always assume there is a consistent off-page explanation, but it simply wasn't relevant to the plot. And, in a way, this is true, if we confront JKR with an inconsistency, she will simply make up an answer on the spot. Once she makes up the answer, it become gospel. So, what I try to do is make up my own 'gospel', but of course, my made-up gospel still needs to be reasonably consistent within the wizard world; there is a limit to how far fetched it can be. I don't think it is anything magically performed by the Order like a special cloaking charm. I suspect they simply alerted the Magical Monitoring Office, that some people would be picking Harry up within a certain time span. For example, 'We will have some wizards in the area of Little Whinging next week, so don't be concerned about any additional routine magical activity there'. Notice that, in my example, the specific location is not mentioned, and the specific person (Harry) is not mentioned, and the specific time is not mentioned. That should be clear enough to get them in and out without raising suspicion or giving away their plan to specifically rescue Harry. It would seem so mundane and routine, that even a DE working for Magical Monitoring would not be suspicious. Notice also that Mr. Weasley performs magic in GoF when he comes to pick up Harry by Floo Network. Arthur notified the Floo Network people and got the Dursley's fireplace connected. That means people at the Ministry knew he would be there. They further should have known that the Dursleys were 'magic aware', and so their was no concern for any breach of the Statue of Secrecy. However, when Harry received his warning, it was not just the Dursley's there, but Mr. Dursley's very very very magic UNaware muggle clients. That is a far more serious crime in the eyes of the Ministry than magic in front of the Dursley. Also, in this same vein, perhaps it was the Dursley's absents that prevented any alarms from going off at the Ministry. If no muggles are present, then performing of magic is not a crime. There is an answer, but for now, we'll just have to make up our own. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 4 19:18:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:18:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's detention in HBP Message-ID: <10100059.1178306330081.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168328 From: justcarol67 >I wonder, by the way, how different the reaction of the students, and >of Snape, would have been if Harry had thoroughly read and absorbed >the material. I also wonder whether Draco knew the answers to the >questions. I'll bet he at least knew what a Bezoar was. Snape IS a sadist. I think JKR has made that much clear. It may ALSO be an effective teaching technique, and he may pretend that this is what he is doing, but he gets joy over the suffering of others. I know the style of teaching he is pretending to use; you are brutally frank with your students. When they fail, you let them know damned well they failed, and WHY they failed. But, if they succeed, you also let them know that. And the students will probably not like you. But they WILL respect you, and your opinion, because they know your opinion is based on objective criteria, and not whether or not you like them, because you hate all of them. For a much better example, look at Finny Black. NOBODY likes him, but note how he commands Harry's obedience more readily than any other entity in the books. You may not like him, but you KNOW you can trust him. Bart From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri May 4 19:36:04 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 19:36:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: <001101c78e16$e30e0500$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168329 Marion In the book we see that all the kids are listening in rapt attention to the fascinating teacher (and he *is* fascinating in a way any kid would agree with with his dungeon full of creepy stuff, his theatrical appearance and his soft wellspokeness I know I'd be rivetted!) *All* the kids? No, we are told that right after his speech Harry and Ron (the Hollywood Star Famous Boy and the kid brother of those Twin Hellions) 'turn to eachother with their eyebrows raised. Well, in my country (and I'm sure this is true of the States, Australia, Germany and what have you that you, my listsibs, hail from) raising your eyebrows to one another when somebody in authority is speaking means "who the hell is *this* weirdo". So I was not surprised when Snape whirled and singled out Harry to answer a few basic questions about the stuff that was evidently in their first Potions Book. Because this happened to me when I was a kid. *(snip)* I whispered back something like "lay off, she'll here us" and at that moment the teacher whirled, say me whisper to my neighbour and stated loudly, "Ah, Miss Ros apparantly knows what I'm trying to teach you all since she has seen fit to talk during my class. Well, Miss Ros, why don't come in front of class and explain to the students what I've been trying to teach you all." The next two minutes were among the most embarrassing of my life. I stammered and stuttered and was sent back to my seat properly chastised and firm in my mind never to talk during class again. Ceridwen: This is how I remember it in the U.S., too. Class stopped when students talked in class, or read comics, or wrote and/or received notes, or were daydreaming, or cutting up in some way. The teacher would stand right at the student's desk and ask him or her to repeat what he or she had just said. And if I recall right, the worst for hovering directly over a student were the slightly older women. The men would stand back a bit, but maybe that's just because I'm female and there were certain proprieties. And the student had to answer, or give the reason why he or she didn't know the material. When he or she couldn't answer, he or she was rebuked and placed on warning. On the next infraction, he or she would be sent to the principal, and his or her parents might even be called. Students would also be told to teach the class if they knew so much. Some of them even tried. When they couldn't, of course just being singled out was embarrassing, not being able to do the lesson was even worse, and clearly laid at their own door. And that's where I thought JKR was going with the Potions scene. I don't think Harry meant to imply anything like "who the hell is *this* weirdo". Raising the eyebrows can also mean you're impressed. Or it could have meant that he and Ron were surprised about the teacher's style without comment to his subject (which won't please the teacher either, I'll bet). But I do think he must have done something to draw Snape's attention. Coupled with his celebrity, that made him doubly important, from this style's point of view, to be set down. Admittedly, I've been out of school for many, many years. My brushes with being asked to tell the lesson happened more like forty years ago instead of thirty. ;) When I was in school, most students were ashamed to get detention, even when they blamed the teacher (or other students, which wasn't done - or even respected by the teachers, let alone the students - see Goddlefrood's Schoolyard Code). But, Harry and his friends don't seem to be ashamed at all to get detention. They sass back to the teachers a lot more than students in my schools. Having gone back to college and seeing the recent graduates of our local high schools, Harry and his classmates aren't any snarkier than the real articles. But, oy! Hogwarts seems so much more old-fashioned in so many ways, and then there's this! And, they don't mind breaking rules that are in place for the students' protection. They found Fluffy when they went to an area that was off-limits unless the student didn't mind dying. They fought a troll, had a clandestine rendezvous with a dragon and a team of dragon wranglers, Harry pined away in front of the Mirror of Erised, and that's just in the first book. I have wondered, and I still wonder, if Harry isn't carrying over an attitude and a resentment against school from his Muggle school days, when Dudley and his gang seemed to get away with hurting and frightening him under the teachers' noses, and that's where some of this disregard for authority and school rules comes from. To me, it would be perfectly understandable if he thought teachers, and by extension other authority figures, were ineffective in preventing things like Dudley's bullying. Understandable. Not right, no. But we're talking about a child, beginning at age eleven. And the Dursleys certainly aren't going to teach him anything! Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 19:57:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 19:57:26 -0000 Subject: Snape as Noble teacher/ Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168330 Carol earlier: > > > > Snape must have known that Dumbledore was right behind him. Yes, he was giving Harry a hard time, pretending to doubt his story, but at the same time he was keeping him where he was so that he would be there when Dumbledore finished descending the staircase. Had Snape not kept Harry there, Harry would have gone off on a fruitless search of some other corridor. Far from delaying Harry, Snape actually saved him time. > > > Alla: > > I know this interpetation. But that is sort of makes Snape's tormenting the innocent just to get his jollies argument stronger, IMO. > > If Snape was standing there to make sure Harry will wait till DD comes down, what should he had done unless he wants to make fun of Harry just **for the sake of having fun at his expense** I think he should have said - wait Potter, Dumbledore is coming. What does he do instead? Not that. That tells me that he wants to have fun at Harry's expense to enjoy it. No matter how upset Harry is and how much in need of help he is. > Carol responds: "Tormenting" is a bit strong, I think. Certainly, he *could* have simply siad, "The headmaster is coming. Wait here," but, being Snape, he preferred to cross-examine Harry and find out as much as he could before Dumbledore came down. The end result is the same: by calling Harry to him and keeping him at the foot of the stairs, by whatever means, he prevents Harry from going off on a wild goose chase. They could not have prevented Mr. Crouch's murder, in any case, since Fake!Moody, hiding under the Invisibility Cloak, waited only till Harry was out of sight to Stun Krum and kill Mr. Crouch. Then he hid his father's body under the Invisibility Cloak and consulted the Marauder's Map, which told him that Harry had talked to Snape before returning to the forest with Dumbledore. Crouch!Moody then pretended to have talked to Snape, who told him that DD was in the forest looking for Mr. Crouch (GoF Am. ed. 690). At any rate, "tormenting the innocent to get his jollies" is purely a subjective interpretation of Snape's actions, as is "for the sake of having fun at his expense." I see no evidence that Snape is having "fun" (unless you count what Harry perceives as an "unpleasant smile") or that he sees himself as "tormenting" Harry (though Harry is certainly frustrated because he mistakenly thinks they're wasting time). Snape is delaying Harry and obtaining what information he can from him as they wait. It's a purely practical matter from his perspective, as far as I can see. The point is that, by whatever means, Snape prevented Harry from wasting time by rushing off toward the staff room. And imagine Harry's reaction if Snape had politely offered to help him. He'd think that Snape was someone else polyjuiced as Snape! So Snape has to act as Harry expects him to act in order to keep him where he needs to be. Had Snape not acted as he did, or used some other delaying tactic, Harry would not have been at the foot of the hidden staircase when Dumbledore arrived. And that's what matters, IMO. Carol, who thinks that Harry, having faced Quirell!mort, a Basilisk, and Dementors (among other perils), has a good idea of what constitutes true torment, and it's not being cross-examined by a sarcastic teacher who only *seems* to be preventing him from talking to Dumbledore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 19:54:56 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 19:54:56 -0000 Subject: First lesson again WAS: Re: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168331 > Ceridwen: >> And that's where I thought JKR was going with the Potions scene. I > don't think Harry meant to imply anything like "who the hell is > *this* weirdo". Raising the eyebrows can also mean you're > impressed. Or it could have meant that he and Ron were surprised > about the teacher's style without comment to his subject (which won't > please the teacher either, I'll bet). But I do think he must have > done something to draw Snape's attention. Coupled with his > celebrity, that made him doubly important, from this style's point of > view, to be set down. Alla: Yeah, he had green eyes and black hair and glasses. I think that is what set Snape attention first and foremost IMO. Ceridwen: > I have wondered, and I still wonder, if Harry isn't carrying over an > attitude and a resentment against school from his Muggle school days, > when Dudley and his gang seemed to get away with hurting and > frightening him under the teachers' noses, and that's where some of > this disregard for authority and school rules comes from. To me, it > would be perfectly understandable if he thought teachers, and by > extension other authority figures, were ineffective in preventing > things like Dudley's bullying. Understandable. Not right, no. But > we're talking about a child, beginning at age eleven. And the > Dursleys certainly aren't going to teach him anything! Alla: I snipped a lot of stuff about the **old days**, LOL, but I have to say if in the old days raising eyebrows meant getting what Snape did to him, personally I am very glad old days are gone :) I mentioned to you before that I also do not come from very liberal school system in a sense that students would not be allowed to get away with from what I see students in school are allowed to get away with here in US these days. Oh, when I say **see** I do not see personally, I only hear stories, I must say. But punishing student for facial movement I find beyond ridiculous, sorry. I also must say that I never saw that Harry even trying to talk back to Snape, I saw the kid honestly not knowing the answer and honestly answering that here is the student who knows such answer. Again IMO. I agree though that Harry probably did not have the best school experiences in his muggle days and hoped for fairer teacher here. Speculating obviously. Ooops. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 21:01:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 21:01:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: <10100059.1178306330081.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168332 Bart wrote: > > Snape IS a sadist. I think JKR has made that much clear. It may ALSO be an effective teaching technique, and he may pretend that this is what he is doing, but he gets joy over the suffering of others. I know the style of teaching he is pretending to use; you are brutally frank with your students. When they fail, you let them know damned well they failed, and WHY they failed. But, if they succeed, you also let them know that. Carol responds: I'm aware that JKR has said in an interview that Snape is a very sadistic teacher, but she's trying to create and sustain a certain view of him--Harry's view--that may not necessarily correspond with the reader's impression. Snape is without question sarcastic (and much more clever about it than Sirius black, when they use words as weapons against each other). He can convey contempt with a look, as he does to Bellatrix and Wormtail in HBP or an ironic little bow, as he does to Umbridge in OoP. He *can* be cruel to his students. I've read attempts to justify "I see no difference," but I agree with Snape's attackers that these words are needlessly cruel. However, We see evidence that some students (not only Slytherins) flourish under his teaching methods. Ernie Macmillan, for example, must have attained an O on his Potions OWL to have ended up in NEWT Potions and he praises Snape's first DADA class in HBP. As for Neville, the boy is a danger to his classmates, melting someone else's cauldron and splashing fellow students with a potion that causes boils on his very first day and never learning to follow instructions in a class where carelessness is dangerous. No wonder Snape is frustrated. The marks Snape gives to essays are apparently the marks they deserve, or we'd hear Hermione complaining. Yes, Snape sometimes docks points unfairly, but he gives detentions only when they're deserved, and however unpleasant it may be to copy out old detention records, some of which are your dead father's, Harry has done something that needs to be punished (not just using a Dark spell but lying to the teacher about where he found it and hiding the book). Snape only once lays a hand on Harry, gripping him rather hard around the arm when he takes him out of the Pensieve and pushing him away. (I don't think he actually threw the jar of cockroaches which explodes above Harry's head; I think that's accidental magic caused by anger. Had he thrown it, he wouldn't have missed.) And his rage on that occasion is understandable. He trusted Harry, who betrayed his trust and violated his privacy. Few adults would remain calm under similar circumstances. And McGonagall's forcing Neville to wait in the hall with the security trolls until someone lets him into the common room is at least as devastating as having him skin horned toads (which could not cause him to have "frog guts" under his fingernails even if they really were the same as regular toads). Unkind, certainly, but what was Neville thinking bringing a toad to a Potions class, anyway? We do see true sadists in the books. Filch longs for the old days when students were whipped or chained. Umbridge attempts a Crucio on Harry, looking for the most painful place to aim the spell, and makes him write lines in his own blood. Bellatrix tortures Neville and reminds him that she tortured his parents into insanity. Her fellow torturer Crouch!Moody Crucios spiders in front of him, deliberately upsetting him so that he can take him to tea and give him the book he hopes Neville will show Harry. In comparison to these people, all but one of them teachers, Snape's detentions and point taking and sarcasm are mild indeed. Call him a sadist if you so choose. I call him a sarcastic and sometimes unfair teacher who can ensure silence by his mere presence and make students nervous by looking into their eyes and to some degree at least reading their minds. But if he were a true sadist, he'd have let the Death Eater Crucio Harry. Not once, except in teaching Harry Occlumency or provoking him into casting what should have been a nonverbal Protego does Snape as teacher hit Harry with a spell. (Even in the duelling scene in HBP, he deflects Harry's spells until the last moment rather than Crucioing him or sending his own spells back onto him with a Protego.) Contrast Fake!Moody, who transforms Draco into a ferret and bounces him. Or, again, Umbridge and her poisoned quill. Sarcastic? Absolutely? Unfair? Frequently, or so it seems from Harry's pov. But sadistic? I just don't see it. If Snape Crucios Harry or one of his friends in DH, or performs any similar action in which he clearly takes pleasure from causing physical pain (as opposed to stinging them with his bitter and ironic wit), I will, of course, stand corrected. Carol, who thinks Snape is brilliant and would much rather have had a class from him than from Trelawney, Binns, or Hagrid (not to mention Lockhart, Umbridge, and Fake!Moody) From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Fri May 4 21:21:25 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 21:21:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168333 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Betsy Hp wrote: > > > This is the first potions lesson in PS/SS. And I think everything > that occurred there was Snape's normal teaching method. I'd bet > every first year got to hear that speech and I'll bet every first year > class had near impossible questions thrown at them. It's Snape's "pay > attention, this will not be an easy course and I will be *extremely* > demanding" moment. > Carol responds: > I agree completely. Note that Hermione is excited by the class and > *wants* to answer the questions. His snubbing of her does nothing to > dull her desire to learn as much as she can and do as well as she can > in Potions. Also, the fact that a Muggleborn who probably received her > books at the same time Harry did knows the answers to these questions > shows that the information about them is in the books assigned. > (Bezoars, of course, would not be discussed in "1,000 Magical Herbs > and Fungi," as Harry wrongly assumes, but they're probably mentioned > in "Magical Drafts and Potions.") Quick_Silver: Doesn't Snape start his Defense against the Dark Arts class with a speech as well? Snape making a speech about his subject seems to be his traditional approach. > Carol responds: > That Snape chose to focus on Harry does reveal him as just an ordinary > kid to his classmates, but that's not a bad thing. It certainly strips > Draco, et al., of any delusions that he might be a Dark Lord in the > making for the DEs to rally around in the absence of Voldemort. It > also allows Harry to cultivate real friends instead of having to deal > with a fan club following him around at all times. (True, he has Colin > Creevey in CoS, but Colin is not in his year. And we see with Viktor > Krum and others how inconvenient and annoying a perpetual fan club can > be. Harry doesn't *want* to be a celebrity, so, deliberately or not, > Snape does him a favor by stripping away the aura of celebrity from > Day One.) Quick_Silver: I'm actually going to disagree with this. Why would Harry not knowing the answers strip away Draco's (or others) delusions that Harry is the next Dark Lord? Remember that we have canon that even the Dark Lord sometimes forgets little nuances of magic like phoenix tears having healing properties and the powerful countercharm created by sacrificing oneself for their child. And while Harry may not have memorized his potions books when Draco challenges Harry at another wizarding activity (flying) Harry does turn out to be natural skilled at it. So if anything Snape's little Q&A produced not dispelled delusions about Harry. I think a large reason for Snape's questioning comes from the fact that Snape has actually heard at least part of the prophecy about Harry. Snape probably believes that the "One" is going to be a wizarding prodigy like Voldemort or Dumbledore (or Snape himself at least I'm sure he thinks that). So naturally he figures he'll see what Harry knows and instead concludes that Harry is going to be like James. Quick_Silver From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 17:01:20 2007 From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 17:01:20 -0000 Subject: The REAL Spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168334 > Anne Squires adds: > > Not to mention Mad-Eye Moody, Dudley Dursley, Gregory Goyle, Colin > Creevey, Dedalus Diggle, Ted Tonks, Filius Flitwick, Florean > Fortescue, Moaning Myrtle, Poppy Pomfrey, Stan Shunpike... I'm sure > there's more... > > Also, the traitor in GOF is Barty Crouch Jr. who does not not have > alliterative initials. > Well Barty Crouch was never a traitor. He was always on the bad side. He never had any loyalty to DD and Hogwarts. As well as Mad eye whose first name isn't Mad Eye. When I talk about the traitor, I'm speaking in terms of having a direct relationship to Harry, Hogwarts and or DD of some major sort! That's why I mention Prof.McG. mitchell From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 4 22:12:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 22:12:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168335 > Carol responds: > > I'm aware that JKR has said in an interview that Snape is a very > sadistic teacher, but she's trying to create and sustain a certain > view of him--Harry's view--that may not necessarily correspond with > the reader's impression. Pippin: Actually, I think we end up with a nobler Snape if he *is* sadistic. First of all, we have to be talking about DDM!Snape here, because there's no suggestion by anybody that a Snape who deliberately betrayed Dumbledore for his own or Voldemort's ends is noble in any way. Now let us suppose that this Snape is sadistic, and furthermore he hates Harry just as much as Alla thinks he does. It's immediately clear that this Snape could treat Harry a whole lot worse and get away with it. Not only does Dumbledore trust him completely, there are other teachers whose punishments are harsher (McGonagall and Moody), whose classroom methods are scarier (ditto) and who show far more blatant favoritism (Slughorn and Lockhart.) Sadist!Snape, despite his personal inclinations, is being more egalitarian and more protective of his students than the WW requires him to be. That is self-sacrificing, magnanimous and therefore noble. Pippin From phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net Fri May 4 17:46:14 2007 From: phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net (Phyllis D. (P. D.) Barnes) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 17:46:14 -0000 Subject: The REAL Spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168336 Kim... > > shooting in the dark in a vain attempt to clear McGonagall of any suspicion whatsoever. Anne Squires: > Also, the traitor in GOF is Barty Crouch Jr. who does not not have > alliterative initials. Phyllis: I agree the spy won't be McGonagall. In all the books we've only seen DE's use the Unforgiveable curses - - the spy could be Delores Umbridge. She's a high-level ministry official and a member of the Wizengamot and thus has access to a lot of information that Voldy would find useful. She also showed a knowledge of and willingness to use the Cruciatus Curse - - which Bella taught us takes more than mere outrage to the words to actually perform. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri May 4 22:59:30 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 22:59:30 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168337 > > Carol responds: > > > > I'm aware that JKR has said in an interview that Snape is a very > > sadistic teacher, > > Pippin: > Actually, I think we end up with a nobler Snape if he *is* sadistic. > First of all, we have to be talking about DDM!Snape here, because > there's no suggestion by anybody that a Snape who deliberately > betrayed Dumbledore for his own or Voldemort's ends is noble > in any way. > > It's immediately > clear that this Snape could treat Harry a whole lot worse and get away > with it. Not only does Dumbledore trust him completely, there are > other teachers whose punishments are harsher (McGonagall and > Moody), whose classroom methods are scarier (ditto) and who > show far more blatant favoritism (Slughorn and Lockhart.) > > Sadist!Snape, despite his personal inclinations, is being more > egalitarian and more protective of his students than the WW requires > him to be. That is self-sacrificing, magnanimous and therefore noble. > > Pippin JW: It is said that there are three ways to conduct a debate: disagree over assumptions; disagree over logic; and sling mud. Pippin, my intent is to utilize only the first two ways. First, I do not understand how a sadistic personality could be more noble than a non-sadistic personality. Does this mean that the level of nobility is proportionate to the level of sadism? Would this mean that the two most noble RL people of the 20th century were Hitler and Stalin? I must be completely misunderstanding your point. Further, I do not see how Snape can possibly treat Harry worse. For example, on more than one occasion SS has demanded that HP be expelled, only to be over-ruled by DD or MM. Finally, SS is anything but egalitarian. The books are filled with instances during which Snape obviously favors Slytherins over all other atudents, especially Gryffs. Similarly, I am at a loss to find him treating any non-Slytherin with generosity, courtesy or nobility. I would also disagree with the logic behind your comparisons of Snape to other professors. MM seems to be tough but fair and compassionate, and protects Gryffs against the worst of Snape's outrages. Professor Moody is a sadistic killer in disguise. Lockhart is an incompetent fraud, and a criminal for his treatment of other wizards. Slughorn's faults are relatively mild, being merely a manipulator and politician (in the broad sense, not as a holder of public office). Again, I know that I could be completely off base if I am misinterpreting your points, so I would welcome further information. From bawilson at citynet.net Fri May 4 23:51:40 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:51:40 -0400 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book?. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168338 1. I believe that Hagrid will die, mostly because of the alchemical theme that has been running through the series. The three stages of alchemical purification/transformation are (in order) the Black, the White, and the Red (which is the reason for the colors of the caps worn by Scottish Rite Masons, BTW). So far, we have lost Sirius BLACK and ALBUS Dumbledore; logically, RUBEUS Hagrid should come next. 2. Of the Weasleys, I think that Fred is going to die at least. Why Fred? Because of the name. JKR chooses names quite deliberately. King George III, the one who lost the American colonies, was not supposed to have been King; he had an older brother, Frederick, Prince of Wales, who died from being hit on the head by a cricket ball, leaving as his next heir the infant Princess Sophia who died quite young, I believe she didn't see five. Princess Sophia's heir was her uncle, Prince George, who became King George III. Hence, when we have Frederick & George, whose eldest brothers are William & Charles, and whose father is Arthur, we see a definite pattern of British royalty here. 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 belviso at attglobal.net Sat May 5 01:00:30 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 21:00:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's detention in HBP References: Message-ID: <006001c78eb0$c754cc00$b79e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168339 JW: > It is said that there are three ways to conduct a debate: disagree > over assumptions; disagree over logic; and sling mud. Pippin, my > intent is to utilize only the first two ways. > > First, I do not understand how a sadistic personality could be more > noble than a non-sadistic personality. Does this mean that the level > of nobility is proportionate to the level of sadism? Would this mean > that the two most noble RL people of the 20th century were Hitler and > Stalin? I must be completely misunderstanding your point. Magpie: Leaving aside whether Snape is or isn't sadistic, sure I think a sadistic person could be noble--hypothetically. Sadism is, I believe, getting pleasure (usually sexual pleasure) out of inflicting pain on others. If the person doesn't *act* on this feeling by hurting others, if they repress it, they could be noble--if they're repressing it because they know it's wrong, they're doing it for a good reason. Behaving in a sadistic way isn't noble--it would be a pleasure-seeking act. But a noble person with a sadistic streak could exist, especially if they struggled with it. One problem in the HP-verse, imo, is that sadism is pretty common in the books to varying degrees. jmwcfo: > > Further, I do not see how Snape can possibly treat Harry worse. For > example, on more than one occasion SS has demanded that HP be > expelled, only to be over-ruled by DD or MM. Magpie: Oh, he could certainly treat him worse. As Pippin pointed out, other teachers have treated other students worse if you look at all the isolated incidents of teacher/student interaction. Snape hasn't turned Harry into a ferret and bounced him against a stone floor, or forced him to write with a razor-like quill over and over on his hand. I'd need to see the canon where Snape actually *demands* that Harry be expelled--I remember Snape saying once how he had no power to expel Harry therefore he couldn't do it. But then, Harry also says that Snape threatens to poison everyone to see if their antidotes work, which plenty of young readers know is an empty threat. I now can't remember McG's lines about Sectumsempra, but doesn't she say something like that Harry is lucky Snape's just giving him detention? I don't think Harry's fears of expulsion have always ever been realistic. Pippin: > Finally, SS is anything but egalitarian. The books are filled with > instances during which Snape obviously favors Slytherins over all > other atudents, especially Gryffs. Similarly, I am at a loss to find > him treating any non-Slytherin with generosity, courtesy or nobility. Magpie: I don't think Pippin was disputing that. I think she was saying that if Snape is an actual sadist, then he's holding back, which might suggest he's struggling against his own bad nature to treat Harry better than he wants to treat him. Pippin: > I would also disagree with the logic behind your comparisons of Snape > to other professors. MM seems to be tough but fair and > compassionate, and protects Gryffs against the worst of Snape's > outrages. Professor Moody is a sadistic killer in disguise. > Lockhart is an incompetent fraud, and a criminal for his treatment of > other wizards. Slughorn's faults are relatively mild, being merely a > manipulator and politician (in the broad sense, not as a holder of > public office). Magpie: I believe the comparisons were there only to show the kinds of punishments that teachers have given in canon, only to show that Snape isn't always operating at that level of punishment. He could go further, iow. (And with Slughorn I believe she was just pointing out that his favoritism is even more blatant and consistent than Snape's.) Crouch, Lockhart and Umbridge are also teachers when they do the things they do. -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat May 5 01:17:37 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 01:17:37 -0000 Subject: NOT the Real Spy (Was Re: The REAL Spy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168340 > Mitchell > Ok. Now I know this might have been discussed in this forum > before. Goddlefrood: It might have :| > Something I was discussing with my friend is the likely > outcome of Professor Minerva McGonagall being the next > traitor. I myself am prone to not seeing anything at ALL > bad in Prof. McG! She's my fav character and save Harry > and Hagrid, she was the most loyal to DD! Just wondering > your thoughts on this? Goddlefrood, mounting his charger to defend Prof. McG.: Minerva is certainly arguably the most straightforward character in terms of her loyalties, this appears to have made many suspicious of her for no better reason than to say "well she MUST be a traitor because she so obviously isn't one", or words to that effect. There are one or two quibbles I have with this and let me say I do not believe Minerva is a traitor. Firstly Voldemort, despite being arguably mad, is not so deranged as to mix up the gender of his Death Eaters. He clearly states "he" when talking about his faithful servant at Hogwarts and indeed for all the missing DEs in the graveyard scene in GoF. Minerva is clearly a woman ;) and also at Hogwarts during that excursion of Harry's, unless she pulled a Snape of course and went to explain her absence later. This would exclude the possibility that he was referring to Minerva, and also, therefore the possibility that she is a Death Eater. Could she be another type of spy? Not as far as I'm concerned and I see no value in it :) Should we choose to trust JKR's interviews, and I for one generally do on points of information at least, then Minerva was 70 years old from the stand point of 1995. This would translate to the very real probability that, while she was indeed at Hogwarts with a certain Tom Riddle, she had actually concluded her Newts and left the school prior to the original opening of the Chamber of Secrets, albeit only the year before. I also do not think that when some argue that Minerva deliberately put herself in harms way in OotP with a view to having herself out of communication with Harry when needed. She clearly had no ulterior motive and was absolutely outraged by the attempt to arrest Hagrid using unnecessary force. If that did not show as well that she was no spy then not much would. Had she been out to get Harry in any way then she was presented with a very clear opportunity to exclude him from further studies and probably further interference in the wizarding world as a result of Harry amd Ron's flying car stunt at the beginning of the school year in Cos. She chose to only give them a slap on the wrist. Not really conducive to then argue that she were a spy either :-? She has been shown to be a teacher that does not unfairly go against any student in particular, unlike Severus. She is in fact equally harsh with all as evidenced by her deductions of large amounts of points from children in her own House at times. I certainly believe it will not be correct that Minerva is a traitor or spy of any kind. Harry has enough known and unknown enemies or possible friends to deal with without any more being sprung on him, as I've said before in respect of certain others, who will not be mentioned ;). That she was not in the original Order of the Phoenix picture is no indication that she was working for someone else at the time, she was a teacher (39 years this December) and has been stated by JKR to be a worthy second to Dumbledore. Sorry, I just don't see it, could a little further argument be advanced? My little thought on Minerva is that she may have something to do with bringing the Centaurs on side apart from being Headmistress. The link to a picture I now share, which is rather well known and of interest for its own sake, led me to this thought, here it is: http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1922/minervaandthecentaurow1.jpg As you see from the link it is called "Minerva and the Centaur". There is no development of that thought I can offer, but there it is :). Of course this could also lead to fierce battles with the Minerva / Firenze shippers, but I'm prepared to defend myself against them :O) Goddlefrood saying have at you for now ;) From dougsamu at golden.net Sat May 5 14:20:24 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 10:20:24 -0400 Subject: NOT the Real Spy (Was Re: The REAL Spy) Message-ID: <3D8DFDEE-CD7F-40AA-8102-84405331DDFC@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168341 Goddlefrood: Firstly Voldemort, despite being arguably mad, is not so deranged as to mix up the gender of his Death Eaters. He clearly states "he" when talking about his faithful servant at Hogwarts and indeed for all the missing DEs in the graveyard scene in GoF. Minerva is clearly a woman ; doug: With tongue thoroughly in cheek: Aaaaah! but she might be transgendered :-) or at least polymorphed. We certainly have seen enough Polymorph Foreshadowing, haven't we? And what about the reference to Hermes? Hmmmmm? ___ __ From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat May 5 14:30:09 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 14:30:09 -0000 Subject: First lesson again WAS: Re: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168342 Alla: > > I snipped a lot of stuff about the **old days**, LOL, but I have to > say if in the old days raising eyebrows meant getting what Snape did > to him, personally I am very glad old days are gone :) Ceridwen: Ah, the old days. *sigh* "Reading and writing and arithmetic, taught to the tune of a hickory stick..." Okay, I'll stop singing, everyone uncover your ears! ;) The thing about raised eyebrows is that, when done derisively, they lead to snickering, which leads both to talking and to disrespect in the class. *Not* in every instance, as I mentioned: the raised eyebrows can show being impressed, or at least amazed. I did get the feeling that Ron and Harry were in part wondering about Mr. Theater there, strutting his fifteen minutes of their attention on his stage. But, at least in Harry's POV, it didn't reach the level of derision that I've seen in class. There were these two boys in my sixth grade class, twelve years old both of them... Ah, but we won't go there. *sigh* *humming* Alla: > I mentioned to you before that I also do not come from very liberal > school system in a sense that students would not be allowed to get > away with from what I see students in school are allowed to get away > with here in US these days. Oh, when I say **see** I do not see > personally, I only hear stories, I must say. Ceridwen: Hee! Yes, audit a day course at your local college sometime. The level of disrespect from students just out of high school is amazing. Hogwarts seems to be a strange dichotomy, to me. It's very progressive in some ways, certainly contrasted to the ways it seems old-fashioned. Alla: > But punishing student for facial movement I find beyond ridiculous, > sorry. I also must say that I never saw that Harry even trying to > talk back to Snape, I saw the kid honestly not knowing the answer and > honestly answering that here is the student who knows such answer. > Again IMO. Ceridwen: I saw the whole incident as a comedy of misunderstandings. Harry honestly was amazed about Snape's presentation, raising his eyebrows, which Snape read (based on his history with James I think) as derision. Which prompted him to come down on Harry, who didn't realize he'd done anything to get Snape's back up. He answers that he doesn't know, which to Snape comes off as cheeky, so Snape asks another question. Harry gets annoyed, not understanding Snape's viewpoint, and answers in perhaps a more annoyed tone. And so on. Alla: > I agree though that Harry probably did not have the best school > experiences in his muggle days and hoped for fairer teacher here. > Speculating obviously. Ooops. Ceridwen: I don't know what Harry hoped for from Hogwarts. A school is a school, after all, and teachers and others in authority might still not have the power to control bullying students. (Or, they might not be accorded the power. I know that in some areas, teachers are prevented from any form of discipline, and even a sharp rebuke, when it isn't laughed away, could possibly be prosecuted. This would be the school system Harry came from, if messaging with friends in Britain has given me the correct impression. British posters are welcome to either confirm or deny. :D) Taking from other recent threads, the WW at first seems to be a magical place, with wands and dragons and unicorns and powerful magicians. It starts out in PS/SS as a sort of wonderland. But the more Harry learns about it, the more it's just a magical version of a mundane world. As Scrimgeour said to the Muggle Minister, they can't just use magic go get rid of Voldemort, because Voldemort has magic, too. The witches and wizards of the WW are as equal when pitte against each other as the Muggles in the Muggle world. And, I think Harry begins to understand this from the beginning. We still have the magical aura, a fairy tale feeling, at least through CoS, in my opinion. But, things begin to clunk instead of tinkle from the beginning. School books and uniforms still have to be bought, house points must be earned - in that way the WW is no more fanciful than Real Life. Tangent: I don't think the Dursleys ever bothered even trying to explain adults to Harry. I don't think they explained any possible reasons for discipline, except, maybe, that *Harry* deserved it. A freak, an oddity, what have you. Their own actions would definitely be called into question by any sort of reasonable explanation for discipline! Why bother? So I do think that Harry came to Hogwarts with a skewed vision of right and wrong in the school setting. All he knew was students complaining that a teacher wasn't fair. Since the Dursleys were definitely not fair, this resonated with him, and he did get off on the wrong foot. It wasn't his fault, he had no concerned guardians explaining things to him. But, that's why I see that exchance in the first Potions class as more of a compounding of misunderstandings than of deliberate misconduct on either Harry's or Snape's part. And, maybe that's where Dumbledore's hands-off policy fell down. Ceridwen, not ending the tangent, because she ended with it. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat May 5 15:12:02 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 15:12:02 -0000 Subject: First Impression of Draco (was:Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168343 > >>Carol: > > Not that he would think less highly of Slytherin, but he'd be aware > of the hostility toward it of the other houses. No doubt he > learned that soon enough! Betsy Hp: I'm pretty sure young Slytherins realize that they're in the despised House right at their sorting. We've seen the Weasley twins hiss little ones sorted into Slytherin. And while the twins are rather nasty in and of themselves, the fact that no one tried to stop them (either teacher or prefect) suggests to me that this sort of behavior is rather typical. I've always pictured one of the Slytherin prefects giving the first years a sort of welcome to Slytherin talk where they're told that everyone in the school will think the worst of them, but not to worry, the rest of the school sucks and Slytherins stand up for their own. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat May 5 15:15:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 15:15:54 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and discipline (Was: First lesson again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168344 Ceridwen wrote: > Tangent: I don't think the Dursleys ever bothered even trying to explain adults to Harry. I don't think they explained any possible reasons for discipline, except, maybe, that *Harry* deserved it. A freak, an oddity, what have you. Their own actions would definitely be called into question by any sort of reasonable explanation for discipline! Why bother? Carol responds: Sorry to snip the main part of your post, but the whole subject of the powerlessness of teachers to control bullying or to discipline obnoxious students (no, I'm not talking about SS/PS Harry; I'm talking about RL) makes me almost literally sick. I'm afraid that American--and possibly British--society will pay the penalty for our laxity in the next ten or twenty years. So I'm not going there. :-) Regarding the Dursleys and discipline: On the one hand, they want to stifle Harry's magic so he won't, say, accidentally or deliberately blow up their house (now where would they get that idea?). On the other hand, they believe that because he lives under their roof, he should follow their rules. (I think Vernon says as much somewhere, but I may be thinking of the films.) The first reason is understandable, if not fair to Harry; the second is fair enough, or would be, if they explained their rules and applied them equally to Harry and Dudley. The Dursleys are like a parody of two extremes of discipline. With Harry, it's the old "Spare the rod, spoil the child" idea, except that they rarely actually hit him. (Locking children, or even teenagers, in their rooms was common in medieval times; I don't know how long the practice lasted. Even when I was a kid, in the Land Before Time, bedroom doors could be locked only from the inside.) With Dudley, it's the new the-child-can-do-no-wrong philosophy, which eliminates discipline (actually teaching the child a lesson) along with punishment. We don't even see the "natural consequences" and "logical consequences" philosophy advocated by social workers and counselors. Mrs. Dursley is afraid of losing Dudley's love if she disciplines him (and it's clear that this problem predates finding Harry on her doorstep; Dudley is already a spoiled brat, kicking his mother and screaming for sweets, at sixteen months old). Mr. Dursley confuses bullying with manliness. Dudley is never taught to say "please" or "thank you" or to show gratitude in any form. It's really a miracle that *Harry* ever learned those words or felt that emotion. But then, we're dealing with a fairy tale for the first eleven or so years of his life. IMO, the confusion between discipline (teaching) and punishment continues at Hogwarts. Rule-breaking is punished, but, with the exception of the reason for not entering the third-floor corridor in SS/PS ("those who do not wish to die a most painful death"), the rules are seldom explained, the punishment in most cases does not logically fit the crime, and the lesson that the detention or point-docking was supposed to teach is never learned. (Does Harry learn not to sneak out after dark or lie to a teacher or talk back to Snape? True, he stops stealing potion ingredients from Snape, but not because of a detention or point docking.) Maybe there *is* no right way, in the WW or RL, to teach kids what they need to know to be responsible adults, but it seems rather naive and optimistic to rely on their innate decency, as JKR seems to be doing with Harry (and even, oddly, with Draco, who is learning about life the hard way in HBP). As for Dudley, if the Muggle business world is anything like its RL equivalent, he's in for a shock. Carol, momentarily letting her worries about educational failings in the RL cloud her view of the HP books From bergermeister99 at yahoo.com Sat May 5 15:27:09 2007 From: bergermeister99 at yahoo.com (bergermeister99) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 15:27:09 -0000 Subject: No UV for DD and Snape (Was: Snape as Ultimate Hero) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168345 That was a great response to my response! Someone else who reviewed my review stated that the UV may be with James Potter and not DD. That would make a little more sense because James was willing to "bend" the rules as much as he could sometimes but not break them(for the most part). Would James be willing to do "anything" to save Harry? We shall know in 11 weeks. bergermeister99 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat May 5 16:14:17 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 16:14:17 -0000 Subject: Snape as Noble teacher/ Snape *not* a Sadist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168346 > >>Betsy Hp: > > This is the first potions lesson in PS/SS. And I think > > everything that occurred there was Snape's normal teaching > > method. I'd bet every first year got to hear that speech and > > I'll bet every first year class had near impossible questions > > thrown at them. It's Snape's "pay attention, this will not be an > > easy course and I will be *extremely* demanding" moment. > > > > That he singled out Harry (because I'm fairly sure he spread his > > questions around normally) has nothing to do with Snape enjoying > > watching Harry suffer, IMO. Snape is going on the offensive > > trying to head Harry's ego (and the class's hero-worship) off at > > the pass. > > > > But I don't see this as Snape enjoying watching Harry squirm for > > the sake of making a small child squirm. Especially since Harry > > *doesn't* squirm. (Actually, I thought he was very Snape-like in > > his refusal to fold when faced with overwhelming odds. Oh, those > > two. ) > >>Alla: > But look at what you wrote though :) I am going to say something > about this and then just cut all other explanations because you > know what you wrote anyways and ask a question. > > How does what you wrote here shows noble teacher's behavior? I > mean, teacher is not supposed to downsize child's ego, no? Betsy Hp: IMO, actually a teacher *should* "downsize a child's ego" if that ego is getting in the child's way of learning. That's what Snape (IMO) feared might have been occurring with Harry. I mean, the *staff* was fainting in Harry's presence. So Snape played the big dog and made sure his class knew that celebrity or not Harry was just as much a dunderhead as the rest of them. I mean, it's not like he left Harry in tears or anything. > >>Alla: > He is supposed to make him interested in learning, etc. Betsy Hp: Exactly. And in my opinion, this is exactly what Snape does. He gets his class interested in learning. Either because they want to prove their own worthiness (ie Hermione and probably most of Slytherin) or they want to avoid Snape's wrath (ie the Gryffindors). I honestly see nothing wrong with that. > >>Alla: > And Harry read his books, etc. He is excited, curious. He views > Snape as having a gift to keep class quiet and here he comes. But > whatever I am just saying that I do not get how this behavior can > be considered noble, even in your interpretation that is. > > And with other examples it gets even better. It seems like with > scene in GoF we agree that Snape was mocking Harry and that OOP > scene was bad as well, we jjust disagree as to "degree of badness", > no? > > But then you go ahead and characterize Snape as noble teacher > towards Harry. So, I am just not seeing where it is coming from. Betsy Hp: Actually, I was characterizing Snape as a noble man. Period. I think he's got a high sense of principles and that he risks everything to make sure that right prevails. He's an excellent example of doing what is right over what is easy. (And I'm not using the word "noble" to stand in for "perfect" just to be clear. ) That said, because I think Snape is a good teacher and because I think he puts tons of effort into *being* a good teacher, I do see a certain amount of nobility in his teaching. The nobility of taking pride in your job and doing it well, I suppose. When it comes to Harry, however, I definitely agree that both Harry and Snape have had their wires crossed for many, many years. And I do agree that the original crossing occurred when Snape misread Harry in their very first potions class together. And I'll even say that as the adult Snape carries the responsibility for this occurrence. > >>Alla: > And with Neville, I just want to say that IMO JKR showed very > nicely by mentioning that Neville had detention with Snape again in > GoF that nothing that Snape did in PoA helped Neville one bit. Betsy Hp: I totally disagree. I think we've got the proof of the dog that *doesn't* bark (Neville's potions are no longer exploding with regularity), and the proof of the dog that *does* bark (Harry compares his own potion to Neville's and realizes that Neville's is better). [The barking dog was a bit of Sherlock Holmes humor; I apologize for the self-indulgence. ] So I tend to think that JKR showed us that Neville *doesn't* have the same sort of problems in Potions that he did back during his crises year in PoA. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168328 > >>Bart: > Snape IS a sadist. I think JKR has made that much clear. Betsy Hp: Argh! No! I *hate* this pov. (Um, of course you're free to have it. ) I think if JKR was trying to make it clear that Snape was a sadist she failed miserably. She clearly showed the sort of pleasure Fake!Moody got out of emotionally torturing Neville and physically torturing Draco, and the pleasure Umbridge got out of doing both to Harry. She has not done so, IMO, with Snape. > >>Bart: > It may ALSO be an effective teaching technique, and he may pretend > that this is what he is doing, but he gets joy over the suffering > of others. I know the style of teaching he is pretending to use; > you are brutally frank with your students. When they fail, you let > them know damned well they failed, and WHY they failed. But, if they > succeed, you also let them know that. > Betsy Hp: And now I'm confused. So you're saying teachers that employ that method *are* sadists? That would mean McGonagall is a sadist right? I'm not sure I'm getting your definition here. Because while I do agree both McGonagall and Snape use the "brutally frank" method, and I agree that both are quite free with delivering punishment to those who fail, I don't get the sense that either character really *enjoys* seeing their students suffer. Not like Fake!Moody or Umbridge do. I mean, I know it's a common argument (Snape *loves* seeing folks suffer) but it's one that I've yet to see a good canonical proof for. Gosh, even when Snape kills Dumbledore he neither taunts, gloats, nor even hangs afterwords around to revel in the act. I'm also confused about why you think Snape is "pretending" to use the above method. I'd say he uses it and to good effect. It's what I like about him as a teacher, actually. Betsy Hp From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk Sat May 5 16:26:22 2007 From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (lesley) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 16:26:22 -0000 Subject: Magic on Privet Drive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168347 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > Ok so I've just stared reading OoTP again. (for the second time in > a month and a 1/2 lol) And IDK why I didn't see it before, but if > Harry's house is under such surveillance, then how did his Guard > get away with all the magic that was being done in the house? > > Yes I know they were all of legal age, but shouldn't the ministry > have detected the use of magic in the house at that point? > Especially after Harry had just done magic not too long before. > Wouldn't it be undercloser scrutiny? Lesley: Hi, I don't think the MOM keeps an active watch on magic done by underage wizards because with all the wizarding families they couldn't tell who did what and it would be a complete waste of time. When Dobby visited Harry in COS, he had been popping to and from Privet Drive for a while when he was magically removing mail and keeping an eye on Harry and maybe created enough magical vibes (or whatever!) to arouse suspicion. And as no other wizarding families live near it probably drew their attention enough so they kept a closer eye on things which was why the hover charm got noticed. I don't think they could have missed the spell that blew up his Aunt Marge as she had to be deflated and have her memory altered!! Bless!! With the Dementors though it was a different story as the MOM desperately wanted to discredit Harry and Umbridge was the one who sent the Dementors there to force Harry's hand. All she had to do was watch for vibey things from that area and they had all the evidence they needed to get rid. Despite all that, DD must have told the MOM to keep an eye on the area from when Harry was a baby because any Magical vibes may be movement from the Death Eaters so I expect there was someone regularly checking in. Dumbledore (despite the rows) would have kept the ministry informed of the fact that his friends were also keeping an eye on Harry because all the comings and goings of the guards would cause more vibes which the MOM would notice and he also probably informed them that the guard was sent to move Harry but not to where he was going. What will I do after book 7??? I need to get a life!!! Lesley From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 5 16:57:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 16:57:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's detention in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168348 > > JW: > > First, I do not understand how a sadistic personality could be more > noble than a non-sadistic personality. Pippin: To struggle against your weaknesses is noble. I had in mind the episode in LOTR where Faramir says he shouldn't be praised for rejecting the ring because he had no desire to do otherwise. It's clear to me that the WW tolerates a lot more cruelty and unfairness from its teachers than Snape displays. If Snape is not holding back out of a desire to deceive Dumbledore (which DDM!Snape would not do) , and if he truly hates Harry and Neville and wants to see them suffer, then it seems to me he must be struggling against his sadism and attempting to behave appropriately. After all, what are the alternatives, given DDM!Snape? Either Snape is acting and does not mean any of it, or he is completely unaware of the effect he's having. Neither of those make much sense. Of course he goes astray, much as Harry does with his saving people thing. When someone Harry cares about seems to be in danger, he often overreacts, partly at least because of the charge he gets out of rushing to save the day. There's nothing noble about that charge, it's just a psychological quirk. His instinct is to help others can be beneficial, but not when it's so powerful that it distorts his ability to judge whether people really need help or what kind of help is needed. Similarly Snape's judgment is distorted by the charge he gets out of punishing people. But the charge itself is not noble, or ignoble, it too is a quirk of Snape's psychology. It's not a *choice*. His instinct to punish the guilty can be beneficial, but it's not good at telling him who is guilty or how much punishment is appropriate. JW: > Further, I do not see how Snape can possibly treat Harry worse. For > example, on more than one occasion SS has demanded that HP be > expelled, only to be over-ruled by DD or MM. Pippin: Snape admits in CoS that he hasn't got the authority to expel Harry. They were empty threats, as Harry could have found out if he'd asked. Further, on the one occasion where he could have forced the issue because Harry had attacked him, he claimed that Harry was confunded. Snape is a DADA expert; I'm perfectly sure he could tell whether Harry was confunded or not. JW: Finally, SS is anything but egalitarian. The books are filled with > instances during which Snape obviously favors Slytherins over all > other atudents, especially Gryffs. Similarly, I am at a loss to find > him treating any non-Slytherin with generosity, courtesy or nobility. Pippin: I was not claiming that Snape is egalitarian by our standards. No one at Hogwarts is -- they're willing participants in a slaveholding society. But other teachers show much more favoritism than Snape does, Snape could, for example, habitually grade as unfairly as Slughorn does. But Hermione beats Draco in every class, potions included. He displays courtesy to McGonagall, shaking hands with her when Gryffindor wins the House Cup in PS/SS, backing her up in CoS when she confronts Lockhart, and greeting her return to Hogwarts in OOP with apparent enthusiasm. It's often argued that Snape ought to be aware of how much distrust he is sowing between himself and Harry and how distorted his view of Harry is, and that he can't possibly think this is in Dumbledore's interest. But I think JKR shows just how difficult it is for anyone in the WW to make such a connection. One of the most striking differences between our society and the WW is their reliance on divination and prophecy. If all is foretold, or even just the important stuff as the centaurs believe, does it not follow that nothing important can happen by accident? Preventing accidental harm would not be much of a priority if that were so. It would not be surprising if many wizards feel they are responsible only for the harm they mean to cause, and that they take little responsibility for their indifference and neglect because they don't see that the hatred and cruelty it spawns is a consequence. Pippin From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Sat May 5 16:23:19 2007 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 12:23:19 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Invisibility Cloak References: Message-ID: <463CAF76.000001.02588@LIFESAVER> No: HPFGUIDX 168349 Something that occurred to me years ago and again today while rereading SS: How big is Harry's Invisibility Cloak? I realize it needs to be big enough to cover an adult but but how big is it? It covers two 11yos and a crate holding a good sized young dragon. Seems to me that if it is big enough to cover all of that, when one 11yo boy goes around wearing it, would he not be stepping on and/or tripping on the cloak? Seems to me that he would dragging around a LOT of excess, getting-in-the-way material but this doesn t seem to be the case. Just how big is an invisibility cloak? Donna in Dayton [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irenetsui at yahoo.com Sat May 5 17:04:28 2007 From: irenetsui at yahoo.com (irenetsui) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 17:04:28 -0000 Subject: Umbridge wants Harry's soul sucked? Re: Magic on Privet Drive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168350 > Lesley: > With the Dementors though it was a different story as the MOM desperately wanted to discredit Harry and Umbridge was the one who sent the Dementors there to force Harry's hand. All she had to do was watch for vibey things from that area and they had all the evidence they needed to get rid. > > Irene: This is something I've been thinking about, and I wish to be enlightened by other group members. I thought Umbridge's intention of sending dementors after Harry was more than just to discredit him by forcing him to perform the Patronus Charm. Come to think of it, how would Umbridge even know Harry could produce a patronus? If Umbridge didn't know that Harry could defend himself against dementors, sending them after him would imply that she wanted Harry's soul sucked, wouldn't it? *gasp* What had Harry done to her to deserve that?? Irene From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat May 5 18:51:50 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 18:51:50 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168351 > Carol responds: > But I don't think we can blame the unreliable > narrator, either. Since the Pensieve is, according to JKR, an > objective record of events, the only bias would be from the narrator > reflecting Harry's pov. Frankly, the narrator makes only a few > Harrycentric comments (e.g. "Snape was clearly unpopular"). Most of > the rest is objectively narrated, with the focus on James's words and > actions (reflecting Harry's own focus on James). > Neri: Hmmm. I've never realized that Harry's limited PoV can only err *against* Snape, never in his favour. Is an unreliable narrator only allowed to be unreliable in one direction? In fact the SWM scene is tricking us in many different ways, perhaps not all of them technically coming under the heading of unreliable narrator, but if so they certainly need a term of their own. Perhaps you could supply us with the correct literary terms for the following techniques: 1. Describing only a single event and let the readers assume it is typical, faithfully represents the state of things during the whole five years before that. 2. Not even describing this whole event, deliberately leaving the impression that it ended in a way that was too horrible to describe on page, but not telling us that it indeed ended that way. 3. Adding a title like "Snape's Worst Memory", keeping it ambiguous who's PoV it represents (the all-knowing Author's? Harry's?) 4. Making characters talk in a way that appears self-convicting, but could in fact mean other things ("it's more the fact that he exists"). 5. Convicting a character using a witness (Lily) who has her own issues with him. 6. Making several characters behave in an unreasonable way so as to downplay certain aspects of the event (everybody ignoring the blood on James's face). 7. Making characters that later discuss that event unreasonably hide relevant information (Lupin and Sirius not telling Harry about Levicorpus being widely used). 8. Hinting to a parallel with another scene in the same book (Dudley and his gang doing Mark Evans) thus suggesting (but never confirming) a parallel between the Marauders and Dudley's gang. 9. Using all the above to the same end of suggesting Snape's innocence, and also tell us that Harry is blaming him for an unrelated issue (responsibility for Sirius's death by goading him) and then tell us explicitly, over Harry's head, that this is to relieve Harry's own guilt, thus creating the impression that *any* evidence against Snape in the series is only due to Harry's biased PoV. Would this be termed "unreliably unreliable narrator?" . > Carol: > As for the de-emphasis on the cut that James received, I think it's > because the cut is not important. The narrator notes it once in > passing--a gash appears on James's cheek and his robes are spattered > with blood. James reacts to it only by casting Levicorpus. He does not > so much as cry out in pain or raise a hand to his cheek. Harry thinks > no more about it; none of the characters in SWM remarks on it, Neri: *Why* does the narrator note this "in passing"? Is it realistic that no one comments about such a thing in the scene nor remembers it later? Only to spring on us, in a next book, a similar Dark curse in Snape's book? If the curse Snape uses in SWM isn't important, no one comments on it, and it's not even Sectumsempra, then why showing it at all??? Snape could have attempted any other of a long list of innocent familiar hexes against James and fail. Why would the Author choose one that draws blood in the first place and then de-emphasise it? > Carol: > nor do > Lupin and Black bring it up when Harry, seeing his father as a bully > and Snape as his victim, brings up the incident. They're too busy > remembering James playing with the Snitch and ruffling his hair to > give much thought to Severus. It's clear, however, that they're > vaguely ashamed of their own behavior in that scene: > > "Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?" asks Lupin. "Did I ever tell > you I thought you were out of order?" > > To which Black replies, "Yeah, well, you made us feel ashamed of > ourselves sometimes" (671). > > Clearly, Severus was not going around attacking them with Dark magic. Neri: So you believe Sirius when he's talking about James, but not when he's talking about Snape? Here's more of Sirius's testimony suggesting that Snape was, indeed, going around attacking them with Dark magic: "Snape was just this little oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts" (only one page before the words you quote, and how would Sirius know that if Snape had never used Dark Arts in public?). "Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year, and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." (strongly suggesting that this was going on since their first year, and also hinting to active use of curses in the company of bullies). "James and Snape hated each other from the moment they set eyes on each other" (again showing this was going on since their first year, and also suggesting it was a mutual issue, not one sided) "Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to hoping he could get us expelled. " (showing Snape has been quite active against the Marauders). Why do you believe Sirius when he's ashamed about his own and James's behavior, but not when he talks about Snape's behavior? Isn't it because JKR has ingeniously created this appealing (but largely unsupported) story about Snape the poor innocent victim? > Carol: > They, themselves, acknowledge their behavior (and, by implication, > James's) to be unjustified. > > Let's look at the scene itself. Sirius and James catch Severus > off-guard. (Note that Sirius becomes very still, "like a dog that has > scented a rabbit.") James addresses "Snivellus," who reaches for his > wand Neri: You go back to describe the scene. We went through all this many times already before HBP. What we've found in HBP was that this scene is manipulative and one-sided. For instance, the description you quote yourself of Sirius becoming very still "like a dog that has scented a rabbit" is a classic example of unreliable narrator. It is well calculated to leave us with the impression of Snape as the poor harmless rabbit, while in fact this is merely Harry's subjective impression, and is contradicted by (deliberately downplayed) facts even in that very scene. > Carol: > To return to the cutting hex, to which no one pays attention in this > scene. Sectumsempra means "cut forever." There's no indication that > James is cut forever. Not only is there no further mention of blood > but no one mentions a visit to Madam Pomfrey for dittany to prevent > scarring. No one utters the countercurse (which, in any case, only > Severus would know--it's not written in the margins of his Potions > book like the countercurse to Levicorpus). > > My impression is that this little cutting hex, which does minimal > damage and is not considered important enough to be mentioned by > anyone, is not the admittedly Dark Sectumsempra, which is marked "for > enemies" and requires a complex countercurse to reverse. Most likely, > this incident and the somewhat later "Prank," which endangered > Severus's life (yes, he could have been killed rather than transformed > into a werewolf in the confinement of the Shrieking Shack with no help > at hand) and which he regarded as a murder attempt, spurred him to > modify the cutting hex into something deadlier, either as a defense > against further attacks or as retaliation. It's clear, however, that > he never used it on them or he'd have been expelled (as Harry would > have been had Draco died). It seems likely, and this is just my > opinion, that Snape invented (or researched) the elaborate > counterspell later, probably after he'd "returned to our side." At any > rate, I don't think that either the curse or its countercurse had been > invented at the time of the SWM. Surely, we'd have heard about it if > Severus had been forced to sing or chant the countercurse to > Sectumsempra to heal James's cheek. > Neri: Snape's potions book also has Levicorpus in it, which was already in wide use by the time of the SWM scene, so he must have invented it before that. This means Sectumsempra, which also appears in that same book, could also be invented by that time (the countercurse indeed appears to have been invented later, as it's much more complex and isn't mentioned in his book). A Sectumsempra curse could fail on James because Snape cast it too fast, either missing and merely grazing James's face, or simply because he failed to cast it appropriately. If this was only some harmless "little cutting hex" why haven't we seen anything like it until now? If it's another of Snape's inventions why isn't it in his book? In the whole series we see precisely two instances of a hex that cuts people and draws blood. One is Sectumsempra and the other is the one used by Snape in SWM. (Unless you count the slashing curse Dolohov uses on Hermione in OotP, which only acts internally so no blood is drawn. Anyway it hardly helps Snape's case as it is obviously a Dark curse). But the main point is: why would the Author make Snape use an unknown cutting hex in the first place, downplay it in the original scene, and then spring Sectumsempra on us just a few chapters before the tower? Neri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 5 19:40:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 19:40:42 -0000 Subject: Snape as noble sadist/some spoilers for Cold fire trilogy again WAS In-Reply-To: <006001c78eb0$c754cc00$b79e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168352 > Magpie: > Leaving aside whether Snape is or isn't sadistic, sure I think a sadistic > person could be noble--hypothetically. Sadism is, I believe, getting > pleasure (usually sexual pleasure) out of inflicting pain on others. If the > person doesn't *act* on this feeling by hurting others, if they repress it, > they could be noble--if they're repressing it because they know it's wrong, > they're doing it for a good reason. Behaving in a sadistic way isn't > noble--it would be a pleasure-seeking act. But a noble person with a > sadistic streak could exist, especially if they struggled with it. > > One problem in the HP-verse, imo, is that sadism is pretty common in the > books to varying degrees. Alla: Leaving aside whether Snape is sadistic or not for a second as well, I actually agree with you hypothetically - that sadistic personality can be noble but only under certain circumstances and only, I would say in fiction. I am still yet to meet real life sadist who would struggle with their instincts, but I certainly saw that in fiction. Do I think it applies to Snape? Not for a second, I do not, but here is again the example from dearly loved "Cold fire" trilogy by C.J. Friedman. Gerald Tarant is someone who has a part inside of himself that just **has to** feed upon young women's terrors both emotionally and physically. If he does not *feed**, he will eventually die, it is that simple. Now, the reason why it so come to be is totally his fault, nobody else's. But it turns out that the spark of humanity left in him is **enough** for him to change enough to try and not feed upon these young women for certain period of time and eventually never. So, certainly I call it a spark of nobility in sadist. But again, do I apply it for a second to Snape? No way. Why? Because I see no proof whatsoever that Snape just **has to** mistreat innocent kid or die, or do anything like that. That is why I am guessing ( and it is really just my assumption so feel free to correct me if I am wrong) why vampire Snape was so attractive to many people. I mean, really he is **vampire**, he poor dear just cannot help himself, he needs to feed on kids negative emotions or something, so the fact that he does not turn those kids into vampires must mean that he is so very noble. Again, maybe not, that is just my wild guess and not directed to you and not even specifically to Pippin, even though I remember her being a big fan of Snape as vampire. It is just a general speculation. But I cannot tell you how very pleased I was when JKR said that NO Snape is not a vampire, that meant to me that she blocked another avenue to let Snape off the hook for his deeds. IMO of course. It was actually funny, because at some point I thought that Snape as vampire could be fun because of his relationships with Marauders,LOL. Vampire, werewolf, you know? But when I realised how it can be argued that Snape just cannot help himself, I hated this theory with passion. > Magpie: I'd need to see the canon where > Snape actually *demands* that Harry be expelled--I remember Snape saying > once how he had no power to expel Harry therefore he couldn't do it. Alla: Ask and you shall receive :) "Be warned Potter- any more nightime wanderings and I will personally make sure that you are expelled. Good day to you" - PS/SS, p.269. By the way, Snape saying that he could not personally expel Harry does not mean that he cannot convince the people who can do it IMO> > Magpie: > I believe the comparisons were there only to show the kinds of punishments > that teachers have given in canon, only to show that Snape isn't always > operating at that level of punishment. He could go further, iow. Alla: Yes, Snape can go further, but sadism -1 to me does not become less sadism if we are able to see sadism -100. JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat May 5 21:26:33 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 21:26:33 -0000 Subject: Snape as Noble teacher/ Snape *not* a Sadist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168353 > Betsy Hp: > I totally disagree. I think we've got the proof of the dog that > *doesn't* bark (Neville's potions are no longer exploding with > regularity), and the proof of the dog that *does* bark (Harry > compares his own potion to Neville's and realizes that Neville's is > better). [The barking dog was a bit of Sherlock Holmes humor; I > apologize for the self-indulgence. ] zgirnius: I generally agree with your position that Snape makes an effort as a teacher, and does well. However, not that I doubt you, but I do not recall the scene you mean. When did Harry see Neville prepare a better potion than his own? It always seemed to me that Neville was a student for whom Snape just did not work as a teacher in a weak subject for him. (He seems to do fine in DADA class, at which he is better, especially after all the effort he put in fifth year). From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat May 5 21:54:39 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 21:54:39 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168354 Neri: > If the curse Snape uses in SWM isn't important, no one comments on it, and it's not even Sectumsempra, then why showing it at all??? Snape could have attempted any other of a long list of innocent familiar hexes against James and fail. Why would the Author choose one that draws blood in the first place and then de-emphasise it? *(snip)* A Sectumsempra curse could fail on James because Snape cast it too fast, either missing and merely grazing James's face, or simply because he failed to cast it appropriately *(snip)* But the main point is: why would the Author make Snape use an unknown cutting hex in the first place, downplay it in the original scene, and then spring Sectumsempra on us just a few chapters before the tower? Ceridwen: I know you weren't asking me, but I'm jumping in with my impressions anyway. :D When I first read SWM, I thought the mild cut James received was there to show the level of hostilities, and how upset Snape was at that moment. I thought it was a plot device, conveniently enough, since no one mentioned it. Here was the first blood of this particular altercation, and Prefect Lupin isn't on his feet, Prefect Lily isn't saying a word about it, excitable Peter isn't faux fainting, and James doesn't even seem to care. Heck, James doesn't even say he needs to do laundry now, it was such a non-event. When I read about it in HBP, the first thing I thought of was that little cutting curse. There is no doubt in my mind that Snape sees the Marauders, individually or in a group, as enemies during school. Here's a convenient curse for enemies, why not use it? People knew Levicorpus, why not Sectum Sempra? (I was one of the clueless ones who wasn't absolutely positive that Snape was the HBP. I so do not trust seemingly obvious clues any more!) Next, I naturally noticed the differences between Snape's controlled motion and Harry's wild slashing, and the expected difference in their respective results. Snape gives a little nick, Harry slashes like a Mideival knight in an epic battle. James gets a little cut, Draco nearly bleeds to death. Rather than Snape doing the spell wrong, or too fast, or missing and merely grazing James, I think he did it right. He was in control of the spell. He knew it, he knew what it did, he was able to wield it successfully. Harry wasn't. He didn't know what it did, he didn't use brief, tight movements, he slashed. If we exchanged the wands for swords, James's cut would be the nick Errol Flynn gets from Basil Rathbone during a fencing duel, while Draco's massive damage would be the black knight who won't let Arthur's men pass in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (though Draco wasn't swearing it was only a flesh wound). I don't think the nick on James's face was made by anything but Sectum Sempra. Ceridwen. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat May 5 22:27:42 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 22:27:42 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168355 > Neri (querying whether any new genres are available to describe certain anomalies ;)): > Perhaps you could supply us with the correct literary terms for the following techniques: > 1. Describing only a single event and let the readers assume it is typical, faithfully represents the state of things during the whole five years before that. Goddlefrood: Post Realism perhaps? I always thouht that SWM accurately reflected the entirety of interaction at school between Severus and the Marauders :| > Neri: > 2. Not even describing this whole event, deliberately leaving the impression that it ended in a way that was too horrible to describe on page, but not telling us that it indeed ended that way. Goddlefrood: This one's a no-brainer (for the benefit of our US and Canadian friends :)). Surely what is being described here is the new form of detective genre, that is becoming increasingly popular ;), that being The Mystery Left at the End :) > Neri: > 3. Adding a title like "Snape's Worst Memory", keeping it ambiguous who's PoV it represents (the all-knowing Author's? Harry's?) Goddlefrood: I'd have to go with Autobiography, it seemed straightforward enough narrative to this reader :| > Neri: > 4. Making characters talk in a way that appears self-convicting, but could in fact mean other things ("it's more the fact that he exists"). Goddlefrood: To borrow a phrase from the world of art for this one: "Impressionism" :0) > Neri: > 5. Convicting a character using a witness (Lily) who has her own issues with him. Goddlefrood: Sounds like what might happern in a typical Court case to me, therefore "Transalliteration" suggests itself :-? > Neri: > 6. Making several characters behave in an unreasonable way so as to downplay certain aspects of the event (everybody ignoring the blood on James's face). Goddlefrood: "Precognitive Impressionism" springs to mind for this one. > Neri: > 7. Making characters that later discuss that event unreasonably hide relevant information (Lupin and Sirius not telling Harry about Levicorpus being widely used). Goddlefrood: Well, many have done this before, perhaps not quite in the same way, but I would apprehend that the technique was practically pateneted by Ms. Christie, Mr. Clarke and many others ;) > Neri: > 8. Hinting to a parallel with another scene in the same book (Dudley and his gang doing Mark Evans) thus suggesting (but never confirming) a parallel between the Marauders and Dudley's gang. Goddlefrood: "Allegory" - existing technique, yes, but used in a novel way by Ms. Rowling in that no one thought of the parallel :-? > Neri: > 9. Using all the above to the same end of suggesting Snape's innocence, and also tell us that Harry is blaming him for an unrelated issue (responsibility for Sirius's death by goading him) and then tell us explicitly, over Harry's head, that this is to relieve Harry's own guilt, thus creating the impression that *any* evidence against Snape in the series is only due to Harry's biased PoV. Would this be termed "unreliably unreliable narrator?" . Goddlefrood: Hang on, the Pensieve always tells the truth :|. There is no room for any other alternative, therefore, than non-fiction, convinced as I am that these people exist, man ... There you have it, Severus innocent of all charges, what a relief, and I thought he was difficult to understand ;-) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat May 5 22:48:33 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 22:48:33 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowing (Was Re:NOT the Real Spy) (Was Re: The REAL Spy) In-Reply-To: <3D8DFDEE-CD7F-40AA-8102-84405331DDFC@golden.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168356 > > Goddlefrood: > > Minerva is clearly a woman ;) > doug: > Aaaaah! but she might be transgendered :-) or at least polymorphed. We certainly have seen enough Polymorph Foreshadowing, haven't we? And what about the reference to Hermes? Hmmmmm? Goddlefrood: You've got me now, I'll have to reconsider my views of Minerva :-? Of course that eagle owl still hasn't quite been explained, she may be more than a cat, rather than nine lives perhaps the foreshadowing suggests the nine forms of her Animagus ::ponders:: From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 5 23:06:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 23:06:25 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168357 > Neri: > Hmmm. I've never realized that Harry's limited PoV can only err > *against* Snape, never in his favour. Is an unreliable narrator only > allowed to be unreliable in one direction? Alla: LOL, Neri too funny. Of course he is ;) Neri: > In fact the SWM scene is tricking us in many different ways, perhaps > not all of them technically coming under the heading of unreliable > narrator, but if so they certainly need a term of their own. Perhaps > you could supply us with the correct literary terms for the following > techniques: > > 1. Describing only a single event and let the readers assume it is > typical, faithfully represents the state of things during the whole > five years before that. Alla: I adore your posts, Neri, each and every one of them :) I am snipping all your other reasons for Pensieve scene to be unreliable, since I am in such of complete agreement with them. I actually agree with this one as well, but let me play a little Devil advocate here. It can be said that no matter how important backstory is, it is still Harry's story and JKR indeed going to give us bits and pieces of Marauders and Snape, not go into every detail, etc. Don't you think that for the purpose of judicial erm... literary economy those bits and pieces that JKR **is** going to give us are going to be reliable, since she is not going to give us very many? I mean, what else JKR will possibly show us about Marauders? Hopefully, Prank. Maybe GH night. Aren't those bits and pieces too precious to waste them on complete misdirection? Do you know what I am saying? With Harry JKR can afford to switch POV to engage in unreliability, etc, because she has so much space to really let us to get to know him as character, with Marauders on the other hand? I mean, I answered that for myself, but I do wonder what you think :) Thanks, Alla, who also thinks that cutting hex could not have been stuck there, unless it was Sectumseptra. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat May 5 22:54:10 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 18:54:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as noble sadist/some spoilers for Cold fire trilogy again WAS References: Message-ID: <006401c78f68$4c9da8c0$866c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168358 > Magpie: I'd need to see the canon where > Snape actually *demands* that Harry be expelled--I remember Snape saying > once how he had no power to expel Harry therefore he couldn't do it. > Alla: > > Ask and you shall receive :) > > "Be warned Potter- any more nightime wanderings and I will > personally make sure that you are expelled. Good day to you" - > PS/SS, p.269. > > By the way, Snape saying that he could not personally expel Harry > does not mean that he cannot convince the people who can do it IMO> Magpie: If that's the quote then it validates my impression. Snape isn't demanding Harry be expelled there. He can't personally make sure Harry gets expelled, and he's not even trying to here. There's no time where Harry is really in danger of expulsion by Snape, with someone or something else having to intervene. He's never made any move to have him expelled. The only times Harry's had reason to realistically fear expulsion, it hasn't been from Snape. -m -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat May 5 23:41:04 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 23:41:04 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168359 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I totally disagree. I think we've got the proof of the dog that > > *doesn't* bark (Neville's potions are no longer exploding with > > regularity), and the proof of the dog that *does* bark (Harry > > compares his own potion to Neville's and realizes that Neville's > > is better). [The barking dog was a bit of Sherlock Holmes humor; > > I apologize for the self-indulgence. ] > >>zgirnius: > I generally agree with your position that Snape makes an effort as > a teacher, and does well. However, not that I doubt you, but I do > not recall the scene you mean. When did Harry see Neville prepare a > better potion than his own? Betsy Hp: Blech. This is a lesson in double-checking canon before you post. I was incorrectly remembering the potions class in OotP, Chapter 15. I thought Neville's potion was closer to the right color than Harry's. But nope, Harry's was better than Neville's. ::sigh:: ::Perks up:: Ah well, this just leaves the non-barking dog of Neville's potions not exploding anymore. Plus there's the non- barking dog of Neville's grades *not* shown to be terrible when Harry's stressing about his own Potions' grade. And that fits with JKR's need to be ambiguous when it comes to Snape. The evil!Snaper's need *something* to cling to after all. > >>zgirnius: > It always seemed to me that Neville was a student for whom Snape > just did not work as a teacher in a weak subject for him. (He seems > to do fine in DADA class, at which he is better, especially after > all the effort he put in fifth year). Betsy Hp: I *still* think Snape *does* work as a teacher for Neville in a particularly weak subject. A lesser teacher would have quit on Neville, but Snape kept at it and Neville passed and kept on passing. And all that without the added motivation of taking on the crazy witch who drove Neville's parents insane. IOWs, I think the problem Neville had with Potions was the subject matter, not the instructor. I'm not saying Snape was Neville's best teacher type, nor am I saying Snape's methodology was the *only* or even the best way to reach Neville. But Snape got the job done. And I'm betting taught Neville a few other things along the way. Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun May 6 00:14:05 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 00:14:05 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168360 Alla: > It can be said that no matter how important backstory is, it is > still Harry's story and JKR indeed going to give us bits and pieces > of Marauders and Snape, not go into every detail, etc. > > Don't you think that for the purpose of judicial erm... literary > economy those bits and pieces that JKR **is** going to give us are > going to be reliable, since she is not going to give us very many? Ceridwen: I know you're only playing Devil's Advocate here, but this is how I view the Pensieve scene, and even Snape's memories that we're shown during the Occlumency lessons. This isn't Snape's story, so JKR has to show us the real deal one time only. This isn't the Marauder's story, either. All of them, MWPP and SS play roles in the backstory which shores up the story we're reading about Harry, but Harry's story is the most important. In my opinion, we're shown what we need to be shown for the Marauders and Snape. JKR said that Pensieve memories are objective records of what happened. That turns out to be important in the Young Tom Riddle portion of HBP. Since the Pensieve memories are supposed to give Harry clues about how to effectively counter LV and find the identity and location of the Horcruxes, then I think Pensieve memories being objective will need to stand. Ceridwen. From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Sun May 6 00:13:08 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 00:13:08 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloak In-Reply-To: <463CAF76.000001.02588@LIFESAVER> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168361 Donna in Dayton wrote: > > Something that occurred to me years ago and again today while rereading SS: > How big is Harry's Invisibility Cloak? I realize it needs to be big enough > to cover an adult but but how big is it? It covers two 11yos and a crate > holding a good sized young dragon. Seems to me that if it is big enough to > cover all of that, when one 11yo boy goes around wearing it, would he not be > stepping on and/or tripping on the cloak? Seems to me that he would > dragging around a LOT of excess, getting-in-the-way material but this doesn > t seem to be the case. Just how big is an invisibility cloak? > > Donna in Dayton Anne Squires now: I have often been very confused by the size of the IC. On the one hand, as Donna in Dayton points out, it seems to be able to cover a great deal. On the other hand, IIRC, Harry is able to fold it up and put it in his pocket or his school bag. This aspect of the cloak has always bothered me b/c I have never seen a piece of material that can cover so much but also fit in a pocket. I decided a while ago though that since it is a magical cloak that obviously does not follow the laws of physics then if JKR says it can fit in a pocket or a bag, then it can fit in a pocket or a bag. It still bothers me. Hermione does say in HBP when the trio are under the cloak that their feet will show. So, I guess the cloak is of a size that can cover three teens but will be about ankle height off the ground. "Our feet'll be seen!" said Hermione anxiously, as the cloak flapped around their ankles; it was much more difficult hiding all three of them under the cloak nowadays." (HBP, US hardback edition, p. 124) Anne Squires From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun May 6 00:38:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 00:38:20 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168362 > Ceridwen: > I know you're only playing Devil's Advocate here, but this is how I > view the Pensieve scene, and even Snape's memories that we're shown > during the Occlumency lessons. JKR said that Pensieve memories are objective records of what > happened. That turns out to be important in the Young Tom Riddle > portion of HBP. Since the Pensieve memories are supposed to give > Harry clues about how to effectively counter LV and find the identity > and location of the Horcruxes, then I think Pensieve memories being > objective will need to stand. > Alla: Hee, that is not quite what I meant though. Although at some point I had the idea that Snape butchered the memory as Slughorn did, only he did it more skillfully. But certainly if JKR said it is objective, it is objective. I am playing with Neri's argument about Pensieve scene while being objective being at the same time misleading in a sense that it represents the fair representation of seven years of school in Snape and Marauders life. But you know what? I just realised something and I am even going to withdrew my earlier advocate playing, lol. I had a little bit of different answer in mind, but heee you helped me figure it out. Literary economy does not have to come into play. The information that we see in pensieve is true, where JKR may play us is that she presents it as if that is what happened for seven years. HA! I think I confused Neri and that is what he meant initially. Sorry, Neri. Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Sun May 6 02:38:18 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 22:38:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] First lesson again WAS: Re: Harry's detention in HBP References: Message-ID: <00b501c78f87$9ecfbd80$866c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168363 Alla: >> But punishing student for facial movement I find beyond ridiculous, >> sorry. I also must say that I never saw that Harry even trying to >> talk back to Snape, I saw the kid honestly not knowing the answer > and >> honestly answering that here is the student who knows such answer. >> Again IMO. > > Ceridwen: > I saw the whole incident as a comedy of misunderstandings. Harry > honestly was amazed about Snape's presentation, raising his eyebrows, > which Snape read (based on his history with James I think) as > derision. Which prompted him to come down on Harry, who didn't > realize he'd done anything to get Snape's back up. He answers that > he doesn't know, which to Snape comes off as cheeky, so Snape asks > another question. Harry gets annoyed, not understanding Snape's > viewpoint, and answers in perhaps a more annoyed tone. And so on. Magpie: I was surprised when I went back and read this scene later that it was much milder than I remembered it on Snape's side.I can totally believe this is his standard behavior on the first day, although he may spread it around a few kids. However, I think there's a little more than that. I mean, it could have turned out that Harry was just wrong. It could have been that Snape was just a strict teacher and Harry was paranoid to think that Snape actually had something against him personally. But Harry's not wrong. Snape does have something against him personally. So I think it could be a combination of things, where Snape is doing what he always does, but he is putting something more into it than he usually does, without realizing it, if that makes sense. Like, he thinks he can just treat Harry like the kid he starts with every year, but Harry can sense the real hostility behind it and responds in kind etc. I was reading a book recently, actually, where from the teacher's pov the bully kid was fine and the nice kid was somebody she really didn't like--which doesn't really apply to Snape except to show that a teacher could get the wrong impression of a kids' personality without much to go on. -m From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun May 6 02:51:26 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 19:51:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] First Impression of Draco In-Reply-To: <463A99AB.3010707@gmail.com> References: <463A99AB.3010707@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0705051951n64509295x2cbef27c6a9919f5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168364 > Betsy Hp: > This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a different first > impression of Draco. My first thought was actually, "ah, here's > Harry's soon to be best friend". Lynda: Now, that's interesting. My first impression of Draco was..."Oh these two are gonna hate each other..." Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun May 6 06:32:22 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 06:32:22 -0000 Subject: NOT the Real Spy (Was Re: The REAL Spy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168365 > > Goddlefrood, mounting his charger to defend Prof. McG.: > > Minerva is certainly arguably the most straightforward > character in terms of her loyalties, this appears to have > made many suspicious of her for no better reason than to say > "well she MUST be a traitor because she so obviously isn't > one", or words to that effect. Julie: That's never been my argument. *If* (BIG IF) Minerva were to be revealed the spy in the Order, the possible clues I see have mostly to do with Dumbledore. E.g., Minerva is a perfect candidate to be Dumbledore's closest confidante, but we see no evidence of such a relationship (Severus seems to fit the closest confidante role better than Minerva). She's also never been privy to very little concerning Harry's safety outside of Hogwarts. For instance, we know Hagrid was entrusted with the care of Harry after the murder of his parents at GH, yet Minerva's "role" is to stand in front of the Dursley household all day in her cat form waiting for Dumbledore to eventually appear and tell her what's going on (and he leaves of good many of the particulars out). Obviously this doesn't prove anything, but *if* Minerva is revealed to be a spy it would be the sort of thing we could point back to as clues to her true nature. Goddlefrood: > There are one or two quibbles I have with this and let me say > I do not believe Minerva is a traitor. > > Firstly Voldemort, despite being arguably mad, is not so > deranged as to mix up the gender of his Death Eaters. He > clearly states "he" when talking about his faithful servant > at Hogwarts and indeed for all the missing DEs in the > graveyard scene in GoF. Minerva is clearly a woman ;) and > also at Hogwarts during that excursion of Harry's, unless > she pulled a Snape of course and went to explain her absence > later. Julie: I don't think Minerva has to be a marked DE to be spying for Voldemort in some capacity. Goodlefrood: > This would exclude the possibility that he was referring to > Minerva, and also, therefore the possibility that she is a > Death Eater. Could she be another type of spy? Not as far as > I'm concerned and I see no value in it :) Julie: I think it's possible she *could* be another type of spy. Anything is possible after all ;-) As far as there being any value in it, I suppose it would have the same value as her being any type of spy for Voldemort, including a DE. Which would be shock value. Goodlefrood: > Should we choose to trust JKR's interviews, and I for one > generally do on points of information at least, then Minerva > was 70 years old from the stand point of 1995. This would > translate to the very real probability that, while she was > indeed at Hogwarts with a certain Tom Riddle, she had actually > concluded her Newts and left the school prior to the original > opening of the Chamber of Secrets, albeit only the year before. Julie: I don't think Minerva spying for Voldemort in some capacity requires that they were friends, lovers or anything but perhaps casual acquaintances. Voldemort could have "recruited" her at a later date, once she was a Hogwarts professor. At that point she would be much more useful to him. Goodlefrood: > I certainly believe it will not be correct that Minerva is a > traitor or spy of any kind. Harry has enough known and unknown > enemies or possible friends to deal with without any more being > sprung on him, as I've said before in respect of certain others, > who will not be mentioned ;). > > That she was not in the original Order of the Phoenix picture is > no indication that she was working for someone else at the time, > she was a teacher (39 years this December) and has been stated > by JKR to be a worthy second to Dumbledore. > > Sorry, I just don't see it, could a little further argument be > advanced? Julie: My argument is this. *IF* (that big IF again) Minerva is a spy, then I believe she is an UNWILLING spy. I.e., she is under a spell that coerces her to unknowingly pass on information to Voldemort. It could be Imperius, though I suspect Voldemort could come up with something a bit more original (as can JKR!). I don't really have a clue *how* Voldemort is doing it, but if it is happening I predict that Minerva has never had any idea she is compromising the Order or Harry, but Dumbledore has long suspected it (which explains why he's given her so little information and why she doesn't seem to play a critical role in the Order). Certainly one could argue that Minerva is too busy being Dumbledore's second in command at Hogwarts to take much active role in the Order, and I'm sure this has been Dumbledore's explanation to her. And it's a reasonable one, as it would have to be for Minerva not to wonder why Dumbledore doesn't completely trust her! Oh, and I also predict that *IF* Minerva is spying against her will, Harry will not blame her, nor will anyone else in the Order. Nor is it a betrayal, because it's not something she can consciously control. I think Harry can and will understand that. Again, this is just a possible theory, certainly not the most probable one, but I suspect whatever happens in DH, there will be few probable outcomes--other than Harry ultimately defeating Voldemort--or we would have figured everything out already! So just add one more unlikely but not impossible theory to the pile! Julie From ida3 at planet.nl Sun May 6 08:06:38 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 08:06:38 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168366 Betsy Hp: > I *still* think Snape *does* work as a teacher for Neville in a > particularly weak subject. A lesser teacher would have quit on > Neville, but Snape kept at it and Neville passed and kept on > passing. And all that without the added motivation of taking on the > crazy witch who drove Neville's parents insane. > > IOWs, I think the problem Neville had with Potions was the subject > matter, not the instructor. I'm not saying Snape was Neville's best > teacher type, nor am I saying Snape's methodology was the *only* or > even the best way to reach Neville. But Snape got the job done. And > I'm betting taught Neville a few other things along the way. Dana: Really? And both Lupin and Harry did not get further with Neville in just one lesson by teaching Neville to have more confidence and face his fears, while Snape is not able to make Neville perform at least decent in year 5, because he kept bullying him on his failings? You contribute it to Snape not giving up on Neville but I contribute it to Snape not laying off Neville, for this kid to still not being able to get anywhere in potions. JMHO Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Sun May 6 08:25:29 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 08:25:29 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168367 Betsy Hp: > > I *still* think Snape *does* work as a teacher for Neville in a > > particularly weak subject. A lesser teacher would have quit on > > Neville, but Snape kept at it and Neville passed and kept on > > passing. And all that without the added motivation of taking on > > the crazy witch who drove Neville's parents insane. > > > > IOWs, I think the problem Neville had with Potions was the > > subject matter, not the instructor. I'm not saying Snape was > > Neville's best teacher type, nor am I saying Snape's methodology > > was the *only* or even the best way to reach Neville. But Snape > > got the job done. And I'm betting taught Neville a few other > > things along the way. > Dana before: > Really? And both Lupin and Harry did not get further with Neville > in just one lesson by teaching Neville to have more confidence and > face his fears, while Snape is not able to make Neville perform at > least decent in year 5, because he kept bullying him on his > failings? > > You contribute it to Snape not giving up on Neville but I > contribute it to Snape not laying off Neville, for this kid to > still not being able to get anywhere in potions. JMHO Dana again: I want to add this quote from canon that Neville did not have to have a good grade for potions to pass through to the next year. So there is no canon proof that Snape's teaching method's made Neville get good enough marks in potions and not just fail them year in and out. He just got enough good grades in other subjects to make it through the years. Pg: 222 Uked Paperback; chapter: 17 Even Neville scraped through, his good Herbology mark making up for his abysmal potions mark. End quote canon. From ida3 at planet.nl Sun May 6 08:28:52 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 08:28:52 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168368 > Pg: 222 Uked Paperback; chapter: 17 > > Even Neville scraped through, his good Herbology mark making up for > his abysmal potions mark. > > End quote canon. Sorry for got to add the quote if from PS/SS. Dana From finks213 at yahoo.com Sun May 6 10:20:39 2007 From: finks213 at yahoo.com (finks213) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 10:20:39 -0000 Subject: Cormac Mclaggen?!? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168369 I don't understand how Harry - a 6th year Gryffindor student - has never met Cormac Mclaggen, a 7th year Gryffindor student... They've been living together for five years, and there aren't that many students in each house. I would understand if she'd just never mentioned him, but JKR actually says that Cormac is a Gryffindor student who Harry had never met before..... strange....or just silly... finks213 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun May 6 12:03:58 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 12:03:58 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168370 Dana again: > I want to add this quote from canon that Neville did not have to have > a good grade for potions to pass through to the next year. So there > is no canon proof that Snape's teaching method's made Neville get > good enough marks in potions and not just fail them year in and out. > He just got enough good grades in other subjects to make it through > the years. > > Pg: 222 Uked Paperback; chapter: 17 > > Even Neville scraped through, his good Herbology mark making up for > his abysmal potions mark. > > (PS/SS). Ceridwen: Many people have a subject that is not their forte. My subject is math. In three semesters, I have nine top marks, two second top marks, one second lowest, and one failing. The last two are in Algebra. I would love to have "scraped through" Math 102 the first time and not have had to take it over. Why can't Neville just be bad at Potions? Why do all students in the books have to be good, or at least competent, in all their subjects, unless they're the goons, like Crabbe and Goyle? Why is it assumed that Neville would be better, at least competent if not passing with flying colors, if someone else taught him Potions? If Neville is with Potions the way I am with Algebra, then Snape did a good job with what Neville brought to the class. No teacher, no matter how nice, no matter what style he or she used, would make a Potions genius out of him. I'm too lazy to grab HBP, but did Harry ever know what Neville got on his Potions O.W.L.? Ceridwen. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun May 6 13:31:00 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 09:31:00 EDT Subject: Harry's detention in HBP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168371 >Betsy Hp wrote: > This is the first potions lesson in PS/SS. And I think everything that occurred there was Snape's normal teaching method. I'd bet every first year got to hear that speech and I'll bet every first year class had near impossible questions thrown at them. It's Snape's "pay attention, this will not be an easy course and I will be *extremely* demanding" moment. > >Carol: >At any rate, a teacher as organized as Snape, who has been teaching (as of SS/PS) for ten years, probably has certain well-rehearsed routines that he uses with every class (though perhaps, as Betsy suggests, he usually asks more than one student his three pre-test questions). McGonagall always transforms into a cat in front of her third-years. Trelawney, it seems, predicts the death of a student every year. All of the teachers give little speeches about the importance of OWLs (or dismissing them as mundane, in Trelawney's case). At any rate, Snape knows the value of drama, and these questions do establish exactly what Betsy suggests, that students are expected to read the books, know the material, and pay attention. I wonder, by the way, how different the reaction of the students, and of Snape, would have been if Harry had thoroughly read and absorbed the material. I also wonder whether Draco knew the answers to the questions. I'll bet he at least knew what a Bezoar was. Nikkalmati Good points. As anyone who has taught for a long time on the elementary level is aware, the introduction to a class is usually set in stone (and on occasion the entire syllabus) :>) Has anyone here been to a US law school? Certain teachers have very much the same MO. Students had better be prepared the very first class and every class thereafter someone is questioned in front of everyone else until the limit of their knowledge is reached or they pass out. :>) Nikkalmati (who wonders how any teacher can be expected to teach the full range of 11 to 17 year olds every day, effectively). ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Sun May 6 13:32:42 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 13:32:42 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168372 Ceridwen: > Many people have a subject that is not their forte. My subject is > math. In three semesters, I have nine top marks, two second top > marks, one second lowest, and one failing. The last two are in > Algebra. I would love to have "scraped through" Math 102 the first > time and not have had to take it over. > Why can't Neville just be bad at Potions? Why do all students in > the books have to be good, or at least competent, in all their > subjects, unless they're the goons, like Crabbe and Goyle? Why is > it assumed that Neville would be better, at least competent if not > passing with flying colors, if someone else taught him Potions? Dana: Yes, he can be just bad at potions but that is not what Betsy stated and I quote: Betsy previously: I *still* think Snape *does* work as a teacher for Neville in a particularly weak subject. A lesser teacher would have quit on Neville, but Snape kept at it and Neville passed and kept on passing. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168359 Canon never stated Neville passed on potions, he actually failed in his first year and probably every year after that and we still do not see him perform decent in the 5th year, so there is actually no proof at all that Snape's teaching methods worked for Neville. And to be honest they did not work for Harry either because he passed despite Snape not because off Snape. (if Slughorn was not the new potions teacher, Harry would not even have been able to pass through to NEWT level classes as Snape only accepted an Outstanding and not an Exceeding expectations like Harry and Ron both got for OWL's) It is interesting you bring up Crabbe and Goyle because we do not see Snape bullying them while they are goons, as you state here, now do we? They both do not make it to NEWT level potions either. So if Snape is not playing favoritism and he does his bullying because it is so effective (and noble) why don't we ever see him have a go at either of them. I find your reaction very typical because now it has suddenly nothing to do with Snape bullying Neville that Neville was bad in potions, no it was because Neville was just bad at the subject. Whatever might be the case we certainly do not see Neville perform good because of Snape's bullying. (it is typical because things always are turned around when things starting to look bad for Snape, now it is Neville being bad regardless of what Snape does, Snape did not kill DD because DD asked him to, Snape did not goad Sirius out of hiding and is not responsible for Sirius actions, while Sirius goading Snape to go after Lupin makes him responsible for Snape almost getting killed, Snape is always telling the truth but when he claims things that don't make him look very good he is suddenly lying through his teeth ect, I have been accussed of looking at things one sided but when people do this to excuus Snape's horrible behavior it is suddenly different) Ceridwen: > If Neville is with Potions the way I am with Algebra, then Snape > did a good job with what Neville brought to the class. No teacher, > no matter how nice, no matter what style he or she used, would make > a Potions genius out of him. I'm too lazy to grab HBP, but did > Harry ever know what Neville got on his Potions O.W.L.? Dana: Neville was bad at transfiguration too but he still squeezed an acceptable out of this OWL. Potion OWL are not mentioned by McGonagall and Neville did not get to pass on to NEWT level potions now even that Snape was no longer the teacher but McGonagall not even mentions his grade so you can be pretty sure that he got less then an acceptable on that one. I was great at math but other students weren't but my teacher was so good as a teacher that she even got the minimum of good grades out of her bad students and believe me it had nothing to do with bullying them but giving more attention to those who needed it while letting those who did not need it take there time to work on there own. To me it is actually very illogical for Neville to be bad at potions because the kid is great with Herbology and he does very well in charms (with an Exceeding Expectations on his OWL). Taking care of herbs has pretty much the same basics as brewing potions as you need to remember what the plant will need to grow, it is not that different from adding ingredients in a cauldron to brew a potion and many ingredients of a potion are made out of herbs, so why is Neville so bad at potions he is probably more familiar with most of the ingredients then anyone else. Could it be because Snape causes the kid so much anxiety that he fails regardless? No, probably not it was just a coincidence that Neville's boggart turned in to Snape, he wasn't really scared of Snape because his teaching methods were so noble how could they possibly cause so much anxiety that a kid fails because of them. JMHO Dana PS: I'm sorry to be sarcastic again but the entire topic of Snape being a noble teacher is making me a little nauseous because again people are making excuses for Snape's behavior and it somehow being good for a teacher to pick on a kid because he hated his father or because the kid might get an attitude for living through a murder attempt and being famous for it while that same murder attempt coast him both his parents. Yes, Snape is so noble to want to protect Harry from the bad effects of fame because it is surely something Harry must be so proud off that his parents died and he lived and not cause him horrible grief and it was nothing this teacher ever did that contributed to Harry having such a miserable life. No, he must against all odds prevent Harry turning in to his father, a man he never got to know because of it all, what a noble guy that Snape to pick on kids that both lost their parents at a young age. Snape misuses his authority on those kids and it is never stated that he got any kid interested in the subject more because of his teaching methods, it is only stated that he could get his class silent. Besides Snape singles out Harry before Harry exchanges looks with Ron. PS/SS pg 101 UKed Paperback, Snape, like Flitwick, started the class by taking the register, and like Flitwick he paused at Harry's name. `Ah, yes,' he said softly, `Harry Potter. Our new ? celebrity.' Draco Malfoy and his friends Crabbe and Goyle sniggered behind their hands. End Quote of canon. It is Snape who emphasis Harry's celebrity status and nothing Harry did. 3 students react to it but it is not enough for Snape to start bullying them? And downplay there ego's? No, he takes it out on Harry because the kid exchanges looks with his friend and might have an enlarged ego because of a status he doesn't know anything about and not understand either. The kid would have wasted away in front of the mirror if DD had no relocated it because he wants to be with his family so bad. JMHO From belviso at attglobal.net Sun May 6 14:08:33 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 10:08:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) References: Message-ID: <003c01c78fe8$08e812c0$3c66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168373 Dana: And to be honest they did not work for Harry either because he passed despite Snape not because off Snape. (if Slughorn was not the new potions teacher, Harry would not even have been able to pass through to NEWT level classes as Snape only accepted an Outstanding and not an Exceeding expectations like Harry and Ron both got for OWL's) Magpie: I agree with you about Neville and Snape, but I think Harry's passing because of Snape and not just despite him. An E (which he also gets in other tough classes iirc--he only gets one O) is a perfectly good grade. While I think Harry shouldn't have to deal with Snape's personal attacks and that they don't do him any good in class, Snape's teaching *style* doesn't seem to be a problem for Harry at all. His style isn't even different as the HBP. Dana: It is interesting you bring up Crabbe and Goyle because we do not see Snape bullying them while they are goons, as you state here, now do we? They both do not make it to NEWT level potions either. So if Snape is not playing favoritism and he does his bullying because it is so effective (and noble) why don't we ever see him have a go at either of them. Magpie: I don't think not making it to NEWT Potions is a good way to judge somebody's skill, since NEWT only takes O students or later O and E students--it raises the bar too high. None of the teachers have taught Ron if that's the level we're judging by. Neville doesn't make it into NEWT Transfiguration either, but he still passed. But still yes, Snape does not go after C&G the way he does Neville--though iirc he goes after Neville when he keeps exploding things and as long as C&G don't do that they won't be yelled at. He seems to be pushing to get them through DADA when they fail that OWL. He starts out pretty much saying he assumes they're all dunderheads and they have to prove otherwise. I would guess that Snape isn't *that* different in the way he treats Crabbe and Goyle--meaning that he's probably just as sarcastic and impatient, but no, he never goes after them like he does Neville. I think Neville does bother Snape personally in ways that they don't because of his personality and that Snape's response to that doesn't do Neville any good at all. -m I find your reaction very typical because now it has suddenly nothing to do with Snape bullying Neville that Neville was bad in potions, no it was because Neville was just bad at the subject. Whatever might be the case we certainly do not see Neville perform good because of Snape's bullying. (it is typical because things always are turned around when things starting to look bad for Snape, now it is Neville being bad regardless of what Snape does, Snape did not kill DD because DD asked him to, Snape did not goad Sirius out of hiding and is not responsible for Sirius actions, while Sirius goading Snape to go after Lupin makes him responsible for Snape almost getting killed, Snape is always telling the truth but when he claims things that don't make him look very good he is suddenly lying through his teeth ect, I have been accussed of looking at things one sided but when people do this to excuus Snape's horrible behavior it is suddenly different) Ceridwen: > If Neville is with Potions the way I am with Algebra, then Snape > did a good job with what Neville brought to the class. No teacher, > no matter how nice, no matter what style he or she used, would make > a Potions genius out of him. I'm too lazy to grab HBP, but did > Harry ever know what Neville got on his Potions O.W.L.? Dana: Neville was bad at transfiguration too but he still squeezed an acceptable out of this OWL. Potion OWL are not mentioned by McGonagall and Neville did not get to pass on to NEWT level potions now even that Snape was no longer the teacher but McGonagall not even mentions his grade so you can be pretty sure that he got less then an acceptable on that one. I was great at math but other students weren't but my teacher was so good as a teacher that she even got the minimum of good grades out of her bad students and believe me it had nothing to do with bullying them but giving more attention to those who needed it while letting those who did not need it take there time to work on there own. To me it is actually very illogical for Neville to be bad at potions because the kid is great with Herbology and he does very well in charms (with an Exceeding Expectations on his OWL). Taking care of herbs has pretty much the same basics as brewing potions as you need to remember what the plant will need to grow, it is not that different from adding ingredients in a cauldron to brew a potion and many ingredients of a potion are made out of herbs, so why is Neville so bad at potions he is probably more familiar with most of the ingredients then anyone else. Could it be because Snape causes the kid so much anxiety that he fails regardless? No, probably not it was just a coincidence that Neville's boggart turned in to Snape, he wasn't really scared of Snape because his teaching methods were so noble how could they possibly cause so much anxiety that a kid fails because of them. JMHO Dana PS: I'm sorry to be sarcastic again but the entire topic of Snape being a noble teacher is making me a little nauseous because again people are making excuses for Snape's behavior and it somehow being good for a teacher to pick on a kid because he hated his father or because the kid might get an attitude for living through a murder attempt and being famous for it while that same murder attempt coast him both his parents. Yes, Snape is so noble to want to protect Harry from the bad effects of fame because it is surely something Harry must be so proud off that his parents died and he lived and not cause him horrible grief and it was nothing this teacher ever did that contributed to Harry having such a miserable life. No, he must against all odds prevent Harry turning in to his father, a man he never got to know because of it all, what a noble guy that Snape to pick on kids that both lost their parents at a young age. Snape misuses his authority on those kids and it is never stated that he got any kid interested in the subject more because of his teaching methods, it is only stated that he could get his class silent. Besides Snape singles out Harry before Harry exchanges looks with Ron. PS/SS pg 101 UKed Paperback, Snape, like Flitwick, started the class by taking the register, and like Flitwick he paused at Harry's name. `Ah, yes,' he said softly, `Harry Potter. Our new - celebrity.' Draco Malfoy and his friends Crabbe and Goyle sniggered behind their hands. End Quote of canon. It is Snape who emphasis Harry's celebrity status and nothing Harry did. 3 students react to it but it is not enough for Snape to start bullying them? And downplay there ego's? No, he takes it out on Harry because the kid exchanges looks with his friend and might have an enlarged ego because of a status he doesn't know anything about and not understand either. The kid would have wasted away in front of the mirror if DD had no relocated it because he wants to be with his family so bad. JMHO 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 va32h at comcast.net Sun May 6 14:33:47 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 14:33:47 -0000 Subject: NOT the Real Spy (Was Re: The REAL Spy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" wrote: For instance, we know Hagrid was entrusted with the care of Harry after the murder of his parents at GH, yet Minerva's "role" is to stand in front of the Dursley household all day in her cat form waiting for Dumbledore to eventually appear and tell her what's going on (and he leaves of good many of the particulars out). Obviously this doesn't prove anything, but *if* Minerva is revealed to be a spy it would be the sort of thing we could point back to as clues to her true nature. va32h here: The presence of the McGonnagal character in this scene is a literary device. Firstly, it's part of that whole "Vernon notices strange things are happening" theme - a cat reading a map! It also lets the reader see an example of Animagi, so that when we explore that concept in PoA it is not entirely new. McGonnagal wasn't sent to Privet Drive, she went of her own accord, and Rowling put her there to set the scene for unusual goings-on at the Dursely house. Of *course* Dumbledore can't tell her everything that's going on - that would mean telling the reader everything, which Rowling does not want to do in the first ten pages of the first book of a 7 book series. FWIW I don't think Minerva is a spy - that would be a shocking twist for the sake of a shocking twist. I don't see any purpose it would serve in the series. va32h From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun May 6 14:44:55 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 14:44:55 -0000 Subject: Snape as noble sadist/some spoilers for Cold fire trilogy again WAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168375 > Alla: > >>> So, certainly I call it a spark of nobility in sadist. But again, do > I apply it for a second to Snape? No way. Why? Because I see no > proof whatsoever that Snape just **has to** mistreat innocent kid or > die, or do anything like that. Pippin: Um, unless you know a cure for sadism, then yes, Snape has to be a sadist or die. He does not have to perform sadistic acts, but if he has to punish someone for non-sadistic reasons then he is going to enjoy it. You sound as though you think Snape has a choice about whether to have sadistic feelings or not, and I don't think anyone can choose how they feel. Even if Snape hides his feelings with occlumency they are still there. So is it noble to have those feelings and not act on them? I think so. I mean, maybe you can't see the proof that he is not acting on them, but consider what he *could* do. Why take just seven points from Harry in all of SS/PS? Why not take a hundred extra points for talking back like McGonagall does, and not even from Harry but from Hermione and Neville who didn't say anything? Not only does Snape not have a blood drawing quill (despite magic for preventing scars), in six years he never once demonstrated a poison by killing or torturing any live animals in class. There are all sorts of things Snape could have done to make Harry's life miserable, and he didn't do them. Clearly he would have enjoyed it, so what was stopping him if not self-restraint? Barty Jr's example shows he could've gotten away with a lot more if he'd wanted to. Alla: > That is why I am guessing ( and it is really just my assumption so > feel free to correct me if I am wrong) why vampire Snape was so > attractive to many people. I mean, really he is **vampire**, he poor > dear just cannot help himself, he needs to feed on kids negative > emotions or something, so the fact that he does not turn those kids > into vampires must mean that he is so very noble. Pippin: This just made me smile, it is *sooo* not what I was thinking. I felt that Vampire!Snape might explain Snape's coldness, Voldemort's immortality, and offer a reason for Snape to have wanted Lupin's life, or vice versa. Oh well. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun May 6 15:10:18 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 15:10:18 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher and noble sadist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168376 > Pippin: > Um, unless you know a cure for sadism, then yes, Snape has to be > a sadist or die. He does not have to perform sadistic acts, but if he > has to punish someone for non-sadistic reasons then he is going to > enjoy it. You sound as though you think Snape has a choice about > whether to have sadistic feelings or not, and I don't think anyone > can choose how they feel. Even if Snape hides his feelings with > occlumency they are still there. Alla: I certainly think that Snape has a choice whether to show sadistic feelings or not, that is why no, sorry not buying his nobility. I do not think that Snape cannot control himself, I mean if he gets his kick of imagining innocent kids suffer, go to dungeons and do it there. I certainly think he can **Not** act them and since I think he **does** act on them, big time, I do not think he is noble. Pippin: > So is it noble to have those feelings and not act on them? I > think so. I mean, maybe you can't see the proof that he is not > acting on them, but consider what he *could* do. Alla: Yes, I can see a proof to the contrary. Pippin: > Why take just seven points from Harry in all of SS/PS? Why not > take a hundred extra points for talking back like McGonagall does, > and not even from Harry but from Hermione and Neville who didn't > say anything? > > Not only does Snape not have a blood drawing quill (despite > magic for preventing scars), in six years he never once demonstrated > a poison by killing or torturing any live animals in class. > There are all sorts of things Snape could have done to make > Harry's life miserable, and he didn't do them. Clearly he would > have enjoyed it, so what was stopping him if not self-restraint? > Barty Jr's example shows he could've gotten away with a lot > more if he'd wanted to. Alla: What's stopping him if not self restraint? Well, for once it could be that he and Dumbledore had the monthly chats and no matter how disgusting I find Dumbledore not interfering in how Snape already behaved towards Harry and Neville, maybe Snape knows that there is a limit to DD patience and if Snape will use blood quill, he will interfere? I mean, there is no reason why DD would be able to have chats with Dolores dear and legilimence her, but Snape sounds like very likely candidate to me. So, say Snape is afraid that Dumbledore will go back on his word and sends him back to Azkaban. Speculating obviously, but I do not see self restraint anywhere in Snape's list of reasons, can be wrong of course. Besides, maybe Snape sees with what he does **already** he frightens these kids enough - he is Neville's boggart, etc, so why do something else if he is getting his kicks already? > Alla: > > That is why I am guessing ( and it is really just my assumption so > > feel free to correct me if I am wrong) why vampire Snape was so > > attractive to many people. I mean, really he is **vampire**, he poor > > dear just cannot help himself, he needs to feed on kids negative > > emotions or something, so the fact that he does not turn those kids > > into vampires must mean that he is so very noble. > > Pippin: > This just made me smile, it is *sooo* not what I was thinking. I > felt that Vampire!Snape might explain Snape's coldness, Voldemort's > immortality, and offer a reason for Snape to have wanted Lupin's life, or > vice versa. Oh well. Alla: Okay thanks, my assumption was wrong then. > > > >>Alla: > > And with Neville, I just want to say that IMO JKR showed very > > nicely by mentioning that Neville had detention with Snape again in > > GoF that nothing that Snape did in PoA helped Neville one bit. > > Betsy Hp: > I totally disagree. I think we've got the proof of the dog that > *doesn't* bark (Neville's potions are no longer exploding with > regularity), and the proof of the dog that *does* bark (Harry > compares his own potion to Neville's and realizes that Neville's is > better). [The barking dog was a bit of Sherlock Holmes humor; I > apologize for the self-indulgence. ] > > So I tend to think that JKR showed us that Neville *doesn't* have the > same sort of problems in Potions that he did back during his crises > year in PoA. > Alla: The thing is she does not talk about Neville in Potions in GoF ** at all**, does she not? Unless I forgot something, which is totally possible. So I would think it was not plot necessary. And if as you are saying Neville improved so very much, why would she feel a need to insert that line about detention at all? I mean, why is it needed here unless to show with one brief brush that no, Neville did not improve at all, and why would he react to the bully, really? When we know that he is afraid of Snape so much that Snape is his boggart? When we **know** that gentle handling helps Neville to get much better grades than calling him **idiot boy** and threatening to poison his pet. Dana: > To me it is actually very illogical for Neville to be bad at potions > because the kid is great with Herbology and he does very well in > charms (with an Exceeding Expectations on his OWL). Taking care of > herbs has pretty much the same basics as brewing potions as you need > to remember what the plant will need to grow, it is not that > different from adding ingredients in a cauldron to brew a potion and > many ingredients of a potion are made out of herbs, so why is Neville > so bad at potions he is probably more familiar with most of the > ingredients then anyone else. Could it be because Snape causes the > kid so much anxiety that he fails regardless? No, probably not it was > just a coincidence that Neville's boggart turned in to Snape, he > wasn't really scared of Snape because his teaching methods were so > noble how could they possibly cause so much anxiety that a kid fails > because of them. > Alla: With this I agree 100%. Besides the clear proof that we see that gentle hand helps Neville better, as I think AD once said herbology and potions are interrelated disciplines and let's say now Snape is professor Sprout customer as to ingredients. While Neville may not be genuis in Potions, there is no reason IMO for him to do especially bad and be so frightened of the same plants, when now they are simply being cooked. He IMO should be much more enthusiastic of the subject because plants are present here too, if for no other reason. Say, he was doing that badly on first lesson - one advice, one extra study lesson and Neville may have been already feeling much better. You know, Dana, I think a lot of people think that per JKR Neville is the most appropriate candidate to become a teacher in the epilogue. Many people think that it will be Herbology he will be teaching. I will bet you now that he will be teaching potions and maybe JKR even mention how different his lessons were from the ones that greasy bastard was teaching, hehe. Or at least I would love that to happen very much. Heeeee, with Snape doing community service and servicing as Neville's assistant. MAHAHAHAHHAHA. I know, I know, that will never happen. But that is another of Snape's punishments I would love to see. Bring me this ingredient and hurry up, you idiot or you will go back to Azkaban. Too bad Neville is too nice to do such a thing, LOL. But it sure is a fun scene for me to imagine. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun May 6 15:17:26 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 15:17:26 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168377 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I *still* think Snape *does* work as a teacher for Neville in a > > particularly weak subject. > > > >>Dana: > Really? And both Lupin and Harry did not get further with Neville > in just one lesson... Betsy Hp: Yes, exactly. Lupin does not do as good of a job teaching Neville as Snape does, IMO. Or at the least, Lupin is *as equal* to the task of teaching Neville as Snape is. I base that on the fact that Neville is *still* considered the DADA screw up in OotP. No one wants to partner with him, forcing Harry to take him on one on one. And I will point out that Harry *doesn't* teach Neville everything he needs to know about DADA in "just one lesson". Neville, as per canon, works his butt off. And it's suggested that he does so because of Bellatrix and his parents. Of course I don't want to take away from Harry's teaching ability. I do think Harry shows some skill in this area and I admire his patience and willingness to work with Neville. I just don't think Snape had an option of working that way with Neville. It goes too much against Snape's personality, or hang ups. > >>Dana: > I want to add this quote from canon that Neville did not have to > have a good grade for potions to pass through to the next year. So > there is no canon proof that Snape's teaching method's made Neville > get good enough marks in potions and not just fail them year in and > out. He just got enough good grades in other subjects to make it > through the years. > Pg: 222 Uked Paperback; chapter: 17 > Even Neville scraped through, his good Herbology mark making up for > his abysmal potions mark. > End quote canon. > Sorry for got to add the quote if from PS/SS. Betsy Hp: This will be a case of toma"toe" / toma"tah" I'm afraid. You see this quote regarding Neville's horrible potions grade as proof that a child can fail basic courses at Hogwarts and still pass into their next year. I see it as proof that Neville was having serious problems and there's absolute reason for Snape to take him under hand. And with the addition of the very next sentence: "They had hoped that Goyle, who was almost as stupid as he was mean, might be thrown out, but he had passed, too." [SS scholastic p.307] There's enough of a suggestion in my mind that a failure means being left behind or expelled. Added onto the fact that an "abysmal" does not always mean "failing", it could well be that a certain grade point average is expected as well. Which makes Hogwarts stricter rather than looser and puts Neville at even more of a disadvantage. IMO, anyway. > >>Dana: > > Canon never stated Neville passed on potions, he actually failed in > his first year and probably every year after that and we still do > not see him perform decent in the 5th year, so there is actually no > proof at all that Snape's teaching methods worked for Neville. > Betsy Hp: That Neville stayed with the Trio's class is enough to suggest to me that Neville passed potions. And as I pointed out, canon *doesn't* state that Neville out and out *failed* potions in his first year. I still cling to the dog that didn't bark. Neville's potions stopped exploding so spectacularly after his crisis year in PoA. > >>Dana: > I find your reaction very typical because now it has suddenly > nothing to do with Snape bullying Neville that Neville was bad in > potions, no it was because Neville was just bad at the subject. > Betsy Hp: I'm not Ceridwen, but since I do agree with this POV, I'll speak up here. Neville is bad in potions. That is a fact of canon and it's his potion that first draws Snape's attention. Snape's "bullying" had nothing to do with it. And in fact, I personally think Snape's "bullying" is what drags Neville to a place where he's able to function at a semi-decent level in Potions. I put "bullying" in quotes because while I do think Snape's methodolgy involved a lot of getting into Neville's face and riding him through each class and detention, I don't think Snape was doing so for empty reasons of personal enjoyment. Which is what can sometimes be implied with that particular word. > >>Dana: > Neville was bad at transfiguration too but he still squeezed an > acceptable out of this OWL. Potion OWL are not mentioned by > McGonagall and Neville did not get to pass on to NEWT level potions > now even that Snape was no longer the teacher but McGonagall not > even mentions his grade so you can be pretty sure that he got less > then an acceptable on that one. > Betsy Hp: Um, not really. I imagine Neville could have received the very same grade in Potions that he received in Transfiguration. Slughorn, like McGonagall, wasn't taking anything below an E. Though honestly, for all we know Neville got an E but didn't want to continue in Potions. (And grr that JKR didn't share that grade. ::pouts:: I suppose it goes towards keeping Snape ambiguous. ) > >>Dana: > To me it is actually very illogical for Neville to be bad at potions > because the kid is great with Herbology and he does very well in > charms (with an Exceeding Expectations on his OWL). > Betsy Hp: Actually, in the WW herbology seems more connected to CoMC. How did Neville do in that? I'd add that a lot of potions had animal bits as their ingredients, so there's not as strong a Potions to Herbology connection as one might at first think. (Plus, not all farmers make good cooks. Just saying. ) > >>Dana: > No, probably not it was just a coincidence that Neville's boggart > turned in to Snape, he wasn't really scared of Snape because his > teaching methods were so noble how could they possibly cause so > much anxiety that a kid fails because of them. Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think Snape was Neville's boggart because Snape did not allow Neville to safely stew in his familiar "I'm such a failure and I suck at magic" that his family had long ago stuck him in. I know Neville would have prefered for Snape to leave him alone and let him fail in peace. But Snape *is* too noble for that. (Or at least, I think Snape hates failing at anything, including teaching.) So Snape dragged Neville, kicking and screaming, through his Potions class and didn't let him go until he had a basic grasp of the subject. And being faced with a man who would *not* accept failure was, I'm sure, terrifying for Neville. But I honestly think it was good for Neville to get through it. > >>Dana: > ...what a noble guy that Snape to pick on kids that both lost > their parents at a young age. > Betsy Hp: Snape has never expressed any personal interest in Neville's history. As far as I can see it's a purely professional relationship between those two. > >>Dana: > > It is Snape who emphasis Harry's celebrity status and nothing Harry > did. > Betsy Hp: I agree that Harry doesn't emphasize his own celebrity. But it wasn't Snape who caused the Gryffindor table to cheer, "We got Potter, we got Potter!" at Harry's Sorting. And it wasn't Snape who caused Flitwick to faint at the sight of Harry Potter in his classroom. Snape's worries weren't formed in a vacuum. Betsy Hp (standing up for Snape as a teacher since... a while? ) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun May 6 15:25:20 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 15:25:20 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168378 Dana: > It is interesting you bring up Crabbe and Goyle because we do not see Snape bullying them while they are goons, as you state here, now do we? They both do not make it to NEWT level potions either. So if Snape is not playing favoritism and he does his bullying because it is so effective (and noble) why don't we ever see him have a go at either of them. Ceridwen: There are at least two possible reasons for this, and I suspect I only see two because I really haven't thought about it. One, of course, is that Snape doesn't have a go at either of them. The second is that Harry either doesn't notice, having his hands full on the Gryffindor side of the room with his own potions, or he doesn't care to note it. It is interesting that I have never gotten the impression that Crabbe or Goyle are good at Potions, or much of anything else besides decorating Draco Malfoy. They don't seem to be overtly portrayed as idiots in the books before HBP. Does anyone else think Crabbe and Goyle are obviously poor students? Or is that just me? Dana: > I find your reaction very typical because now it has suddenly nothing to do with Snape bullying Neville that Neville was bad in potions, no it was because Neville was just bad at the subject. Whatever might be the case we certainly do not see Neville perform good because of Snape's bullying. Ceridwen: The incidents people bring up that support their view of bullying, I don't see as bullying. Neville is singled out when he makes a mistake. His toad is used to test his own potion, which by its color etc. is acceptable. He melts someone else's cauldron and covers other students with boils and is referred to as an idiot. You may find it typical, but the question I asked still remains. Why does everyone expect Neville to pass Potions with a different teacher? Even an aptitude for Herbology doesn't ensure an aptitude with Potions. Two of my highest marks were for Astronomy, which goes hand in hand with Math. I still failed Math. And, my teachers, from second grade (age 6-7) on up, have been good. I earned good marks in all of my subjects, except for Math. The teaching style was always the same in each subject, because all subjects were taught by the same teacher in lower years. My poor last three Math teachers are lovely people who stay after class to help students who are having trouble, and yes, I do avail myself of this. Maybe I'm just seeing Neville's troubles with Potions through the light of my own major difficulties in a single subject. Neville seems anxious and overwhelmed. He seems as if he's always trying to catch up with the rest of the class, which is exactly the way I feel in Math. One reason we all seem to have at least slightly different impressions of the books, and of the characters, is what we bring to them. This is what I bring to Neville's part in the story. Ceridwen. From horadesiesta at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 6 16:36:41 2007 From: horadesiesta at yahoo.co.uk (horadesiesta) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 16:36:41 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and/or Mclaggen - Re: Cormac Mclaggen?!? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finks213" wrote: > > I don't understand how Harry - a 6th year Gryffindor student - has > never met Cormac Mclaggen, a 7th year Gryffindor student... > JKR actually says that Cormac is a Gryffindor > student who Harry had never met before..... > > strange....or just silly... Clara adds: FWIW, one anagram of "She Is Minerva McGonagall" is "So An Evil Mclaggen Harms." Probably means nothing, but JKR is fond of her word games, and there is a current discussion about where McG?s true loyalties lie. A Gryffindor student who suddenly appears is maybe a cause for suspicion. Clara From goodasitgets at insightbb.com Sun May 6 16:26:32 2007 From: goodasitgets at insightbb.com (Goodasitgets) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 11:26:32 -0500 Subject: First Impression of Draco In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705051951n64509295x2cbef27c6a9919f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004101c78ffb$525c1c40$17618a4a@DF1BV731> No: HPFGUIDX 168380 Betsy Hp: > This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a different first > impression of Draco. My first thought was actually, "ah, here's > Harry's soon to be best friend". Lynda: > Now, that's interesting. My first impression of Draco was..."Oh > these two are gonna hate each other..." I think this, (Harry sizing up Ron and Draco, and knowing the one trustworthy as a friend), was one of the first times we see how important the choices a person makes are to who that person becomes. Depending upon a person's priorities one may have chosen Draco as friend to be...but Harry seems not to give Draco even the possibility of friendship. Draco shows his true colors, and I think his insecurities too easily. What Draco is offering doesn't interest Harry. For some people it might have been tempting, or even the easy choice, to pair up as buddies with the rich one who seemed to possess some power. Maybe our impressions of JK's descriptions, of Ron and Draco as Harry first meets them, should tell us each something of what we value in a person...what would attract us to a friendship, what choices we make. (Did you follow a "pack" in school, or did you march to the beat of your own drummer?) Harry makes another similar choice next when he pleads with the Sorting Hat not to make him a Slytherin. When Harry sees so many similarities between himself and Tom Riddle, when Harry learns that some of VM powers were actually transmitted to him on the night his parents were killed, and when he learns of the prophesy he questions if he really is who he has though himself to be, or if he was to have taken another path some where along the line. He thinks he may be a fake...that what he is trying to be was actually against his own destiny. Dumbledore helps Harry realize that prophesy or not, knowing VM killed his parents would have been enough to make Harry want to choose to pursues the same direction that he would if it were merely to follow the prophesy. All along Harry makes choices without a thought that make him different from whatever he is "made of" thorough his connection to VM. Many times he could have made a different choice. Goodasitgets From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun May 6 16:58:34 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 6 May 2007 16:58:34 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/6/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1178470714.17.4472.m51@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168381 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday May 6, 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 nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun May 6 17:39:52 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 17:39:52 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168382 > > Alla: > > It can be said that no matter how important backstory is, it is > > still Harry's story and JKR indeed going to give us bits and pieces > > of Marauders and Snape, not go into every detail, etc. > > > > Don't you think that for the purpose of judicial erm... literary > > economy those bits and pieces that JKR **is** going to give us are > > going to be reliable, since she is not going to give us very many? > > Ceridwen: > I know you're only playing Devil's Advocate here, but this is how I > view the Pensieve scene, and even Snape's memories that we're shown > during the Occlumency lessons. This isn't Snape's story, so JKR has > to show us the real deal one time only. > > This isn't the Marauder's story, either. All of them, MWPP and SS > play roles in the backstory which shores up the story we're reading > about Harry, but Harry's story is the most important. In my opinion, > we're shown what we need to be shown for the Marauders and Snape. > Neri: I'd go even further here: I think the Marauders backstory is completely unimportant, except for the way it affects Harry (and the reader). You expect that every glimpse JKR gives us of Marauders backstory must be objective and representing, as if they "deserve" being presented the way they truly were, the same way that Harry deserves it. If I understand your position correctly, you'd resent JKR manipulating this backstory in order to use it as a mere plot device, to trick Harry and us in wrong directions. But I think JKR would have no qualms doing this. Well, she might actually feel a few pangs of regret, maybe even shed a tear or two about Harry wrongly accusing his own father, and then she'll do it anyway, same as she killed Sirius because it was needed for the effect on Harry and the plot. I expect JKR will correct this in DH by giving us the true story of the Marauders' (and Snape's) school years, or at least the part of it we'll need for Harry's story (this is how I interpret "you'll know everything you *need* to know") but I don't necessarily expect a series of long Pensieve experiences throughout those seven years just to set right the wrong impression from the SWM scene. Consider that it took Lupin only a few lines in HBP to set us right regarding the use of Levicorpus. Consider that everything we currently know about the Prank (not much, but significantly more than nothing) comes from a single Lupin paragraph in PoA. Based on this I'd estimate that five to ten pages of Lupin's testimony about the Marauders school years would be all we "need to know", including the Marauders' definitive history with Snape. I'd be thankful if we get a whole chapter. Anyone wishing for more than that will probably have to settle for fanfiction. > Ceridwen: > JKR said that Pensieve memories are objective records of what > happened. That turns out to be important in the Young Tom Riddle > portion of HBP. Since the Pensieve memories are supposed to give > Harry clues about how to effectively counter LV and find the identity > and location of the Horcruxes, then I think Pensieve memories being > objective will need to stand. > Neri: Pensieve memories being objective is irrelevant for this discussion. I never claimed they weren't. They are as objective (but not *more* objective) as any usual, non-Pensieve experience Harry has. Both kinds of experiences equally depend on the inherent subjectivity of the unreliable narrator, subjectivity that is potentially sneaky by pretending to be objective. For example, lets take the description we discussed upthread of Sirius becoming very still "like a dog that has scented a rabbit". Sirius becoming still is an objective fact, irregardless of Harry seeing this in a Pensieve experience or not. The comparison of Sirius to a dog is a borderline case since Sirius *is* a dog animagus and has some dog characteristics. But the picture of Snape as the rabbit is completely subjective. It is only Harry's impression, but it is used by the narrator to affect the reader's opinion. The narrator could have used here "like a dog that has scented a boar" and this would have given us a totally different (and equally subjective) picture of Snape. Again, this subjectivity is there regardless of whether Harry sees Sirius and Snape in a Pensieve memory or in any usual non-Pensieve experience. The narrator using many similar tricks throughout the scene can leave us with an impression that is deliberately different from the truth. Objective facts (like James dangling Snape by his ankle) are not going to change, but their interpretation can change a lot if the context is reversed. When we find that Levicorpus was used by everyone on everyone and was actually started by Snape himself, the interpretation of James using it changes a great deal. > Ceridwen: > > Next, I naturally noticed the differences between Snape's controlled > motion and Harry's wild slashing, and the expected difference in > their respective results. Snape gives a little nick, Harry slashes > like a Mideival knight in an epic battle. James gets a little cut, > Draco nearly bleeds to death. Rather than Snape doing the spell > wrong, or too fast, or missing and merely grazing James, I think he > did it right. He was in control of the spell. He knew it, he knew > what it did, he was able to wield it successfully. > > Harry wasn't. He didn't know what it did, he didn't use brief, tight > movements, he slashed. If we exchanged the wands for swords, James's > cut would be the nick Errol Flynn gets from Basil Rathbone during a > fencing duel, while Draco's massive damage would be the black knight > who won't let Arthur's men pass in Monty Python and the Holy Grail > (though Draco wasn't swearing it was only a flesh wound). > > I don't think the nick on James's face was made by anything but > Sectum Sempra. > Neri: The thing is, if Snape was using Sectumsempra under full control here only for the purpose of nicking James, then he was doing a very stupid thing. He got absolutely no advantage out of it. It would be like fighting someone with a needle: you're almost sure to draw some blood, but at maximum you'd manage to anger your opponent even more, and hardly stop him. Any common hex (or indeed Levicorpus) would have done Snape more good at that point. Snape wasted his one shot at James *and* risked exposing his secret Dark invention for no gain at all. Now, it isn't that I give Snape a lot of credit for being wise in this scene. Allowing himself to be taken by surprise, neglecting to wear trousers at a time when "you couldn't move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle", calling a mudblood to someone offering help not overall one of Severus's brighter days, is it? But the cool head and full tactical control required for using "a medieval sword" to merely nick an opponent's face, contrasted with the sheer strategic stupidity of using that sword at that moment for no possible gain, this combination just strikes me as unrealistic. I find it more likely that under the situation Snape lost his head all the way, and was saved from cutting James open by his luck (and JKR's plot considerations) rather than by cool thinking. It rather fits with Snape's tendency throughout the series to lose his head and be saved by his luck when James and his friends are involved. Neri From belviso at attglobal.net Sun May 6 18:14:16 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 14:14:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Snape as Neville's teacher/ First Impression of Draco/Marauders References: <004101c78ffb$525c1c40$17618a4a@DF1BV731> Message-ID: <002501c7900a$5c80dc10$128c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168383 Alla: > > With this I agree 100%. Besides the clear proof that we see that > gentle hand helps Neville better, as I think AD once said herbology > and potions are interrelated disciplines and let's say now Snape is > professor Sprout customer as to ingredients. Magpie: I don't know who AD is here, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Herbology is nothing like Potions that I can see. Neville really does seem to be bad at the subject (which draws Snape's attention that first day). Herbology is a far more peaceful situation for him, caring for living things and coaxing them to grow. Potions is about precise measuring and attention to detail, and if he messes one thing up the Potions don't work--it seems designed to be hit his weak spots. The fact that the things grown in Herbology make up some of the ingredients doesn't relate the two subject that I can see. Alla: > > While Neville may not be genuis in Potions, there is no reason IMO > for him to do especially bad and be so frightened of the same > plants, when now they are simply being cooked. Magpie: But who says Neville's "afraid" of the plants in Potions? He's not--he's afraid of doing the cooking wrong, which he does. Cooking is a totally different thing. Plants were ingredients in paints too, but that doesn't make good gardeners artists. Neville is bad at the more precise mixing of and making of Potions, and he doesn't seem to have a natural grasp of what's right and wrong, as he does in Herbology. He's got a green thumb, but he's not a chef or a chemist. I think another reason the one subject might be more his style is that gardening is traditionally considered a calming activity while Potions is the opposite. A different kind of concentration is involved. I get the impression JKR is showing Neville's strong and weak points with these subjects--Herbology is connected to his patience and kind nature; Potions is about tests of precise skill of the type he's bad at. Alla: > > He IMO should be much more enthusiastic of the subject because > plants are present here too, if for no other reason. Magpie: I don't think so, actually. There are animals present too, and some think it's horrifying that Snape would have Neville do anything with them. If Neville likes to help plants grow, I don't see why he'd have particular interest in chopping up dead ones any more than having a pet toad means he should be particularly interested in adding toad guts to a Potion. Alla: > > Say, he was doing that badly on first lesson - one advice, one extra > study lesson and Neville may have been already feeling much better. Magpie: Maybe, yes. I don't think yelling at him helped him. But from what I've seen of Neville's personality I don't think it would have necessarily made him very good at the subject. He would have had a more pleasant time in the class and may have felt better about it and done better at it in class. alla: > You know, Dana, I think a lot of people think that per JKR Neville > is the most appropriate candidate to become a teacher in the > epilogue. > > Many people think that it will be Herbology he will be teaching. I > will bet you now that he will be teaching potions and maybe JKR even > mention how different his lessons were from the ones that greasy > bastard was teaching, hehe. Or at least I would love that to happen > very much. Heeeee, with Snape doing community service and servicing > as Neville's assistant. MAHAHAHAHHAHA. Magpie: If I were a parent of a kid at Hogwarts, I'd be pretty angry at that outcome. I know the old saying of "those who can't do, teach," but Neville does not fit into that example in canon, imo. The reason people who weren't naturals at a subject make good teachers for beginners is that they often understand the problems they have and so can explain how they overcame them. Neville doesn't seem to have reached that level. He's bad at Potions, but he doesn't seem to have grasped why in a practical way. He might be more patient with kids getting things wrong, but he doesn't seem like he'd be much help to them beyond that. Having Snape stuck being his assistant would, I think, just result in Neville bumbling through class looking obviously inept (with possibly not even a Potions OWL to his credit) while his assistant had the real skill needed to teach--and made him more nervous and miserable because of it. I don't think the difference in classes would necessarily reflect well on Neville. (It's ironic that a new Potions teacher in HBP doesn't play that way either.) Ceridwen: It is interesting that I have never gotten the impression that Crabbe or Goyle are good at Potions, or much of anything else besides decorating Draco Malfoy. They don't seem to be overtly portrayed as idiots in the books before HBP. Does anyone else think Crabbe and Goyle are obviously poor students? Or is that just me? Magpie: There are references to the Trio thinking they might fail, and Ron says that Goyle looks blank and confused whenever a teacher asks him a question. Snape seems to be forcing them through DADA again in sixth year so that they can re-take the OWL they failed. So yes, they do seem to be poor students. I believe the first day Harry says that Snape doesn't like anybody's work except Malfoy's (not except the Slytherins), which he says is done perfectly. I've never gotten the impression that Snape is nice about C&G's performance, but more that he just goes around and criticizes them just as harshly as everyone else so there's no reason to notice it. (I remember noticing that when Harry throws the firecracker in either Goyle or Crabbe's swelling Potion it makes everyone swell..) But Neville still seems to unfortunately draws attention to himself on the first day by making a mistake with violent results. That's a problem Neville has, is that his mistakes are often that type, probably because of his nervousness. He throws Flitwick across the room, for instance, and explodes things. I'd guess Crabbe & Goyle's mistakes are more mundane--and that they have a much thicker skin when it comes to being called an idiot. It probably wouldn't make them more nervous. Ironically, I think Snape tells one of them to lighten up on Neville in OotP when he's being strangled. He does it sarcastically, but the message is still to note that Neville can't breathe so don't hold him so tight. Goodasitgets: > I think this, (Harry sizing up Ron and Draco, and knowing the one > > trustworthy as a friend), was one of the first times we see how > important the choices a person makes are to who that person becomes. > Depending upon a person's priorities one may have chosen Draco as > friend to be...but Harry seems not to give Draco even the possibility > of friendship. Draco shows his true colors, and I think his > insecurities too easily. What Draco is offering doesn't interest > Harry. For some people it might have been tempting, or even the easy > choice, to pair up as buddies with the rich one who seemed to possess > some power. Magpie: I think Draco's insecurities are at the heart of the matter here. Draco, especially in PS/SS, represents to Harry both his own fears of rejection and his repulsion at those fears. Draco tries to hard to prove that he's accepted, and hits all of Harry's own buttons, both reminding him of Dudley (by bragging--dishonestly--that he's adored and doted on by his parents) and making Harry worry about his own inadequacy. Draco continues to mirror this in Harry--when Harry feels insecure, it's Draco's face that rises before him, laughing. When Harry feels secure, Draco is repulsive and pathetic. Ron presents these kinds of fears in a way that's comforting to Harry. Facing his Sorting Harry is afraid most not of being put in Slytherin but of not being accepted anywhere. He connects this first to never being picked for teams at school, but reminds himself that back then his rejection never reflected badly on himself--it was only Dudley's threatening the other kids that made him an outsider. Now, though, he worries he might be truly rejected. (And Draco's own Sorting looks disgustingly easy to him, even though he himself has already rejected Draco twice.) He's been told Slytherin is the bad house and as has already become his pattern, whenever he associates something with something negative he assumes, glumly, that he'll be that. When he says "not Slytherin" (not wanting the house that would prove him unworthy, like Malfoy and Voldemort both were, or stick him with Malfoy) the Hat, refreshingly, says he'd do well there too--though it never says, as Harry fears, that he *belongs* in Slytherin, as if he's never truly "worthy" of Gryffindor. The Hat, to me, is urging Harry to face the school in a more integrated way and not be afraid of Slytherin. I see Betsy's point in thinking Harry and Draco were going to be friends, I think because Draco seems to her so obviously insecure and actually sharing a lot of the fears Harry himself has. And I still don't think Betsy's completely off there. Harry and Draco aren't becoming best friends, obviously, but I do think Draco is a Shadow Harry needs to stop completely repressing and instead see as more human, as a way of accepting those parts of himself. Just as I think Harry's Sorting puts off his day of reckoning with Slytherin while still setting it up as the part of his personality he needs to accept, something he seriously starts to do especially in HBP. Neri: When we find that Levicorpus was used by everyone on everyone and was actually started by Snape himself, the interpretation of James using it changes a great deal. Magpie: It does? It didn't to me, and I didn't think it did to Harry. Harry's problems with James' dangling Snape by the ankle don't have to do with his disliking that particular spell but the way it's being used. True it would have made a difference to me, I think, if Snape really was being presented as the innocent rabbit you feel he's being made out to be, but I just don't think Snape's ever been shown that way. Harry's seen Snape as a bully for years before the Pensieve scene. Soon after the scene he even thinks it would be fine if it were the Twins doing it to Malfoy. I think the "truth" of the Pensieve scene that Harry hasn't quite grasped isn't that Snape wasn't really the guy he assumed he was, but that MWPP were bullies in the scene regardless. The only reason he isn't as okay with them doing what they did to him as he would have been if the Twins did it to Malfoy was because he was able to step outside the situation in ways he can't in his own life. MWPP, presumably, just didn't realize the lines they were crossing. Harry, having just dropped into the situation that day, saw it more from that pov, seeing that it wasn't always just about defending themselves from the oddball who deserved it. When he's not angry at Snape himself (as he wasn't in this scene, because this was a "new Snape") he couldn't get behind the hexing. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 6 21:19:02 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 21:19:02 -0000 Subject: First Impression of Draco (was:Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: Betsy Hp: > > This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a different first > > impression of Draco. My first thought was actually, "ah, here's > > Harry's soon to be best friend". Montavilla: > I came rather late to the Draco fan club--but he was the character > who most intrigued me leading into HBP. I was intensely curious > what the boy whose Dad was just sent to prison because of > Harry Potter was going to do next. > > I decided to track every Draco moment through the books. I didn't > get through it, because I only started about a week before HBP > was released, but I realized one thing: What really sold me on > Draco was that moment on the train when he offered Harry > his friendship. Sure, it's in a completely obnoxious way, but > it seemed genuine. And Harry's response was such a put-down. > > It's the first mean thing that Harry does--even though he's just > defending Ron and I love him for that. But it feels very significant. Geoff: Curiously, I have always had a weak spot for Draco and I would love him to be involved in some sort of rapprochement with Harry in Book 7 - maybe stemming from what Harry saw on the Tower. The problem is that I have always felt that the meeting on the train was a pivotal moment between them and that the continuing rivalry, obstruction and dislike took root and grew from that point in time. I wouldn't accuse Harry of being mean at this point. I see precisely from where he was coming. I remember when I first went to grammar school at the age of eleven; it was a fairly typical English single-sex day school. Only one other pupil had come from my old Junior school and I didn't even know him despite us having been in the same school for two years and more - which is a point to ponder for the McLaggen theorists. I had to make new friends and, at that age, I tended to make snap decisions almost at the moment of speaking to someone whether I was going to like them, dislike them or just see them as another member of the group. So it is with Harry. His first attempt at contact is with Molly Weasley and he is then helped by Fred and George. Once Ron comes into his compartment, they begin to tentatively build bridges.With the others - Neville, Seamus and so on, the bonds begin to be formed over their meal because intially they have been put together in the same house. Draco and Harry got off on the wrong foot because the former lacked social skills and bungled the meeting. Instead of being friendly, he succeeded in getting up Harry's nose creating a situation which became increasingly irreversible. If Draco had not tried to impress Harry by being rather snobby and superior and Harry had not been influenced by Hagrid and Ron commenting about Slytherin, a different scenario might have emerged but that would not have met JKR's required dynamics for the story. Looking back to my comments on going to grammar school, the other guy who came from my old school was a bit like Draco in that he wanted to be a bit superior and so we never developed a friendly relationship; we were always either at loggerheads or ignoring one another from that point onwards, just like our two protagonists in the books. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun May 6 21:44:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 21:44:20 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: <002501c7900a$5c80dc10$128c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168385 > Magpie: The fact that the things grown in > Herbology make up some of the > ingredients doesn't relate the two subject that I can see. Alla: Well, then it is agree to disagree time :) I am certainly not saying that subjects are identical or even very close, but I **am** saying that they are at least related to the degree where Neville should not have been **that** scared of it, familiarity and all, but for the teacher. IMO of course. > Magpie: I get the > impression JKR is showing Neville's strong and weak points with these > subjects--Herbology is connected to his patience and kind nature; Potions is > about tests of precise skill of the type he's bad at. Alla: I get the impression that JKR is showing with which type of teachers Neville does well and with which he does not. Charmes do not seem to me to be connected very much to his patience and kind nature either and he still does very well. Alla: > > > > Many people think that it will be Herbology he will be teaching. I > > will bet you now that he will be teaching potions and maybe JKR even > > mention how different his lessons were from the ones that greasy > > bastard was teaching, hehe. Or at least I would love that to happen > > very much. Heeeee, with Snape doing community service and servicing > > as Neville's assistant. MAHAHAHAHHAHA. > > Magpie: > If I were a parent of a kid at Hogwarts, I'd be pretty angry at that > outcome. I know the old saying of "those who can't do, teach," but Neville > does not fit into that example in canon, imo. The reason people who weren't > naturals at a subject make good teachers for beginners is that they often > understand the problems they have and so can explain how they overcame them. > Neville doesn't seem to have reached that level. He's bad at Potions, but he > doesn't seem to have grasped why in a practical way. He might be more > patient with kids getting things wrong, but he doesn't seem like he'd be > much help to them beyond that. Alla: Well, I was not very clear that this little speculation would only make sense to me if JKR would want to show how badly Snape misjudged Neville's ability, which was clouded by fear, but was always there. If Neville is really that bad at Potions, which I am still not sure about, then obviously it makes no sense. But the fact that even Harry notices at Potions OWL that Neville performs much better when Snape is not there, makes me think that he **at least** not that bad. And of course Snape's humiliation is something I always want to see - as nice payback for what he put Neville through. But again, let me be clear, while I think it is a possibility that Neville will be teaching potions ( herbology is also a possibility obviously), I do not think that we will see Snape as teaching assistant, this part is just my wish. > Magpie: > But Neville still seems to unfortunately draws attention to himself on the > first day by making a mistake with violent results. That's a problem Neville > has, is that his mistakes are often that type, probably because of his > nervousness. He throws Flitwick across the room, for instance, and explodes > things. Alla: Yeah, and isn't that very telling that despite Neville doing it not only in Potions but in Charms as well, he gets a **very** good grade in Professor Flitwick clase and gets traumatised by Snape to such extent that Snape becomes his boggart. I think it speaks volumes of who is the better teacher for Neville. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun May 6 23:14:51 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 23:14:51 -0000 Subject: First Impression of Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168386 --- , "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- "montavilla47" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > >> This is fascinating to me because I had *such* a > >> different first impression of Draco. My first > >> thought was actually, "ah, here's Harry's soon > >> to be best friend". > > Montavilla: > > I came rather late to the Draco fan club--but he was > > the character who most intrigued me leading into HBP. > > I was intensely curious what the boy whose Dad was > > just sent to prison ... > > > > ... > > Geoff: > Curiously, I have always had a weak spot for Draco and > I would love him to be involved in some sort of > rapprochement with Harry in Book 7 - maybe stemming > from what Harry saw on the Tower. > > The problem is that I have always felt that the meeting > on the train was a pivotal moment between them and that > the continuing rivalry, obstruction and dislike took > root and grew from that point in time. > > ... bboyminn: Sorry to have cut so much of the previous post. I'm just going to make some general comments on Draco. Draco made a strategic error when he met Harry both the first time and the second time. Harry has learned at the Dursley's to not make waves. Courtesy and politeness are ways of not making waves. Consequently, if Draco has presented himself a little differently, Harry would have certainly shaken his hand out of nothing other than courtesy and as I said, a desire not to make waves or create unnecessary conflict. But, on there second meeting on the train, Draco unknowingly has couched his offer of friendship in a not so veiled insult against Ron. That simply can not be allowed in Harry's mind. To shake Draco's hand is to confirm and accept the insult to Ron. Harry already likes Ron and does not like Draco. The outcome in simple, Draco looses. I think in the only way Draco knows how to, Draco did offer Harry what in his impression was friendship. But to most people it was not. He was offering Harry an strategic alliance in which Draco, as the guide, would have the upper hand, as indeed a Malfoy should. That is not the kind of friendship Harry wants or needs, and as I said, in the framework offered, Harry could only reject it. If Draco had even a small degree of common sense and diplomacy, I'm sure he could have won a more favorable impression from Harry. But once the breach comes, Draco is determined to make that chasm wider and wider. He simply, with his status and prestige, can not stand the rejection, and has determined that anyone who would reject a Malfoy, is automatically his enemy. Harry would gladly leave Draco alone, if only Draco would leave him alone, but Draco seems determined to provoke Harry at every turn. Presumably, to prove his own superiority both to himself and to Harry. A plan which constantly fails. Clearly, Draco is the provocateur, and Harry is merely reacting to the provocation. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun May 6 23:54:14 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 23:54:14 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher and noble sadist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168387 > Alla: > > I certainly think that Snape has a choice whether to show sadistic > feelings or not, that is why no, sorry not buying his nobility. I do > not think that Snape cannot control himself, I mean if he gets his > kick of imagining innocent kids suffer, go to dungeons and do it > there. Pippin: Oh, I see. You'd be okay with Snape if he had to hide what he is? Like Lupin? If I'm representing your position correctly, I don't think JKR is with you there. Anyway, if Snape was made to feel once again that he is not welcome in decent society, despite that his students have a better than average pass rate and that he conducts himself as well on the whole as other respected teachers do, it would be hard to blame him if he did go back to the DE's. At least they wouldn't make him feel like a freak. > > Alla: > > What's stopping him if not self restraint? Well, for once it could > be that he and Dumbledore had the monthly chats and no matter how > disgusting I find Dumbledore not interfering in how Snape already > behaved towards Harry and Neville, maybe Snape knows that there is a > limit to DD patience and if Snape will use blood quill, he will > interfere? > > I mean, there is no reason why DD would be able to have chats with > Dolores dear and legilimence her, but Snape sounds like very likely > candidate to me. Pippin: Um, Dumbledore eats at the staff table most days, and sees his teachers there, and chats with them if he wishes, and anyway, Snape is such a good occlumens that he's capable of hiding all sorts of things from Dumbledore if he wants to, right? Alla: > Besides, maybe Snape sees with what he does **already** he frightens > these kids enough - he is Neville's boggart, etc, so why do > something else if he is getting his kicks already? > Pippin: So then, he's not sadistic? Because if he's satisfied with the same amount of distress from the kids as the other teachers, then he's no more abnormal than they are. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 00:01:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 00:01:43 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher and noble sadist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168388 > > Alla: > > > > I certainly think that Snape has a choice whether to show sadistic > > feelings or not, that is why no, sorry not buying his nobility. I do > > not think that Snape cannot control himself, I mean if he gets his > > kick of imagining innocent kids suffer, go to dungeons and do it > > there. > > Pippin: > Oh, I see. You'd be okay with Snape if he had to hide what he is? > Like Lupin? If I'm representing your position correctly, I don't think > JKR is with you there. Alla: Well, Lupin is forced to hide **his illness**, not **what he is** as far as I am concerned, I do not think he should. Hopefully WW will change enough eventually. I will not only be Okay with Snape hiding his sadistic impulses, but would be demanding that. IMHO of course. Pippin: > Anyway, if Snape was made to feel once again that he is not welcome > in decent society, despite that his students have a better than average > pass rate and that he conducts himself as well on the whole as other > respected teachers do, it would be hard to blame him if he did go > back to the DE's. At least they wouldn't make him feel like a freak. Alla: Yeah, that is where we disagree - I do not believe that Snape conducts himself as decent teachers do, far from it. I think there are teachers who conduct themselves worse, but there are certainly teachers IMO who conduct themselves much better than he is IMO. I think he would do good to take some pointers from Lupin, that is if Hogwarts ever allows him to go back to teaching. Hopefully not, if you ask me. Again, IMO. > Alla: > > Besides, maybe Snape sees with what he does **already** he frightens > > these kids enough - he is Neville's boggart, etc, so why do > > something else if he is getting his kicks already? > > > > Pippin: > So then, he's not sadistic? Because if he's satisfied with the same > amount of distress from the kids as the other teachers, then he's > no more abnormal than they are. Alla: LOL, Greek sophists would have been proud to have you as student, Pippin. But no, what I meant was that Snape may not feel a need to exercise his sadism to full strength, to exhaust himself, if he gets a desired effect as is. IMO, Alla From jnoyl at aim.com Sun May 6 23:46:26 2007 From: jnoyl at aim.com (James) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 23:46:26 -0000 Subject: Cormac Mclaggen?!? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168389 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finks213" wrote: > > I don't understand how Harry - a 6th year Gryffindor student - has > never met Cormac Mclaggen, a 7th year Gryffindor student... > > They've been living together for five years, and there aren't that > many students in each house. I would understand if she'd just never > mentioned him, but JKR actually says that Cormac is a Gryffindor > student who Harry had never met before..... > > strange....or just silly... James: Remember, JKR seems convinced that there are a thousand students at Hogwarts, all being taught by a handful of "teachers" and not only don't the houses talk to each other, but the classes even in-house don't talk to each other very much. Add this to the Harry filter that does not have time to take in people who are not either actively helping or hurting him, and there are lots of students that Harry has never noticed. James From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon May 7 01:32:22 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 11:32:22 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cormac Mclaggen?!? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <463F0E46.23321.BD2475@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168390 On 6 May 2007 at 10:20, finks213 wrote: > I don't understand how Harry - a 6th year Gryffindor student - has > never met Cormac Mclaggen, a 7th year Gryffindor student... > > They've been living together for five years, and there aren't that > many students in each house. I would understand if she'd just > never > mentioned him, but JKR actually says that Cormac is a Gryffindor > student who Harry had never met before..... > > strange....or just silly... But not impossible for a boy with Harry's history. Harry suffered significant emotional neglect (to say the least) from the time his parents died until he came to Hogwarts. Some children react to such neglect or abuse by having various problems forming relationships with other people. Harry doesn't seem to have very serious problems in this regard - he does form some close friendships - but it's by no means out of the question that he may still have some difficulties. My experiences were different from Harry's, but I suffered abuse as a child which left me with this problem. I've just spent four years studying a University degree with a group of about 100 other people. I could name, perhaps ten of them - and I could name most of those ten because I was in situations where I had to do group assignments with them. When I was at school, I could have named perhaps, a quarter of the students I went to school with for years - and fully a quarter of them, I would have been hard pressed to recognise as people I was at school with. And that went for people in my House as well as those who weren't. If they weren't my friends, and they weren't my enemies, I just tended not to notice them. You can't assume a child with a history of neglect or abuse will form relationships in the same way as other people. Some will be totally fine - some are resilient enough to just shrug these things off to an extent. Some won't be. Even if they are fine in other ways. 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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 02:04:07 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 02:04:07 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168391 Betsy Hp: > Actually, in the WW herbology seems more connected to CoMC. How did Neville do in that? I'd add that a lot of potions had animal bits as their ingredients, so there's not as strong a Potions to Herbology connection as one might at first think. (Plus, not all farmers make good cooks. Just saying. ) > Carol responds: I think the idea some readers have that Potions and Herbology are closely related classes is partly JKR's fault. She starts out in SS/PS with separate textbooks for the two classes, "One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi" is surely the Herbology text; no other book on the first-years' book list could qualify. Similarly, "Magical Drafts and Potions" is clearly the first-years' Potions book. The problem, as I see it, is that Harry mistakenly thinks that Bezoars can be found in "One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi," and from that point forward, there's no mention of the book in which it actually would have been found, the one on drafts and potions (presumably identifying Bezoars as a common ingredient in antidotes and explaining what they are). Instead, on the rare occasions before NEWT year when a book is mentioned in relation to Potions (when HRH are writing an essay, for example) the book is usually the book on plants which is surely the Herbology text. (Neither Snape as Potions Master nor Sprout as Herbology teacher seems to make much use of books in class.) Regarding your farming/cooking analogy, I think that's close to the mark, but maybe botany/chemistry would be even closer. Potions, as Snape says, is both an art and a science. It deals with dangerous substances; it requires exact measurements and careful attention to timing and directions. (Gifted potion makers can experiment outside of class, but in a lab class, students are expected to replicate, as nearly as possible, a standard set of directions.) Herbology, in contrast, seems to be mostly hands-on contact with living plants (much as CoMC involves hands-on contact with living magical creatures. as you point out). The characteristics and uses of the plants and animals seem to be secondary to the plants and creatures themselves. Now Neville may know the uses of a Mimbulus Mimbletonia, but he's interested in the plant itself, its care and possibly its propagation, rather than the plant as a potion ingredient. And, as you say, many potion ingredients--Bezoars, leech juice, lacewing flies, flobberworms, to name just a few, come from animals. At least one that I can think of, moonstone (Snape assigns an essay on the uses of moonstone in potion-making) is a mineral. I'm fairly sure that other minerals are mentioned as well. At any rate, a green thumb. or a simple love of plants, may translate into an aptitude for Herbology. But if you can't light a fire under a cauldron without melting it, or you put in the ingredients in the wrong order or the wrong amount, that aptitude for Herbology won't help you in Potions, any more than an ability to write excellent essays in a literature class will help you in algebra. Carol, wondering if Neville's gran was good at Potions and expected him to follow in her footsteps (as she did with Transfiguration, while dismissing Charms, which she was less skilled at, as a soft option) From catlady at wicca.net Mon May 7 02:12:13 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 02:12:13 -0000 Subject: Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168392 Goddlefrood recited in : <> "Harry then follows, stepping over the prone figure" and I suddenly realized that having his nose broken on the Hogwarts Express has taught him a lesson about treading on downed enemies. Aussie Hagrid quoted in : << In the NAQ section, Rowling says that the question she was never asked was why DD had possession of James Potter's Invisibility cloak? Could James have been involved in some kind of stealthy career that has not been described? >> Some listies have suggested that Dumbledore took the Invisibility Cloak from the rubble before Sirius arrived, or that Hagrid took it along with baby Harry. says: << 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. >> That James didn't need a well-paid profession, and that Rowling concealed what he did, suggested to many that James had a stealthy career, either as a poorly-paid Auror or as an unpaid full-time OoP agent. That quote suggests that Lily also had a stealthy career, and listies have suggested that she was an Auror, a full-time OoP agent, or a researcher at the Department of Mysteries. << Q: Where did James get his Invisibility Cloak? JKR: That was inherited from his own father -- a family heirloom! >> However, no matter how stealthy James's career was, he didn't acquire the Cloak for his career's sake -- he already had it as a schoolboy. Julie wrote in : << can't recall any canon about why the Potters couldn't Apparate away either >> Especially as HBP introduced Side-Along Apparation, so they could have taken Harry along. In fact, that is presumably what James meant when he yelled to Lily to "take Harry and run". James was holding LV off to buy time for Lily and Harry to escape, altho' 'run' is a Muggle word. Doddie wrote in : << Given how no clear explanation of the "house elf" plight is apparent in the text...I'm beginning to wonder if JBE (just being an elf) may have a more significant meaning than most of us realize. I believe that if anyone will betray Harry in the final book....it will be Dobby, not Lupin.. Doddie ... seems to remember that Harry seldom shares his elf experience with Hermione who has done much research on elves, unlike Harry and the rest of us.) >> But Hermione's research on House Elves led her to be outraged that they're enslaved, and to demand they be freed (whether they want to be or not), not to say that they're untrustworthy. Magpie wrote in : << I don't think Tom would have been any less what he is if he'd had a mother. >> This is a forbidden "I agree" post. Young Tom was *born* a psychopath, somewhat weakening JKR's harping on "choice". He might, however, have aimed his hatred at purebloods rather than at Muggles and developed a liberte, fraternite, egalite, Half-Blood Rights revolutionary cover story rather than his pureblood supremacist cover story. Bart wrote in : << The virus explanation works if the resistance to the virus is a recessive gene. This means that a squib is a W-born with a mutation. (snip) This would explain, for example, a squib who suddenly shows magical ability, especially if they had a blood->blood contact with a wizard or an immune muggle. >> What about most Muggles? Would we get magic if we got a blood transfusion from a Wizard? Or are we unable to catch the virus? Wynnleaf wrote in : << We can be sure that muggle kids weren't shunning him for being a werewolf prior to coming to Hogwarts, nor did wizarding kids know he was one, so there was no pre-Hogwarts shunning by children of Lupin either. >> I suspect his parents kept him away from other children lest he trustingly tell them about his condition or they notice his monthly absences and [their parents] figure it out. Pippin wrote in : <> I'd say the purpose of the lesson is to teach the kids how to use 'Riddikulus' on a Boggart, not to correct their morals and prejudices, and not to teach them how to cope with a non-Boggart problem like a cruel teacher. Some kids at Hogwarts might see a Boggart as an Auror coming to take their parent away to Azkaban, and perhaps others would see the cliched evil loanshark of melodrama coming to evict the family from its home. It's the DADA teacher's job (in the Boggart lesson) to teach them to humiliate the Boggart Auror or Creditor and laugh at it, not to teach them to side with the Law against their own parent. If some kid's fear was the 'Mudbloods' taking over, the DADA teacher's job is to teach the kid to humiliate and laugh at the negatively stereotyped Mudblood, not to lecture himer against blood bigotry. Altho' that kid would probably be cruelly teased by hiser friends -- Junior Death Eater friends would say 'scared of a stupid Mudblood' and Junior Dumbledore friends would say 'racist pig'... sylviampj wrote in : << I can never work out how big the wizarding world is meant to be. >> We can't even work out how big Hogwarts is meant to be! Rowling wrote a list of 41 students in Harry's year (all Houses), shows us 8 Gryffindor students in Harry's years, his double classes with Hufflepuff and Slytherin both have twenty sets of equipment provided -- there is every indication that each year has about 40 students, roughly ten per House, times seven years of school makes about 70 kids in each House and 280 kids in the school. Seventy kids are able to all do their homework simultaneously in one cozy round Common Room? And not recognize each other, at least by sight, after five years of this? (Harry not recognizing MacLaggen.) Herself said in an interview that there are 1000 students at Hogwarts, and provided a QUidditch match in PoA where three-quarters of the crowd wore Gryffindor red but the other 200 wore Slytherin green. This led some listie to post the wonderful comment: 4 * 10 * 7 = 1000. Wow, that Arithmancy is some powerful magic. clcb wrote in : << I wonder if a wizard who learns to become an animagus gets to choose what animal they transform into or do they just get what they get, like with a Patronus? >> As Magpie said, JKR has confirmed in interviews that the Animagus doesn't get to choose his/her animal form, but instead the animal form is a reflection of his/her personality. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm Q: Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your personality? JKR: Very well deduced, Narri! I personally would like to think that I would transform into an otter, which is my favorite animal. Imagine how horrible it would be if I turned out to be a cockroach! http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm Q: If you were Animagus, what kind of animal would you be? A: I'd like to be an otter -- that's my favourite animal. It would be depressing if I turned out to be a slug or something. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm Q: When you turn into an Animagus, can you choose what animal you become? Or does this get "assigned" to you? JK Rowling replies -> No, you can't choose. You become the animal that suits you best. Imagine the humiliation when you finally transform after years of study and find that you most closely resemble a warthog. I want to know, what happens if a person who has become an Animagus goes over the whole training again, from scratch, will heesh get another animal form? (That could be how Dumbledore can turn into a bee, wasp, phoenix, and uncanonical Lethifold, per Goddlefrood in .) Can a person who is a werewolf become an Animagus? with an animal form other than wolf? Can a werewolf who is an Animagus with an animal form other than wolf avoid turning into a wolf monster at Full Moon by turning into hiser animal before the moment? I also would like to know the relationship between Animagus form and Patronus form. JKR has said that she would like to be an Otter if she were an Animagus, and she gave her avatar character (Hermione) an Otter for Patronus. I don't think that was a hint that Hermione is an Animagus. I think JKR simply takes it for granted that the form of a person's Patronus is the same form that person would take as an Animagus. To me that is illogical: she seems to be assuming that always what protects people is themselves, not their parents nor their faith in God nor their commitment to justice and/or the rule of law nor their luck nor their powers of deception. Betsy Hp wrote in : << Both Harry and Ron enjoy using magic against a powerless squib.>> Presumably you mean Filch. Perhaps Umbridge, altho' canon has not yet stated that she can't do magic. Neither of them is *exectly* 'powerless', as both have power given to them by their position in the school hierarchy that permits them to punish students. Sherrie Snape wrote in : << William Weasley >> I don't recally any William Weasley (I had Arthur's sister Willa in a fanfic, before JKR wrote on her website that Ginny was the first girl Weasley in several generations). I recall a Bill Weasley, but I believe his name is Bilius, named after their Uncle Bilius who died after seeing a Grim. As was Ron's middle name: < My pleasure:) Middle names: Ginny is Molly, of course, Hermione 'Jane' and Ron, poor boy, is Bilius.>> Carol wrote in : << But if Snape did betray his friends by spying on Voldemort for Dumbledore, he's primarily risking his own life, not theirs, both in VW1 and after GoF. Even if he gave DD names of DEs, which DD then gave to the MoM (and we don't know whether that actually happened), the DEs (none of them innocent victims) would then be arrested and sent to Azkaban to prevent them from committing further crimes. That's very different from revealing your friends' location to a Dark Lord who wants to murder them and their innocent child. >> Didn't Sirius say that most people sent to Azkaban go mad fairly soon, and then die from forgetting to eat? So a life sentence to Azkaban pretty well IS a death sentence. Evans and Rosier were school friends of Snape who became Death Eaters. They were killed by AUrors trying to arrest them. Yeah, Moody at least wouldn't have killed a suspect who wasn't resisting arrest, but still, Snape's old friends were killed by Snape's new allies. Betsy Hp wrote in : << I wonder how it is that Snape realized that Harry, friend of the Weasleys, wouldn't think too keenly of his father as a prankster? >> I don't think Snape did. I think Snape's idea was for Harry to constantly see the names of two people about whose deaths he was in pain, thus reminder after reminder of the loss, pain upon pain. Also, someone suggested that Snape intended this detention as an opportunity for him to Legilimens Harry. I forget what he was supposed to be looking for (DDM!Snape looking for Voldemort's influence, ESE!Snape looking for a vulnerability) but it may have been something that Snape thought Harry would be reminded of by thinking of Sirius. Zgirnius wrote in : << Though he is a jerk, I do not believe sadism is a primary, or even secondary, motive for how he acts with regards to Harry. Dislike, frustration, anger, guilt, sure. >> I don't see any way that Snape's nastiness being motivated by dislike, frustration, anger, guilt, (and outright hatred, in the OoP scene where he and Sirius nearly came to wands) means that he's not being nasty because he gets jollies from hurting the recipient's feelings. Maybe the particular pleasure is a temporary absence of feeling guilty rather than sexual arousal; it's still a jolly. I agree that he finds it more enjoyable to hurt the feelings of people he hates, dislikes, is angry at, or frustrated by, such as Sirius and Harry and Neville and, I guess, Hermione, but I believe that's he'll settle for hurting the feelings of people he doesn't care one way or the other about (what he would consider 'innocents'), if they're convenient and the others aren't convenient. He ought to control himself and not act on this particular desire. but it doesn't make me deny that he is DDM!Snape. *I* ought to control myself and stop eating chocolate, at least until I lose 125 pounds. FAT CHANCE is perhaps *too* apropos a phrase... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 03:28:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 03:28:19 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher and noble sadist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168393 > > Alla: > > > Besides, maybe Snape sees with what he does **already** he > frightens > > > these kids enough - he is Neville's boggart, etc, so why do > > > something else if he is getting his kicks already? > > > > > > > Pippin: > > So then, he's not sadistic? Because if he's satisfied with the same > > amount of distress from the kids as the other teachers, then he's > > no more abnormal than they are. > > Alla: > > LOL, Greek sophists would have been proud to have you as student, > Pippin. But no, what I meant was that Snape may not feel a need to > exercise his sadism to full strength, to exhaust himself, if he gets > a desired effect as is. > > IMO, > > Alla > Alla: Yes, Okay, before I go to bed, I think I want to apologise. Your argument did honestly came off to me that way - as sophists would argue, but since I do not think I would have been very happy if somebody compared my argument to that style, then I think you may not be happy either. Sorry about that Pippin. Alla. From gypseelynn at yahoo.com Mon May 7 06:11:32 2007 From: gypseelynn at yahoo.com (Rebecca Sylvester) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 23:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: more snape stuff In-Reply-To: <409045374.20070429163155@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20070507061132.65570.qmail@web32911.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168395 hey all!!! i've been trying to keep up with all the threads but it's hard lol...there's so much good stuff to read and go through!! Because I haven't had time to read anything I don't know if this has been posted before but I wanted to get thughts on it from everyone... I just got done rereading HBP and I read it this time focusing on Snape and his actions. Before I continue I must admit that I am on the "Snape is good" side of the argument so it may cloud my argument some. Ok, this is what I noticed...when narcissa and belatrix are at Snapes house and Narcissa is about to ask for Snapes help with draco there is a brief "argument" (for lack of a better word) between the three of them. Narcissa says that she has been forbidden to speak by voldie to speak about what she knows and bel says she should hold her tongue. Snape, in turn, agrees, saying that if she has been forbidden then she must obey. However, he goes on to say..."I do know of a play however..." (I don't have the book with me or I could quote better). Both Narcissa and Bel sem suprised that Snape knows of the plan, although Narcissa says she thought he would know because Snape is his closest confident. And, because they both believe he knows Narcissa tells him of the task voldie has given to draco. Ok, so here is what I got to thinking. Snape never actually SAYS what the plan is, he just says he knows of it. Could it be that he was fishing for information?? Kind of like when you have kids and you say "I've already heard your sisters side but I'm waiting until I hear yours before I decide what I'm going to do" so that you can find out what is going on? Does that make any sense? To me it seemed like Snape had no idea that there was a plan for Draco to kill DD, but when Narcissa and Bel show up he figures out that something is going on so he pretends that he knows in the hopes they will tell him what is going on - he's fishing for information so he can act to stop it. What do you guys think of this?? Am I reaching or is this plausable?? Thanks for your input. Beckah --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Mon May 7 13:58:22 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 13:58:22 -0000 Subject: Did Snape know Draco's task in Spinner's End (was: Re: more snape stuff) In-Reply-To: <20070507061132.65570.qmail@web32911.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168396 Beckah: > Snape never actually SAYS what the plan is, he just says he knows of it. Could it be that he was fishing for information?? Kind of like when you have kids and you say "I've already heard your sisters side but I'm waiting until I hear yours before I decide what I'm going to do" so that you can find out what is going on? Does that make any sense? To me it seemed like Snape had no idea that there was a plan for Draco to kill DD, but when Narcissa and Bel show up he figures out that something is going on so he pretends that he knows in the hopes they will tell him what is going on - he's fishing for information so he can act to stop it. > > What do you guys think of this?? Am I reaching or is this plausable?? Thanks for your input. Magpie: You're definitely not the only person to wonder that! It doesn't work for me, personally. To me, Snape fishing for that information in the scene robs it of most of its meaning and makes it just funny. Narcissa was just about to tell him what the plan was and he interrupted her. If he'd let her speak for another second he would know what he's allegedly fishing for throughout the scene, and that makes little sense to me. Maybe it looks good for him to take LV's side and remind her she's not supposed to talk, but not if the alternative is making a suicide pact to do the thing instead (which is going against LV more than allowing Narcissa to shoot off her mouth)--a thing Snape never succeeds in finding out about in the scene anyway. If Snape has no idea what he's talking about lines like "I believe he means me to do it in the end" are just empty bluffing for him, and also, we're robbed of the terrible moment when Snape realizes just what he's stupidly agreed to do. That presumably happens offscreen because by the time they get to school he and Dumbledore both know what Draco's supposed to do with no help from the UV that we see. So there's no storyline, that I can see, about Snape's reaction to what he's accidentally done. Also since it was clear to me in Spinner's End what Draco was supposed to do it's hard for me to believe Snape couldn't figure it out too--Narcissa gives him some pretty big hints. So for me, the reason everyone talks around the plan is because JKR is hiding it from the reader. Snape's own dialogue doesn't seem to show a man fishing for information. He's not using his claim to know the task already to ask the women leading questions about the task as he could, as you did in your example (when you said you'd already heard one kid's story it was to encourage the other kid to tell his own--Snape isn't doing that). -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon May 7 17:39:41 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:39:41 -0000 Subject: Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168397 --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > > ...edited... > > Julie wrote in > : > > << can't recall any canon about why the Potters couldn't > Apparate away either >> > Catlady replies: > > Especially as HBP introduced Side-Along Apparation, so > they could have taken Harry along. In fact, that is > presumably what James meant when he yelled to Lily to > "take Harry and run". James was holding LV off to buy > time for Lily and Harry to escape, altho' 'run' is a > Muggle word. > bboyminn: Just one problem, as the most recent book tells us, and as I have always suspected, nearly all wizarding buildings are protected from Apparation, both in and out. Notice that Mr. Weasley never Apparates directly into his own kitchen or living room, he always Apparates just outside the front door. So, likely since the Potter were in hiding, they had implemented significant security measures including protection against Apparation. Notice again, that Voldemort arrived by walking up the garden path, not by apparating directly into their living room. "...take Harry and run..." probably means /run/ outside the house and Apparate away. I suspect if Lily could have ducked out a window onto the roof of a lower section of the house, she could have apparated away. > > Pippin wrote in > : > > < boggart was Jews? That they must have had it coming? >> > Catlady: > > I'd say the purpose of the lesson is to teach the kids > how to use 'Riddikulus' on a Boggart, not to correct > their morals and prejudices, and not to teach them how > to cope with a non-Boggart problem like a cruel teacher. > bboyminn: A far better question is - why would Jews be Neville's greatest fear? That's far more irrational than it being Snape. Further, Snape is a very bullying, intimidating, and therefore frightening individual, how does fear of one nasty person equate with the irrational fear of a specific ethnic group of people? To me, it makes about as much sense as your greatest fear being of Methodists. In addition, it doesn't matter what a students greatest fear is, that fear will look ridiculous dressed as Neville's grandmother. Think about it - a spider dressed as Neville's gran, a mummy dressed as Neville's gran, or as it happen's Snape dressed as Neville's gran - each is just as funny. So, I agree with Catlady, the purpose of the lesson is to make whatever you fear funny, not to make a moral judgment on what it is that you fear. > > sylviampj wrote in > : > > << I can never work out how big the wizarding world > is meant to be. >> > Catlady: > > We can't even work out how big Hogwarts is meant to be! > Rowling wrote a list of 41 students in Harry's year ( > all Houses), shows us 8 Gryffindor students in Harry's > years, ... -- there is every indication that each year > has about 40 students, roughly ten per House, times > seven years of school makes about 70 kids in each House > and 280 kids in the school. ... > bboyminn: JKR didn't create 41 students, she created 41 student- characters, so whenever she needed someone she didn't have to make them up on the spot. She knew the backstory of each of the character, knew how they would act, and knew how she could use them in the story when their time came. That indicates how many characters she thought she would need, not how many students are in the school. The 10x4x7=280 has always been a hopelessly flawed estimate. It assumes many facts that are not in evidence. We don't know that Harry's class year is typical of all class years. We also don't know that their is an even distribution amoung houses. I have always suspected that Hufflepuff was the largest, Ravenclaw second, and Slytherin and Gryfindor tied for the smallest houses. In my school year sizes ranged from 15 to 30 (yes, it was a very small school). Yet either one of those numbers extrapolated across the entire school would give you a false impresion of the true size of the school. > Catlady: > > Herself said in an interview that there are 1000 > students at Hogwarts, and provided a Quidditch match > in PoA where three-quarters of the crowd wore Gryffindor > red but the other 200 wore Slytherin green. bboyminn: I have always suspected that 1,000 was the capacity of Hogwarts, not its current enrollment. We see that there are many classrooms that are unused, and many areas that are being used for storage, that indicates that the school is /not/ at full capacity. As to the Quidditch match, you are assuming that all the people watching are students. If you go to a local school football (either type) game, are all those present students? I don't think so. Just a few minor points. Steve/bboyminn From toonmili at yahoo.com Mon May 7 17:28:47 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:28:47 -0000 Subject: Did Snape know Draco's task in Spinner's End (was: Re: more snape stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168398 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Beckah: > > > Snape never actually SAYS what the plan is, he just says he > knows of it. Could it be that he was fishing for information?? > Kind of like when you have kids and you say "I've already heard your Toonmili:I sort of thought that he was fishing for information too but if he didn't know what the task before, by the time he went to the window he did. I think he was not looking to see if anyone was there, he was doing some quick thinking. The important thing to notice is that Narcissa was crying. She was in a very weak state and for someone who is good at Legilimency Snape would have been able to get that information. The reason why he would say that he knew it before she had a chance to tell him was to ensure that he had the upper hand on the situation, that he would remain in control of the situation. However the more pressing thing about this scene is that Snape takes the vow. If it was Snape is this scene I don't think that he would have a hard time explaining why he wouldn't want to take the vow. Voldemort himself has tried to kill DD and failed. Snape who knows he is not as great a wizard as Voldy or DD must have thought that he would be bound to fail. Narcissa must have thought that he would fail as well. There's some people who seem to think that there migth be someting with Snape and Narcissa, that there might be some romance in past but if Narcissa had any sort of feelings for Snape she would never ask him to take a vow that would under normal curcumstances killed him. The only reason why Snape was able to complete the task was because Dumbledore drank the potion. The death eaters had no way of knowing that he would have just returned form a horcurx hunt and would be weak. This was a task that was bound to fail. This is of course if he is bad...which he is not. If Snape is good then I'm really having a hard time understanding why Snape would take the vow. The decision for Dumbeldore to die was a big decision and it could only be made by Dumbledore... SO basically a good Snape would have never taken the vow...He would not kill DD just to prove to Bellatrix that he is working for Voldy. Like it said Voldy doesn't favor her anymore, Snape is the favorite, he only has to prove himslef to Voldy. So since I believe that Snape is good. And I also believe that a good Snape would not have made the vow. I am forced to think that Snape didn't take the vow. Since an important decison to take the vow could only be made by Dumbledore I think It was Dumbeldore who took the vow. The results are so calculating and complex that it reaks of Dumbledore. By letting Snape appear to kill him Dumbeldore just took away the only kink in the Order's armor, the issuse of Snape having to give Voldy and his crew some sort of valuable information. So while Voldemort has lost a spy the order now has a spy in extremly deep cover. Snape being with the death eaters benifits the Order more than it does the DE. I'm sure by now you guys would have heard the theory that it was Dumbeldore at Spinner's End and not Snape, so I wouldn't bother to explain it. Since I believe it was Dumbledore he wouldn't have known about the task at first but only after he read Narcissa's mind. Dumbeldore has a very subtle way of reading minds so Bella might not have picked up on it. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon May 7 18:34:27 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:34:27 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168399 In a message dated 5/6/2007 11:20:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, horridporrid03 at yahoo.com writes: Betsy Hp: I agree that Harry doesn't emphasize his own celebrity. But it wasn't Snape who caused the Gryffindor table to cheer, "We got Potter, we got Potter!" at Harry's Sorting. And it wasn't Snape who caused Flitwick to faint at the sight of Harry Potter in his classroom. Snape's worries weren't formed in a vacuum. Betsy Hp (standing up for Snape as a teacher since... a while? ) Sandy responds: I rarely read posts with Snape in the topic box, and I rarely post because I am not as skilled as others at it and don't know the books by heart like others do. But, without expounding on all of that, I just have to jump in on this one. As to the above attributed quote: No, Snape did not cause either reaction, but neither did Harry. Harry did not ask, nor did he expect, the Gryffindor's to cheer or Flitwick to faint. At this point Harry is still pretty clueless as to what it is all about and trying to figure it all out. As Dana pointed out, he is not proud to be The Boy Who Lived, and he is not seeking the attention he is getting because of it. Therefore, Snape's comment to Harry was totally unfounded and unwarranted. Snape's worries? Are you kidding with this? Do you actually believe that Snape was worried that all of this unwanted, unsought attention was going to go to Harry's head? Why would Snape be worried about this considering how much he despises the boy? There is no way you can convince me that Snape was worried about this. I have no doubt that the attention that Harry was getting had an effect on Snape. Here was James Potter's son, and although new to Hogwart's, he was already getting more attention than his father did. That could sure rub some salt into some old wounds. And it doesn't help matters any that Harry looks so much like James. Whether Snape ever got back at James has yet to be proven, but he could sure get back at his son, and James through his son. This is pure, unadulterated abuse on Snape's part. He is going to give Harry as hard of a time as he possibly can, and there is nothing Harry can do about it because he is just a child and Snape is his teacher. This is a total abuse of power, and Snape uses it every chance he gets, starting the minute he takes the roll call in Harry's first class with him. He does it because Harry exists. Here is a passage from SS/PS, chpt. 8, pgs 158-159, Scholastic Things didn't improve for the Gryffindors as the Potions lesson continued. Snape put them all into pairs and set them to mixing up a simple potion to cure boils. He swept around in his long black cloak, watching them weigh dried nettles and crush snake fangs, criticizing almost everyone except Malfoy, whom he seemed to like. He was just telling everyone to look at the perfect way Malfoy had stewed his horned slugs when clouds of acid green smoke and a loud hissing filled the dungeon. Neville had somehow managed to melt Seamus's cauldron into a twisted blob, and their potion was seeping across the stone floor, burning holes in people's shoes. Within seconds, the whole class was standing on their stools while Neville, who had been drenched in the potion when the cauldron collapsed, moaned in pain as angry red boils sprang up all over his arms and legs. "Idiot boy!" snarled Snape, clearing the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand. "I suppose you added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire?" Neville whimpered as boils started to pop up all over his nose. "Take him up to the hospital wing," Snape spat at Seamus. Then he rounded on Harry and Ron, who had been working next to Neville. "You - Potter - why didn't you tell him not to add the quills? Thought he'd make you look good if he got it wrong, did you? That's another point you've lost for Gryffindor." This is your, or anyone else's idea of a good, noble teacher?!? He shows blatant favoritism for one student, who just happens to be in his House ( does anyone doubt that Hermione's potion turned out just as well as Draco's? - the same Hermione who knew the answers to all of Snape's questions, but who he totally ignored). He calls another student an idiot (good teaching skills there), and blames another student for that one's mistake and docks points from him. How can anyone read this passage and have any kind of respect for Snape - period, much less as a teacher? This passage formed my opinion of Snape, and nothing he has ever done since has altered it. There is one more element to this. If, as some of you seem to believe (and I won't argue against it), Snape has healing powers, why does he let Neville stand there injured and in pain? Let him suffer a little longer; that will teach him a lesson. I am with Dana; the whole attitude on this list towards Snape nauseates me. This is, of course, my opinion. I am willing to concede to some points. Yes, he is a brilliant Potions Master. I have no doubt that he has courage. I think he is on the side of good? He definitely has healing powers. He is surely a powerful wizard. But he is a nasty, hateful, spiteful man, and none of the aforementioned qualities can redeem him from that, in my opinion, especially because of his method of teaching when it comes to Harry and Neville. He blatantly picks on both of them, and not to improve their grades or ability to learn, but because he hates both of them, albeit for different reasons. This, imo, does not equate to a good, noble teacher. Sandy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 7 18:38:44 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:38:44 -0000 Subject: Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168400 > > > > Pippin wrote in > > : > > > > < > boggart was Jews? That they must have had it coming? >> > > > Catlady: > > > > I'd say the purpose of the lesson is to teach the kids > > how to use 'Riddikulus' on a Boggart, not to correct > > their morals and prejudices, and not to teach them how > > to cope with a non-Boggart problem like a cruel teacher. > > > > bboyminn: > > A far better question is - why would Jews be Neville's > greatest fear? Pippin: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" --whatever that meant in biblical times, it was certainly used later as a rationale for persecuting witches. I see no reason why that couldn't have generated a fear which was then passed down much like the fear of banshees or mummies, neither of which may be 'rational' in the sense of something you'd be likely to find at Hogwarts. My point was that whether or not Neville's fear is rational is a separate issue from whether or not the object of his fear should be shamed in front of the class, and "he had it coming anyway" is hardly something that Lupin is in a position to judge. Steve: > So, I agree with Catlady, the purpose of the lesson is > to make whatever you fear funny, not to make a moral > judgment on what it is that you fear. Pippin: Lupin was afraid that Harry's boggart would put the class in a panic, but he didn't mind that Neville's boggart would make them laugh at Snape. He seems to have avoided the subject of Hermione's boggart, leaving her unable to fight it, perhaps because he too thinks McGonagall isn't someone to cross. So he does have other considerations than teaching them to fight boggarts, but protecting Snape from ridicule was not one of them. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 18:45:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:45:47 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168401 > Sandy responds: This is a total abuse > of power, and Snape uses it every chance he gets, starting the minute he > takes the roll call in Harry's first class with him. He does it because Harry > exists. Alla: Oh, well said Sandy :) Because Harry exists indeed. Sandy: > This is your, or anyone else's idea of a good, noble teacher?!? Alla: Definitely not mine, LOL, but I do have something to add besides agreeing with you, I promise. Sandy: There is one more element to > this. If, as some of you seem to believe (and I won't argue against it), Snape > has healing powers, why does he let Neville stand there injured and in pain? > Let him suffer a little longer; that will teach him a lesson. Alla: That's an interesting thing and well spotted that he does not heal Neville, but are you sure that he indeed has healing powers or he just knows countercurse from the curse he developed? I would say it is just as possible that he specifically developed that one countercurse for the safety purposes in case somebody who does not need to will fall in the line of fire, sort of self preservation? JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Mon May 7 19:07:03 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:07:03 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168403 > Alla: > > Well, then it is agree to disagree time :) I am certainly not saying > that subjects are identical or even very close, but I **am** saying > that they are at least related to the degree where Neville should > not have been **that** scared of it, familiarity and all, but for > the teacher. IMO of course. Magpie: I don't think Neville is scared of Potions. I think he's scared of screwing up and being yelled at for it, which gets worse when he does screw up the very first day and beyond--and Snape yells at him for it. Snape makes his fear of screwing up worse. (I think his grandmother has some responsibility there too.) > Alla: > > I get the impression that JKR is showing with which type of teachers > Neville does well and with which he does not. Charmes do not seem to > me to be connected very much to his patience and kind nature either > and he still does very well. > Magpie: That too, yes. But JKR also seems to accept that students can be better at certain subjects. We can't just assume that if only Lupin taught Potions Neville would be at Hermione's level. If Neville has a good teacher and puts his mind to it he can do very well, and he might very well have done better in Potions with a different teacher. (I think it's also possible Neville with a different teacher might have been more like Harry in Divinations, getting nothing out of the class at all--which is not meant as a personal defense of Snape's bullying; I just think it's true.) McGonagall, when not allowing him to take Transfig, tells him he's never seemed to "enjoy" Transfigurations. I suppose one might say that Flitwick is less intimidating than McGonagall and that's why Neville got an E in Charms and an A in Transfig, but it still seems like it starts leaning too far towards the teachers, as if Neville is so passive his grades simply reflect how nice the teacher is, and I don't think that's the case. Sprout doesn't seem as brilliant or necessarily kind as Lupin, and I don't recall any point where she is shown to specifically reach out to Neville, yet that's the class Neville does very well in. And since Neville's not taking his OWLS with Snape and he seems okay there, he seems to be working on his own abilities in the test. Yet he doesn't wind up in NEWT Potions. Either he got an E or and O and wasn't interested in the subject or he didn't qualify. Snape wasn't keeping him out of the class, since he wasn't teaching it and Neville *did* happily take the class Snape was teaching. So the long and short of it is that I think Neville's probably sorting out the way most kids are. Would he have warmed more to the subject if he'd had a different teacher? Possibly--he might have liked the class just because of the teacher. But based on the canon we have it seems like a combination of negatives to me. We see Neville messing up himself, along with Snape scaring him. Seems to me honestly like Neville doesn't mind dropping Potions any more than he minds dropping Transfiguration and that it's as much because he doesn't enjoy Potions as it is due to not liking Snape. I do think that Snape had a bad effect on Neville and that Neville was having to deal with stress in that class that wasn't just about Potions-- and that wasn't fair to Neville. It just seems like he also didn't have a natural aptitude for the subject. I actually think it's kind of interesting when McG talks about Neville not enjoying Transfig--I tend to see a little passive resistance in Neville, myself. > Alla: > > Well, I was not very clear that this little speculation would only > make sense to me if JKR would want to show how badly Snape misjudged > Neville's ability, which was clouded by fear, but was always there. > If Neville is really that bad at Potions, which I am still not sure > about, then obviously it makes no sense. > > But the fact that even Harry notices at Potions OWL that Neville > performs much better when Snape is not there, makes me think that he > **at least** not that bad. Magpie: I guess that's the thing for me. Neville probably isn't a complete menace, sure. But I think there's a difference between Neville not being a complete menace when he's not made doubly nervous by Snape, and a Neville's whose talents at Potions have been badly misjudged. I don't think that's even what Harry himself indicates. Iirc, he simply says that Neville, during the Potions OWL, without Snape absent, "looked happier than Harry had ever seen him during a Potions class." I thought Snape seemed like a mixture in the OWLS-- knowledge imparted to kids=good/personal intimidating presence=bad. Neville makes mistakes himself, Hermione has been shown trying to help him on the sly, he doesn't continue with Potions even with a different teacher. Clearly Snape is a bad teacher for Neville personally, but I think that's made worse with Neville not being very good at the subject as well. He has no troubles with Snape in DADA that I remember, and doesn't consider dropping the class because Snape's teaching it. I almost think you lose something if you take either of them out of the equation (iow, if Snape becomes somebody just trying to give Neville tough love or if Neville is a good student). -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 19:19:37 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:19:37 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168404 > Sandy responds: > Here is a passage from SS/PS, chpt. 8, pgs 158-159, Scholastic > > This passage formed my opinion of Snape, and > nothing he has ever done since has altered it. Alla: That would teach me to read and reread, before posting, but oh well, replying to your post again, since my other one was not finished. Ooops, that one less of the posts left. You know the funny thing is that even though this passage certainly played an active role in my despising of Snape, at the end of PS/SS, it did not feel as horrible as it felt already after reading PoA and rereading back and worse and worse with every book. I guess at the end of PS/SS I saw some potential for nobility in Snape and oh well, he is after all had all the makings of my favorite characters ( no, he certainly did not live up to expectations, LOL), so I was like ? okay, he will see the light eventually, he will see the good kid Harry is and not his father in him. Oooops. So, what I am trying to say that after book 1 I really liked Snape ? NO, I did not like him per se. I certainly was not **okay** with what he does and certainly was not feeling forgiving as to how he treated Harry and Neville. I really liked him the way I usually like antiheroes - **only** if they are willing to change, whether successfully or not, I need to see them try. I was not loving character per se as he stood in book 1. But I saw the potential for change of his attitudes after book 1 and loved it, I really did. But the more I read of his hatred and abuse (IMO of course), the more disappointed I became, thinking that change is not going to happen and when I reread first lesson now I hate it so much, that if say the change of scenery happened in the book 1 and somebody came out and AKed Snape on the spot, I would be happy. Magpie: He has no troubles with Snape in > DADA that I remember, and doesn't consider dropping the class > because Snape's teaching it. I almost think you lose something if > you take either of them out of the equation (iow, if Snape becomes > somebody just trying to give Neville tough love or if Neville is a > good student). Alla: He had whole year in DADA with Harry. Of course his confidence increased, I think his confidence is massively increased in general, so I am not surprised that he has no troubles with Snape, but no, I do not think you lose anything if Snape is the one who is mistreating Neville and Neville would have much less troubles otherwise. I mean that all depends on how you see it I guess. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon May 7 19:36:01 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:36:01 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168405 In a message dated 5/7/2007 2:47:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: Sandy: There is one more element to > this. If, as some of you seem to believe (and I won't argue against it), Snape > has healing powers, why does he let Neville stand there injured and in pain? > Let him suffer a little longer; that will teach him a lesson. Alla: That's an interesting thing and well spotted that he does not heal Neville, but are you sure that he indeed has healing powers or he just knows countercurse from the curse he developed? I would say it is just as possible that he specifically developed that one countercurse for the safety purposes in case somebody who does not need to will fall in the line of fire, sort of self preservation? JMO, Alla Sandy: In fact, I wasn't even thinking about the Sectumsempra curse. I was referring to Katie and the necklace and Dumbledore and the ring. Others on the list have used these two examples, as well as the Sectumsempra incident, and the fact that DD wanted Snape after returning from the cave, to point out that Snape is qualified as a healer. Since he was effective in three of the four cases I can't argue against him having certain abilities to heal. There is one thing, though. In all three of these incidents, the injury or illness was caused by "dark" magic, if, indeed, Sectumsempra is a dark curse. There is no doubt that the poisoned necklace and cursed ring were dark magic. Kind of makes you wonder about Snape's healing abilities, doesn't it? Sandy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 20:04:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 20:04:39 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168406 Sandy wrote: > > In fact, I wasn't even thinking about the Sectumsempra curse. I was referring to Katie and the necklace and Dumbledore and the ring. Others on the list have used these two examples, as well as the Sectumsempra incident, and the fact that DD wanted Snape after returning from the cave, to point out that Snape is qualified as a healer. Since he was effective in three of the four cases I can't argue against him having certain abilities to heal. There is one thing, though. In all three of these incidents, the injury or illness was caused by "dark" magic, if, indeed, Sectumsempra is a dark curse. There is no doubt that the poisoned necklace and cursed ring were dark magic. Kind of makes you wonder about Snape's healing abilities, doesn't it? Carol responds: Actually, I place most of the blame on JKR's plot needs. She didn't want us to know about Snape's healing skills back in book 1 (or any other book before HBP). Although I actually agree that most of his healing skills are related to the Dark Arts, the antithesis of the Dark spell that they counter and therefore a special branch of DADA, I should also point out that Snape usually has the appropriate antidote (say, a deflating draft) on hand in his lessons. Either JKR wanted Snape to send Neville to the hospital wing (after telling him exactly what he did wrong) rather than treating the injury himself, or she hadn't yet thought about having him keep antidotes (which he has presumably prepared himself in advance) in the pockets of his robes. However, the teachers and staff members do have specific jobs that involve more than their teaching duties (for example, Snape brews whatever potion is needed, or, in HBP, deals with any Dark artifacts and curses that enter the school or affect the students). So it could be argued that treating the students is Madam Pomfrey's job, which is why snape says "Hospital wing, Goyle," when a spell Harry meant to cast against Draco (causing effects very similar to those caused by Neville's potion) hits Goyle instead. Probably, he could easily have cast the countercurse on that occasion, but he's more interested in restoring order and starting the class. At any rate, I think it's JKR, not Snape, who in essence sent Neville to the hospital wing. She's building up her red herring case against the false villain of that book, after all. Carol, who agrees that Snape's healing abilities (including antidotes to poisons) focus primarily on countering the Dark Arts, which is precisely why he's uniquely qualified to treat DD's horcrux injury, Katie Bell's necklace curse, and, of course, Sectumsempra From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 7 20:36:00 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 20:36:00 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168407 Sandy: > In fact, I wasn't even thinking about the Sectumsempra curse. I > was referring to Katie and the necklace and Dumbledore and the > ring. Others on the list have used these two examples, as well as > the Sectumsempra incident, and the fact that DD wanted Snape after > returning from the cave, to point out that Snape is qualified as a > healer. Since he was effective in three of the four cases > I can't argue against him having certain abilities to heal. There > is one thing, though. In all three of these incidents, the injury > or illness was caused by "dark" magic, if, indeed, Sectumsempra is > a dark curse. There is no doubt that the poisoned necklace and > cursed ring were dark magic. Kind of makes you wonder about > Snape's healing abilities, doesn't it? Dana: Personally and I have expressed this before, I think JKR did not actually inserted Snape's help to express his healing capabilities but to emphasis his expertise in the Dark Arts. For instance we see Lupin tell Ron in PoA he can't heal bones as well as Madame Pomfrey so why he leaves it alone but he expresses that he knows how to do it, in case it would be required. We see Sirius heal his own hand when he was bitten by a snuffbox. But we also see many types of injuries Snape does nothing about through out the course of the books. He does not help the healing of the petrified in CoS because it does not require his help. To me he does not have healing capabilities in that sense of the word but he knows enough about Dark Magic and Dark Curses to counterbalance the curses he is asked to deal with. More like a pharmacist knowing which medicine to give you ones the illness is diagnosed, a pharmacist is still not a doctor, he will know which medicine should not be taken together and he will know the side effects of every medicine he ever prescribed but again this still does not make him a doctor. Katie still had to go to St Mungo's and was still out for longer then a week; Snape stopped it enough for her not to die. He does not heal DD but stops the curse from effecting more then DD's hand. If I take an aspirin to stop my fevering then it doesn't mean I healed myself from the flue and it doesn't make me a doctor. Lupin knows that chocolate will help against the effects the dementor's have on you but it does not make him a healer just because he has this knowledge. I am not saying this to undermine Snape knowledge because he definitely knows more about the Dark Arts and Dark curses then anybody else but it also is proof of that Sirius's claim in GoF that Snape was famous for this knowledge is true. To me what Snape does can be more compared to giving someone an antidote after a snake bite, you do not have to be a doctor to do that but you do have to have knowledge about what type of snake you are dealing with to know which antidote you should use. But this knowledge doesn't mean that you can actually heal the aftereffects this poison has on the organs of the victim, you only are able to stop the venom from killing the person and you let the healing part to the professionals at the hospital. I think why he could only really heal Draco's wounds while with the other incidences he could only stop the worst outcome possible is because this curse was by his own invention while with the others he could only partly guess what they were made off. JMHO Dana From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon May 7 20:46:27 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 22:46:27 +0200 Subject: Did Snape know Draco's task in Spinner's End (was: Re: more snape stuff) References: Message-ID: <009201c790e8$c99eabe0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 168408 > Magpie: > You're definitely not the only person to wonder that! It doesn't > work for me, personally. To me, Snape fishing for that information > in the scene robs it of most of its meaning and makes it just funny. > Narcissa was just about to tell him what the plan was and he > interrupted her. If he'd let her speak for another second he would > know what he's allegedly fishing for throughout the scene, and that > makes little sense to me. Miles: Where do you read this in the book? That Narcissa is just about to tell the whole story? I don't read it: "Narcissa continued (...): '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." (HBP, Spinner's End) My reading: What Narcissa is about to say is, WHY she wants to speak about the plan. How she fears for Draco, how lonely she is, whatever. She did not start to speak about the plan, she speaks about Voldemort, his orders, and why she thinks she must disobey. In her state I'd think she would explain herself much longer, not to speak of the unavoidable continuing argument with Bellatrix. Now, it's always a problem to interpret sentences that are not completed in canon - some speculation is necessary. But I really think my considerations have some basis both in the psychology of the scene, and in the words of the interrupted sentence, while Magpie's interpretation include a twist that is possible, but not forceful. > Magpie: > Maybe it looks good for him to take LV's > side and remind her she's not supposed to talk, but not if the > alternative is making a suicide pact to do the thing instead (which > is going against LV more than allowing Narcissa to shoot off her > mouth)--a thing Snape never succeeds in finding out about in the > scene anyway. Miles: You know about the following Vow because you read the book before. Since JKR didn't make Snape a Seer, he possibly couldn't know of the Vow that follows, so it is not a valid argument concerning Snape's success or defeat in this scene. When I read this scene for the very first time, I didn't doubt a second that Snape did *not* know anything about the plan - simply because he never mentions anything about it. Like Rebecca wrote: > Snape never actually SAYS what the plan is, he just says > he knows of it. Miles: That's not a proof, that's for sure. JKR didn't want this scene to be clear, so it isn't. But I really don't see Rebecca's and my understanding of Spinner's end funny ;). Magpie: > If Snape has no idea what he's talking about lines like "I believe > he means me to do it in the end" are just empty bluffing for him, > and also, we're robbed of the terrible moment when Snape realizes > just what he's stupidly agreed to do. Miles: You lost me. I simply do not see why this scene should be worthless with a bluffing Snape, and great with Snape knowing everything? Magpie: > That presumably happens > offscreen because by the time they get to school he and Dumbledore > both know what Draco's supposed to do with no help from the UV that > we see. So there's no storyline, that I can see, about Snape's > reaction to what he's accidentally done. Miles: The dialogue between Snape and Dumbledore, overheard by Hagrid (AFAIR), is not that very reaction? I thought so, following the storyline I see as a bright red thread through the book. Magpie: > Also since it was clear to > me in Spinner's End what Draco was supposed to do it's hard for me > to believe Snape couldn't figure it out too--Narcissa gives him some > pretty big hints. Miles: Which ones? I didn't figure out what the task was. I did later, when the assassination attempts failed, but reading Spinner's End, there were many alternatives, like killing Harry, or kidnapping him. Snape is not a Seer, and he didn't get a copy of JKR's HBP, he only wrote his own one. Magpie: > So for me, the reason everyone talks around the plan is because JKR > is hiding it from the reader. Snape's own dialogue doesn't seem to > show a man fishing for information. Miles: It does in my reading. And the crux you try to point out in canon IMO shows if anything, the opposite. Miles From bartl at sprynet.com Mon May 7 21:00:04 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:04 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Witches, Warlocks, Wizards, and JKR Message-ID: <24014608.1178571604538.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168409 Pippin: >"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" --whatever that meant >in biblical times, it was certainly used later as a rationale for >persecuting witches. A) It didn't mean ANYTHING in Biblical times; English didn't exist until much later. This is NOT sophistry, by the way; far too many people forget that not only is King James a translation, it's a pretty poor one at that, sometimes (as with this verse), mistranslated on purpose. B) Not prosecuting witches; prosecuting those they BELIEVED were witches, who were defined as those who sold their soul to Satan in return for power (the term "warlock" was more direct; it originally referred to a trusted officer who went over to the enemy in time of war, and was used to refer to a baptised person who went over to Satan). For some reason the related word "wizard" didn't get the same connotation (Isaac Asimov had a rather interesting theory about it having to do with beards and the lack of dentistry). In the 1920's, when Gerald Gardner considered taking late 19th-early 20th century occult systems and turning them into a religion loosely based on pre-Christian Europe, he called it "Wicca" or "Witchcraft", partially to give a colorful background of a hidden society, persecuted by the outside. Interestingly enough, he took a lot from C.W. Leadbeater, who added those same occult systems to Roman Catholicism in reforming the Liberal Catholic Church. While it is unknown how much JKR knew of these, she almost certainly was familiar with the aftermath, such as the famous Wiccan, Sybil Leek, movies like BELL, BOOK AND CANDLE, or TV shows like BEWITCHED. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 21:01:41 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 21:01:41 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168410 > Dana wrote: But we also see many types of injuries Snape does nothing about through out the course of the books. He does not help the healing of the petrified in CoS because it does not require his help. Carol responds to this one point: As I've said elsewhere, the teachers have duties related to their area of expertise other than actual teaching. While it's Madam Pomfrey's duty as the school nurse to *administer* the Mandrake Restorative Potion, it's Lockhart's job as DADA teacher to deal with Dark magic in the school (at which he fails abysmally) and Professor Sprout's to grow the Mandrakes. But it's Snape's responsibility to *brew* the potion, as he makes clear to Lockhart: "'We will be able to cure her [Mrs. Norris], Argus,' said Dumbledore. 'Professor Sprout recently managed to procure some Mandrakes. As soon as they have reached their full size, I will have a potion made that will revive Mrs. Norris.' "'I'll make it,' Lockhart butted in. 'I must have done it a hundred times. I could whip up a Mandrake Restorative Draught in my sleep.' "'Excuse me,' said Snape icily. 'But I believe I am the Potions master at this school" (Cos Am. ed. 144). IOW, just as it's Snape's job to brew Veritaserum in Gof and Wolfsbane Potion in PoA, it's his job to brew the Mandrake Restorative Potion. Fortunately for Dumbledore and the school, Snape is considerably at his job than Lockhart is at his, and the students, cat, and ghost are successfully unpetrified. Carol, who thinks the medium-that-must-not-be-named has misled a number of people into thinking that Madam Pomfrey and Professor Sprout prepared the potion From belviso at attglobal.net Mon May 7 21:10:30 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 21:10:30 -0000 Subject: Did Snape know Draco's task in Spinner's End/Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: <009201c790e8$c99eabe0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168411 > Miles: > Where do you read this in the book? That Narcissa is just about to tell the > whole story? I don't read it: > > "Narcissa continued (...): '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." (HBP, > Spinner's End) > > My reading: What Narcissa is about to say is, WHY she wants to speak about > the plan. How she fears for Draco, how lonely she is, whatever. She did not > start to speak about the plan, she speaks about Voldemort, his orders, and > why she thinks she must disobey. Magpie: I read the "But..." as "He wishes none to know the plan. He has forbidden us to speak of it. But...[I'm a-gonna speak to you of it."] Even if I'm wrong and she was really, as you say, just going to talk about why she wants to speak of it, she's still going to speak of it. So I need a good reason for Snape to stop her. I could certainly by him pretending he knows in order to get her to be more open, but that's not what he does. He shuts her up without it following it up with getting her to speak freely about the plot. > > Magpie: > > Maybe it looks good for him to take LV's > > side and remind her she's not supposed to talk, but not if the > > alternative is making a suicide pact to do the thing instead (which > > is going against LV more than allowing Narcissa to shoot off her > > mouth)--a thing Snape never succeeds in finding out about in the > > scene anyway. > > Miles: > You know about the following Vow because you read the book before. Since JKR > didn't make Snape a Seer, he possibly couldn't know of the Vow that follows, > so it is not a valid argument concerning Snape's success or defeat in this > scene. > When I read this scene for the very first time, I didn't doubt a second that > Snape did *not* know anything about the plan - simply because he never > mentions anything about it. Magpie: I don't see what you mean. Of course at that moment Snape has no way of knowing yet that he's going to take the Vow, but if the point is that Snape doesn't know what the task is and is trying to find out, his behavior in the scene doesn't make sense to me. Where is he trying to find out the task? > Magpie: > > If Snape has no idea what he's talking about lines like "I believe > > he means me to do it in the end" are just empty bluffing for him, > > and also, we're robbed of the terrible moment when Snape realizes > > just what he's stupidly agreed to do. > > Miles: > You lost me. I simply do not see why this scene should be worthless with a > bluffing Snape, and great with Snape knowing everything? Magpie: Because bluffing Snape is just that--bluffing. He's treading water throughout the scene (and not even, that I can see, aggressively getting information out of them). A Snape that knows the task is actually vowing to kill Dumbledore. Bluffing!Snape doesn't know what he's vowing or doing. When bluffing!Snape says "he means me to do it in the end" he's just speaking vaguely, because he doesn't really know what's going on. > Magpie: > > That presumably happens > > offscreen because by the time they get to school he and Dumbledore > > both know what Draco's supposed to do with no help from the UV that > > we see. So there's no storyline, that I can see, about Snape's > > reaction to what he's accidentally done. > > Miles: > The dialogue between Snape and Dumbledore, overheard by Hagrid (AFAIR), is > not that very reaction? I thought so, following the storyline I see as a > bright red thread through the book. Magpie: I don't see how it's a reaction. It's months after the fact when Snape has presumably known for a while, and how does Snape saying Dumbledore takes too much for granted (iirc) directly show that Snape made a huge mistake in Vowing to kill him? What did Snape think he was Vowing to do, I wonder? If he thought he was being expected to kidnap Harry I think we'd get some reference to that. (And if he was supposed to kill Harry...why'd Snape agree to that?) I'd think a Snape who'd accidentally doomed himself to commit murder would be driven by that mistake and we'd see that emotional arc. It would lead to more than months later saying that Dumbledore takes too much for granted if he expects Snape to go through with it. > > Magpie: > > Also since it was clear to > > me in Spinner's End what Draco was supposed to do it's hard for me > > to believe Snape couldn't figure it out too--Narcissa gives him some > > pretty big hints. > > Miles: > Which ones? I didn't figure out what the task was. I did later, when the > assassination attempts failed, but reading Spinner's End, there were many > alternatives, like killing Harry, or kidnapping him. Snape is not a Seer, > and he didn't get a copy of JKR's HBP, he only wrote his own one. Magpie: I would think Snape would have more chance of figuring it out than I did, since he knew Voldemort. When Narcissa said "Even the Dark Lord himself..." it seemed like yeah, obviously that's killing Dumbledore. He has kidnapped Harry, and Snape knows Voldemort's going to want to do kill Harry himself. Even if Snape hadn't been as sure as I was, surely it would have seemed like an obvious choice. And a bad idea to vow to do anything unknown for Voldemort. > Magpie: > > So for me, the reason everyone talks around the plan is because JKR > > is hiding it from the reader. Snape's own dialogue doesn't seem to > > show a man fishing for information. > > Miles: > It does in my reading. And the crux you try to point out in canon IMO shows > if anything, the opposite. Magpie: So where does it show Snape fishing for information in your reading? I don't have time to go through it now, but where is Snape leading the women to talk about the task at all? (Which they never do?) All I remember him doing is talking himself and then agreeing to do the task upon pain of death, all without ever getting any closer to anyone saying what the task is than ever. Then there's no arc that I can see about a man who's made a big mistake. (This would be like the Prophecy II for Snape, I'd think, if this is what he did.) Alla: He had whole year in DADA with Harry. Of course his confidence increased, I think his confidence is massively increased in general, so I am not surprised that he has no troubles with Snape, but no, I do not think you lose anything if Snape is the one who is mistreating Neville and Neville would have much less troubles otherwise. I mean that all depends on how you see it I guess. Magpie: I didn't say Snape wasn't the one mistreating Neville--obviously Neville isn't mistreating Snape. I'm saying that Neville's own problems are also presented on their own as coming from Neville. Their two personalities are in play, imo. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon May 7 21:16:59 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 21:16:59 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168412 > Dana: > He does not help the healing of the > petrified in CoS because it does not require his help. zgirnius: This is debatable. The cure was effected by administering a Potion which includes as its main ingredient the root of a mature Mandrake plant. Madam Pomfrey administered it, but we do not know who brewed it. I believe it was Snape, my canon follows. > CoS, Chapter 9: > "We will be able to cure her, Argus," said Dumbledore patiently. "Professor Sprout recently managed to procure some Mandrakes. As soon as they have reached their full size, I will have a potion made that will revive Mrs. Norris." > "I'll make it," Lockhart butted in. "I must have done it a hundred times. I could whip up a Mandrake Restorative Draught in my sleep -" > "Excuse me," said Snape icily. "But I believe I am the Potions master at this school." zgirnius: This passage confirms Dumbledore needs to 'have a potion made', and since no one reacts negatively to Snape's claim, I would suppose he is the one who normally makes potions when they are needed by the school. And, in particular, that he made that one when the time came. Of course, a Basilisk is a Dark Creature. Dana: > More like a pharmacist knowing which > medicine to give you ones the illness is diagnosed, a pharmacist is > still not a doctor, he will know which medicine should not be taken > together and he will know the side effects of every medicine he ever > prescribed but again this still does not make him a doctor. zgirnius: This seems to me a semantic argument. Surely pharmacist is one of the healing professions? In many countries they can sell things like antibiotics based on a customer's account of their symptoms, which certainly can cure certain diseases. In response to your later comments about Snape stabilizing people so the specialists at St. Mungo's could heal them, surely being a paramedic is also one of the healing professions? I know some people have suggested Snape's first job out of school was to enter training to become a Healer, something we have no canon for or against. (As he seems not to have been wealthy like James, he must have had some job before Hogwarts, but we have not been told what). Certainly, as a student fresh out of Hogwarts, he probably had the right competencies to be considered for that job. Per OotP, "Career Advice" it requires NEWTs in: - Potions (check) - Herbology (he seems to know his plant ingredients, adding peppermint to banish side effects, knowing the best way to juice a sopophorus bean, etc.) - Transfiguration (this could be his weak area, I suppose, I can't think of an instance we have seen him use it - but then, he could have studied hard as Harry did for his Potions OWL) - Charms (Levicorpus and Liberacorpus are spells of that type, if he can invent 'em, he can do well in the class if he applies himself) - DADA (check) So it certainly seems like a career to which he could reasonably have aspired, more than that we could not say. Ay any rate, in the case of Katie Bell he would have had to make the diagnosis before treating her, because no one else competent to do so was available. Apparently, he managed. > Dana: > also is proof of that Sirius's > claim in GoF that Snape was famous for this knowledge is true. zgirnius: This is a fallacious argument; its conclusion does not follow from the premise. That adult Snape knows something does not imply 11 year old Sevvie was famous for it. For example, I am a Mathematics PhD; but anyone at my high school will remember me as that kid that won English and foreign languages prizes. Math was my weakest subject. Regarding Neville, Goyle, and their boils - I suspect Snape was sending them off to Madam Pomfrey so that she could administer the potion for curing them which he had made. He definitely knows how to - it is the effect Neville's potion in PS/SS *would have* had, if he had made it correctly. zgirnius, who loves Snape, and figures that, as making personal statements about him is apparently de rigueur, she may as well join in. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon May 7 21:56:28 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 23:56:28 +0200 Subject: Did Snape know Draco's task in Spinner's End/Snape as Neville's teacher References: Message-ID: <00b101c790f2$90f15950$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 168413 > Magpie: > I read the "But..." as "He wishes none to know the plan. He has > forbidden us to speak of it. But...[I'm a-gonna speak to you of > it."] Even if I'm wrong and she was really, as you say, just going > to talk about why she wants to speak of it, she's still going to > speak of it. So I need a good reason for Snape to stop her. I could > certainly by him pretending he knows in order to get her to be more > open, but that's not what he does. He shuts her up without it > following it up with getting her to speak freely about the plot. Miles: I think he has a very good reason to interrupt. He looks out of the window that very moment, right? That's the point - there are listeners. Known ones (Bellatrix), possible ones (Peter), and theoretical ones (people listening outside the house). Just take Bellatrix - to have her listen to Narcissa explaining the plot would be very dangerous. She might not sell her own sister easily, but it would be not OOC for her. She hates and distrusts Snape, and if he would be part of a betrayal on LV's orders - well? Considering that, and considering that Snape is really fond of his own intellect, he might think it would be less dangerous to just fish for the information without showing that he does not have it. Plus the chance to make Draco tell him all about it - Snape might think that this way is a bit more complicated, but less dangerous. > Magpie: > Because bluffing Snape is just that--bluffing. He's treading water > throughout the scene (and not even, that I can see, aggressively > getting information out of them). Miles: As explained above, it would be dangerous to aggressively get information he is not allowed to have. Bellatrix won't forget. Magpie: > A Snape that knows the task is > actually vowing to kill Dumbledore. Bluffing!Snape doesn't know what > he's vowing or doing. When bluffing!Snape says "he means me to do it > in the end" he's just speaking vaguely, because he doesn't really > know what's going on. Miles: Knowing!Snape is most probably ESE!Snape, right? Well, I really doubt JKR wants to answer this question in Spinner's End. Bluffing!Snape could be part of a personal tragedy, if he is DDM!Snape, and it fits to ESE!Snape as well - and best for OFH!Snape. > Magpie: > I don't see how it's a reaction. It's months after the fact when > Snape has presumably known for a while, and how does Snape saying > Dumbledore takes too much for granted (iirc) directly show that > Snape made a huge mistake in Vowing to kill him? What did Snape > think he was Vowing to do, I wonder? Miles: How could he deny the Vow in the moment he accepts to make it? If he would deny it in this very situation, Bellatrix would be a deathly threat to him in the future. Narcissa would not trust him anymore, Draco would be most probably lost. He manoeuvred himself into a dead end - into Spinner's End, no escape possible but the only open way left - the Vow. He might think that it could be harmless when he started to make it, but had no chance to deny the last and fatal part of it. > Magpie: > I would think Snape would have more chance of figuring it out than I > did, since he knew Voldemort. When Narcissa said "Even the Dark Lord > himself..." it seemed like yeah, obviously that's killing > Dumbledore. He has kidnapped Harry, and Snape knows Voldemort's > going to want to do kill Harry himself. Even if Snape hadn't been as > sure as I was, surely it would have seemed like an obvious choice. > And a bad idea to vow to do anything unknown for Voldemort. Miles: Voldemort tried to kidnap Harry, but he failed - Harry escaped. "Even the Dark Lord himself..." Voldemort tried to kill Harry three times - but he failed. "Even the Dark Lord himself..." Maybe Voldemort tried to steal something from Hogwarts, but failed? Impossible? Not at all. Miles From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 22:52:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:52:17 -0000 Subject: Did Snape know Draco's task in Spinner's End/Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: <00b101c790f2$90f15950$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168414 Miles wrote: > Knowing!Snape is most probably ESE!Snape, right? Carol responds: Well, no. DDM!Snape could well have told DD before "Spinner's End" that Draco had been assigned to kill DD and been told by DD in turn to do everything conceivable to prevent Draco from making that attempt. It seems clear that Snape agrees to takes the first two provisions to protect Draco (something I can't see either ESE!Snape or OFH!Snape agreeing to do). Having heard Bellatrix say that she'd be willing to sacrifice her (imaginary) sons to the Dark Lord's service, followed by Narcissa's scream of despair, Snape says tentatively, "It might be possible . . . for me to help Draco." Narcissa responds, "Severus--oh, Severus--you would help him? Would you look after him, see he comes to no harm?" (Note that "help him" does not mean helping him kill DD or get DEs into the castle, which Snape clearly does not know is part of the plan.) Snape hedges ("I can try") and then Narcissa kneels at his feet, seizes his hands, and kisses them, saying, "If you are there to protect him . . . Severus, will you swear it? Will you make the Unbreakable Vow?" He hesitates again, Bellatrix taunts him with slithering out of action, and he agrees, calmly and with an unreadable expression, to take the Unbreakable Vow (with Bellatrix as bonder, which implicates her in the web and guarantees that she won't go to Voldemort). Not that Narcissa's concern is Draco's safety; she has appealed to Snape to be Draco's protectior, to "look after him and see [that] he comes to no harm." The only life being risked at this point is Snape's own; he's swearing to do what he would do in any case: watch over and protect his favorite student, a boy in his own house who happens to be in extreme danger. No doubt the tears of a beautiful mother and the scorn of a Voldie supporter he's gone to some pains to persuade of his loyalty have some part in his decision, but Draco's safety is paramount and seems to be his main motive in agreeing to the vow. And the first two provisions ask him to do exactly what he's just promised to do without the vow, watch over Draco and protect him. Only that third provision, the one that causes his hand to twitch, presents a problem, and your own reasoning works there: > Miles: > How could he deny the Vow in the moment he accepts to make it? If he would deny it in this very situation, Bellatrix would be a deathly threat to him in the future. Narcissa would not trust him anymore, Draco would be most probably lost. He manoeuvred himself into a dead end - into Spinner's End, no escape possible but the only open way left - the Vow. He might think that it could be harmless when he started to make it, but had no chance to deny the last and fatal part of it. Carol responds: As far as I can see, this reasoning still applies. Snape doesn't anticipate the third provision of the vow. It wasn't mentioned when he agreed to take it, and his hand twitches when he anticipates her words. Now granted, Snape is a Legilimens, but I don't think he could have seen this thought form in her mind. Legilimency isn't mind reading; it's the ability to see someone else's mental images and detect their emotions. If Snape has used Legilimency on Narcissa, he has surely seen only what's uppermost in her mind (and what he doesn't need Legilimency to see), her fears for Draco. So, as you say, he's maneuvered himself into a dead end. He can only hope that the wording of the vow ("if it seems that Draco will fail") or Dumbledore's own formidable powers will provide him an out. And, of course, DDM!Snape would report the situation to Dumbledore immediately, just as he would do if he'd been trapped into making a vow to do some unknown task if Draco fails to do it. Carol, who thinks that Snape was in control of the situation up till the moment when Narcissa dropped the bombshell of provision three and that Snape's loyalty to DD never wavered in "Spinner's End" or afterward From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 23:01:20 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 23:01:20 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168415 > >>Betsy Hp: > I agree that Harry doesn't emphasize his own celebrity. But it > wasn't Snape who caused the Gryffindor table to cheer, "We got > Potter, we got Potter!" at Harry's Sorting. And it wasn't Snape > who caused Flitwick to faint at the sight of Harry Potter in his > classroom. Snape's worries weren't formed in a vacuum. > >>Sandy responds: > > As to the above attributed quote: No, Snape did not cause either > reaction, but neither did Harry. Betsy Hp: You're right, Harry didn't ask for his celebrity and I acknowledge that completely. > >>Sandy: > > Therefore, Snape's comment to Harry was totally unfounded and > unwarranted. Betsy Hp: Well, you know that, and I know that, but I'm not sure Snape does. And therein lies the rub. At least for me. I *do* recognize that Snape did not need to come down on Harry so hard. I also recognize that it caused more harm than good. (Imagine the series if Harry was even just neutral towards Snape.) What I see, and what I'm trying to say is that while understanding that Snape made a mistake in coming down so hard on Harry, I totally understand *why* that mistake was made. And I don't really hold that mistake against Snape. Not as fiercely as some, anyway. > >>Sandy: > Snape's worries? Are you kidding with this? Betsy Hp: No, not at all. My entire interest is in figuring out the what, where, how, and most especially *why* of Snape. > >>Sandy: > Do you actually believe that Snape was worried that all of this > unwanted, unsought attention was going to go to Harry's head? Why > would Snape be worried about this considering how much he despises > the boy? There is no way you can convince me that Snape was > worried about this. Betsy Hp: Heh. Well then, instead of aiming towards changing your mind, I'll just try and clarify my own view point. I *do* believe Snape worried about Harry's status as "The Boy Who Lived" and the ego such a title might bring with it. But I'm not sure I'd put it down as a worry *for* Harry's sake. (Though I'm not prepared to write that particular idea off completely.) I can easily see Snape worried that an "egotistical Harry" might disrupt his classroom and contest his authority. So I can understand why Snape might want to stop that particular problem at the get go. > >>Sandy: > I have no doubt that the attention that Harry was getting had > an effect on Snape. Here was James Potter's son, and although new > to Hogwart's, he was already getting more attention than his father > did. That could sure rub some salt into some old wounds. And it > doesn't help matters any that Harry looks so much like James. Betsy Hp: I absolutely agree that his history with James (and possibly even Lily) would have had an effect on Snape's judgement. Snape is, lets face it , an emotional man. And he has lots to be emotional about when it comes to James regardless of his good or evil status. So, yes, I imagine that Harry looking so much like his father (and possibly Harry having his mother's eyes) would have come into play. I can very easily see Snape imagining how James would have handled Harry's fame and deciding (possibly unconsiously) that Harry will react in a similar way. > >>Sandy: > > This is pure, unadulterated abuse on Snape's part. He is going to > give Harry as hard of a time as he possibly can, and there is > nothing Harry can do about it because he is just a child and Snape > is his teacher. This is a total abuse of power, and Snape uses it > every chance he gets, starting the minute he takes the roll call in > Harry's first class with him. He does it because Harry exists. Betsy Hp: Eh, I seriously doubt Snape zeros in on Harry based merely on Harry's existance. There was some stuff going on (as I pointed out previously) to suggest that Harry was actually quite famous and getting unusual treatment from the students and the staff. And while Snape does set Harry done pretty hard, I'm not sure I'd label it out and out *abuse*. Blood wasn't spilled, nightmares were not had. Goodness, Harry doesn't even get turned on by his House (McGonagall is the professor who achieves that). I also think that if he so desired, Snape could have been a *lot* harder on Harry. Instead he's just really really attentive. > >>Sandy: > > This is your, or anyone else's idea of a good, noble teacher?!? Betsy Hp: Yup! He's already got the class doing a practical lesson on the very first day of Potions (making good use of classroom time) and he's moving around the class, checking on everyone's work and correcting those that need correcting. Seems like good teaching to me. > >>Sandy: > He shows blatant favoritism for one student, who just happens to > be in his House (does anyone doubt that Hermione's potion turned > out just as well as Draco's?... Betsy Hp: I don't doubt that Draco is doing an excellent job. And, as we've seen in HBP, Draco responds well to praise, and may well need it more than Hermione. Though I'd also add that it wouldn't surprise me if Draco *were* doing a better job at stewing his slugs than Hermione at this stage in the game. This is a brand new world for Hermione, but Draco's been in it for a while. > >>Sandy: > ... - the same Hermione who knew the answers to all of Snape's > questions, but who he totally ignored). Betsy Hp: And well done Snape for that, IMO. He could see that Hermione knew the answer. Why get the rest of the class dependent on her? Too many teachers in Hogwarts turn to Hermione when the rest of the class stays quiet, IMO, with the result that after a while no one bothers trying to answer a question if Hermione is around. (I can't recall where the exact quote is, but there is a point where the text says exactly that.) > >>Sandy: > He calls another student an idiot (good teaching skills > there), Betsy Hp: I think that's actually pretty typical British teacher speak. Or at least, in "To Serve Them All My Days" the really good, well liked teacher routinely called his students idiot boys or little pests or the like when they got up to wrong doing. IIRC, anyway. I got the sense that this was not an over the top way to address a student who'd done something wrong. Not a big insult, IOWs. > >>Sandy: > ...and blames another student for that one's mistake and docks > points from him. Betsy Hp: I do agree that it was strange for Snape to blame Harry for Neville's error. I suppose I could spin this to say Snape was putting the loss of a point onto the more popular Harry, thereby protecting Neville. But that seems like too much of a stretch for me. Kind of how I'm not a big fan of the "Snape's being mean to Harry and Neville to toughen them up" school of thought. It's too easy, and I think JKR would need to have dropped a hint or two from the start if she were going to go with this sort of thing. So I think I will have to go with Snape being a bit too eager to put blame for things on Harry. Though there's an odd juxtaposition with the thrown firecracker in CoS. Why on earth would Snape need *proof* at that point to put the blame on Harry when he doesn't need proof to blame Harry in this scene? Why not just dock a bunch of points from Gryffindor if Snape isn't interested in fairness? It's a mystery. > >>Sandy: > How can anyone read this passage and have any kind of respect for > Snape - period, much less as a teacher? This passage formed my > opinion of Snape, and nothing he has ever done since has altered > it. > Betsy Hp: Me too! Only in a totally opposite way! Isn't that weird? This is the scene where I sat up and took notice. I had been reading along, amused and intrigued, but not really *sold* on the books, and then suddenly, "hello Professor Snape!" My goodness, I don't think I'd expected a character so darkly sexy in a children's book. (Actually, JKR does a pretty good job inserting a bunch of amazingly hot men into her children's books. It's like there's a type for every need; she could seriously do a calander. ) I'm not sure I realized that Snape *wasn't* the bad guy yet. (Hmm, maybe *that's* why JKR threw in a moment of blatent not-fair-ness?) But he certainly had my attention. > >>Sandy: > I am with Dana; the whole attitude on this list towards Snape > nauseates me. This is, of course, my opinion. > Betsy Hp: Oh dear, I probably totally lost you with my last then. I will say, you and Dana are not alone. There are quite a few folks still fighting the "Snape is evil!" fight. Only DH will let us know who is ultimately right. Though actually, I'm betting that even if Snape turns out good, those that dislike him will still have reason to dislike him. I don't expect JKR to *completely* reconfigure his character. So just as there are battles royal between Sirius lovers and haters, I imagine the battle over Snape will rage on. (I'm not sure how it will work if Snape is really evil, though.) > >>Sandy: > But he is a nasty, hateful, spiteful man, and none of the > aforementioned qualities can redeem him from that, in my opinion, > especially because of his method of teaching when it comes to > Harry and Neville. He blatantly picks on both of them, and not to > improve their grades or ability to learn, but because he hates > both of them, albeit for different reasons. > Betsy Hp: See, I honestly see nothing personal at all in his treatment of Neville. There's nothing that suggests to me that Snape actually *hates* Neville. Goodness, if Snape did hate Neville, he's been awfully good about it considering the many different buttons Snape could easily push. "My, my another disasterous potion. Won't Grandmother be proud." "I'm sure it's a relief knowing your parents will never know what a failure you are." etc., etc. Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon May 7 23:14:57 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 23:14:57 -0000 Subject: Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168416 --- "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > > > Pippin wrote in > > > : > > > > > > < > > boggart was Jews? That they must have had it coming? >> > > > > > Catlady: > >> > >> I'd say the purpose of the lesson is to teach the > >> kids how to use 'Riddikulus' on a Boggart, not to > >> correct their morals and prejudices, and not to > >> teach them how to cope with a non-Boggart problem > >> like a cruel teacher. > >> > > > > bboyminn: > > > > A far better question is - why would Jews be Neville's > > greatest fear? > > Pippin: > "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" --whatever that > meant in biblical times, it was certainly used later as > a rationale for persecuting witches. bboyminn: Sorry, but if your argument is true then shouldn't Neville's greatest fear be Catholics??? I don't recall Jews being especially big in witch burnings. Further, I suspect the Catholic church was more inclined to assert absolute control over every aspect of life, than it was to care about witches one way or another. 'Witches' were just the excuse to promote a much larger and broader agenda. > Pippin: > ... > > My point was that whether or not Neville's fear is > rational is a separate issue from whether or not the > object of his fear should be shamed in front of the > class, and "he had it coming anyway" is hardly > something that Lupin is in a position to judge. > bboyminn: There is obviously some part of your argument that I am missing, I honestly don't understand the 'shamed in front of the class' and 'he had it coming anyway' comments. Could you clarify? Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't see the connection. Neville's greatest fear was Snape, which makes sense, and while his classmates did get a laugh out of it, I think they fully understood it. I don't see Neville shamed, nor do I see that /anybody/ 'had it coming'. Neville's fear is Neville's fear, it is no more logical or rational than anybody else's fear. I think everyone got a great laugh out of seeing everyone else's fear, but 'laughed' in a fun and friendly way. Neville was simply first, and further he acquitted himself admirably, and likely won a degree of respect from his fellow classmates. > Steve: > > So, I agree with Catlady, the purpose of the lesson > > is to make whatever you fear funny, not to make a > > moraljudgment on what it is that you fear. > > Pippin: > Lupin was afraid that Harry's boggart would put the > class in a panic, but he didn't mind that Neville's > boggart would make them laugh at ... So he does have > other considerations than teaching them to fight > boggarts, but protecting Snape from ridicule was not > one of them. > > Pippin > bboyminn: No, protecting Snape was not one of his priorities, and why should it be? Snape is a big boy, he can take care of himself; further, he can act like the responsible adult he is suppose to be. Neville is just a kid, and I see no reason for anyone to pass any judgment on what he is afraid of. If fact, I'm sure his classmates quite understood, as like they are all afraid of Snape, though not to the degree that Neville is. I suspect once the class got rolling, everyone enjoyed seeing what the other's were afraid of and equally enjoyed seeing them make that fear look ridiculous. I don't see that anyone was shamed including Snape. Snape might have been annoyed, but I think he probably took a certain satisfaction in knowing he scared Neville to that degree. As far as Harry and his suspected boggart, I think Lupin's concern was legitimate. Students would have probably been frightened beyond belief if Voldemort had appeared in the classroom. As to Hermione, that is a mystery. There is no way he could know at that time /what/ Hermione's Boggart would likely be. So, why he held Hermione back is a mystery. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn - currently listening to Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue May 8 00:35:51 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 00:35:51 -0000 Subject: Notes on Bible Translations / Inferi In-Reply-To: <24014608.1178571604538.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168417 > Pippin: > >"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" --whatever that meant in biblical times, it was certainly used later as a rationale for persecuting witches. > Bart: > A) It didn't mean ANYTHING in Biblical times; English didn't exist until much later. Goddlefrood: Those in Sodom and Gomorrah may disagree ;), if there ever were such places :-? On the King James Bible and another Bible version, that may not only amuse a little, but also enlighten I add that we must bear in mind the times during which the King James Bibil came about. It was shortly after a dynasty change in England and King James basically wanted to resatore relations with the Pope, such relations having been strained for close to a century before due to Henry the eighth being fed up of the sight of Catherine of Aragon (and who would blame him ;)). The other thing to keep in mind is that witches were an active concern of the Stuarts, so the inclusion of the verse inserted by Pippin is prescient, and would have widely entered the public consciousness of the time because the message in the KJB was spread by Ministers, the populace being mostly illeterate at that time. The othere translation I draw to your attention, and on the subject of what people believe, is the Fijian language version. In this there is a verse that translates as "Thou shalt not drink Kava". Kava is a popular drink that induces lethargy in the indigenous population, and indeed in anyone else foolish enough to drink it. The translators cunningly used the Bible in a semi-literate society, which Fiji remains, to spread this message of not drinking this foul liquid :-). Do we see the pattern here yet? It is simply not valid, IMO, to use translations or purported mistranslations to belittle an argument. Each to his own IOW. Just to make this somewhat canonical I must inquire if anyone has wondered, as I have, why the Inferi have been used in the most subtle way imaginable. They are currently, or so it appears to me resident in an out of the way lake. Their modus operandi is to lie there and pick off wizards and witches in ones and twos who may just happen across them. Bizarre tactics, IMHO. They will indubitably change their tactics for DH, anyone care to speculate as to how (perhaps they'll disguise themselves as Mundungus Fletcher :-?) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 8 01:01:05 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 01:01:05 -0000 Subject: Notes on Bible Translations / Inferi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168418 --- "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > >"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" --whatever > that meant in biblical times, it was certainly used > later as a rationale for persecuting witches. > > > Bart: > > > A) It didn't mean ANYTHING in Biblical times; English > didn't exist until much later. > > Goddlefrood: > > Those in Sodom and Gomorrah may disagree ;), if there > ever were such places :-? > > On the King James Bible and another Bible version, that > may not only amuse a little, but also enlighten I add > that we must bear in mind the times during which the > King James Bibil came about. > > ... > > ... > > The othere translation I draw to your attention, and > on the subject of what people believe, is the Fijian > language version. In this there is a verse that > translates as "Thou shalt not drink Kava". > > ... > bboyminn: Yes, religions of all kinds have never been to big on details unless they could twist them to serve their purpose. As far as translations, I prefer the Oxford New English translation which is a multi-denominational translation from the Hebrew text and other original sources. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it reads better than most, and in my view seems to have the least 'agenda'. > Goddlefrood: > ... > Just to make this somewhat canonical ... why the Inferi > have been used in the most subtle way imaginable. They > are currently, ... resident in an out of the way lake. > Their modus operandi is to lie there and pick off wizards > and witches ... Bizarre tactics, IMHO. > > ... > bboyminn: We have /some/ inferi hiding in the lake protecting the now gone Horcrux, but we have no indication that that represents ALL inferi. They are just a small band with a specific purpose. Certainly Voldemort can call up legions more if he needs them. As to how Voldemort and his gang will use Inferi next, is not clear. Certainly they are valuable since, already being dead, they can not be killed. However, they do not seem like the smartest lot. They can hardly think for themselves and make 'on the spot' judgment calls. I suspect you can assign them one purpose and that's it; they plod forward like single minded zombies. Now certainly their orders can be changed, but that means a DE on the scene to control them. Their orders can only be as complex and as independent as one DE can control. Consequently, I see their use more as a distraction and intimidation tactic. While people are busy fighting off the undead, the DE's sneak in the backdoor. Specifically how they will be used, I can't say. I'm sure we will see them again, but I don't see their appearances as significant. When we do see them, something far more important will be going on out of sight. Likely they will be used when Voldie tries or does take over Hogwarts. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Tue May 8 00:47:57 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 00:47:57 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, not as wrong or fake as we all think? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168419 So as I've been going through the books again some things have hit me. In this case it's the first interaction Trelawney has with the students in PoA. She starts to babble on, or so we think, randomly to the students. A couple of her flippant statements stood out to me. PoA (US) Pg. 103 "By the way dear," she shot at Pavrati Patil, "beware a red-headed man." Now, I look a this two ways...Pavrati is a twin and it's actually Padma that ends up being hurt by Ron in the 4th book. A simple slip up when talking to a girl's twin. She could also have meant it for Lavender who we all know sat with her in class (and was used by Ron in book 6). Which then leads me to think that maybe the "warning" to Lavender was meant for Parvati? But I'm not sure if anything bad happened to her in the book besides Harry being a jerk at the Ball. Next the "prediction" that Neville would break the cups. PoA (US) Pg. 104 "...ah and dear" she caught Neville by the arm as he made his way to stand up - "after you've broken your first cup, would you be so kind as to select one of the blue patterned ones? I'm rather attached to the pink." Ok again not a far fetch, Neville is a klutz and could have just been nervous after she singled him out, but none the less broke the mug. PoA (US) Pg. 106 "The falcon...my dear you have a deadly enemy." Ok again not a far fetch, everyone did know about Harry and Voldy (as Hermione pointed out lol), but still accurate. "the club...an attack" ok now take your pick on that one there. How many times was Harry attacked after that in this book and others. "The skull, danger in your path." again take your pick there, and then the final prediction of the Grim. Now, I'm sure most of us dismissed this, but in a way it is true no? Harry is marked for death. It is around him. He has to either kill or be killed. We see that she has actual Seer ability due to the two prophecies we have seen her accurately make. I think she can See, but is just a bit rusty, or doesn't always predict what she Sees the right way, or at least convey it the right way. One last point: "I dare not [join the staff table], Headmaster! If I join the table, we shall be thirteen! Nothing could be more unlucky! Never forget that when thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to die!". Now in OoTP, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Arthur Weasley, Molly Weasley, Fred, George, Bill, Ginny, Lupin, Sirius, Tonks and Mundungus (13 characters) dined together. On page 86, the first line describes Sirius rising from his chair. Sirius died later in the book. Ok I'm not the best at making points I admit but hopefully you can see what I'm saying. Please feel free to comment. (and be nice lol) Tandra From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue May 8 02:05:32 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 02:05:32 -0000 Subject: Inferi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168420 Goddlefrood: > > They will indubitably change their tactics for DH, anyone care to speculate as to how (perhaps they'll disguise themselves as Mundungus Fletcher :-?) Steve: > I suspect you can assign them one purpose and that's it; they plod forward like single minded zombies. Ceridwen: I think they're being stored in the lake and left to look after the Green Goo, and perhaps drag a witch or wizard or two down while they're at it. And, part of their purpose as guardians might be to finish off the job of creating new Inferi. If the Green Goo, with or without activation by the lake water, is part of some Inferus- creating potion, then the final touch is to have the eager new "housemates" pull the victim under, like the houses at the Sorting Feast welcome new students to their ranks. But, I think their main purpose in half-life is to wait until summoned, like soldiers or weapons behind the lines waiting to be called into the battle. I do expect to see Inferi, either singly or in various sized groups, roaming the land. An especially horrible thing, in my opinion, would be to send the Inferus of a person to his or her family. This is something I wouldn't put beyond Voldemort. Ceridwen, who loved the puns. Thanks, guys! From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue May 8 02:05:20 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 02:05:20 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, not as wrong or fake as we all think? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168421 > Tandra: >and then the final prediction > of the Grim. Now, I'm sure most of us dismissed this, but in a way it > is true no? Harry is marked for death. zgirnius: Of course I will be nice! (grins, not *too* toothily). Though I don't think Harry is marked for death. I think he will live. Actually, I think this is a case where she Sees truly but fails to interpret it correctly, something she does a lot. She sees a Grim, when what is there is a big, black dog. In other words, she sees that Sirius will be coming into Harry's life, which he does. (Also of interest, 'Padfoot' is an alternative name for a Grim). > Tandra: > One last point: > > "I dare not [join the staff table], Headmaster! If I join the table, > we shall be thirteen! Nothing could be more unlucky! Never forget that > when thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to > die!". zgirnius: In PoA is another case when she predicts truly but makes the incorrect interpretation, in my view. She thinks Ron or Harry will die because they get up to leave. However, the first to rise was Dumbledore, who with his usual politeness rose to greet her when she came down to join them. He was, of course, the first of those present at that meal to die. I had not noticed the OotP case before. Nice catch! From belviso at attglobal.net Tue May 8 02:13:58 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 22:13:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape know Draco's task in Spinner's End/Snape as Neville's teacher References: <00b101c790f2$90f15950$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: <008501c79116$8aa20350$998c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168422 >> Magpie: >> I read the "But..." as "He wishes none to know the plan. He has >> forbidden us to speak of it. But...[I'm a-gonna speak to you of >> it."] Even if I'm wrong and she was really, as you say, just going >> to talk about why she wants to speak of it, she's still going to >> speak of it. So I need a good reason for Snape to stop her. I could >> certainly by him pretending he knows in order to get her to be more >> open, but that's not what he does. He shuts her up without it >> following it up with getting her to speak freely about the plot. > > Miles: > I think he has a very good reason to interrupt. He looks out of the window > that very moment, right? That's the point - there are listeners. Known > ones > (Bellatrix), possible ones (Peter), and theoretical ones (people listening > outside the house). Just take Bellatrix - to have her listen to Narcissa > explaining the plot would be very dangerous. ] Magpie: I would think taking an Unbreakable Vow that goes against LV's wishes would also be dangerous, but he does that. My point is, if he's trying to fish for information about what the task is, I don't see where's doing that--and based on what you say below, neither do you. I have no problem with him shutting Narcissa up in the scene in order to look loyal to LV--but then, I think he knows what the task is, so it's not a problem for him. He's gotten rid of Peter, but I don't understand why it's a bad idea for Narcissa to speak about the plan in front of Bellatrix, since Bellatrix seems to know it as well. Miles: She might not sell her own > sister easily, but it would be not OOC for her. She hates and distrusts > Snape, and if he would be part of a betrayal on LV's orders - well? > Considering that, and considering that Snape is really fond of his own > intellect, he might think it would be less dangerous to just fish for the > information without showing that he does not have it. Magpie: I have no problem believing that Snape would fish for information. But he doesn't fish for information, so that doesn't seem to be what he's doing. Miles: Plus the chance to > make Draco tell him all about it - Snape might think that this way is a > bit > more complicated, but less dangerous. Magpie: Not if he takes a suicide pact. I mean, sure if Snape didn't know what the task was he might have logically thought he would find out from Draco (it turns out he can't, but he wouldn't know that yet). But then why take a UV? He doesn't have to do *anything* in the scene if that's his plan. He just has to wait until school starts and have a chat with his favorite student. It seems odd to say he can't get the information from Narcissa who's come especially to give him the information, because it's less dangerous to get it from Draco, and then throw in the UV (we never learn how he did find out the information). >> Magpie: >> Because bluffing Snape is just that--bluffing. He's treading water >> throughout the scene (and not even, that I can see, aggressively >> getting information out of them). > > Miles: > As explained above, it would be dangerous to aggressively get information > he > is not allowed to have. Bellatrix won't forget. Magpie: So the scenes about getting information, but it's also too dangerous to go after the information...so what's he doing? And why is Bellatrix a threat at all? She's already in disgrace. The Vow seems more dangerous than any threat she poses herself. Isn't the whole point of Snape saying that he knows what's going on already a way to make it okay for information to be spoken? If Snape's claimed to have the information, it's no longer information he's not allowed to have as far as they're concerned. I don't even see why he'd be in trouble with LV, since it's Bellatrix and her sister who came over to tell it to him. > Miles: > Knowing!Snape is most probably ESE!Snape, right? Well, I really doubt JKR > wants to answer this question in Spinner's End. > Bluffing!Snape could be part of a personal tragedy, if he is DDM!Snape, > and > it fits to ESE!Snape as well - and best for OFH!Snape. Magpie: I don't think Knowing!Snape's loyalties are known yet. I, personally, think Snape is both Knowing and DDM. > >> Magpie: >> I don't see how it's a reaction. It's months after the fact when >> Snape has presumably known for a while, and how does Snape saying >> Dumbledore takes too much for granted (iirc) directly show that >> Snape made a huge mistake in Vowing to kill him? What did Snape >> think he was Vowing to do, I wonder? > > Miles: > How could he deny the Vow in the moment he accepts to make it? If he would > deny it in this very situation, Bellatrix would be a deathly threat to him > in the future. Narcissa would not trust him anymore, Draco would be most > probably lost. He manoeuvred himself into a dead end - into Spinner's End, > no escape possible but the only open way left - the Vow. He might think > that > it could be harmless when he started to make it, but had no chance to deny > the last and fatal part of it. Mapgie: I don't understand...what do you mean "deny the Vow the moment he accepts it" and what does that have to do with the conversation in the woods? I don't think Snape refusing the Vow would make Bellatrix more deadly or more of an enemy, or make Narcissa suddenly a problem or lose Draco. Why would it? It's the Blacks in this scene who need something from Snape, as far as they know, not the other way around. He could throw them out on their butts any time he wants. Also, by its very nature the vow is deadly, not harmless.Some think that once the Vow begins you have to agree to everything anyone might say, but of course we don't have exact canon on how they work. I think Snape could have refused to take the Vow or refused the third part with little threat to himself. After all, LV wants Draco to do the deed. I don't think DE!Snape would be in danger from refusing a Vow demanded by a not-so-favored DE and the wife of a not-so-favored who's loyalties are compromised. In my reading, Snape had some reason for taking the Vow that I don't yet know. If he's fishing for information, the Vow has nothing to do with that. All it does is make it all the more important that he get the information later. Snape seems to be the one in control of the situation until he intentionally puts himself under the Vow. There seems no reason he has to take the Vow to protect himself from these two women, who are both so lacking in power in the scene. > Miles: > Voldemort tried to kidnap Harry, but he failed - Harry escaped. "Even the > Dark Lord himself..." Magpie: Barty Crouch did exactly this in GoF--he kidnapped Harry no problem, so I don't think it would be said never to have been done. Miles: > Voldemort tried to kill Harry three times - but he failed. "Even the Dark > Lord himself..." > Maybe Voldemort tried to steal something from Hogwarts, but failed? > Impossible? Not at all. Magpie: If Snape thought this might be what Draco was supposed to do, why did he take a chance on Vowing to do it himself? To me, Snape's line "he means me to do it in the end" has more meaning if Snape knows what's going on. It makes sense that Voldemort would want him to kill Dumbledore in the end, due to the relationship Snape's had with him. -m From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Tue May 8 05:29:01 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 01:29:01 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168423 In a message dated 5/7/2007 7:03:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, horridporrid03 at yahoo.com writes: > >>Sandy: > Do you actually believe that Snape was worried that all of this > unwanted, unsought attention was going to go to Harry's head? Why > would Snape be worried about this considering how much he despises > the boy? There is no way you can convince me that Snape was > worried about this. Betsy Hp: Heh. Well then, instead of aiming towards changing your mind, I'll just try and clarify my own view point. I *do* believe Snape worried about Harry's status as "The Boy Who Lived" and the ego such a title might bring with it. But I'm not sure I'd put it down as a worry *for* Harry's sake. (Though I'm not prepared to write that particular idea off completely.) I can easily see Snape worried that an "egotistical Harry" might disrupt his classroom and contest his authority. So I can understand why Snape might want to stop that particular problem at the get go. > >>Sandy: > I have no doubt that the attention that Harry was getting had > an effect on Snape. Here was James Potter's son, and although new > to Hogwart's, he was already getting more attention than his father > did. That could sure rub some salt into some old wounds. And it > doesn't help matters any that Harry looks so much like James. Betsy Hp: I absolutely agree that his history with James (and possibly even Lily) would have had an effect on Snape's judgement. Snape is, lets face it , an emotional man. And he has lots to be emotional about when it comes to James regardless of his good or evil status. So, yes, I imagine that Harry looking so much like his father (and possibly Harry having his mother's eyes) would have come into play. I can very easily see Snape imagining how James would have handled Harry's fame and deciding (possibly unconsiously) that Harry will react in a similar way. Sandy responds: I have no doubt that Harry's looks came into play and I am sure that Snape did imagine how James would have reacted to having Harry's fame, but I doubt that his anticipation that Harry would react in a similar way was unconscious or subconscious. > >>Sandy: > > This is pure, unadulterated abuse on Snape's part. He is going to > give Harry as hard of a time as he possibly can, and there is > nothing Harry can do about it because he is just a child and Snape > is his teacher. This is a total abuse of power, and Snape uses it > every chance he gets, starting the minute he takes the roll call in > Harry's first class with him. He does it because Harry exists. Betsy Hp: Eh, I seriously doubt Snape zeros in on Harry based merely on Harry's existance. There was some stuff going on (as I pointed out previously) to suggest that Harry was actually quite famous and getting unusual treatment from the students and the staff. And while Snape does set Harry done pretty hard, I'm not sure I'd label it out and out *abuse*. Blood wasn't spilled, nightmares were not had. Goodness, Harry doesn't even get turned on by his House (McGonagall is the professor who achieves that). Sandy responds: This list has hashed out many times the many forms of abuse. Blood doesn't have to spill or nightmares be created for something to amount to abuse. In this case I see it as abuse of authority. Harry did absolutely nothing to provoke Snape's actions or words. As for Harry's House not turning on him; why would it? There were enough Gryffindors in the class to see, and hear, what had happened and know Harry wasn't responsible. The situation with McGonagall was entirely different. > >>Sandy: > > This is your, or anyone else's idea of a good, noble teacher?!? Betsy Hp: Yup! He's already got the class doing a practical lesson on the very first day of Potions (making good use of classroom time) and he's moving around the class, checking on everyone's work and correcting those that need correcting. Seems like good teaching to me. Sandy responds: Checking and correcting everyone's work except Neville's it would seem. How did he miss Neville? > >>Sandy: > He shows blatant favoritism for one student, who just happens to > be in his House (does anyone doubt that Hermione's potion turned > out just as well as Draco's?... Betsy Hp: I don't doubt that Draco is doing an excellent job. And, as we've seen in HBP, Draco responds well to praise, and may well need it more than Hermione. Sandy responds: Hermione is as insecure as they come and needs the praise every bit as much as Draco does. Have you forgotten what her boggart is? BetsyHp: Though I'd also add that it wouldn't surprise me if Draco *were* doing a better job at stewing his slugs than Hermione at this stage in the game. This is a brand new world for Hermione, but Draco's been in it for a while. Sandy responds: Draco may have been in that world for a while but his status was the same as Hermione's. They were both first year's on their first day in Potions class. Given what we know about Hermione I see no reason to believe Draco was doing any better. And, because Hermione *was* new to the Wizarding World I would think any teacher she had would be a little more attentive of her work to see if she is adjusting well. And while we are on this subject I would like to point out that it was a brand new world for Harry too. I have no doubt that Hermione was made aware of the WW at least several days before Harry considering how long it took Harry to finally get his letter. I also have no doubt that Snape knew Harry was new to the WW, which, IMO, makes Snape's treatment of him even more unfair, especially if you lay it to Snape not wanting Harry's fame to go to his head. > >>Sandy: > He calls another student an idiot (good teaching skills > there), Betsy Hp: I think that's actually pretty typical British teacher speak. Or at least, in "To Serve Them All My Days" the really good, well liked teacher routinely called his students idiot boys or little pests or the like when they got up to wrong doing. IIRC, anyway. I got the sense that this was not an over the top way to address a student who'd done something wrong. Not a big insult, IOWs. Sandy responds: Not being British or having read that book(?), I wouldn't know. But being American I consider it a very big insult, and I believe it was meant to be an insult. > >>Sandy: > How can anyone read this passage and have any kind of respect for > Snape - period, much less as a teacher? This passage formed my > opinion of Snape, and nothing he has ever done since has altered > it. Betsy Hp: Me too! Only in a totally opposite way! Isn't that weird? This is the scene where I sat up and took notice. I had been reading along, amused and intrigued, but not really *sold* on the books, and then suddenly, "hello Professor Snape!" My goodness, I don't think I'd expected a character so darkly sexy in a children's book. (Actually, JKR does a pretty good job inserting a bunch of amazingly hot men into her children's books. It's like there's a type for every need; she could seriously do a calander. ) Sandy responds: Oy! I honestly don't understand this at all. Sexy? Hot men? I'm beginning to think I should be worried about myself because I haven't seen a sexy hot man in the books yet. I am amazed at the number of intelligent, well-educated women on this list who, if Snape were a *real* person, would be in love and lust with him and would fall straight into bed with him when they wouldn't have two words for the clean-cut guy who lives next door. Even JKR has given some attention to this phenomenon. His physical description alone is a turn off, but how in the world can anyone be turned on by someone so mean and hateful? I will admit that he is mysterious and intriguing, but sexy?! > >>Sandy: > I am with Dana; the whole attitude on this list towards Snape > nauseates me. This is, of course, my opinion. > Betsy Hp: Oh dear, I probably totally lost you with my last then. Sandy responds: Yes, I'm afraid so. BetsyHp: I will say, you and Dana are not alone. There are quite a few folks still fighting the "Snape is evil!" fight. Only DH will let us know who is ultimately right. Sandy responds: I have yet to use the word *evil* in this thread. Read my description in my next paragraph and you will not see the word evil anywhere. As you say, only DH will answer the question of whether Snape is evil or not. My argument, especially in this thread, is not that he is evil, but that he is mean, nasty, hateful, spiteful, vindictive, totally abusive and unfair to Harry, and that there is nothing good or noble about him, especially his teaching method. What few good qualities he has are totally over-ruled and overwhelmed by the bad in him. IMO, there is absolutely nothing likeable about him, much less lovable. BetsyHp: Though actually, I'm betting that even if Snape turns out good, those that dislike him will still have reason to dislike him. I don't expect JKR to *completely* reconfigure his character. So just as there are battles royal between Sirius lovers and haters, I imagine the battle over Snape will rage on. (I'm not sure how it will work if Snape is really evil, though.) Sandy responds: My dislike for Snape has nothing to do with where his loyalties lie, they are based strictly upon his attitude and actions, therefore, if he does turn out to be on the good side, my feelings will be no different; I still won't like him. > >>Sandy: > But he is a nasty, hateful, spiteful man, and none of the > aforementioned qualities can redeem him from that, in my opinion, > especially because of his method of teaching when it comes to > Harry and Neville. He blatantly picks on both of them, and not to > improve their grades or ability to learn, but because he hates > both of them, albeit for different reasons. Sandy again: As I said above, there is no use of the word evil. Betsy Hp: See, I honestly see nothing personal at all in his treatment of Neville. There's nothing that suggests to me that Snape actually *hates* Neville. Goodness, if Snape did hate Neville, he's been awfully good about it considering the many different buttons Snape could easily push. "My, my another disasterous potion. Won't Grandmother be proud." "I'm sure it's a relief knowing your parents will never know what a failure you are." etc., etc. Sandy responds: Despite not using these tactics I still believe Snape hates Neville. It could be that he perceives Neville as being weak, or it could be that he sees similarities to his self when he was Neville's age. I keep thinking of the fact that the Marauders called Snape Snivellus. Regardless of what the reason, I think there can be no doubt that Snape either hates, or at least highly dislikes Neville. Not, of course, to the same degree he despises Harry. Sandy, who is so pleased to be taking part in this give and take conversation and having enough knowledge of canon to be able to do so. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 8 07:40:25 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 07:40:25 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168424 zgirnius: > This is debatable. The cure was effected by administering a Potion > which includes as its main ingredient the root of a mature > Mandrake plant. Madam Pomfrey administered it, but we do not know > who brewed it. I believe it was Snape, my canon follows. > > CoS, Chapter 9: > "We will be able to cure her, Argus," said Dumbledore > patiently. "Professor Sprout recently managed to procure some > Mandrakes. As soon as they have reached their full size, I will have a potion made that will revive Mrs. Norris." > "I'll make it," Lockhart butted in. "I must have done it a hundred > times. I could whip up a Mandrake Restorative Draught in my sleep - " > "Excuse me," said Snape icily. "But I believe I am the Potions > master at this school." Dana: Granted as Carol points out as well but a pharmaceutical company that produces medication is still not the same as a hospital. The problem is that we are now debating knowledge of magic against a profession that needs compassion to heal the sick. Snape does not have a passion to heal the sick, he has knowledge about how to brew potions and counterbalance Dark Curses. It doesn't state that Snape was the only one that knew Mandrakes can heal the petrified. He can brew Lupin's potion but it doesn't mean Snape would ever have wanted to go to the trouble of inventing such a potion to help the poor werewolves. He might be able to if he wanted to use his knowledge that way, I'm sure, but he does not have to compassion to heal the sick and therefore he is not a healer. He just has knowledge. Tom Riddle knows more about Magic then anyone, even DD admits this, but would that make Voldemort a healer even if he could lift Dark Curses, probably with more ease then Snape could? No, it doesn't because the man does not have compassion to heal the sick. Snape is not a regular Florence Nightingale swooping around the castle to heal the poor little children. To me the above canon quote could easily be read that Snape would not allow someone else to steal his glory of brewing potions and nothing to do with Snape's intent to brew it because these people need to be healed as soon as possible. That DD even needs to have it made instead of him stating; Professor Snape volunteered to have the potion made as soon as the mandrake is ready speaks volume to me too. zgirnius: > This seems to me a semantic argument. Surely pharmacist is one of > the healing professions? In many countries they can sell things > like antibiotics based on a customer's account of their symptoms, > which certainly can cure certain diseases. In response to your > later comments about Snape stabilizing people so the specialists > at St. Mungo's could heal them, surely being a paramedic is also > one of the healing professions? No, a pharmacist is not a healer, he sells drugs and has knowledge about that drugs and he can make the drugs but he can't diagnose all ailments and is actually not legally qualified to do so. The only drugs he can sell to cure an illness (by himself) are those that do not need a prescription, for instance if you go to the pharmacy with an ear infection then sure the pharmacist will give you an antibiotic that he is legally able to sell without a prescription but he does not say to the patient if it doesn't clear within a week come back we try something different, he tells the patient that if it doesn't clear then he or she needs to go see a Doctor. Pharmacists are not in the healing business, they are in a related medical profession of producing and selling drugs, there is a difference, I do not have to go to the Doctor if I have a headache once a month and can go pick up aspirin without a prescription but if I have terrible headaches everyday then I should not go to the pharmacist to get me something stronger to kill my headache, I have to go see my Doctor to see if there is a specific reason why I have headaches everyday, being a Doctor is more then just giving people medication. Most Doctors do not make their own medication, most Doctors actually do not know how to. Snape does not stabilize the people he counterfeits the curse, just like a park ranger can give a victim of a snake bite first aid to give the victim enough time to get to a hospital, antiserum does not cure the victim of the effects of the snake bite it only neutralizes the venom. We do not see Snape heal people besides Draco, his knowledge does not have anything to do with the human body but with the curses themselves. zgirnius: > Ay any rate, in the case of Katie Bell he would have had to make > the diagnosis before treating her, because no one else competent > to do so was available. Apparently, he managed. Dana: Who says he diagnosed Katie and not the necklace? Again I am not trying to downplay Snape's knowledge but you also should not romanticize his efforts in to assuming he has the natural instincts to be a healer because he doesn't posses the compassion for it. Imagine some kid throwing up all over Snape's robe, could you imagine his reaction? I could and it isn't a pleasant one. He has a passion for knowledge and be the best in the things he is interested in but that does not qualify him automatically as a healer. And your suggestion that he might always wanted to become a healer is ridiculous because he came to school knowing more (dark) curses then most kids in the 7th year. Curses are harmful to people, someone with a natural instinct to be a healer would never want to know so many ways to harm another human being. Snape did not know these curses so he could one day counterfeit them, he knew them because he wanted to stand out knowing more about the Dark Arts then any other student. zgirnius: > This is a fallacious argument; its conclusion does not follow from > the premise. That adult Snape knows something does not imply 11 > year old Sevvie was famous for it. For example, I am a Mathematics > PhD; but anyone at my high school will remember me as that kid > that won English and foreign languages prizes. Math was my > weakest subject. No, it isn't because it amplifies that Snape was indeed to his elbows in to the Dark Arts as he proofs when he is called up on this knowledge. The Dark Arts are bad in the Potterverse and it proofs that Sirius wasn't lying that Snape used this knowledge to gain himself some fame and he could only get that fame if he showed people that knowledge just as you describe your prizes will make people remember you for that specific knowledge. It wasn't Defense against the Dark Arts Snape was famous for but the use of the Dark Arts. zgirnius: > Regarding Neville, Goyle, and their boils - I suspect Snape was > sending them off to Madam Pomfrey so that she could administer the > potion for curing them which he had made. He definitely knows how > to - it is the effect Neville's potion in PS/SS *would have* had, > if he had made it correctly. Dana: He does nothing about Hermione's enlarged teeth either. Just because he functions as the pharmacist for the hospital wing does not make Madam Pomfrey work there non-important as you want to imply or that she is just there to give Snape's brewed potions, who says all potions Madam Pomfrey are made by Snape, she could get her supplies from other sources as well, Snape would probably not have all ingredients at hand and he certainly is not brewing potions every second of the day to keep up the medical supplies. Just because the pharmacy in a hospital wing has all medication in stock does not mean you don't need the Doctor's there anymore either. Just because he knows the effect of brewing a potion the wrong way does not make him the diagnosing wonder of Hogwarts. That is the problem isn't it, for some reason everything Snape does is lifted to such a wonderful noble level, no one could ever reach but Snape. His character is romanticized to the maximum contributing characteristics to the man that he just does not posses like being a noble teacher for instance. Snape is not a healer for the simple reason that he does not care about people enough to go out and heal the sick on a regular basis. In Katie's case he both needs to clean up Draco's mess as perform his duty as a staff member that has enough knowledge to do something about it. It doesn't make him more noble because he does but it would make him guilty of murder if he didn't while DD knows Snape has the knowledge to do something. He is not given any medals for it now is he? JMHO. Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 8 09:40:36 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 09:40:36 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168425 BetsyHp: > > I will say, you and Dana are not alone. There are quite a few > > folks still fighting the "Snape is evil!" fight. Only DH will > > let us know who is ultimately right. > Sandy responds: > I have yet to use the word *evil* in this thread. Read my > description in my next paragraph and you will not see the word > evil anywhere. As you say, only DH will answer the question of > whether Snape is evil or not. My argument, especially in this > thread, is not that he is evil, but that he is mean, nasty, > hateful, spiteful, vindictive, totally abusive and unfair to > Harry, and that there is nothing good or noble about him, > especially his teaching method. What few good qualities he has > are totally over-ruled and overwhelmed by the bad in him. IMO, > there is absolutely nothing likeable about him, much less lovable. Dana: I never stated Snape was evil either, one is simply stocked up under this label when you do not consider Snape to be anything like a fluffy bunny, but I'm of the opinion that Snape's hatred could make him betray someone, even if that someone is on the side of good and I also am of the opinion that Snape's need for self-preservation could make him do things that he knows is wrong. Therefore his loyalties lie mainly with himself. I have a big problem with Snape must be good because DD trusts him and presume this therefore must be the only correct analyses of the character. It makes people take an iron and try to iron out all the wrinkles Snape produces in canon himself because he can't be that bad because DD trusts him. The problem is DD also states "it's our choices that makes us who we are, Harry, not our abilities" DD might have seen true remorse in Snape when he came to him but DD makes a big mistake in underestimating Snape's hatred and how much it drives his actions. Snape might not be out there to win himself as much power as possible, even if he misuses his authority to make himself more important then he is and that he likes to be praised for his efforts just like DD tells Draco on the tower, that we want to be recognized for our accomplishments but Snape choices in life are not driven by a moral compass that balances his actions. He spins out of control on several occasions and this makes him a very, and I mean a very dangerous man. Rub him the wrong way and he will be claiming your death on the next tea party. JMHO Dana From muellem at bc.edu Tue May 8 11:34:44 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 11:34:44 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168426 > Dana: > Granted as Carol points out as well but a pharmaceutical company > that produces medication is still not the same as a hospital. > > The problem is that we are now debating knowledge of magic against a > profession that needs compassion to heal the sick. Snape does not > have a passion to heal the sick, he has knowledge about how to brew > potions and counterbalance Dark Curses. > > It doesn't state that Snape was the only one that knew Mandrakes can > heal the petrified. He can brew Lupin's potion but it doesn't mean > Snape would ever have wanted to go to the trouble of inventing such > a potion to help the poor werewolves. He might be able to if he > wanted to use his knowledge that way, I'm sure, but he does not have > to compassion to heal the sick and therefore he is not a healer. He > just has knowledge. > > Tom Riddle knows more about Magic then anyone, even DD admits this, > but would that make Voldemort a healer even if he could lift Dark > Curses, probably with more ease then Snape could? No, it doesn't > because the man does not have compassion to heal the sick. > > Snape is not a regular Florence Nightingale swooping around the > castle to heal the poor little children. To me the above canon quote > could easily be read that Snape would not allow someone else to > steal his glory of brewing potions and nothing to do with Snape's > intent to brew it because these people need to be healed as soon as > possible. That DD even needs to have it made instead of him stating; > Professor Snape volunteered to have the potion made as soon as the > mandrake is ready speaks volume to me too. > > > Dana: > Who says he diagnosed Katie and not the necklace? Again I am not > trying to downplay Snape's knowledge but you also should not > romanticize his efforts in to assuming he has the natural instincts > to be a healer because he doesn't posses the compassion for it. > Imagine some kid throwing up all over Snape's robe, could you > imagine his reaction? I could and it isn't a pleasant one. > > He has a passion for knowledge and be the best in the things he is > interested in but that does not qualify him automatically as a > healer. And your suggestion that he might always wanted to become a > healer is ridiculous because he came to school knowing more (dark) > curses then most kids in the 7th year. Curses are harmful to people, > someone with a natural instinct to be a healer would never want to > know so many ways to harm another human being. Snape did not know > these curses so he could one day counterfeit them, he knew them > because he wanted to stand out knowing more about the Dark Arts then > any other student. > colebiancardi: anyone ever watch House? Hugh Laurie's character is an embittered, sarcastic man who does not have a bed-side manner, but his passion is to find out what disease the patients have. He doesn't really care about the patients, but he does care about how to save them. Personally, if I had a weird illness, I would want House as my doctor, not Florence Nightingale back to the topic, that is how I view Snape. His passion is to find the cure, if you will, by learning what causes the curse and creating a potion for it. He may not be a healer (I really don't think that word describes Snape) but he is a person who creates cures or expands on existing cures to make them better (RE: Lupin, who stated that there weren't that many who would make the Wolfsbane potion and that Snape's potion gave him relief on a monthly basis) Also, another key to Snape's brilliance as a "healer" (again, need a better word here), is the fact that Dumbledore, several times in HBP, refers to Snape - "and for Professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale" HBP UK ed, p 471 - not to mention the Katie Bell incidient and when Dumbledore insists that Harry get Professor Snape after the cave trip It isn't that Snape and Madam Pomfrey don't have similar jobs; instead, I view Madam Pomfrey as a general practictor, whereas Snape is a specialist in curing those curses/illnesses that no one else wants to or can touch. This should not and does not, IMHO, discount Poppy as a healer, nor should does it discount Snape's talent either. Snape doesn't deal with Hermione's teeth because that isn't something he normally may deal with - Madam Pomfrey is the better person for Hermione to go to. colebiancardi From random832 at gmail.com Tue May 8 12:54:29 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 08:54:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: re:Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705080554t4e4ecec7h9cfc2c39f21baa83@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168427 On 5/7/07, Steve wrote: > bboyminn: > The 10x4x7=280 has always been a hopelessly flawed > estimate. It assumes many facts that are not in evidence. > > bboyminn: > > I have always suspected that 1,000 was the capacity of > Hogwarts, not its current enrollment. We see that there > are many classrooms that are unused, and many areas that > are being used for storage, that indicates that the > school is /not/ at full capacity. Random832: 1000 is not likely to be full capacity for a school that size - I went to a high school that had over 3000 students and hogwarts definitely seems like it's larger (or at least comparable, as an absolute minimum) in terms of the size of the building. So you think that the enrollment has to be significantly more than 280 but significantly less than 1000 (significant enough in both cases that you put forward arguments against both numbers)? > > Pippin: > > ... > > > > My point was that whether or not Neville's fear is > > rational is a separate issue from whether or not the > > object of his fear should be shamed in front of the > > class, and "he had it coming anyway" is hardly > > something that Lupin is in a position to judge. > > bboyminn: > [...] > Neville's greatest fear was Snape, which makes sense, > and while his classmates did get a laugh out of it, I > think they fully understood it. I don't see Neville > shamed, Random832: Wait, what? Ah, I see what you're misinterpreting. he's saying that _Snape_ (the object of his fear) was "shamed in front of the class", and it was because in Lupin's eyes, Snape "had it coming". --Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 8 14:16:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 14:16:39 -0000 Subject: House v Snape was Snape as Neville's teacher / lots of House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168428 > colebiancardi: > > anyone ever watch House? Hugh Laurie's character is an embittered, > sarcastic man who does not have a bed-side manner, but his passion is > to find out what disease the patients have. He doesn't really care > about the patients, but he does care about how to save them. > Personally, if I had a weird illness, I would want House as my doctor, > not Florence Nightingale > > back to the topic, that is how I view Snape. His passion is to find > the cure, if you will, by learning what causes the curse and creating > a potion for it. He may not be a healer (I really don't think that > word describes Snape) but he is a person who creates cures or expands > on existing cures to make them better (RE: Lupin, who stated that > there weren't that many who would make the Wolfsbane potion and that > Snape's potion gave him relief on a monthly basis) > > Also, another key to Snape's brilliance as a "healer" (again, need a > better word here), is the fact that Dumbledore, several times in HBP, > refers to Snape - "and for Professor Snape's timely action when I > returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to > tell the tale" HBP UK ed, p 471 - not to mention the Katie Bell > incidient and when Dumbledore insists that Harry get Professor Snape > after the cave trip > > It isn't that Snape and Madam Pomfrey don't have similar jobs; > instead, I view Madam Pomfrey as a general practictor, whereas Snape > is a specialist in curing those curses/illnesses that no one else > wants to or can touch. This should not and does not, IMHO, discount > Poppy as a healer, nor should does it discount Snape's talent either. > Snape doesn't deal with Hermione's teeth because that isn't something > he normally may deal with - Madam Pomfrey is the better person for > Hermione to go to. > Alla: Awwww, House, the other piece in my puzzle of why I hate Snape, when I usually like characters like him. Now, I just want to talk about House and Snape in general, but I do agree with you that Snape cannot be called a healer, but is likely to be the person who finds cures. The thing is, IMO we don't even know that he can be called that. Sure, he certainly knows cures for many dark curses, but while in House's situation we IMO **see** that House just as Holmes interested in solving the puzzle, hehe, interesting in figuring out the cure just for the sake of it, Snape IMO may not have even been interested in that, but simply have self serving purposes in knowing the cures. OR you can be right of course and he is interested in solving the puzzle, finding the cure just as House does. But it is interesting to me, because I certainly agree that House, attitude wise has lots and lots in common with Snape, or so it seems to be. So, why again do I like him and hate Snape? I mean, I want to say because he does not blow off at kids, House that is, but he certainly does, so that's not it. I actually started out hating House as well ? not because he was sarcastic, but because he certainly seemed to care less about **life** of person who was not his patient. The first episode I watched was about two gay girls, where House had no gripes to get a transplant from one of them, even knowing that it could be life threatening and conceiving the information that other girl planned to leave her. So, hated him, but funnily that hatred really did not last for more than couple of episodes. And I think I can figure out the differences for me now. I think that even though House does not seem to care for emotional well being of his patients and certainly has plenty of harsh words for them, we **had** been shown that no matter how hard he tries to show the world to the contrary, he **does** care at least a little bit. I am yet to see it with Snape. For example, no matter how often House belittles his team of youngsters, young doctors I mean, it was **enough** for me when he told Cameron once ** I am proud of you**. So, then when he dishes out the words in other 99%, I know that he can and does feel differently sometimes. Truly, it would have worked wonders for me with Snape, if he while continuing belittling Neville or Harry, **once** just once told either of them, or both ? job well done. What I am trying to say is that all that I see in Snape is dark, black hatred. I see House as much more multilayered character. I think it is also very important for me that I know that House loved the person, I know that he is capable of that feeling, I can see him capable of friendship too. Something, which I am yet to see of Snape. I mean I know he is friendly with Malfoy family, I am just wondering if somebody more decent feels something positive towards him. I guess, what I am trying to say is that House for me wins hands down as more sympathetic character. Ah, and of course to me House has a **very** good excuse for his bad manners, he is in constant, real, not imaginary pain, while Snape as far as I know is not. JMO, Alla From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue May 8 14:43:10 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 14:43:10 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher and noble sadist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > Oh, I see. You'd be okay with Snape if he had to hide what he is? Well, sure. Lots of people have to hide things about themselves to be part of "decent society." In fact, I'd go so far as to say that everyone does. That's part of what makes such a society decent -- that people simply do not feel it is acceptable to display the dark sides of their personalities. If that dark side is dominant, such people are just plain out of luck, but that makes society no less decent, or in any way excuses such people from displaying their "true" selves. > > Anyway, if Snape was made to feel once again that he is not welcome > in decent society, despite that his students have a better than average > pass rate and that he conducts himself as well on the whole as other > respected teachers do, it would be hard to blame him if he did go > back to the DE's. Well, once again, sure. I'd say that any society that would find Snape acceptable and make him feel valued and welcome is most certainly not a decent society. As C.S. Lewis once observed in "The Great Divorce," decent people, indeed good people, do not tolerate being surrounded by a midden simply because some twisted souls cannot bear the smell of roses. Lupinlore From finks213 at yahoo.com Tue May 8 15:13:07 2007 From: finks213 at yahoo.com (finks213) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 15:13:07 -0000 Subject: Snape Never Quits Teaching.. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168430 I just finished re-reading the Half-blood Prince today.... I think a telling moment is after Snape has killed Dumbledore, and he and Harry start fighting outside Hagrid's hut, and Snape yells at Harry, "Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" Snape isn't evil..He knew he had to kill Dumbledore, and he hated and his face was filled with revulsion.... finks213 From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 8 16:43:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:43:47 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape Never Quits Teaching.. Message-ID: <13175608.1178642627574.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168431 From: finks213 >I think a telling moment is after Snape has killed Dumbledore, and he >and Harry start fighting outside Hagrid's hut, and Snape yells at >Harry, "Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your >mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" That's a key moment for the DDM!Snape crowd, those who believe that Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders (and a large subset of us believe that there was absolutely no way that Dumbledore would have lived, in any case, for various well-foreshadowed reasons, so Snape's AK spell was more DD choosing the form rather than the time of his death). It could be Snape hurling insults, but the form seems to be, "I have to leave, but this is what you need to do to defeat Tommy the V!" Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 8 17:43:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 17:43:21 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168432 Betsy Hp wrote: > Yup! He's already got the class doing a practical lesson on the > very first day of Potions (making good use of classroom time) and > he's moving around the class, checking on everyone's work and > correcting those that need correcting. Seems like good teaching to > me. > > Sandy responds: > Checking and correcting everyone's work except Neville's it would seem. How did he miss Neville? Carol responds: Snape could not have anticipated that Neville would melt Seamus's cauldron. Not even Crabbe and Goyle, dunderheads though they apparently are, has ever melted a cauldron, so far as we know, much less someone else's. Snape didn't know his students yet, and he was checking everyone's potions, not knowing who had an aptitude for the subject and who didn't. Draco was doing it right and was consequently praised. Neville, presumably, was doing it wrong, but Snape at that moment was examining Draco's stewed slugs, pointing out that they'd been done correctly, when "clouds of acid green smoke and a loud hissing filled the dungeon. Neville had somehow managed to melt Seaumus's cauldron into a twisted blob, and their potion was seeping across the stone floor, burning holes in people's shoes" (159). Notice that the first thing Snape does is to "clear. . . the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand." The next thing he does is to tell Neville what he did wrong and then order Seamus to take Neville to the hospital wing. *Of course* Snape is angry. Any teacher would be. This is a simple potion that a brand-new student ought to be able to concoct. No one else, even though they're all as inexperienced as Neville, is melting cauldrons and endangering fellow students. Snape takes the situation in hand quite effectively, IMO. True, no RL teacher in these postmodern times would dare to call a student an "idiot boy," but the WW operates by different rules. (Karkaroff later calls a boy "disgusting" fo dribbling food down his robes, and, IIRC, even Flitwick makes Seamus write that he's a wizard, not a baboon, when his spell carelessly hits Flitwick himself.) And carelessness in Potions class really is, if not idiotic, at least dangerous and therefore irresponsible. Imagine how Seamus felt seeing his cauldron melted into a blob. (I do wonder, BTW, what happens to all the cauldrons Neville melts. Does snape restore them or replace them?) The point docking is markedly unfair, but it's only one point, and JKR is setting Snape us as her pseudovillain for the book. As I see it, Snape handles the situation quite well for a teacher with an acerbic personality and a chip on his shoulder. > Betsy Hp: > I don't doubt that Draco is doing an excellent job. And, as we've seen in HBP, Draco responds well to praise, and may well need it more than Hermione. > > > Sandy responds: > Hermione is as insecure as they come and needs the praise every bit as much as Draco does. Have you forgotten what her boggart is? > Carol: Chances are that Hermione is following directions; if so, she's at least not being criticized. (The narrator's remark that Snape is criticizing everyone except Draco is Harry's perception, but it does indicate that he's criticizing Slytherins as well as Gryffindors.) We don't see him reacting to Hermione's potion because he apparently hasn't yet reached their table when the accident happens. As for Hermione's Boggart, no one even sees it until she fails that part of her exam because Lupin doesn't give her a chance to repel it in class, and Boggarts don't appear until PoA. How is Snape, who has never seen Hermione before, supposed to know what her Boggart is? All he knows is that she's already shown herself to be "an insufferable know-it-all." (The students hold the same view of her, as we see in PoA.) In any case, I'll grant you that snape is not concerned with his students' psyches. He's concerned with their learning the subject, following directions, and not endangering fellow students with their carelessness. The "promote students' self-esteem" educational philosophy is fairly new and has not reached the WW yet (fortunately for them, considering the attitudes it produces in students--and I speak from experience). Yes, "idiot boy" was meant to be an insult, but the point of yelling at a kid, as any parent knows, is to prevent him from making the same mistake again. Mrs. Weasley and Neville's gran employ the same disciplinary philosophy when they send Howlers to Ron and Neville, respectively. No, it's not effective for most kids, but what adult wouldn't yell at a kid for, say, setting fire to the carpet because of a carelessly performed experiment with his chemistry set? Sandy: > Oy! I honestly don't understand this at all. Sexy? I am amazed at the number of intelligent, well-educated women on this list who, if Snape were a *real* person, would be in love and lust with him and would fall straight into bed with him when they wouldn't have two words for the clean-cut guy who lives next door. Even JKR has given some attention to this phenomenon. His physical description alone is a turn off, but how in the world can anyone be turned on by someone so mean and hateful? I will admit that he is mysterious and intriguing, but sexy?! > Carol: Thanks for the concession, Sandy. For some of us, "mysterious and intriguing" *is* sexy. As for the physical description, I think we need to look at Snape as described in "Spinner's End," where the Harry filter is removed, to get an objective desription. Still sallow, still black-eyed, still with curtains of long black hair on each side of his face, but the greasiness, the yellow teeth, even the large hooked nose are not mentioned, leading me to believe that these features are exaggerated in Harry's mind (though, granted, he does seem to have had greasy hair as a teenager. So did I). Surely, Narcissa wouldn't take his hands in hers and kiss them if he were utterly repugnant. And his intelligence, sharp wit, and power (he appears to be the third most powerful wizard in the books) are appealing to many readers, as is the way he sweeps out of a room with his black cloak billowing behind him (like a character in a gothic novel). I'm not trying to convince you that he's sexy, just trying to explain his appeal to readers like me who can't get enough of him. Sandy responds: > I have yet to use the word *evil* in this thread. Read my description in my next paragraph and you will not see the word evil anywhere. As you say, only DH will answer the question of whether Snape is evil or not. My argument, especially in this thread, is not that he is evil, but that he is mean, nasty, hateful, spiteful, vindictive, totally abusive and unfair to Harry, and that there is nothing good or noble about him, especially his teaching method. What few good qualities he has are totally over-ruled and overwhelmed by the bad in him. IMO, there is absolutely nothing likeable about him, much less lovable. Carol responds: I guess you're using "evil" to mean on Voldemort's side. To me, "mean, nasty, hateful, spiteful, vindictive, totally abusive and unfair" with "nothing good or noble about him" comes pretty close to evil. I would say "sarcastic and occasionally unfair but highly courageous and loyal to Dumbledore." And surely, saving Harry's life or attempting to on at least three occasions and saving Draco's life, thereby preventing Harry from becoming a killer, constitutes something good. Likeable, perhaps not, from your perspective. And I don't think anyone, even those who consider him sexy, has ever called him loveable. Speaking only for myself, his most admirable quality seems to be his physical and moral courage, showing his Dark Mark to Fudge to convince him that Voldemort is back, facing torture and even death to return to Voldemort as a spy on DD's orders, and so forth. Of course, if he turns out to be ESE! or OFH!, I'll have to rethink my position. :-) > Sandy responds: > My dislike for Snape has nothing to do with where his loyalties lie, they are based strictly upon his attitude and actions, therefore, if he does turn out to be on the good side, my feelings will be no different; I still won't like him. Carol: Yes, feelings are feelings, and no amount of intellectual understanding can change them. I wish I could like James Potter and Sirius Black, but I can't stand their conduct in Snape's Worst memroy, and it sets my teeth on edge every time Black calls Snape Snivellus. We can't help our feelings, and I don't think anyone is asking you to like him. I might as well try to persuade you to like caviar if you detest it. Sandy: > Despite not using these tactics I still believe Snape hates Neville. It could be that he perceives Neville as being weak, or it could be that he sees similarities to his self when he was Neville's age. Regardless of what the reason, I think there can be no doubt that Snape either hates, or at least highly dislikes Neville. Not, of course, to the same degree he despises Harry. Carol responds: I think what he despises is weakness and incompetence. In Neville's case, it apparently has to do solely with his endangering fellow students in Potions and his continued failure to follow directions. "What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?" he asks in PoA, the last book in which we see him specifically picking on Neville. In OoP, he thinks that Harry is fighting with Neville and orders Harry to "release Longbottom, Potter, or it will be detention" (chapter 24), and he saves Neville from Crabbe's chokehold: "And, Crabbe, loosen your hold a little' if Longbottom suffocates, it will mean a lot of tedious paperwork , and I am afraid I shall have to mention it on your reference if you ever apply for a job" (chapter 32). Now granted, his reasons for asking Crabbe to let Neville breathe are typically Snapish, but he can hardly express genuine concern for Neville in front of Umbridge or Draco when he is explicitly concealing his loyalties and his understanding of Harry's message about Padfoot. As for bullying Harry, a more complex matter, he has also saved Harry's life in SS/PS, conjured stretchers for him and three others to save them from a werewolf any any dementors who return to the scene, claimed that HRH were confunded when they attacked him, provided Umbridge with fake Veritaserum to prevent her from learning the truth about Black's and DD's whereabouts when she questioned Harry, sent the DEs to save Harry and five others at the MoM, saved Harry from expulsion and worse by saving Draco's life, given Harry detention instead of expulsion after the Sectumsempra incident, and saved Harry from a Crucio. I also think he did his best to teach Harry Occlumency and even gave him faint praise on two occasions. So I *think* he's concerned for Harry's safety and he doesn't want an arrogant, overly confident, weak, inept, rule-breaking Prophecy Boy. He may be going about it in the wrong way, and he has certainly initiated and perpetuated the antagonism between himself and Harry (though Harry also contributes to it, more so with each new book), but I don't think he would pick on Harry specifically, despite Harry's resemblance to James, if it weren't for his fear that Harry's mediocrity and contempt for authority (as Snape sees it) will lead to disaster against Voldemort. (I know that's just my interpretation and that others see it differently, but I really don't think it's *just* about James. It's about Harry vs. Voldemort. If Harry fails, the WW is lost. And if Snape is DDM, Harry's failure is the last thing he wants.) I think that Spy/Order member!Snape is noble and courageous, but Teacher!Snape is less easily categorized--sarcastic, clever, and knowledgeable but perhaps misguided in his teaching methods, wanting to force both Harry and Neville to follow directions (and rules, in Harry's case) without revealing the reasons for his concern either to Harry himself or to his Slytherin classmates. I don't think he actually dislikes Harry on the first day of class any more than he dislikes any other "dunderhead," but he dislikes Harry's unearned celebrity status, which could easily lead him to become another James (who died facing Voldemort). Carol, who thinks that Teacher!Snape is hiding his hopes and fears for Harry behind his spite and that saving Harry's life outweighs unfair point docking by a long shot From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 8 18:47:41 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 14:47:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Observation on potions; and: is this a mystery? Message-ID: <7960673.1178650062009.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168433 Combining topics to keep my own posts down, as both are short: In culinary circles, there's a saying: bakers make good chefs, but chefs don't make good bakers. This is not a truism, but based on the fact that bakers have to deal with much smaller margins of error than chefs do. A chef can experiment, add a bit of this and a bit of that, make allowances for temperature and time, but if a baker strays too far from the recipe, it's not just a less than perfect result; it's often a disaster. I see potions as like baking. Minor variations can be made, which may even improve the product, but if you don't know precisely why you are not following the instructions, the result can be a disaster. There's an old carpenter's saying: Measure twice, cut once. This appears to be at least doubly true in potions. Now for the unrelated possible mystery: Is anybody else here puzzled by, when Harry repeats Hermione's observations on Umbridge to Minny the Cat, Minny replies (I don't have the exact quote, but this is pretty close): "At least you've been listening to Miss Granger." How does Minny know that this came from Hermoine? Maybe Herminny is closer than we think to our Minny? Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 8 19:51:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 19:51:01 -0000 Subject: SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE - JKR updated website ;) Spoilers? Maybe? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168434 And where it matters not the less, to me anyways :) She answered some canon questions. Now if I had **any** doubts that she is going for sobbing story with Draco Malfoy, I have none anymore, hehe. Poor dear could not produce Patronus before HBP, tee hee. But even this she answered in a tricky way, IMO. Can he not produce because he is not good enough or because he did not have any happy memories? Heeee, Harry IS talented, in case anybody doubted. Loved that. Oh, and do you see - Tonks and Murtle are not in Slytherin either. Another opportunity lost, if you ask me, heheh. There are some other answers as well. Alla. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue May 8 20:06:22 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 20:06:22 -0000 Subject: SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE - JKR updated website ;) Spoilers? Maybe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168435 Alla: > And where it matters not the less, to me anyways :) > > She answered some canon questions. Now if I had **any** doubts that she > is going for sobbing story with Draco Malfoy, I have none anymore, hehe. > > Poor dear could not produce Patronus before HBP, tee hee. But even this > she answered in a tricky way, IMO. > > Can he not produce because he is not good enough or because he did not > have any happy memories? Magpie: Err...neither as far as we know. She said that as of the end of HBP Draco has no idea how to produce a Patronus--just like most every other kid at Hogwarts (except those who got privately taught, such as Harry and the DA)--because that spell isn't taught in school. So it's not really a spoiler--Draco had never been taught about Patronuses as far as we know. It doesn't necessarily indicate he's got to ultimately have a sad story or not. Harry's already been lauded for his talent in producing a Patronus in OotP (though others in the DA can also produce one by then). But Draco has not been thoroughly judged and found inadequate in that particular answer. It's the same as if she'd been asked what Draco saw in the Mirror of Erised and she said he'd never looked into it so nobody knows. I may be being too optimistic myself, but I thought she was potentially trickier on the question of Draco's wand. I had, like the questioner, assumed Hawthorn to begin with for the month (plus it seemed to fit). She was asked his wand qualities and only gave the wood, with the story of how she'd chosen his, like Harry's, for the personal characteristics and then discovered she'd chosen the wood associated with his birthday in the Celtic chart. So she left out the core, which is part of the wand description. But that might mean nothing. -m From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue May 8 20:05:31 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 20:05:31 -0000 Subject: SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE - JKR updated website ;) Spoilers? Maybe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168436 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Oh, and do you see - Tonks and Murtle are not in Slytherin either. > Another opportunity lost, if you ask me, heheh. > > Alla. > Hickengruendler: And would you have counted Myrtle as a sympathetic Slytherin? ;-) I'm glad with her answers, by the way. I love Hufflepuff and am destavated, that it seems to get hardly any respect in Canon by the other characters and in Fandom, making a generally beloved character like Tonks a Hufflepuff can only help. And Ravenclaw so fits Myrtle. Smug as she was, that cedric took so long solving the egg riddle. ;-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 8 20:11:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 20:11:14 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168437 Dana: > > Granted as Carol points out as well but a pharmaceutical company > > that produces medication is still not the same as a hospital. Carol responds: Actually, my point was that the teachers and staff members at Hogwarts are essentially specialists both in and out of the classroom. It's Sprouts's job to grow the Mandrakes, Snape's job to brew the Mandrake Restorative Potion, and Pomfrey's job to administer the potion--a logical division of labor based on the specialized knowledge or duties of each staff member. I certainly wasn't saying that a pharmaceutical company is the same as a hospital, but where would the hospital be without the pharmaceutical company? Dana: He might be able to if he wanted to use his knowledge that way, I'm sure, but he does not have to compassion to heal the sick and therefore he is not a healer. He just has knowledge. Carol: A lot of people are dependent on his knowledge and skill, including the Basilisk's victims and Madam Pomfrey herself, as well as Lupin in PoA and DD, Katie Bell, and Draco in HBP. (I do think that Snape has compassion in Draco's case, but that's beside the point.) In the early books, we see Snape's knowledge and skill as a Potion maker (and in HBP, we see that he's actually a genius who improves on standard methods for preparing potions). It's only in HBP that we see him applying what for want of a better word I've been calling Healing skills. Life-saving skills might be better--first aid for Dark curses will do. the point is, he has skill and knowledge that no one else at Hogwarts has, neither the great Dumbledore nor Madam Pomfrey (who is not so much a doctor diagnosing ailments as a nurse dispensing treatments; she is referred to as a nurse in one of the books, IIRC). No one is arguing that snape has compassion or that he's a Florence Nightingale. I can't imagine him changing jobs with Madam Pomfrey. They complement and rely on each other. Both are needed, just as human beings require both a heart and a brain to live. Dana: > > Who says he diagnosed Katie and not the necklace? Again I am not trying to downplay Snape's knowledge but you also should not romanticize his efforts in to assuming he has the natural instincts to be a healer because he doesn't posses the compassion for it. ,sent> Carol responds: I agree with you regarding the necklace. McGonagall sent the opal necklace to Snape because only he could detect (and presumably remove) the curse on the necklace (and in any case, it was his job as DADA teacher to deal with Dark magic--good thing the DADA teacher wasn't Umbridge or Lockhart!). But it's also Snape, not Madam Pomfrey, who stabilizes Katie so that she can be sent to St. Mungo's for further treatment. Snape is a teacher, not a professional healer, and he can't spend months at Katie's side watching over her. Not even Madam Pomfrey can do that. She needs a hospital and a full staff of healers. Nevertheless, Snape saved her life, and no one else at Hogwarts could have done that. I don't think that anyone is "romanticizing his instincts." We Snape fans are just surprised and delighted to find this new side of Snape, who applies his knowledge of the Dark Arts to *defend against* the Dark Arts. Call him DADA!Snape or Life-Saver!Snape if you think that Healer!Snape has the wrong connotations. What I had in mind by using the term Healer!Snape was essentially Life-Saving!Snape, without whom DD would have died before HBP and Katie and Draco would have died during it. (Even the Bezoar incident ties in since Snape's knowledge, as opposed to Snape himself, saves Ron's life.) It's a new side of Snape that we haven't seen, and it partially explains DD's reliance on and trust in him. He knows more about countering Dark magic than anyone on the staff because he knows Dark magic itself (though he only rarely uses Dark magic, inventing Sectumsempra and casting a single AK). Perhaps his knowledge of the Dark Arts is theoretical whereas his knowledge of DADA, like his knowledge of Potions, is applied. It is all, of course, intellectual; no one is calling him the Potions master/DADA teacher/Order member/DE with a heart of gold. So we're dealing with semantics here, I think. "Healer" has the wrong connotations in your view; and certainly "pharmacist" doesn't cover what he does, nor does "paramedic," since he does both jobs, and in Draco's case, actually heals him as well (and recommends dittany to prevent scarring and finish the job). The point I'm making is that he has a specialized knowledge that no one else at Hogwarts has. No one else could have saved Katie or Draco (or DD from the ring Horcrux). "It is Severus that I need," says Dumbledore after the cave (of course, unforeseen events interfered and Snape doesn't have the chance to do whatever DD has in mind here). And when Harry says, regarding Snape's preventing a rapid spread of the curse that attacked Katie Bell, "Why him? Why not Madam Pomfrey?" DD says, "Professor Snape knows much more about the Dark Arts than Madam Pomfrey, Harry" (HBP Am. ed. 259). IOW, Madam Pomfrey is qualified to treat the ordinary magical injuries that routinely occur at Hogwarts as the result of Quidditch and such dangerous classes as Potions, COMC, and Trnasfiguration--not to mention kids hexing each other in the corridors. But a dangerous Dark curse that could actually kill a student calls for expertise of a different sort--Defense Against the Dark Arts, to be specific. Compassion has nothing to do with it. It's skill and knowledge that matter here. Dana: And your suggestion that he might always wanted to become a healer is ridiculous because he came to school knowing more (dark) curses then most kids in the 7th year. Curses are harmful to people, someone with a natural instinct to be a healer would never want to know so many ways to harm another human being. Snape did not know these curses so he could one day counterfeit them, he knew them because he wanted to stand out knowing more about the Dark Arts then any other student. Carol: Please, let's not call other people's arguments ridiculous. Let's just address the question at hand and see whether your logic applies. You say that Sirius black's statement that eleven-year-old Severus came to school knowing more curses than most seventh years makes nonsense of the argument that the adult Snape was a healer. Setting aside the semantics of "healer," which have already been discussed, an eleven-year-old's abilities and attitudes are not necessarily an indication of what he will become. Nor is Sirius Black a reliable witness regarding Severus Snape (or vice versa). But suppose that elveen-year-old Sevvie really did know more curses than most seventh years. You're supplying the word "dark." It's not in the text. How many seventh-years in the books go around casting Dark curses? We've seen Slytherins hexing Gryffindors by making their eyebrows grow, and Draco makes Hermione's teeth grow (though he was aiming at Harry), but how that's worse than Harry's spell, which causes Goyle to develop boils (though he was aiming at Draco), I don't know. Harry certainly doesn't think that the HBP's clever little hexes (the toenail hex, Langlock, Levicorpus) are Dark; he happily uses them himself on Crabbe, Filch, and others. I think you're assuming that the word "curse" applies only to Dark spells, but to me it seems like a general term for hexes and jinxes (minor curses). Note the list of curses at the Lexicon: Babbling Curse, Blasting Curse, Body-Bind Curse, Cruciatus Curse, Curse of the Bogies, Entrail-Expelling Curse, Impediment Curse, Imperius Curse, Jelly-Fingers curse, Killing Curse, Leg-Locker Curse, Reductor Curse, Sponge-Knees Curse, Thief's Curse, Unforgivable Curses. I doubt that seventh-years routinely cast Unforgiveable Curses or the Entrail Expelling Curse, but probably most would know the other curses on the list. Harry himself has used the Body-Bind Curse (Petrificus Totalus), which we first see when Hermione uses it on Neville, and the Impediment Curse (Impedimenta) and the Reductor Curse (Reducto) from the Third Task onward; Draco casts the Leg-Locker casts (Locomotor Mortis) on Neville, but Sirius casts it on Severus, so it's probably not Dark magic. (Harry also, of course, attempts the Cruciatus Curse, but not until his fifth and sixth years, and even then it fails or is deflected. But he doesn't go around routinely casting it, nor do "most seventh years.") Note, too, that when Lily tells James to "take the curse off [Severus]" in SWM, she's referring to Sirius's Locomotor Mortis (OoP Am. ed. 648), not to any "harmful" curse. So, IMO, Black is speaking rather loosely (and perhaps exaggerating the eleven-year-old Severus's precocity) when he says that Severus knew more curses than half the seventh years. He's certainly not talking about a little boy going around casting Unforgiveable Curses or any kind of Dark curses, or he'd have been expelled at the very least. Even Sectumsempra, the lone Dark curse that we know Severus to have invented, was either never used or only used once in a very controlled form, depending on your reading of SWM, and it was not invented until his fifth or sixth year (again depending on your reading of the scene). Again, had he used it as Harry did, he'd have been expelled and perhaps imprisoned. Where Sirius Black got the idea that "the little oddball" was "up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts" (quoted from memory), I don't know, but I doubt that he based that judgment on the assortment of hexes and jinxes that the precocious Severus knew as a first-year. Or, if he did, perhaps it was a mistaken judgment. We can't say what was in Severus's mind because we just don't know. At any rate, knowing a lot of hexes and jinxes as a little kid has nothing to do with later developing healing skills as those skills relate to Dark magic. That's the adult Snape, a former Death Eater who really does know Dark magic and uses that knowledge to defend against Dark curses and save lives. I'm not sure what you mean by "counterfeit," which means "fake," as in "counterfeit money." Possibly you mean "counter"? In any case, of course, Severus didn't learn those curses so that he could one day counter them. We're not sure why he knew them. Maybe it was self-defense; maybe he just experimented with various hexes and jinxes from an early age. Note that the first book to catch Harry's eye in Diagon Alley is "Curses and Countercurses (Bewitch Your Friends and Befuddle Your Enemies with the Latest Revenges: Hair Loss, Jelly-Legs, Tongue-tying and Much, Much More") (SS Am. ed. 80). Rather than scolding Harry for his interest in such a book, Hagrid merely tells him that he'll need "a lot more study before yeh get ter that level" (80). Severus, it appears, was already at that level and beyond when he entered his first year. Had Harry known him then, he would probably have envied him (and perhaps held his skill against him because he was a Slytherin rather than a Gryffindor). But the interest in curses for both revenge against enemies and showing off for friends looks very much like a typical schoolboy thing to me. Unless you want to consider Harry a Dark wizard in the making. ;-) Colebiancardi: His [Snape's] passion is to find the cure, if you will, by learning what causes the curse and creating a potion for it. He may not be a healer (I really don't think that word describes Snape) but he is a person who creates cures or expands on existing cures to make them better. Carol responds: I don't think that Snape finds a potion to cure a curse; it seems to me that potions have their antidotes and curses have their countercurses. Snape, both as a boy and a man, is interested in both. As a boy, he exercises his ingenuity by creating clever spells, both hexes and useful charms like Muffliato, and by improving existing potions through research. I'm not sure that he has invented any potions though I don't doubt that given the opportunity (at Hogwarts, he has the facilities but lacks the time), he could do so. I think he's perfectly suited to be a researcher at St. Mungo's (though he's also be useful for wand-on countering of Dark spells--leave tending the patients and nursing them to the Florence Nightingales and Madam Pomfreys). > Colebiancardi: > Also, another key to Snape's brilliance as a "healer" (again, need a better word here), is the fact that Dumbledore, several times in HBP, refers to Snape - "and for Professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale" HBP UK ed, p 471 - not to mention the Katie Bell incidient and when Dumbledore insists that Harry get Professor Snape after the cave trip > > It isn't that Snape and Madam Pomfrey don't have similar jobs; instead, I view Madam Pomfrey as a general practictor, whereas Snape is a specialist in curing those curses/illnesses that no one else wants to or can touch. This should not and does not, IMHO, discount Poppy as a healer, nor should does it discount Snape's talent either. Carol: Or Snape is a researcher who sometimes has to step in as a specialist healer, and Madam Pomfrey is a nurse who administers prepared potions like Skele-gro, heals routine injuries like broken bones and broken noses, and deals with hexing in the hallways, whether it's boils or elongated teeth. Dark magic like the curse on the opal necklace is beyond her skill, just as patient monitoring of an injured student is simply impossible for Snape (who rescues Montague from a toilet and saves Draco from Sectumsempra, but sends them both to Madam Pomfrey to finish the job). Colebiancardi: Snape doesn't deal with Hermione's teeth because that isn't something he normally may deal with - Madam Pomfrey is the better person for Hermione to go to. Carol: Right. Whether he knows the countercurse or not, it's not his job to stand there holding up a mirror for Hermione and asking her to tell him when to stop shortening her teeth. It's his job to restore order and get the kids into the classroom for their Potions lesson. There's a division of labor at Hogwarts in which staff members perform their own jobs, not someone else's. For Snape to step in and fix Hermione's teeth would be as inappropriate as Lockhart offering to make the Mandrake Restorative Potion (Snape's job) or fix Harry's broken arm (Madam Pomfrey's job). Someone (I think Dana in the post that Colebiancardi is responding to) mentions that Madam Pomfrey uses potions other than those Snape makes. That seems to be true; I think Skele-gro and Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious something or Other (used on Ron after the brain attack) can be ordered from an apothecary. But I doubt that she brews any potions herself. She never seems to leave the hospital wing except to sleep and possibly eat). For the most part, it seems, the Potions master brews the potions and the nurse or whatever we want to call Madam Pomfrey administers them. Carol, who agrees that Snape in Madam Pomfrey's role would be absurd, but so would Madam Pomfrey in Snape's From juli17 at aol.com Tue May 8 20:33:33 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 16:33:33 -0400 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teache... In-Reply-To: <1178627698.870.17505.m41@yahoogroups.com> References: <1178627698.870.17505.m41@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C95FC7480CB994-4E0-3120@webmail-da03.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168438 Dana: > > He has a passion for knowledge and be the best in the things he is > interested in but that does not qualify him automatically as a > healer. And your suggestion that he might always wanted to become a > healer is ridiculous because he came to school knowing more (dark) > curses then most kids in the 7th year. Curses are harmful to people, > someone with a natural instinct to be a healer would never want to > know so many ways to harm another human being. Snape did not know > these curses so he could one day counterfeit them, he knew them > because he wanted to stand out knowing more about the Dark Arts then > any other student. > colebiancardi: anyone ever watch House? Hugh Laurie's character is an embittered, sarcastic man who does not have a bed-side manner, but his passion is to find out what disease the patients have. He doesn't really care about the patients, but he does care about how to save them. Personally, if I had a weird illness, I would want House as my doctor, not Florence Nightingale back to the topic, that is how I view Snape. His passion is to find the cure, if you will, by learning what causes the curse and creating a potion for it. He may not be a healer (I really don't think that word describes Snape) but he is a person who creates cures or expands on existing cures to make them better (RE: Lupin, who stated that there weren't that many who would make the Wolfsbane potion and that Snape's potion gave him relief on a monthly basis) Julie: I love House, the character and the show! A doctor (or healer) is not synonymous with compassion by any means, in fiction or in real life. I agree that House is more interested in the disease than the patient, though I do admire his determination to "heal" his patients of their specific diseases to the point of ignoring any rules that might interfere. In that way his patient's welfare always comes first, whether or not he gives a damn about the patient as a person. (He certainly rarely spares a thought for a patient's "feelings"!) I even find that single-minded focus on his patient's welfare "noble," despite House's many other character deficits. As for Snape, I see no reason he couldn't have done training as a healer, though we have no evidence for or against. Compassion and a concern for the patient's greater welfare are nice attributes, but are in no way required, and are secondary to knowledge and competence, which Snape has (at least concerning Dark curses) in spades. And which might hold him in good stead to become a healer in the future, should he survive DH. Julie ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue May 8 21:23:34 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 21:23:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and healing (WAS: Snape as Neville's teacher ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168439 > Dana: > The problem is that we are now debating knowledge of magic against a > profession that needs compassion to heal the sick. Snape does not > have a passion to heal the sick, he has knowledge about how to brew > potions and counterbalance Dark Curses. zgirnius: That healing was not simply administering the countercurse to the curse Snape knew. Snape also showed some 'bedside manner' in his comments about scarring, and also some knowledge of the proper treatment for scars, as this is a traditional use of dittany in herbal medicine. >Dana: > It doesn't state that Snape was the only one that knew Mandrakes can > heal the petrified. zgirnius: I never said it does. Hermione Granger, a second year, knows this. I said he brewed the potion. Dana: > He can brew Lupin's potion but it doesn't mean > Snape would ever have wanted to go to the trouble of inventing such > a potion to help the poor werewolves. zgirnius: He cared enough to reformulate Euphoria to eliminate an undesired side-effect. Dana: > he does not have > to compassion to heal the sick and therefore he is not a healer. He > just has knowledge. zgirnius: Really? He doesn't and never did? I missed that part. > Dana: > Tom Riddle knows more about Magic then anyone, even DD admits this, > but would that make Voldemort a healer even if he could lift Dark > Curses, probably with more ease then Snape could? zgirnius: LV knowing how to do it does not make him a healer. If he actually used this knowledge to lift dark curses off people, yes, it absolutely would mean he had healed them, and is thus a healer. Note the inventor of the Entrail-Expelling Curse was a Healer, it says so next to his portrait, hung in St. Mungo's. He, of course, was one in the technical sense that he was employed by the hospital in this capacity, but I presume also in the less technical sesnse that he was a person who healed other people. (In addition to expelling someone or something's entrails.) > Dana: > No, it doesn't > because the man does not have compassion to heal the sick. zgirnius: This is a use of the term so narrow that there are probably Healers at St. Mungo's who are not healers. It is not how I use the word. > Dana: > No, a pharmacist is not a healer, he sells drugs and has knowledge > about that drugs and he can make the drugs but he can't diagnose all > ailments and is actually not legally qualified to do so. The only > drugs he can sell to cure an illness (by himself) are those that do > not need a prescription, zgirnius: This is precisely why I consider this argument semantics. In the United States, where I live, *no* antibiotics to be taken internally may be sold without a prescription. Should I therefore consider European pharmacists healers, but not their US counterparts? To me this seems obviously silly. > Dana: > Snape does not stabilize the people he counterfeits the curse, just > like a park ranger can give a victim of a snake bite first aid to > give the victim enough time to get to a hospital, antiserum does not > cure the victim of the effects of the snake bite it only neutralizes > the venom. zgirnius: I can see that a park ranger or knowledgeable bystander would administer first aid when necessary, but this is also the job of a paramedic (the guy who works in an ambulance and keeps people alive during their drive to the hospital, in case the word is not familiar). This is what I compared Snape's action to in my post, since it seems pretty clear this is what he did in Katie's case, by whatever means. And yes, I would consider paramedic to be a healing profession. By the way, the insistence on diagnosis and prescription of treatment and administration thereof excludes nurses from being healers as well, so I guess Poppy is not a healer. > Dana: > We do not see Snape heal people besides Draco, his > knowledge does not have anything to do with the human body but with > the curses themselves. zgirnius: Regarding a knowledge of the human body - neither I nor anyone besides, perhaps, Rowling, knows what it takes to invent a Dark curse like Sectumsempra, for the excellent reason that it has not been explained in the books. The curse has a specific effect on the human body, as does the counter. For all we know, it could require a knowledge of the human body and how it functions to invent such spells. I cannot accept this is a fact to consider in our discussion. As to the first point, I do not analyze my data sets, my knowledge does. I don't have a passion to analyze datasets, I do it because my employer pays me well to do it. I would say it is still *I*, and not the abstract knowledge that I possess, that gets the work done. I am a stataisticianm, that is, a person who does statistical analyses for pay. After all, that knowledge did not wake up one morning and decide to alight in my neurons. (Alas!) Instead, I was in school for some 20 years of my life acquiring the basics, and still make efforts to acquire more of it as I deem necessary. I imagine that Snape's experience is similar. He had to be interested in how to counter curses to some degree, in order to make the effort required to learn it. > Dana: > Who says he diagnosed Katie and not the necklace? zgirnius: If I take my son to the doctor and tell her he has swallowed some of the contents of a bottle of household chemical, my doctor will probably look first at the label, and then at my boy. And what she sees on that label is very likely to influence her treatment decisions. Ditto the necklace. > Dana: > Again I am not > trying to downplay Snape's knowledge but you also should not > romanticize his efforts in to zgirnius: Oh, this is about me, personally, and my overly romantic tendencies? I thought the discussion was about Severus Snape, a fictional character in the Harry Potter series of books. > Dana: > assuming he has the natural instincts > to be a healer because he doesn't posses the compassion for it. zgirnius: I neither made not stated such an assumption. In Snape's healing of Draco, the healing was achieved by performing a countercurse. When dark magic is causing someone to bleed to death, and the countercurse stops that and causes the wounds to knit, a healing has been achieved. All that was left (in Draco's case) was to take steps to lessen the cosmetic damage the curse might have caused. If any suggestion made in this thread has been 'romantic', it is that 'natural instincts' are a sound basis for medical treatment, or that 'compassion' is a necessary component. Snape, and (I most sincerely hope) the pediatrician I take my boys to, both make their diagnoses and treat their patients on the basis of the skills and knowledge they have acquired in a lifetime of learning and real-life experience. If instincts guide them to make fewer mistakes, and compassion makes the treatement more pleasant for the patients, or makes them work harder to gain and exercise those skills, excellent. But the skills are what matters most (or why do we bother with medical schools?) > Dana: > He has a passion for knowledge and be the best in the things he is > interested in but that does not qualify him automatically as a > healer. And your suggestion that he might always wanted to become a > healer is ridiculous because he came to school knowing more (dark) > curses then most kids in the 7th year. zgirnius: I do not find my suggestion ridiculous. But if it has amused my fellow listmembers, it was well-made. That a historical Healer of some significance (his portrait still hangs at St. Mungo's) was famous for inventing a (dark) curse suggests to me that there is no contradiction in the Potterverse between an interest in Dark Arts and an interest in pursuing the profession of Healer. Snape speaks lovingly of the Dark Arts as a many-headed hydra that requires flexible and inventive defenses to fight. I do think he prides himself on his own flexibility and inventiveness (deservedly so, in my view), and I take this lecture at face value. He must know what he is fighting well, and considers this knowledge necessary. Whether his motivation is compassion or the intellectual challenge is of little import to a boy bleeding to death in a bathroom. For whatever reason, Snape had the knowledge and skill to heal him, and did so. I keep using Draco as the example because it is the only one on which we have details. He really *was* healed by Snape, and we saw it all. Claiming Katie was or wasn't, or that Dumbeldore was or wasn't, seems pointless, as we do not know. > Dana: > Curses are harmful to people, > someone with a natural instinct to be a healer would never want to > know so many ways to harm another human being. zgirnius: It is canon that someone who was a Healer by profession, found ways to hurt people sufficiently interesting to have invented a new one. > Dana: > Snape did not know > these curses so he could one day counterfeit them, he knew them > because he wanted to stand out knowing more about the Dark Arts > then any other student. zgirnius: This is an opinion stated as fact. It is not a fact. If it were, I would have read it in my copy of the series. My own view on the matter is that Snape doubtless did know lots of spells for a firstie, some of which may have been Dark, and might even have started in on inventing them. His motives for doing so would have been, as I see it, a combination of intellectual curiosity about how such things work, possibly family influence (if the Princes had an interest), and a wish to have the tools to stand up for himself. > Dana: > No, it isn't because it amplifies that Snape was indeed to his > elbows in to the Dark Arts as he proofs when he is called up on this > knowledge. zgirnius: All his use of the knowledge as an adult proves is that, as an adult, he knows it. It proves nothing about what he knew when he was eleven. I had hoped my example would make this clear. Unfrotunately I cannot do better. > Dana: > Sirius wasn't lying that Snape used this knowledge to gain > himself some fame zgirnius: Sirius does not say Snape learned the curses he allegedly knew to become famous. > GoF, "Career Advice": > "Ever since I found out Snape was teaching here, I've wondered why Dumbledore hired him. Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for it at school. Slimy, oily, greasy-haired kid, he was," Sirius added, and Harry and Ron grinned at each other. "Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year, and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." zgirnius: See? These are separate statements. At some point in school, Snape was famous for a fascination with the Dark Arts. Whether this reputation pleased Snape, caused him to feel slandered and negatively stereotyped, or was something he gave little thought, is not mentioned in the books. And the other statement, he knew a lot of curses as a first year, and again Sirius does not speculate why this may be. A fascination with DADA is an alternative explanation to the one you propose, likewise speculative. For the record, I do not suggest Sirius Black lies about Snape, so I would prefer this not be implied. I do think he knew little about Snape's motivations in school, and cared even less. He could thus be quite mistaken in his assumptions. > Dana: > It wasn't Defense > against the Dark Arts Snape was famous for but the use of the Dark > Arts. zgirnius: I have posted the relevant canon quote. Anyone who cares, may verify that in fact, Sirius said nothing about Snape's *use* of the Dark Arts. > Dana: > He does nothing about Hermione's enlarged teeth either. Just because > he functions as the pharmacist for the hospital wing does not make > Madam Pomfrey work there non-important as you want to imply or that > she is just there to give Snape's brewed potions, who says all > potions Madam Pomfrey are made by Snape, she could get her supplies > from other sources as well, Snape would probably not have all > ingredients at hand and he certainly is not brewing potions every > second of the day to keep up the medical supplies. Just because the > pharmacy in a hospital wing has all medication in stock does not > mean you don't need the Doctor's there anymore either. zgirnius: Madam Pomfrey is not the equivalent of a doctor. She is the equivalent of a school nurse,. Were she a doctor, the correct Potterverse form of address for her is known. She would be addressed as "Healer Pomfrey", as the Healers at St. Mungo's are addressed. She is not so addressed, so I conclude she is not a doctor. She is indubitably a healer in the same sense that Snape is, in that she provides health-related services to persons in need of them. This is her entire job description, Snape happens to render them in his role as DADA/Potions teacher. It is entirely appropriate for Snape, or any other teacher, to send injured students to her, especially when they are supposed to be teaching a class. This says nothing about what they might or might not be able to do themselves for the students, and everything about what they are supposed to be doing during class (teaching). I have never suggested Snape makes all of the potions Poppy uses. Skele-Gro, for one, sounds like a brand name to me. I imagine he makes the rare, expensive, and difficult ones that are hard to procure for various reasons, such as the Mandrake Restorative Draft in CoS, the Wolfsbane Potion in PoA, and the Veritaserum menionted in both GoF and OotP. (And yes, I am aware of the function of that potion). > Dana: > Just because he knows the effect of brewing a potion the wrong way > does not make him the diagnosing wonder of Hogwarts. zgirnius: Again, I did not say he was. However, I am confident he could brew a potion to cure boils, could see Neville had them, and could administer them, for the excellent reason that *I* could do 2 and 3. > Dana: > That is the problem isn't it, for some reason everything Snape does > is lifted to such a wonderful noble level, no one could ever reach > but Snape. zgirnius: I see no problem. I do think he is has been consistently characterized throughout the series as: - highly intelligent (starting with the logic puzzle of PS/SS and ending with the revelation that he was inventing spells as a youngster at the end of HBP), - possessing a high level of knowledge and skills in at least three distinct areas of magic (Potions, Dark Arts/DADA, Legilimency/Occlumency) And the end of HBP strongly hints he is also pretty powerful in terms of fighting ability. This is suggested to me by the respect and intimidation of the other Death Eaters, and his ability to deal with Harry without even hurting him. (Yes, I am aware he hurt Harry, but this was after Harry had lost the fight. He did not need to do so in order to defend himself). I think it was hinted as early as the Duelling Club scene with Lockhart. > Dana: His character is romanticized to the maximum contributing > characteristics to the man that he just does not posses like being a > noble teacher for instance. zgirnius: Well, he is a teacher. Though, in light of the use of the word healer in this thread, I suppose that seemingly simple statement might be up for debate. If he were also noble, that would make him a noble teacher. It is an adjective I could imagine applying to DDM!Snape. > Dana: > He is not given any medals for it now is he? zgirnius: Nor for things he has done that were far more difficult and far more dangerous. --zgirnius, who *so* hopes Snape does not acquire a much-deserved Order of Merlin, First Class, posthumously. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue May 8 21:42:15 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 21:42:15 -0000 Subject: Snape and healing (WAS: Snape as Neville's teacher ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168440 > > Dana: > > The problem is that we are now debating knowledge of magic against > a > > profession that needs compassion to heal the sick. wynnleaf I've been reading this thread with interest, but little time to post. Having grown up in a largely medical family, I have to comment on this aspect of the Snape-as-healer discussion. Where did anyone ever get the idea that the medical profession is one that "needs compassion to heal the sick?" Sure, your family practice doctor needs a good bedside manner, and it certainly *helps* if other doctors show compassion in such a way the patients are aware of it. But I've had *plenty* of doctors and nurses who came across as brisk and somewhat unfeeling. Sorry, but even in the real world, compassion is *not* necessary to heal the sick. And further, compassion should not be mistaken as only found in the gentle, kind demeanor. Many people act out of compassion even if their demeanor doesn't reveal even a hint of it. Back to Snape -- who certainly does heal, with or without compassion. He saves lives when character's bodies are afflicted with problems that will otherwise kill them. wynnleaf From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue May 8 21:59:17 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 21:59:17 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168441 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And while Snape does set Harry done pretty hard, I'm not sure > > I'd label it out and out *abuse*. > > >>Sandy responds: > > In this case I see it as abuse of authority. Harry did absolutely > nothing to provoke Snape's actions or words. > Betsy Hp: I think the reason I don't see Snape as abusing his authority is that I see a rational (though mistaken) reason for his using Harry as his impossible question guinea pig. There's nothing wrong with a teacher hitting his students with near impossible questions to set up what sort of classroom he's going to run. Sure, the student being asked the questions feels like an idiot, but that's not an abuse of authority, IMO. If Snape had taken *points* than *maybe* I'd see it as an abuse of authority, but he doesn't. (This is part of the reason I have a slight problem with Snape saying the point taken for Neville's cauldron melting came from Harry. Technically it's unfair to blame Harry, though the point was honestly lost.) > >>Sandy responds: > Checking and correcting everyone's work except Neville's it would > seem. How did he miss Neville? Betsy Hp: Going with the text, it appears that Neville added the quills and the potion immediately went wrong. I'm sure Snape *had* checked Neville's and Seamus's potion. Up until Neville added an ingredient over too high a heat, things were going well, I'd guess. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Though I'd also add that it wouldn't surprise me if Draco *were* > > doing a better job at stewing his slugs than Hermione at this > > stage in the game. This is a brand new world for Hermione, but > > Draco's been in it for a while. > >>Sandy responds: > Draco may have been in that world for a while but his status was > the same as Hermione's. They were both first year's on their first > day in Potions class. Given what we know about Hermione I see no > reason to believe Draco was doing any better. Betsy Hp: And given what we know about Draco, I see no reason to believe Hermione was doing any better. I think this is an agree to disagree moment. Canon does not make it painfully clear as to whether or not Draco actually deserved Snape's praise. We each have to go with our own interpertation of the characters involved, and I believe we've got different views of all of those characters. > >>Sandy: > And, because Hermione *was* new to the Wizarding World I would > think any teacher she had would be a little more attentive of her > work to see if she is adjusting well. Betsy Hp: I'm sure she was. Hermione doesn't really have problems in Potions until she gets into Slughorn's class. And even then it's a matter of degrees. So I'm not sure what issue Snape is supposed to have spotted. > >>Sandy: > And while we are on this subject I would like to point out that it > was a brand new world for Harry too. > > Snape knew Harry was new to the WW, which, IMO, makes Snape's > treatment of him even more unfair, especially if you lay it to > Snape not wanting Harry's fame to go to his head. Betsy Hp: The entire point of Snape's exercise, IMO, is to ask questions of a student who did not know the answer. And new to the world or not, I don't think it's odd that Snape wondered if Harry would buy his own hype. Maybe even *especially* since he's so new to that world. > >>BetsyHp: > > I will say, you and Dana are not alone. There are quite a few > > folks still fighting the "Snape is evil!" fight. Only DH will let > > us know who is ultimately right. > >>Sandy responds: > I have yet to use the word *evil* in this thread. > > >>Dana: > I never stated Snape was evil either, one is simply stocked up under > this label when you do not consider Snape to be anything like a > fluffy bunny... Betsy Hp: Oh sorry, you've both misinterperted what I meant up there. I was unclear. I was going for a generic "not a Snape supporter" label. The one generally used is ESE!Snape, which stands for "Ever So Evil" meaning not a good guy as per JKR. But so many new comers have been confused by the "alphabet soup" such labels create, that I shortened the "ever so evil" to just plain old "evil". And that basically was supposed to stand in for, "nasty, horrible, I don't like him and I never will" view point. I was just trying to go for a short cut since basically I was just saying that you two are not alone in your view point in this particular fight. (Though, as always in all things Snape, there are degrees. ) > >>Betsy Hp: > > See, I honestly see nothing personal at all in his treatment of > > Neville. There's nothing that suggests to me that Snape actually > > *hates* Neville. > > > >>Sandy responds: > Despite not using these tactics I still believe Snape hates > Neville. Betsy Hp: And I still just don't see it. I just don't see anything personal there. > >>Sandy: > It could be that he perceives Neville as being weak, or it could be > that he sees similarities to his self when he was Neville's age. I > keep thinking of the fact that the Marauders called Snape > Snivellus. > Betsy Hp: My theory on how Snape earned the moniker "Snivellus" is that in the very early days (if not on the actual train for the first time) James and Sirius and Snape got into it, and passionate, inarticulate (at that time, I think) Snape was got so mad he started crying. Death for a boy. And a very easy thing to hang a cruel nickname on. Especially since I'm betting he still managed to throw a few curses through his tears. (Snape's biggest issue that I saw with the Marauders is that he would not stay down.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > My goodness, I don't think I'd expected a character so darkly > > sexy in a children's book. (Actually, JKR does a pretty good job > > inserting a bunch of amazingly hot men into her children's > > books. It's like there's a type for every need; she could > > seriously do a calander. ) > >>Sandy responds: > Oy! I honestly don't understand this at all. Sexy? Hot men? I'm > beginning to think I should be worried about myself because I > haven't seen a sexy hot man in the books yet. Betsy Hp: Oh, it's all quite personal I'm sure. Here's a list of some who spring to mind. (Will I get that magic number twelve? Oh, the suspense! ) There's the Marauder's of course: Sirius, all tragic Byronic beauty; Lupin, poster boy for hurt/comfort (though really, JKR is *all* about the hurt/comfort when you get down to it ) with a bit of boyish charm and a gentle bookish soul thrown in for good measure; and James who covers the noble young father and husband bit. There's the older Weasley boys: Bill, kind of an eighties hair-band throw-back in some ways (a *fang* earring? oh, Bill), but you can probably add a bit of pirate treasure hunter, chess playing smarts to the mix. And Charlie, who's a bit of a dark horse personality-wise, but he's got the rugged out-doors man thing down cold (and oh my gosh, those *arms*, with the *freckles* and the *scars*). Would Arthur fit in here? Kind of the quiet, unassuming father- figure maybe? Not really my thing, but I bet someone out there digs him. Kingsley Shacklebolt has tall, dark and handsome all sewn up. Plus there's the calm, competent, good man in a storm vibe he's got going. Regulus Black has definite possibility. If he's RAB there's built in tragedy and nobility (that old hurt/comfort again, though a bit light on the comfort I guess ). Plus, he's a Black so you know he's beautiful. (Pale and golden like Narcissa and Draco, or dark and smoldering like Sirius and Bellatrix? We eagerly await DH.) And over on the evil side of things: Lucius Malfoy gets the aristocratic, too much money, too much breeding, absolute English ass***e thing, which can, in the right hands, be so very "yes, please!". Though there's the added bit now of possible tragic family man. Does he love his wife and son as they love him? Some substance with the empty calories. We cannot leave out Tom "evil becomes him" Riddle. This is the kind of guy that gets chicks writing love letters to imprisoned serial killers, with looks so stunning even Harry takes note. At least until his nose falls off. (And that kids, is why being an evil overlord is bad, mmkay?) That's ten so far, only two more to go for a full calander spread. I cannot forget Dumbledore, sprightly senior with the at least twice broken nose and the sudden appearance of vitality whenever evil raises its ugly (noseless) head. That's eleven, which leaves the final contender as... > >>Sandy: > I am amazed at the number of intelligent, well-educated women on > this list who, if Snape were a *real* person, would be in love and > lust with him and would fall straight into bed with him when they > wouldn't have two words for the clean-cut guy who lives next door. > Betsy Hp: ...the Sexy Professor Snape! I'm not sure I'd say I'm the type who'd "fall straight into bed with him", 'cause I'm not that kind of girl. ::bats eyelashes:: But he'd get an extra look or two. Not because I'm ignoring the clean cut guy next door (who'd that be exactly? Charlie?) but because the intelligence and passion Snape exudes (and we see it in his very first lesson) is pretty darn attractive to my mind. > >>Sandy: > Even JKR has given some attention to this phenomenon. Betsy Hp: I know. The little minx. Like she doesn't know what she's writing. > >>Sandy: > His physical description alone is a turn off, but how in the world > can anyone be turned on by someone so mean and hateful? I > will admit that he is mysterious and intriguing, but sexy?! Betsy Hp: Physically he sounds a lot like Sherlock Holmes or Sydney Carlton. Actually, character-wise he's a lot like both men. And therein lies the sexy, IMO. Betsy Hp (I pulled the calander thing out of order so it didn't come mid-Snape-discussion) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue May 8 22:07:00 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 22:07:00 -0000 Subject: Observation on potions; and: is this a mystery? In-Reply-To: <7960673.1178650062009.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168442 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Now for the unrelated possible mystery: Is anybody else here puzzled > by, when Harry repeats Hermione's observations on Umbridge to Minny > the Cat, Minny replies (I don't have the exact quote, but this is > pretty close): "At least you've been listening to Miss Granger." > > How does Minny know that this came from Hermoine? Maybe Herminny is closer than we think to our Minny? zanooda: I suppose Hermione was the only one in the whole Great Hall who was listening to Umbridge's speach :-), the rest of the students gave up almost at the very beginning. McGonagall must have noticed, so she knew that Harry could find out the contents of the speach only from Hermione. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue May 8 22:13:50 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 22:13:50 -0000 Subject: SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE - JKR updated website ;) Spoilers? Maybe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168443 > Hickengruendler: > > And would you have counted Myrtle as a sympathetic Slytherin? ;-) > I'm glad with her answers, by the way. I love Hufflepuff and am > destavated, that it seems to get hardly any respect in Canon by the > other characters and in Fandom, making a generally beloved > character like Tonks a Hufflepuff can only help. And Ravenclaw so > fits Myrtle.Smug as she was, that Cedric took so long solving the > egg riddle. ;-) Jen: Yes, Tonks in Hufflepuff! I figured Slytherin because of the family heritage. Tonks appears to represent ideals JKR values in the story: She comes from a diverse family background with a father who was a Muggle and a mother who decided for whatever reason to break ties with a family supporting pureblood elitism. She's powerful enough to be an auror and yet socially aware enough to believe in the mission of the Order. Plus Tonks comes across as a compassionate character for the struggles of others, like when she notes Harry wishing he didn't have a visible scar and seeing beyond Remus being a werewolf to the man inside. All that to say it's good to finally see another positive representative of Hufflepuff and learn a little more about the characteristics indicating why a person would be sorted into that house. It's a little hard to tell from Ernie, Zacharias and Hannah because Harry doesn't give much information about them and much of it is negative (how they acted in COS, Ernie's pompusness, Hannah needing a calming draught to get through exams, Zacharias being a jerk, etc.). Harry does seem to have some respect for the Bones family and I suppose they might represent Hufflepuff since Susan is in the house? Jen, biased because she's always sorted into Hufflepuff no matter which test she tries. ;) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 8 22:44:52 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 22:44:52 -0000 Subject: Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50705080554t4e4ecec7h9cfc2c39f21baa83@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168444 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > On 5/7/07, Steve wrote: > > bboyminn: > > The 10x4x7=280 has always been a hopelessly flawed > > estimate. It assumes many facts that are not in evidence. > > > > bboyminn: > > > > I have always suspected that 1,000 was the capacity of > > Hogwarts, not its current enrollment. We see that there > > are many classrooms that are unused, and many areas that > > are being used for storage, that indicates that the > > school is /not/ at full capacity. > > Random832: > 1000 is not likely to be full capacity for a school that size - I went > to a high school that had over 3000 students and hogwarts definitely > seems like it's larger (or at least comparable, as an absolute > minimum) in terms of the size of the building. Geoff: I have a suspicion that you may be viewing this from a US point of view. JKR has based Hogwarts on a British style public school. Most schools of this type would probably have a school roll in the 500- 800 range; just maybe up to 1000. You wouldn't get ANY UK school with an enrolment anywhere near 3000. The largest were the first comprehensive schools in the mid-1950s which reached 2000 and most of these have now downsized. I would certainly expect Hogwarts to fit in the parameters I suggested at the start. Bear in mind also its age..... From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 00:58:48 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 00:58:48 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168445 Betsy Hp: ...the Sexy Professor Snape! I'm not sure I'd say I'm the type who'd "fall straight into bed with him", 'cause I'm not that kind of girl. ::bats eyelashes:: But he'd get an extra look or two. Not because I'm ignoring the clean cut guy next door (who'd that be exactly? Charlie?) but because the intelligence and passion Snape exudes (and we see it in his very first lesson) is pretty darn attractive to my mind. **** Betsy, Betsy, Betsy! You are forgetting the dreamiest calendar guy of them all! Who won Witch Weekly's Best Smile Contest five times in a row? Who wears all the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" colors? Who's got the women lining up around the block? Gilderoy Lockheart of course! You just know that in the real world he'd have his own fragrance commericals. Montavilla47 From bawilson at citynet.net Wed May 9 01:23:32 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 21:23:32 -0400 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher (was:Re: Snape as Noble teacher...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168446 Betsy Hp: I *still* think Snape *does* work as a teacher for Neville in a particularly weak subject. A lesser teacher would have quit on Neville, but Snape kept at it and Neville passed and kept on passing. And all that without the added motivation of taking on the crazy witch who drove Neville's parents insane. IOWs, I think the problem Neville had with Potions was the subject matter, not the instructor. I'm not saying Snape was Neville's best teacher type, nor am I saying Snape's methodology was the *only* or even the best way to reach Neville. But Snape got the job done. And I'm betting taught Neville a few other things along the way. Bruce: Exactly. The proof of the pudding, as the old saying goes, is in the eating. Snape may not be the most pleasant or most amiable or most approachable teacher, but his students--even those with no natural affinity for the subject--LEARN, and, when all is said and done that is the important thing, isn't it? Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed May 9 01:25:26 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 21:25:26 -0400 Subject: Umbridge wants Harry's soul sucked? Re: Magic on Privet Drive Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168447 What had Harry done to deserve that? From Umbridge's point of view, he existed. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed May 9 01:34:54 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 21:34:54 -0400 Subject: Trelawney, not as wrong or fake as we all think? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168448 Yes, I've noticed that myself. Like in HBP where she talks about the 'dark-haired young man who dislikes the questioner.' She sees the omens and recognizes them as such, but she does not interpret them correctly. 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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 01:59:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 01:59:06 -0000 Subject: Umbridge wants Harry's soul sucked? Re: Magic on Privet Drive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168449 Irene wrote: > I thought Umbridge's intention of sending dementors after Harry was more than just to discredit him by forcing him to perform the Patronus Charm. Come to think of it, how would Umbridge even know Harry could produce a patronus? > > If Umbridge didn't know that Harry could defend himself against dementors, sending them after him would imply that she wanted Harry's soul sucked, wouldn't it? *gasp* Carol responds: While I wouldn't put it past Umbridge to want Harry's soul sucked, her motive in sending the Dementors does seem to be to discredit Harry, and, through Harry, Dumbledore. Had Harry's soul actually been sucked, all she would have gained is the sympathy of the WW for the permanently incapacitated Harry and their anger at the MoM for failing to control the Dementors. (As DD points out at Harry's trial, either the Dementors are outside Ministry control or the Ministry sent them--neither option making very good public relations.) That being the case, I believe her when she said that she was taking action to discredit Harry. (IMO, she was manipulating Fudge, and it was probably her idea to have a full Ministry trial rather than an informal hearing in Madam Bones's office.) How could she have known that Harry could cast a Patronus, inspiring her to send Dementors after Harry to force him to cast one? Fudge didn't know; Snape woke up to late to see the Patronus and didn't know what drove the Dementors away, and Dumbledore didn't tell Fudge, who left Hogwarts when he discovered that Sirius Black had escaped. But what about Percy? He was on good terms with his family at this time and would surely have heard the story of Harry's Patronus firsthand from Hermione (and secondhand from Ron) more than once over the summer. He seems to be on good terms with Umbridge; maybe she was using Percy to find out information about Harry. Carol, who thinks Percy is just an unwitting dupe easily manipulated by those in authority, not a traitor or petit villain From seiryu_diggory at yahoo.com Wed May 9 01:31:54 2007 From: seiryu_diggory at yahoo.com (Nabilah Adani) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 18:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Something Odds in Hogwarts Message-ID: <943476.83406.qm@web63906.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168450 Everybody knows that we can't Apparate or Disapparate in Hogwarts. But... have you ever thought, why does the fairy-house such as Dobby Apparate or Disapparate in Hogwarts? What do you think about this? Nabilah From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 9 02:10:14 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 22:10:14 -0400 Subject: What's with Lockhart, anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46412D86.6050404@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168451 montavilla47 wrote: > Who's got the women lining up around the block? > > Gilderoy Lockheart of course! > > You just know that in the real world he'd have his own fragrance commericals. Seriously, will the amateur psychiatrists in the group please analyze Gildy Locks? The JKR rule of scarily apropriate names should have clued us that he was phony (as in Gilded) and a sociopath (as in Locked Heart). But what puts him in a class outside of psychopathic The Mad Riddler is his being convinced that he can do what he claims he can do; he doesn't even TRY to hide his incompetence. Bart From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 9 02:36:09 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 02:36:09 -0000 Subject: What's with Lockhart, anyway? In-Reply-To: <46412D86.6050404@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168452 > Bart: > The JKR rule of scarily apropriate names should have clued > us that he was phony (as in Gilded) and a sociopath (as in > Locked Heart). But what puts him in a class outside of > psychopathic The Mad Riddler is his being convinced that he > can do what he claims he can do; he doesn't even TRY to hide > his incompetence. Goddlefrood: This would suggest otherwise: "My dear boy," said Lockhart, straightening up and frowning at Harry. "Do use your common sense. My books wouldn't have sold half as well if people didn't think Id done all those things. No one wants to read about some ugly old Armenian warlock, even if he did save a village from werewolves. He'd look dreadful on the front cover. No dress sense at all. And the witch who banished the Bandon Banshee had a harelip. I mean, come on -" "So you've just been taking credit for what a load of other people have done?" said Harry incredulously. "Harry, Harry," said Lockhart, shaking his head impatiently, "it's not nearly as simple as that. There was work involved. I had to track these people down. Ask them exactly how they managed to do what they did. Then I had to put a Memory Charm on them so they wouldn't remember doing it. If there's one thing I pride myself on, it's my Memory Charms. No, it's been a lot of work, Harry. It's not all book signings and publicity photos, you know. You want fame, you have to be prepared for a long hard slog." CoS - Chapter 16 I have receivced communication from Auguste Comte that tells me he is turning in his grave. With all due respect Goddlefrood, not going into the psychology of the matter too much, but there it is. Gilderoy has had his day. From peckham at cyberramp.net Wed May 9 02:38:18 2007 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 02:38:18 -0000 Subject: Something Odds in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <943476.83406.qm@web63906.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168453 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Nabilah Adani wrote: > > Everybody knows that we can't Apparate or Disapparate in Hogwarts. But... have you ever thought, why does the fairy-house such as Dobby Apparate or Disapparate in Hogwarts? What do you think about this? > > Nabilah Just because house elves are able to magically transport themselves from one location to another does not mean that they are able to apparate. There are at least two methods available to wizards that allow for nearly instantaneous transport between two arbitrary locations, apparation and portkeys. House elves using a portkey-like method (a method using the same magical principles as a portkey without the elf having to touch an actual portkey) to transport themselves would allow for magical transport within Hogwarts or other locations protected from apparation. Allen From random832 at gmail.com Wed May 9 02:52:57 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 22:52:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: re:Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50705080554t4e4ecec7h9cfc2c39f21baa83@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705081952ka770b5eq6357e973db105836@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168454 > Geoff: > I have a suspicion that you may be viewing this from a US point of > view. JKR has based Hogwarts on a British style public school. Most > schools of this type would probably have a school roll in the 500- > 800 range; just maybe up to 1000. You wouldn't get ANY UK > school with an enrolment anywhere near 3000. How many are in castles this size? I can buy that the founders never imagined there'd be so many. But if they're not hurting for space why would they build another one or whatever when there's just been the one for a millennium? I don't see any reason to think there aren't 1000 students at hogwarts. From random832 at gmail.com Wed May 9 03:01:47 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:01:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705082001u670df0a4r8f9efdc8b68193f3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168455 > Betsy Hp: > Oh sorry, you've both misinterperted what I meant up there. I was > unclear. I was going for a generic "not a Snape supporter" label. > The one generally used is ESE!Snape, which stands for "Ever So Evil" > meaning not a good guy as per JKR. But so many new comers have been > confused by the "alphabet soup" such labels create, that I shortened > the "ever so evil" to just plain old "evil". And that basically was > supposed to stand in for, "nasty, horrible, I don't like him and I > never will" view point. ESE, while it _stands for_ "Ever So Evil", unambiguously, as far as I know, means "On Voldemort's Side" - it's opposed with "DDM" and "OFH", not vs "DeepDownReallyANiceGuy" or anything like that. > Betsy Hp: > At least > until his nose falls off. (And that kids, is why being an evil > overlord is bad, mmkay?) I will not turn into a snake. It never helps. --Random832 From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed May 9 03:03:16 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 03:03:16 -0000 Subject: Something Odds in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <943476.83406.qm@web63906.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168456 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Nabilah Adani wrote: > > Everybody knows that we can't Apparate or Disapparate in Hogwarts. But... have you ever thought, why does the fairy-house such as Dobby Apparate or Disapparate in Hogwarts? What do you think about this? > It is never mentioned that the elves are using portkeys and you often hear a *crack* when they appear and disappear so I think they are apparating. I want to say that JKR has confirmed this somewhere and offered the dodge that elf magic is different but that may be my imagination. Perhaps someone else can confirm or refute this. What I think about this is that the vaunted security of Hogwarts has more holes in it than Windoze. House elves are a big part of that. Hogwarts' armor has other chinks in it as we saw in HBP. House elves in general are a perfect fifth column for one side or the other to use in DH. It would be a little bit disappointing if they do not play a role. If Dobby has much influence they will serve the good side. The thing that makes them perfect is that everyone in the Potterverse ignores them until they need a flunky or someone to blame. They are very powerful and could play a decisive role if they were to revolt against their masters. They are so easy to ignore that the author may well ignore their potential too. Ken From bawilson at citynet.net Wed May 9 02:50:19 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 22:50:19 -0400 Subject: What's with Lockhart, anyway? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168457 Bart: Seriously, will the amateur psychiatrists in the group please analyze Gildy Locks? The JKR rule of scarily apropriate names should have clued us that he was phony (as in Gilded) and a sociopath (as in Locked Heart). But what puts him in a class outside of psychopathic The Mad Riddler is his being convinced that he can do what he claims he can do; he doesn't even TRY to hide his incompetence. Bruce: I can't track down the reference, but I seem to remember that there was a British psychologist by the name of Lockhart who did important research in the mid-20th C. on MEMORY. I'm sure that's significant. JKR on her website says that GL is a portrait of someone she knew once; NOT her first husband, as some have alleged, but someone else entirely. She won't say whom. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bawilson at citynet.net Wed May 9 02:53:26 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 22:53:26 -0400 Subject: Something Odds in Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168458 Nabilah: Everybody knows that we can't Apparate or Disapparate in Hogwarts. But... have you ever thought, why does the fairy-house such as Dobby Apparate or Disapparate in Hogwarts? What do you think about this? Bruce: JKR was asked that, and she said that the anti-apparation spells on Hogwarts are calibrated for HUMAN magic, not House-Elf magic. She doesn't use the term, but House-Elf magic seems to be on a different 'frequency' than Human magic; House-Elves don't need wands, for example. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed May 9 05:50:26 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 05:50:26 -0000 Subject: Something Odds in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168459 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- Nabilah Adani wrote: > > > > Everybody knows that we can't Apparate or Disapparate > > in Hogwarts. But... have you ever thought, why does > > the fairy-house such as Dobby Apparate or Disapparate > > in Hogwarts? What do you think about this? > > > Ken: > > It is never mentioned that the elves are using portkeys > and you often hear a *crack* when they appear and > disappear so I think they are apparating. bboyminn: I don't think Nabilah /literally/ meant 'portkeys', I think the implication was portkey-ish style magic. Simply implying that the 'style' of magic used by Elves is different than Wizard magic. Bruce confirms this in this thread by mentioning that JKR said that Elves use different magic than wizards. For example, we see that Elves are able to transport food from the kitchens to the House Tables. How is that different than Apparation or Apparation-style magic? Something very real disappears from one place and reappears in another, sounds exactly like Appration, but of course, it is not. Further, we do not know that Dobby apparated into or out of Hogwarts, he may have done the Elvin equivalent within the boundaries of Hogwarts. He may have transported to another part of the castle and walk to the front gate and left. We know Dobby disappeared, but that is all we know. So, Dobby is not using Apparation Magic when he disappears. He is using some Elfin functional equivalent, but not literally Apparation itself. > Ken: > ... > > What I think about this is that the vaunted security > of Hogwarts has more holes in it than Windoze. ... > > House elves in general are a perfect fifth column for > one side or the other to use in DH. ... bboyminn: On both these points I agree. For someone willing to look closely, Hogwarts does have some gapping size holes. Like the blocked tunnel behind the mirror. How hard would it be to unblock the tunnel? Also, the Vanishing Cabinet was a colossal hole. Didn't anybody on the staff bother to talk to Montague? If they had, they would have known about the cabinet and DE would never have gotten into the castle by that means. Note Charlie's friends had no problem flying in to pick up Norbert. Of course that was early on, and security was probably not as strict then. Also, I've been convinced for a long time that the Elves are going to play a big part, or at least some part, in the fight against Voldemort, and I've been saying it for years. I speculate that DE's and Voldie will temporarily take over Hogwarts. With Dumbledore gone, it is just to nice a strategic target to pass up. He who holds the school, holds the wizard world. I suspect it will be up to Harry and his friend who are not going back to school, plus a little inside help, to recapture the school again. Though I'm not convinced this will be the final Harry/Voldemort battle. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 9 06:07:49 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:07:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE - JKR updated website ;) Spoilers? Maybe? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705082307y7bac0809mbfe461ffc404985d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168460 Jen: Yes, Tonks in Hufflepuff! I figured Slytherin because of the family heritage. Lynda: Not once, even for a millisecond, did I ever think That Tonks was in Slytherin. Family background or not, she just doesn't fit there. It would be like putting Hermione or Draco into Hufflepuff--a complete nonstarter. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 9 07:49:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 07:49:25 -0000 Subject: SQUEE - JKR updated website ;) Spoilers? Maybe? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705082307y7bac0809mbfe461ffc404985d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168461 > Jen: > Yes, Tonks in Hufflepuff! I figured Slytherin because of the > family heritage. Goddlefrood (having removed a few Es for decorum's sake: A soulmate for you there, apparently ;-), don't go dyeing your hair too often now :| The information released by JKR is always welcome and one snippet confirms what many on this list and elsewhere have said for nearly two years. That being that Alecto and Amycus are the Carrows. If we could just sort out this whole Harry business :-? Btw I have a BEANS - Beginning - End And No Snape. This to go with the earlier GUT and GAS ;-) as brought up by Steve / bboyminn. Goddlefrood, probably a Ravenclaw, but sorted into Slytherin many times #-o From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed May 9 09:58:27 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 02:58:27 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: re:Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50705081952ka770b5eq6357e973db105836@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50705080554t4e4ecec7h9cfc2c39f21baa83@mail.gmail.com> <7b9f25e50705081952ka770b5eq6357e973db105836@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40705090258y7f2206a5of3e5681a8b1c06f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168462 > > Geoff: > > I have a suspicion that you may be viewing this from a US point of > > view. JKR has based Hogwarts on a British style public school. Most > > schools of this type would probably have a school roll in the 500- > > 800 range; just maybe up to 1000. You wouldn't get ANY UK > > school with an enrolment anywhere near 3000. > someone replied: > How many are in castles this size? > > I can buy that the founders never imagined there'd be so many. But if > they're not hurting for space why would they build another one or > whatever when there's just been the one for a millennium? > > I don't see any reason to think there aren't 1000 students at hogwarts. Kemper now: I don't think the Hogwarts of today does not look like the Hogwarts of yestermillenium. I'm no architectural historian, but castles of Howgarts immensity did not exist circa 997 AD. As Hogwarts is a magical place, I imagine the founders built/started with what's now the Great Hall with lessons being taught on opposite sides of the Hall. There wouldn't have been many students in the beginning. Maybe 5 or 10 student each House. Each House could have been housed in a Lesser Hall. As the need for space grew, additions were added to the Hall. "Well what about the Chamber of Secrets?" someone might ask. The entrance could have been in the girls' outhouse or perhaps the ladies had a Chamber[ofSecrets]pot Room where a water basin had a snake carved into it. Or that's how I imagine it, anyway. Kemper From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 9 12:01:55 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 12:01:55 -0000 Subject: More information than you ever really needed about Gilderoy Lockhart. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168463 > Goddlefrood earlier: > Gilderoy has had his day. Goddlefrood, having spent an evening with Mr. Lockhart: All the passgaes quoted in this post are genuine. I kid you not. They may come as a surprise when compared to Lockhart's character in canon, but here they are, particularly for the brave at heart ;-) I wrote a small piece about Gilderoy quite some time ago, if in any way interested, that is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145529 Although I would not advise it unless you've read this post in full and still want more ;-). There is a large amount of information about Gilderoy Lockhart, an extensive trawl turned up several Lockharts who have been or are psychiatrists, but that may not be relevant. Gilderoy as a character was, IMO, more for amusement's sake than anything else (a sentiment apparently shared by JKR as those daring enough to read this will find out). I deem it unlikely he'll have any role to play in DH other than perhaps a passing mention relative to his continued stay in St. Mungo's. ---------------------- The names of the lily livered one: As is my wont I'll start with a bit about his name, and my favourite starting point, which may be thought apt in this instance, even by JKR herself, is thinkbabynames :-). Here is the entry on Gilderoy: "The boy's name Gilderoy \gi-lde-roy, gil-deroy\ is a variant of Gilroy." Thus Gilroy: The boy's name Gilroy \gi(l)-roy\ is pronounced GIL-roy. It is of Irish and Gaelic origin, and its meaning is "son of the red-head". A secret Weasley perhaps? Unlikely, at least they're somewhat competent at some things other than memory charms ;-) JKR has said Gilderoy was from a Scottish highwayman and that Lockhart was a name from a war memorial. Let her tell the story, this from "Harry Potter - Harry and me," by Lindsay Fraser, The Scotsman, November 2002: "The characters came first and then I had to find names to fit them. Gilderoy Lockhart is a good example. I knew his name had to have an impressive ring to it. I was looking through the Dictionary of Phrase and Fable - a great source for names - and came across Gilderoy, a handsome Scottish highwayman. Exactly what I wanted. And then I found Lockhart on a war memorial to the First World War. The two together said everything I wanted about the character." Available in full here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2002/1102-fraser-scotsman.html This is of interest too because it tells us a little about JKR's writing process, for those intrigued by such things. She stated these matters again, with some expansion in "Living with Harry Potter" Stephen Fry, BBC Radio4, 10th December 2005: "JKR: Um ... I don't really trawl books. They tend to be things I've collected or stumbled across in general reading. The exception was Gilderoy - Gilderoy Lockhart. The name Lockhart, well, I know it's quite a well-known Scottish surname ... SF: Yeah. JKR: ... I found on a war memorial. I was looking for quite a glamorous, dashing sort of surname, and Lockhart caught my eye on this war memorial, and that was it. Couldn't find a Christian name. And I was leafing through the Dictionary of Phrase and Fable one night. I was consciously looking for stuff, generally, that would be useful and I saw Gilderoy, who was actually a highway man, and a very good-looking rogue. SF: Really? JKR: And Gilderoy Lockhart, it just sounded perfect. SF: It is a perfect, perfect ... JKR: Impressive, and yet, in the middle, quite hollow, of course. SF: Indeed, as we know, he was. JKR: As we know." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/1205-bbc-fry.html This highwayman "Gilderoy" (in inverted commas as it turned out not to be his real name) was tracked a little :-|. I found out a few things about him, and even came across a site where the tune of the ballad about him will play, although I really do not think it would be a tune that would please for too long, although a listen may be of interest :-). First a potted history of the ballad that gave rise to the continued folklore of "Gilderoy": 'The oldest source of the tune is apparently Scotland. It was originally called "Gilderoy," named for an infamous Irish highwayman who raided Scotland in the 13th century. Robert Burns, the national poet of Scotland, also used the melody for From Thee Eliza. Besides "Kolob" the tune has been used for several other English and American hymns and carols.' That extracted from: http://www.fiddle-sticks.com/Liner_Nauvoo.htm "Gilderoy" was then an Irish highwayman known for his crimes around Scotland, and a romantic figure apparently. Here's some more: 'Gilderoy, Rob Roy and Johnnie Armstrong, - all are branches of the same family; romantic in sentiment, generous in feeing, daring in enterprise, and courageous in combat; wild in excess, lawless in conduct, ingenious in plan, and triumphant in execution; protecting poverty though persecuted by power, and abounding in marvelous strategems and hair-breadth escapes, it is not to be wondered that their exploits have ever been favourites with the millions.' >From Richardson Minor, 2 [London, Richardson (1829)], as quoted in Dicken's Villains by Juliet John, p. 56, some of which is available online here: http://books.google.com/books?id=7Y-O1R6VCGgC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=gilderoy+highwayman&source=web&ots=jFr0Zgs-hM&sig=-SPeUTvh-OBzhhAG5uHknPFd9LM#PPP1,M1 The above tells me, and I'll confirm this shortly that the Irish Gilderoy (actually it transpires Gilruadh) and the 17th century Gilderoy are two different highwaymen :-) Both are remembered in legend and ballad. The ballad I referred to earlier is available here: http://www.contemplator.com/scotland/gilderoy.html Sing along if you will ;-). This Gilderoy's real name was Patrick McGregour, and a lot of what you may or may not want to know about him is available within the above link. Here's a further link about highwayman that may interest, although Gilderoy is linked in it (to the ballad above as it happens) no further history is given: http://www.contemplator.com/history/highwaymn.html Another song now, this time a short folk one about the death of Gilderoy the Highwayman (very romantic this): "Of Gilderoy sae fraid they were They bound him mickle strong, Till Edenburrow they led him thair And on a gallows hong; They hong him high abone the rest." Extracted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representations_of_highwaymen_in_popular_culture Note the cunning use of hong to rhyme with strong. All very much polar opposite to our Lockhart, as I doubt if he'll hang himself. Just in case anyone is beginning to get the idea that a highwayman's life is for them ;-), here's a final warning over what that may bring (not just betrayal :->): http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/historical/ABookofScoundrels/chap10.html This is a good extract and compares the later Gilderoy to other, better highwaymen. There are rather too many Lockharts in many and varied fields to go into in too much detail ("hoorah", I hear you cry). Well, sadly the specific war memorial from which JKR took the name could not be located by me, but that was probably a relief for all of us ;-) ----------------------------------------- Further matters from Interviews and elsewhere: JKR's thoughts on Gilderoy (from Extra Stuff at her website): "Gilderoy Lockhart I have only once set out to depict somebody I have met and, unlikely though it might seem, the result was Gilderoy Lockhart. I assure you that the person on whom Gilderoy was modelled was even more objectionable than his fictional counterpart. He used to tell whopping great fibs about his past life, all of them designed to demonstrate what a wonderful, brave and brilliant person he was. Perhaps he didn't really believe he was all that great and wanted to compensate, but I'm afraid I never dug that deep. You might think it was mean of me to depict him as Gilderoy, but you can rest assured he will never, ever guess. He's probably out there now telling everybody that he inspired the character of Albus Dumbledore. Or that he wrote the books and lets me take the credit out of kindness." This too from the Rubbish Bin: "Gilderoy Lockhart is based on JKR's first husband No, he most certainly is not. I have always been honest about the fact that Gilderoy Lockhart WAS inspired by a real man (see the 'Extras' section). For obvious reasons I am not going to identify the person in question - however irritating he was, he does not deserve that - but I can state categorically that I never married him. I do not lie about the inspiration for characters (although at times like these, I wonder why I don't refuse to answer these questions at all!)" The first of these should be qualified somewhat in that while Gilderoy was based on someone else as the character grew he developed a character of his own, as can be gleaned from this from "Magic, Mystery, and Mayhem: An Interview with J.K. Rowling," Amazon.com, spring 1999: "Professor ... and Gilderoy Lockhart both started as exaggerated versions of people I've met, but became rather different once I got them on the page. Hermione is a bit like me when I was 11, though much cleverer." Extractable here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/0099-amazon-staff.htm Of course Gilderoy does have some fans, and despite possible appearances to the contrary I'm one of them :-) Here is another of his fans in interview with JKR, from Interview with J.K. Rowling by Lizo Mzimba, BBC Newsround, Autumn 2000: "And Gilderoy Lockhart, one of my favourite characters. Gilderoy, bless him, is still in Saint Mungo's hospital for magical ailments and injuries, 'cos his memory's just gone. So I'm making no promises about Gilderoy. Was he good fun to write, because he's the opposite of everything you wanted to be? Fantastic fun to write. The best one ever. I loved writing Gilderoy, but I've got Rita now you see. I love writing Rita in the same way that I loved writing Gilderoy." Available in full here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_1634000/1634400.stm This is from long enough ago to have now been confirmed by Lockhart's appearance in OotP at St. Mungo's. I'll make a small bet that I'm right when I say Gilderoy will, if he is mentioned at all, be so in passing and will remain an inmate of the Hospital throughout DH, except possibly in the epilogue :-) As the title of this post suggests I have some other confirmatory sources for the above information, first from Comic Relief live chat transcript, March 2001: "Which character do you most enjoy writing for? Good question... Gilderoy Lockhart was loads of fun, but he was a bit of a one-joke character, and I think I did as much as I could with him." Here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm Done wit great style, naturally, but he's almost certainly had his day. Another along similar lines is this from an interview by Nigel Ballard, BBCi Bristol, 12 November, 2001: "I, see, I find Rita, Rita is as much fun to write as Gilderoy Lockhart in book two, and that's like - Gilderoy Lockhart was this, erm, very pompous, self-publicised and awful man who came to teach at the school. Shameless self publicist, erm, tireless liar, erm, and he was immense - he was huge fun to write, and I regretted having to get rid of him at the end of book two, because I liked writing him so much. But he was... he was pretty much a one-joke character, and I think I ran it for all it was worth, and there wasn't much left in him. Rita is just as much fun to write, and that's a high compliment to her." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1101-bbcbristol-ballard.htm Expect more from Rits, IOW, and I'll look forward to that as I predict Rita may explain why people's hair might curl at stories concerning one Ludo Bagman :> One unconfirmed source tells us that I am almost certainly right to say Lockhart will not be back, that is this said to Chris outside the 2004 Edinburgh Bookfair by JKR according to this Chris (an 11 year old at the time fan): "I asked JK Rowling would Professor Lockhart get out of St Mungos, get his memory back and be in any of the next books?, she said no to all of these questions. I also asked when Harries parents were killed by Voldemort, Wormtail turned into a rat and pretended to be dead. How then did he give Voldermort his wand and robe back once he found him and helped give him back his body ?, she told me (after tapping her nose!) 'he hid them'." The latter paragraph may be of interest to those who wondered some time ago why Peter had Voldemort's wand :-). If these reported questions and answers are true then they are also very suggestive (to me anyway) that Peter was at Godric's Hollow the night the Potters were killed. To wrap up now, having spent a little more than 30 seconds in Gilderoy's company I'll let JKR give her view of whether he'd be someone of interest to be left alone with on a desert island, from Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005: "What character would you hate most to be stuck on a desert island with? JK Rowling: Oh my word. That is a good one. Lockhart would get a little tedious after 30 seconds." Found in full here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4690800/4690885.stm My time is now over, does anyone feel a need to know more? Except for which house he was in, I could not find a specific reference to that matter so I place him firmly in Slytherin, even if someone points me to actual canon to refute this allegation ;-). Oh, and Lockhart as a name is not on the Black Family Tapestry anywhere. Goddlefrood, once more inclined to give a little date for you, this time 1750 in which the Department of Magical Games and Sports was established as well as a new Clause being added to the International Statute of Secrecy making each country in the WW responsible for hiding their own magical creatures. It also is the year in which, amongst several other things, Hannah Snell, a namesake of Hannah Abbott, came out as a woman having disguised herself as a man for some years to join the Royal Marines :-) From random832 at gmail.com Wed May 9 13:16:21 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:16:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: re:Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: <700201d40705090258y7f2206a5of3e5681a8b1c06f@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50705080554t4e4ecec7h9cfc2c39f21baa83@mail.gmail.com> <7b9f25e50705081952ka770b5eq6357e973db105836@mail.gmail.com> <700201d40705090258y7f2206a5of3e5681a8b1c06f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705090616v6cf03908hdd981bb99905da66@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168464 Random832: > > I don't see any reason to think there aren't 1000 students at hogwarts. > > Kemper now: > I don't think the Hogwarts of today does not look like the Hogwarts of > yestermillenium. I'm no architectural historian, but castles of > Howgarts immensity did not exist circa 997 AD. > [...] > As the need for space grew, additions were added to the Hall. Random832: This idea actually further supports the idea that there are at least 1000 students: Why do they need so much space as they have now, if there aren't? That's the point I was trying to make before, not anything depending on it having been built that big or not. --~~~~ From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 9 14:53:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:53:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's with Lockhart, anyway? Message-ID: <33293402.1178722401015.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168465 Bart: >> The JKR rule of scarily apropriate names should have clued >> us that he was phony (as in Gilded) and a sociopath (as in >> Locked Heart). But what puts him in a class outside of >> psychopathic The Mad Riddler is his being convinced that he >> can do what he claims he can do; he doesn't even TRY to hide >> his incompetence. > >Goddlefrood: >This would suggest otherwise: > >"Harry, Harry," said Lockhart, shaking his head impatiently, >"it's not nearly as simple as that. There was work involved. >I had to track these people down. Ask them exactly how they >managed to do what they did. Then I had to put a Memory Charm >on them so they wouldn't remember doing it. If there's one >thing I pride myself on, it's my Memory Charms. No, it's been >a lot of work, Harry. It's not all book signings and publicity >photos, you know. You want fame, you have to be prepared for a >long hard slog." > >CoS - Chapter 16 Bart: A) He is admitting it only because he intends to wipe Harry's memory anyway. B) He is admitting that he didn't do the things in his books. He is not admitting that he CAN'T do the things in his books. C) There does seem to be quite a bit of self-delusion here. His sociopathic tendencies are showing in that the only negative consequence he can even imagine for his actions is loss of book sales. But, although he decided to make a run for it when real danger reared its ugly head, most of the time, he sets himself up for failure, and appears to be quite surprised when he fails. Bart From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Wed May 9 16:17:38 2007 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 12:17:38 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Quirrell Message-ID: <4641F422.00000A.02768@LIFESAVER> No: HPFGUIDX 168466 When Harry first met Quirrell in the Leaky Cauldron was Quirrell up close and personal with Voldemort? In the Leaky Cauldron scene there is no mention of Quirrell's turban, of Harry's scar hurting, and Quirrell was able to shake hands with Harry. Donna in Dayton [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From percafluvia at gmx.net Wed May 9 14:48:46 2007 From: percafluvia at gmx.net (laperchette) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 14:48:46 -0000 Subject: More information about Gilderoy Lockhart. - RL models In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168467 Thank you, Goddlefrood, for all these interesting Lockhart-bites - I enjoyed them! Funny enough reading about Lockhart I was constantly reminded of a real author - one of my favourites - with quite similar treats: Bruce Chatwin :) Admired by a lot of people, but hated by some because of his manner, he wrote a lot of books about travels and his adventures (but some of them were not his adventures but someone else's). A great sense for fashion and very handsome with wavy blonde hair and blue eyes. And I guess he would have loved memory charms: (from wikipedia): "However, he has also been strongly criticized for his fictionalized anecdotes of real people, places, and events. Frequently, the people he wrote about recognized themselves and did not always appreciate his distortions of their culture and behaviour. Chatwin, however, was philosophical about what he saw as an unavoidable dilemma, arguing that his portrayals were not intended to be faithful representations; as Nicholas Shakespeare, his biographer, argues: 'He tells not a half truth, but a truth and a half.'" laperchette From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 17:47:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 17:47:05 -0000 Subject: Quirrell In-Reply-To: <4641F422.00000A.02768@LIFESAVER> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168468 Donna in Dayton wrote: > > When Harry first met Quirrell in the Leaky Cauldron was Quirrell up close and personal with Voldemort? In the Leaky Cauldron scene there is no mention of Quirrell's turban, of Harry's scar hurting, and Quirrell was able to shake hands with Harry. Carol responds: Quirrell isn't wearing the turban at that point and can shake hands with Harry because Voldemort hasn't possessed him yet. After Quirrell fails to steal the Philosopher's Stone (which, of course, has already been taken from the vault, so it's not Quirrell's fault :-) ), Voldemort decides to "keep a closer watch on [him]" (SS Am. ed. 291) by literally getting inside his head. BTW, it's not clear, at least not to me, whether Quirrell could still touch Harry at that point since he hadn't become clearly wicked himself, hadn't yet tried killed any unicorns or tried to kill Harry, but I don't think he could. I think merely allowing Voldemort to possess him is sufficient to make touching Harry impossible. When Harry asks why Quirrell couldn't touch him, DD explains, "Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason [Lily's blood protection]. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good" (299). I can't tell from this passage whether it's the soul-sharing (the presence of Voldemort within Quirrell) or Quirrell's own wickedness (having succumbed to Voldemort's will and chosen to do his bidding) that makes touching Harry impossible. Would the blood protection have worked if Quirrell did all the things he did (short of actually drinking the unicorn blood) but didn't have Voldemort inside his head, protecting Harry from a Dark wizard trying to kill him, or does it only protect against Voldemort himself? I'm not sure. All I know is that when Harry shook Quirrell's hand in the Leaky Cauldron, Voldemort had not yet possessed him. He had not even attempted to steal the stone, which happened later that same afternoon. (Harry reads about it in the Daily Prophet though the article doesn't specify what was stolen.) Carol, still wondering how Quirrell got Voldemort into England *before* Voldie was inside his head and thinking that LV must have been possessing Nagini at the time, which raises the question of how Quirrell could get *Nagini* to England undetected From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Wed May 9 18:53:11 2007 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 18:53:11 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168469 (snipping Betsy's entire list of calendar pinups) You forgot Stubby Boardman -- a minor character, for sure, but we know as much about him as we do about Regulus. Just think, Stubby is a popular singer, Siriusly-good-looking, and romantic enough for candlelit dinners. Surefire calendar material. LOL Lyra From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 19:08:35 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:08:35 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168470 Betsy Hp: > I think the reason I don't see Snape as abusing his authority is > that I see a rational (though mistaken) reason for his using Harry as > his impossible question guinea pig. There's nothing wrong with a > teacher hitting his students with near impossible questions to set up > what sort of classroom he's going to run. Sure, the student being > asked the questions feels like an idiot, but that's not an abuse of > authority, IMO. Aha. Well, IMO, it absolutely IS an utterly contemptible and abusive practice on Snape's part and anyone else's, and yes, if JKR does not show Snape being clearly denounced and punished she will have spoken favorably of the abuse of children. Now, the other question, though, is WHY Snape would have felt he had a rational reason? What does he know about Harry and his life? What does he suspect? Interesting questions, and we may well never find out the answers. But it may let us know what dear, child-abusing Snapey- poo thought he had up his sleeve. Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed May 9 19:53:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:53:23 -0000 Subject: Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: <700201d40705090258y7f2206a5of3e5681a8b1c06f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168471 --- Kemper wrote: > > >> Geoff: > >> ... JKR has based Hogwarts on a British style public > >> school. Most schools of this type would probably > >> have a school roll in the 500-800 range; just maybe > >> up to 1000. You wouldn't get ANY UK school with an > >> enrolment anywhere near 3000. > > > someone replied: > > How many are in castles this size? > > > > I can buy that the founders never imagined there'd > > be so many. But if they're not hurting for space > > why would they build another one or whatever ...? > > > > I don't see any reason to think there aren't 1000 > > students at hogwarts. > > Kemper now: > I don't think the Hogwarts of today does not look like > the Hogwarts of yestermillenium. I'm no architectural > historian, but castles of Howgarts immensity did not > exist circa 997 AD. > bboyminn: NO castle of Hogwarts size has EVER been built. Sure many of the old /Keep/ style castles were approaching 100 feet tall, but they had maybe 3 or 4 floors at best. These were huge cavernous building that must have cost a fortune to heat. But no castle has even been built to my knowledge that had a 7 full story main body. Windsor Castle is the largest castle still in use in Europe, and it isn't even remotely Hogwarts size. Keeping in mind that main floor of castles had very high ceilings, and I suspect upper floors while lower than the main, still had relatively high ceilings by modern standards. So 20 ft first floor and 15 ft upper floors makes the main building of Hogarts (1x20 + 6x15 = 110ft) 110 feet, that is about the equivalent of a 10 or 11 story modern building. Then we add Gryffindor Tower which is an additional 7 floors which adds another 70 to 105 feet depending on the ceiling height. Likely, Gryffindor and Ravelclaw Towers are not the tallest tower, I suspect Astronomy is tallest. So, we have a castle with potentially height of well above 200 feet. So, the description of Hogwarts is most definitely of /fairytale/ proportions. Personally, I suspect what we see now is very similar to the castle as it was originally built. But note that in the beginning magic was not as developed as it is now. I suspect no magical train, and likely no Floo Network or Portkeys, and very possibly no Apparation. So, most likely all teachers and family had to live at the school, as well as any necessary support staff. Note even now there are over 100 house-elves, do we suppose they all sleep on the kitchen floor? Plus it is possible that since Hogwarts was a central body of wizarding knowledge, there could have been some accommodations for adult wizards want to advance their magical knowledge. Further, we don't know the extent of Wizarding government at that time. The Statue of Secrecy which in essence created the current wizard's government was implemented in 1650 or there abouts. It is possible that some accommodation was made at Hogwarts prior to that time to wizarding government, and civil and criminal trials. Teaching styles were also most likely different back then. I have always suspected that Hogwarts was a shift from traditional apprentice training to a central school. Yet, in the beginning, I suspect the four founders taught their student individually in the Master/Apprentice style. So, each founder would have needed a section of the castle to carry out their own private lessons. I suspect that only later did the modern style of school come into play. Even further, who ever needs a castle? These building are clear displays of opulence and wealth. I'm sure a certain aspect of Hogwart's size and grandeur is related to the founders wanting to create the most impressive and substantial Wizards school in all of Europe. At the time, even with all the things I've mentioned, I suspect the school was VERY OVER-Built. > Kemper: > > As Hogwarts is a magical place, I imagine the founders > built/started with what's now the Great Hall with > lessons being taught on opposite sides of the Hall. > There wouldn't have been many students in the beginning. > Maybe 5 or 10 student each House. Each House could > have been housed in a Lesser Hall. > > As the need for space grew, additions were added to the > Hall. > bboyminn: Well, obviously I don't agree, but we are all just speculating here. I suspect Hogwarts was near it's original size, but yes, it is magical and it was certainly magically altered over time. But I suspect most of these alteration were either cosmetic, convenience, or minor building alterations and expansions. Don't get me wrong, it is certainly possible that Hogwarts was expanded over time, but I think the central size and features were always there. But then, that's just my opinion. > Kemper: > > "Well what about the Chamber of Secrets?" someone > might ask. > > ... > Or that's how I imagine it, anyway. > > Kemper > bboyminn: It seems the Chamber of Secrets was built early on before Slyternin left. But we should also note that we don't really know the timeline here. The founders may have gotten along fine for 50 years before the problems started and taken another 20 years to come to a head. I'm not saying it did happen that way, I'm saying we don't know how it happened. Also note that very likely the Chamber was built using magical building techniques. One would logically ask how could Sytherin build such a chamber, with all the rock that needed to be hauled in and dirt that needed to be moved out, without other people knowing, and of course, the answer is magic. As a side note: I suspect it will be a form of magical excavation that clears out the caved in tunnel behind the mirror. I just can't see wizards schlepping roof tiles, building stone, and lumber around. Nor do I see them spending endless hours pounding in nails. I full suspect there is a whole branch of construction magic that parallels what we know as 'house-holdie' spells. I also suspect there is a unique branch of magic for cabinet and furniture makers, as well as every other craft you can imagine. Well, I did a lot of talking, just not sure if I actually said anything. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 9 20:02:54 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:02:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: re:Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn Message-ID: <9593093.1178740974577.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168472 From: Steve >NO castle of Hogwarts size has EVER been built. Sure >many of the old /Keep/ style castles were approaching >100 feet tall, but they had maybe 3 or 4 floors at >best. These were huge cavernous building that must have >cost a fortune to heat. But no castle has even been >built to my knowledge that had a 7 full story main >body. Bart: In Whovian terms, I suspect that the castle is dimensionally transcendental (translation: It's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside). Not unlike the tents at the Quidditch championships or the Weasley car. >Even further, who ever needs a castle? Someone who wants to take advantage of the laws of gravity in defense. Bart From random832 at gmail.com Wed May 9 20:22:58 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:22:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705091322p30f6cd53rc5c05e7b7c76343@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168473 > Betsy Hp: > > I think the reason I don't see Snape as abusing his authority is > > that I see a rational (though mistaken) reason for his using Harry as > > his impossible question guinea pig. There's nothing wrong with a > > teacher hitting his students with near impossible questions to set up > > what sort of classroom he's going to run. Sure, the student being > > asked the questions feels like an idiot, but that's not an abuse of > > authority, IMO. Lupinlore: > Aha. Well, IMO, it absolutely IS an utterly contemptible and abusive > practice on Snape's part and anyone else's, Random832: The practice being referred to is asking a student three questions to which the student is unlikely (not impossible; Hermione at least certainly seemed to think she knew them; just unlikely) to know the answer. Unless you perhaps misunderstood what we were talking about, I think you ought to explain further why you think it's "utterly contemptible and abusive"? He didn't even take points off for not knowing the answers. --Random832 From penhaligon at gmail.com Wed May 9 20:41:21 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 13:41:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50705091322p30f6cd53rc5c05e7b7c76343@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50705091322p30f6cd53rc5c05e7b7c76343@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <464231F1.7020205@gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168474 Jordan Abel wrote: >> > Lupinlore: >> Aha. Well, IMO, it absolutely IS an utterly contemptible and abusive >> practice on Snape's part and anyone else's, > Random832: > The practice being referred to is asking a student three questions to > which the student is unlikely (not impossible; Hermione at least > certainly seemed to think she knew them; just unlikely) to know the > answer. Unless you perhaps misunderstood what we were talking about, I > think you ought to explain further why you think it's "utterly > contemptible and abusive"? He didn't even take points off for not > knowing the answers. Panhandle: I can only speak for myself here. Snape's asking the three questions is more or less OK, but perhaps a more even-handed teacher would have called on another student after Harry failed to answer the first question correctly. But, in my opinion, when Snape says things like "Tut, tut--fame clearly isn't everything," he steps over the line of appropriate teacher - student interaction. If Harry were acting like a male wizard Paris Hilton, I could sympathize, but Harry hasn't said or done a single thing to deserve that kind of snide comment. He's just an 11 year old kid. And, as someone who has taught at university level, talking that way to a college student could land one in a lot of trouble. Panhandle penhaligon at gmail.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 20:58:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 20:58:52 -0000 Subject: Twelve uses of dragon's blood Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168475 While it seems clear from FBAWTFT that the dragon's blood for which DD found twelve uses was really the blood of a dragon (but shouldn't it be "dragon blood" to match "unicorn blood"?), there's also a plant called dragon's blood which has had medical uses since the time of the ancient Greeks. For anyone who's interested, a site called Magickal Cat actually sells the resin made from the plant: http://themagickalcat.com/main.php3?primNavIndex=&mainURL=%2Fstore%2Findex.php3%3Fcat%3D279633 or http://themagickalcat.com/main.php3?primNavIndex=&mainURL=%2Fstore%2Findex.php3%3Fcat%3D279633 According to the site, the resin is "is used for power, purification, protection, consecration and ritual energy," which might provide a clue to the twelve uses of actual dragon blood (blood of dragons; of course, I know they don't exist in RL!). More "magickal" products made from dragon's blood resin (i.e., they're herbal products): http://www.ravensflight.net/servlet/the-Dragon%27s-Blood-Products/Categories And more on the plant itself: http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/d/dragon20.html Carol, betting that Snape knows the uses of dragon's blood, the herb, as well as dragon blood, the, erm, life fluid From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 21:24:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 21:24:39 -0000 Subject: Snape as expert on Harry's home life WAS: Re: Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168476 Lupinlore: > Now, the other question, though, is WHY Snape would have felt he had a > rational reason? What does he know about Harry and his life? What > does he suspect? Alla: Well, if Snape **knows** about Harry home life, he is just flat out evil, IMO, because he presents Harry as celebrity who is enjoying it when he knows that neither Harry has anything close to celebrity treatment at home and neither does he enjoy it. If Snape does not know about Harry's home life, then he is just a presumptious ass, I think. Heeee, interesting symmetry with UV, me thinks :) If Snape knows the task, with information we have he looks evil to me ( IMO of course, if he does not know about the task, he is a presumptious idiot IMO of course. Hmmm, loose analogy of course, but may work for me. Have to sit on it. Alla. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed May 9 21:27:53 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 21:27:53 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168477 > Betsy Hp: > I think the reason I don't see Snape as abusing his authority is that > I see a rational (though mistaken) reason for his using Harry as his > impossible question guinea pig. There's nothing wrong with a teacher > hitting his students with near impossible questions to set up what > sort of classroom he's going to run. Phoenixgod2000: As a teacher, let me say sure there is. You establish your classroom all right, you establish it as an unfair class and kids will tune you out. There are few better ways to get your students to have their backs up and resist you than what Snape did. Look at what happened with Harry. How many students over the years have decided they never want to have anything to do with potions because Snape killed their interest before it had the chance to develop? Snape actuallty starts out well with his Potions are powerful speech but undercuts it right away by setting up his classroom as adversarial. That is no way to get students to love a subject he plainly has passion for. >Sure, the student being asked > the questions feels like an idiot, but that's not an abuse of > authority, IMO. It may or may not be an abuse of authority but it certainly isn't good teaching. It doesn't make the student interested in finding the answers to his questions, which is what a skilled teacher could easily do. The job of a teacher is to convey knowledge, not to make students feel stupid. That's what they have peers for :) phoenixgod2000, who is not touching the Hogwarts men's calendar with a ten foot pole, but thinks Bellatrix could have an absolutely yummy gothic spread. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 21:46:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 21:46:11 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168478 > Panhandle: If Harry were acting like a > male wizard Paris Hilton, I could sympathize, but Harry hasn't said or > done a single thing to deserve that kind of snide comment. He's just an > 11 year old kid. And, as someone who has taught at university level, > talking that way to a college student could land one in a lot of trouble. Alla: Um, well college students should be able to handle something like that, I think. NO - not the vendetta teacher has against them, nobody should be subjected to that IMO, but just harsher talk, if you know what I mean. But to subject eleven year old to that and whom your activities hurt so much? Ugh, die Snape, please die, maybe in your after life Lily would hunt you forever and ever. Somebody in this thread mentioned something about lawschool teachers being like that. Um, I am sure there are teachers like that in law schools and trust me, I think law school students should **definitely** be able to handle them - to prepare for RL bastards indeed. But the funny thing is speaking from experience *I* had NO teachers like Snape in law school. Not even close. There were strict teachers, nice teachers, patient ones, amazing and even the one who came to lecture drunk. But **no teacher** in my classes treated any student even close to what like Snape treated Harry and Neville. > Phoenixgod2000: > How many students over the years have > decided they never want to have anything to do with potions because > Snape killed their interest before it had the chance to develop? > > Alla: I will bet you anything that Harry had a chance to like Potions, especially now when we know that Lily was good at them. IMO of course. Genes if nothing else, heheh. I know that while I cannot draw as my father did, every other subject that I loved at school and was good at was exactly what he loved at school and was good at. And other subjects were what my mom was good at. Does not always have to be like that, but I observed it often enough that kids do have a chance to be good at same things as their parents. Again - NOT always obviously. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 9 22:46:35 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 22:46:35 -0000 Subject: Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Boggart/Animagi/Squib//Bill/Sn In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50705081952ka770b5eq6357e973db105836@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168479 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: Geoff: > > I have a suspicion that you may be viewing this from a US point of > > view. JKR has based Hogwarts on a British style public school. Most > > schools of this type would probably have a school roll in the 500- > > 800 range; just maybe up to 1000. You wouldn't get ANY UK > > school with an enrolment anywhere near 3000. A.N.Other > How many are in castles this size? > > I can buy that the founders never imagined there'd be so many. But if > they're not hurting for space why would they build another one or > whatever when there's just been the one for a millennium? > > I don't see any reason to think there aren't 1000 students at hogwarts. Geoff: True, but contrarywise there is no reason to think that there /are/ 1000 students. Hogwarts is a very old school and, if it's anything like its real world English counterparts, it originally only catered for the upper classes which would make the enrolment small. Today, or at least in the ealry 1990s, we know that the houses sat at one of four tables. I accept that when Harry first entered the Hall, he was aware of 'the hundreds of facs staring at them" (PS "The Sorting Hat" p.87 UK edition). However, I find the thought of maybe 250 pupils sitting at one long table something of a logistical nightmare. My other argument is that, nowhere in canon as far as I can see, does JKR provide enough staff for a school that size. When I first started teaching, I was in a school of 400 boys in South London. Half my timetable was Science - the other half being Maths - and there was a full-time Science teacher as well. So we needed one and a half staff to cover all the Science for just 400. Take as an example, Snape. It appears that he is the only Potions teacher; there is no mention of him sharing classes or a classroom with anyone else. I get an impression that Potions lessons only held 20-25 students. To cover a student body of 1000 would need about 40 lessons in a week. But potions lessons appear to be double periods so does our Professor work night shifts as well? And no marking periods? I agree there seems to be a lot of space available. For instance, we know that there is the third floor corridor on the right-hand side where I would imagine there are some rooms and there is also the room containing the Mirror of Erised. If JKR has said that there are 1000 students (and I haven't checked this out) then there are but drawing on my experience of UK school sizes, I seriously doubt a larger student population than that as a maximum for a school like Hogwarts. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 23:14:51 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 23:14:51 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168480 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I think the reason I don't see Snape as abusing his authority is > > that I see a rational (though mistaken) reason for his using > > Harry as his impossible question guinea pig. There's nothing > > wrong with a teacher hitting his students with near impossible > > questions to set up what sort of classroom he's going to run. > >>Phoenixgod2000: > As a teacher, let me say sure there is. You establish your > classroom all right, you establish it as an unfair class and kids > will tune you out. > Betsy Hp: Or, students pay extra special close attention. And the teacher gets a high pass rate on the end of studies tests. I'm not saying this is the best style ever. But it is a style and it can be a very successful style. (There's a reason it's a sort of old-school, elitist cliche. Men who ruled nations used to be taught this way.) > >>Phoenixgod2000: > How many students over the years have decided they never want to > have anything to do with potions because Snape killed their > interest before it had the chance to develop? Betsy Hp: I'm pretty sure none, actually. Certainly none that we've seen. (Unless one squints and does a whole lot of wishing. ) Hermione is the most interested student that we get to follow through Snape's classroom and his style catches her hook, line and sinker. Mainly because I'd imagine that if you were a student in that class and you had a clue about just *one* of the questions, you'd feel a sort of excitment that maybe you're *not* one of the usual dunderheads Snape has to put up with. Or if your potion turned out correctly, that would bring a certain thrill of accomplishment too. > >>Phoenixgod2000: > Snape actuallty starts out well with his Potions are powerful > speech but undercuts it right away by setting up his classroom as > adversarial. That is no way to get students to love a subject he > plainly has passion for. Betsy Hp: I don't know, some folks thrive in an adversarial environment. And Snape certainly got his passion across. I think a teacher who could care less or obviously had no knowledge would do more to kill interest than a passionate teacher. Which makes me wonder how many students have been turned off DADA over the years. Or WW history. > >>Lyra: > You forgot Stubby Boardman -- a minor character, for sure, but we > know as much about him as we do about Regulus. Just think, Stubby > is a popular singer, Siriusly-good-looking, and romantic enough for > candlelit dinners. Surefire calendar material. LOL Betsy Hp: Ah, but maybe Stubby *is* Regulus. Weren't there theories about that possibility floating around out there? Or was he supposed to be either Sirius? Hmmm. Either way, a connection to the Black family can't be bad. Betsy Hp From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed May 9 23:44:08 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:44:08 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4642E968.9567.3959B2@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168481 On 9 May 2007 at 21:27, phoenixgod2000 wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > I think the reason I don't see Snape as abusing his authority is > that > > I see a rational (though mistaken) reason for his using Harry as > his > > impossible question guinea pig. There's nothing wrong with a > teacher > > hitting his students with near impossible questions to set up what > > sort of classroom he's going to run. > > Phoenixgod2000: > > As a teacher, let me say sure there is. You establish your > classroom all right, you establish it as an unfair class and kids > will tune you out. There are few better ways to get your students > to have their backs up and resist you than what Snape did. Look at > what happened with Harry. How many students over the years have > decided they never want to have anything to do with potions because > Snape killed their interest before it had the chance to develop? Shaun: Also speaking as a teacher, let me say that I disagree. There's no one right way to teach. There's numerous ways, some of which work better for certain teachers than others, some of which work better with certain students than others. Teachers need to find the style that makes them the most effective teacher they can be. It may not be the same style as the teacher down the hall, who may be just as good a teacher, they just have a different style. And even if it's a good style, it may not work with all students. I think that part of the reason this argument comes up repeatedly is because a lot of people seem to assume that the way they learned best as a child is somehow the right way for a teacher to teach. It isn't - it was just the right way *for* you. There may have been other children in the class who were not learning from that teacher, because just as teachers need to find the style that makes them the most effective teacher they can be, and that can be one of a range of styles, students can also learn in a range of different ways - none of which need to be assumed to be inferior or superior than any others. I think those of us who *did* learn very effectively from Snape-like teachers - and I am somebody who most definitely did - are the ones who tend to see his teaching style as valid. And why shouldn't we? It worked for us. It was valid for us. No, maybe it didn't work for the kid sitting in the next desk over - but there may have been other classes and other teachers with a different style who taught that kid effectively and didn't get through to us. That was certainly the case for me. Some teachers who seemed to be perfectly effective with most students were anything but when it came to me. That's just the way it is. No one teaching style is effective with every single student. But I can say that the style Snape seems to me to have is *very* similar to the style that some of my teachers used with me, and was very effective. You ask: "How many students over the years have decided they never want to have anything to do with potions because Snape killed their interest before it had the chance to develop?" My question is "How many students over the years have decided they want to master this complex art and subtle Science because Snape made them feel that this was a challenge they wanted to meet?" And I think it is every bit as valid a question. I certainly accept that there may be children who would have their interest damaged by the Snape approach - but I am also *very* well aware that there are children who would be fired up by that approach - because I was one of them. And to me, it seems that Hermione is likely to be in that grouping as well - very much in that grouping. I think Harry belongs in it as well - Look at what happened with Harry, you say? Well, I do look at what happened with Harry and to me, I see a boy, who though he doesn't much like Snape's classes - certainly seems committed to doing well in them. Some kids do learn in these environments very well. > Phoenixgod2000: > > Snape actuallty starts out well with his Potions are powerful speech > but undercuts it right away by setting up his classroom as > adversarial. That is no way to get students to love a subject he > plainly has passion for. Shaun: It worked for me (-8 Seriously - my first day of Form III, I met my Latin master for the first time (he also taught Ancient Greek, but I didn't start that immediately) , and he is the most Snape-like man, I can imagine. He really is. And his first lesson was *very* similar - he started off with a speech about what he could give us, what he could teach us - and then he started asking us questions that none of us had a clue about. I came out of that class wanting to prove to that man that I could do these things. (This teacher, by the way, is well aware of his reputation - a few years ago, I asked him what he tought of the idea - he revealed I wasn't the first to tell him he reminded me of Snape, and he agreed the characterisation was accurate - but he also told me the following (and gave me permission to quote it: "I am the best Classics Master in this country. I am an extremely effective teacher. What I am not is warm and cuddly. I don't know how to be. But I do know how to turn obnoxious adolescent boys into people capable of appreciating the combined culture of 25 centuries. Personally I think that's worth doing. If I can't do it without making a few boys cry. Tough. They'll thank me for it as adults. Or they'll hate me. Either way, they'll be better for it." This man was a *very* effective teacher. His students achieved almost universally good marks, and most of them who went on to the higher levels of the subjects realise how much he gave them). Phoenixgod2000: > It may or may not be an abuse of authority but it certainly isn't > good teaching. It doesn't make the student interested in finding > the answers to his questions, which is what a skilled teacher could > easily do. The job of a teacher is to convey knowledge, not to make > students feel stupid. Shaun: It *can* make the student interested in finding the answers - again, it did for me. It was a challenge delivered and I chose to rise to that challenge. I *wanted* to do well in that class in a way I didn't want to do well in any other classes. Snape may not be everybody's cup of tea as a teacher - fair enough - but I think we need to be cautious when assessing him in not assuming that "a bad teacher for *me*" equals "a bad teacher." 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 10 00:28:16 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:28:16 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168482 > > >>Phoenixgod2000: > > As a teacher, let me say sure there is. You establish your > > classroom all right, you establish it as an unfair class and kids > > will tune you out. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Or, students pay extra special close attention. And the teacher gets > a high pass rate on the end of studies tests. I'm not saying > this is the best style ever. But it is a style and it can be a very > successful style. Pippin: JKR said that Lupin is the one teacher that she would like to have had. Logically she wouldn't pick any of the others if she had a choice. That means, IMO, that Lupin is the *only* one who's not abusing his power, in the sense that he's the only one who could succeed without a captive audience. Binns abuses his power by being boring, and I'd have to put Sprout and Sinistra, who apparently has no personality at all :p in that category too, as far as Harry is concerned. But Neville no doubt finds Professor Sprout's classes absolutely fascinating, and her low key approach exactly what he needs. Pippin whose mental image of Lupin unexpectedly acquired a purple shirt when it morphed into ESE!Lupin From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Thu May 10 00:40:25 2007 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:40:25 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168483 > > >>Lyra: > > You forgot Stubby Boardman -- a minor character, for sure, but we > > know as much about him as we do about Regulus. Just think, Stubby > > is a popular singer, Siriusly-good-looking, and romantic enough for > > candlelit dinners. Surefire calendar material. LOL > > Betsy Hp: > Ah, but maybe Stubby *is* Regulus. Weren't there theories about > that possibility floating around out there? Or was he supposed to be > either Sirius? Hmmm. Either way, a connection to the Black family > can't be bad. > Lyra: Sorry, JK herself has knocked that theory down. From the Rumours section of her website: Stubby Boardman is Regulus Black No, he isn't. Nice idea, though. From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Thu May 10 00:51:25 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:51:25 -0000 Subject: Enrollment at Hogwarts Was: Battle/Cloak/Apparate/Dobby/TMR/Virus/Shun/Bogg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168484 > > Geoff wrote: > > > I have a suspicion that you may be viewing this from a US point of > > > view. JKR has based Hogwarts on a British style public school. Most > > > schools of this type would probably have a school roll in the 500- > > > 800 range; just maybe up to 1000. You wouldn't get ANY UK > > > school with an enrolment anywhere near 3000. > > A.N.Other > > How many are in castles this size? > > > > I can buy that the founders never imagined there'd be so many. But if > > they're not hurting for space why would they build another one or > > whatever when there's just been the one for a millennium? > > > > I don't see any reason to think there aren't 1000 students at hogwarts. > > Geoff: > True, but contrarywise there is no reason to think that there > /are/ 1000 students. Snip > > My other argument is that, nowhere in canon as far as I can see, > does JKR provide enough staff for a school that size. > > When I first started teaching, I was in a school of 400 boys in > South London. Half my timetable was Science - the other half > being Maths - and there was a full-time Science teacher as well. > So we needed one and a half staff to cover all the Science for just > 400. > > Take as an example, Snape. It appears that he is the only Potions > teacher; there is no mention of him sharing classes or a classroom > with anyone else. I get an impression that Potions lessons only held > 20-25 students. To cover a student body of 1000 would need about > 40 lessons in a week. But potions lessons appear to be double > periods so does our Professor work night shifts as well? And no > marking periods? Snip again Now Anne Squires who chimes in (because I know a bit about this issue): I teach at a high school in the United States. I feel that my school is fairly typical. We have an enrollment of 1200, so a little bit higher than the 1000 enrollment being discussed. In order to accommodate this number of students we have seven administrators (one principal, one vocational director, one athletic director, one registrar, and three vice principals), three counselors, three media specialists, and eighty-six teachers. We also have a resource officer. (I guess he would be analogous to Filch. Hmm, I had not thought of that before now. However, he doesn't work for the school system; he works for the city police department.) Grand total = 100. Canon does not come anywhere close to indicating that there are this many staff members at Hogwarts. I cannot imagine this number of people seated at one head table at the end of a great hall---seated on only one side of that table mind you. Which brings me to my next point---- We have four lunches because the entire student body cannot fit into the cafeteria at once. BTW, IMHO our cafeteria is rather large. It can hold over three hundred and fifty people at once. Class sizes vary; but I'd say that twenty-five students per class per block is average. Many teachers teach an extended day contract which means they do not have a planning period. And it still takes eighty-six people to teach the students. Going back to the Snape example-- I get the impression from canon that he teaches everyone in years 1-5. In addition to this, he also has some NEWT students. Even taking into consideration that Hogwarts students do not attend every class each day, this would just be impossible from a logistical standpoint, IMHO, if there are 1000 students. The number of staff at Hogwarts simply could not accommodate 1000 students. I realize that there are unnamed staff members. But where do they all sit at meal times? I know some, like Trelawny, do not always eat in The Great Hall. However, Trelawny seems to be the exception, not the rule. Anne From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu May 10 02:01:34 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 22:01:34 EDT Subject: more snape stuff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168485 >Beckah >snip> Snape never actually SAYS what the plan is, he just says he knows of it. Could it be that he was fishing for information?Snape never actually SAYS what the plan is, he just says he knows of it. Could it be that he was fishing for information?? Kind of like when you have kids and you say "I've already heard your sisters side but I'm waiting until I hear yours before I decide what I'm going to do" so that you can find out what is going on? Does that make any sense? To me it seemed like Snape had no idea that there was a plan for Draco to kill DD, but when Narcissa and Bel show up he figures out that something is going on so he prete What do you guys think of this?? Am I reaching or is this plausable?? Thanks for your input. Nikkalmati Yes, I have been a fan of this theory for a long time now, but I haven't garnered much support. Lots of people seem to think that would be really stupid of him, but, in fact, as a spy it is the sort of thing he would do. I like your example (sneaky you). I think we can trust Bella's reaction here. Snape is not that close to Voldy at this time and I don't think Voldy makes a habit of telling his plans to anyone who is not directly involved. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Thu May 10 02:43:27 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 22:43:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <464231F1.7020205@gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50705091322p30f6cd53rc5c05e7b7c76343@mail.gmail.com> <464231F1.7020205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <464286CF.30108@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168486 Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon wrote: > done a single thing to deserve that kind of snide comment. He's just an > 11 year old kid. And, as someone who has taught at university level, > talking that way to a college student could land one in a lot of trouble. Bart: But this is England. "We don't need no education We dont need no thought control No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! All in all it's just another brick in the wall." On another JKR subject: Her comments on The Deathly Hallows suddenly raises the odds on my longshot theory (calls from beyond the grave; probably from behind the Veil) from 1000:1 to maybe 20:1. If I'm right, I CALLED IT FIRST (it was within a couple of hours of her announcing the title)!!!!! Bart From random832 at gmail.com Thu May 10 02:46:18 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 22:46:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705091946y46ef54fdu4a37aabf0d32ab61@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168487 wynnleaf: > Snape's comments about celebrity make up what I'd consider the wrong > part of Snape's handling of the questions. Asking the questions > isn't the problem, IMO, it's making a comment that implied that > Harry would have thought celebrity "did" count for something, > because it was implying a criticism of Harry for something Harry > hadn't done. Random832: All it implies is that snape thinks _someone_ listening thinks celebrity counts for something. Harry is not the only person in his audience. > Pippin: > JKR said that Lupin is the one teacher that _she_ would like to have > had. Logically _she_ wouldn't pick any of the others if _she_ had a choice. > That means, IMO, that Lupin is the *only* one who's not abusing > his power, in the sense that he's the only one who could succeed > without a captive audience. Random832: (_emphasis_ above mine) No, he's, if anything, the only one who would succeed for _her_. As has been said here, different teaching styles work for different students and JKR-as-hypothetical-student is no exception. --Random832 From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu May 10 02:47:02 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 02:47:02 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <4642E968.9567.3959B2@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168488 > Shaun: > > Also speaking as a teacher, let me say that I disagree. > > There's no one right way to teach. I would agree that there are lots of right ways to teach. there are also plenty of wrong ways. > Teachers need to find the style that makes them the most effective teacher they can be. It > may not be the same style as the teacher down the hall, who may be just as good a teacher, > they just have a different style. And even if it's a good style, it may not work with all students. I agree here as well. Not every style works with every student. But I have made a point of studying teaching styles. I find the differences between teachers fascinating and I'm always looking for ways to improve myself. And in my experience, while Snape's style can work with some students, it is among the most inefficient of styles because far more students will react poorly to it than will react positively to it. And when it is effective, it is mostly effective on older, more mature students rather than 11 year olds. > I think that part of the reason this argument comes up repeatedly is because a lot of people > seem to assume that the way they learned best as a child is somehow the right way for a > teacher to teach. It isn't - it was just the right way *for* you. that's not the arguement I am making. I am an auditory learner. I learn best through almost pure lecture and I realize how uncommon that is. I'm speaking from efficiency. Snape's style just isn't all that great because it isn't the style that will do the greatest good for the greatest number. It is just the style that is best suited for his personality. That doesn't make it a great style. > I think those of us who *did* learn very effectively from Snape- like teachers - and I am > somebody who most definitely did - are the ones who tend to see his teaching style as valid. > And why shouldn't we? It worked for us. It was valid for us. But were you the typical student? was what was best for you the best for most of the class? I think you are making the same mistake. I think you are assuming because it worked for you it must be a good system. That is just plain bad logic :) > You ask: "How many students over the years have decided they never want to have anything > to do with potions because Snape killed their interest before it had the chance to develop?" > > My question is "How many students over the years have decided they want to master this > complex art and subtle Science because Snape made them feel that this was a challenge > they wanted to meet?" > And I think it is every bit as valid a question. I certainly accept that there may be children who > would have their interest damaged by the Snape approach - but I am also *very* well aware > that there are children who would be fired up by that approach - because I was one of them. Once again, how old you were you when you were fired up by that approach? I'd bet that you'd be older than Harry in that situation. I can see how Snape might work with older students, but this was a beginning class, trying to get across the fundamental principlesof something new to children. You don't start off a fundamental principles class by calling kids stupid and making a couple look like fools. You just don't if you want to get the best out of very young students. these aren't 15 or 16 year olds. they are eleven and have absolutely no grounding in the subject snape was teaching unless they just happen to have memorized their textbook which is a little much to ask for the first day of school. > And to me, it seems that Hermione is likely to be in that grouping as well - very much in that > grouping. Hermione is a pretty unusual case. there aren't many students like her around. you could put her in pretty much any class and she would do well if she wanted to. She gets good grades in Binn's class for god's sake! To me that says nothing about Snape's teaching style and everything about Hermione's desire to learn. I think Harry belongs in it as well - Look at what happened with Harry, you say? > Well, I do look at what happened with Harry and to me, I see a boy, who though he doesn't > much like Snape's classes - certainly seems committed to doing well in them. Harry wants to pass the class, which is a vastly different animal than doing well. And do you think if he didn't need the class to be an Auror, he would even bother with the class? > Shaun: > > It worked for me (-8 Wouldn't work on me. there, now our annecdotal stories cancel each other out :) > "I am the best Classics Master in this country. I am an extremely effective teacher. What I am > not is warm and cuddly. I don't know how to be. But I do know how to turn obnoxious > adolescent boys into people capable of appreciating the combined culture of 25 centuries. > Personally I think that's worth doing. If I can't do it without making a few boys cry. Tough. > They'll thank me for it as adults. Or they'll hate me. Either way, they'll be better for it." Sounds like an obnoxious guy with an ego problem to me. I don't even want to think about what I would have done if I had had someone like him when I was in my less self controlled high school days :) I liked the teachers who presented the subject as a problem to be solved, one I could discover if I worked hard enough and wanted it enough. you don't need to be mean to do that. you need to be firm, but more importantly, you need to be interesting. Cutting me off at the knees and establishing my 'ignorance' on the first day would do the opposite of that. > It *can* make the student interested in finding the answers - again, it did for me. It was a > challenge delivered and I chose to rise to that challenge. I *wanted* to do well in that class in > a way I didn't want to do well in any other classes. It's a matter of tone. Making it a challenge is good. It's what I do in my classrooms. But you have to present the challenge in such a way as to make the students want to meet the challenge. I don't think that Snape does that successfully for most of the class. From the way students seem to talk about Snape, he is something to be endured, not someone to learn from. That is bad. > Snape may not be everybody's cup of tea as a teacher - fair enough - but I think we need to > be cautious when assessing him in not assuming that "a bad teacher for *me*" equals "a bad > teacher." I would agree that we should be cautious about assiging bad and good to something as subjective as teaching. Still, I am strangely okay with going out on the limb of saying that he is a bad teacher :) Phoenixgod2000 From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 03:08:10 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 03:08:10 -0000 Subject: The book that belongs to the HBP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168489 Ok so I'm reading HBP for the 3rd or 4th time and why this just hit me I have no clue....but seriously how much older than Harry is Snape? Why is it the school is still using the same textbook one of the professors would of had in their day? LOL It can't be that much different in the Wizard world than the real world. A book that is what maybe at least 30 years old, still being used?! I just find that odd...no one else on this? :-) TK From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu May 10 03:57:50 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 03:57:50 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168490 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: Not every style works with every student. > But I have made a point of studying teaching styles. I find the > differences between teachers fascinating and I'm always looking for > ways to improve myself. And in my experience, while Snape's style > can work with some students, it is among the most inefficient of > styles because far more students will react poorly to it than will > react positively to it. And when it is effective, it is mostly > effective on older, more mature students rather than 11 year olds. wynnleaf One would think so. But I have mentioned before that in our small school system the teacher most preferred by the 5th grade students, not to mention their parents, is an extremely Snape-like teacher -- much like the teacher Shaun described. My now 16 year old daughter describes him as "ruthless," but she and most of the kids found him fascinating. In fact, I just read Shaun's and your post aloud to my 14 year old son and he immediately, without prompting from me, commented on his 5th grade teacher and how most of the kids liked his classes far better than the other kinder, more "caring," and supportive 5th grade teachers. phoenixgod2000 Snape's style just isn't all > that great because it isn't the style that will do the greatest good > for the greatest number. It is just the style that is best suited > for his personality. wynnleaf Unfortunately, without some definite data, that's only a subjective opinion. All anyone can do is produce anecdotes. Shaun's story is fascinating, not least because if I understand correctly, that really *is* a teacher considered to be a particularly fine teacher. In a smaller way, the 5th grade teacher I mention is also well known in our school district as an excellent teacher. He wouldn't have that reputation if kids weren't doing particularly well in his classes. phoenixgod2000 > But were you the typical student? was what was best for you the best > for most of the class? I think you are making the same mistake. I > think you are assuming because it worked for you it must be a good > system. That is just plain bad logic :) wynnleaf I think the point wasn't that what worked for some students therefore works for all -- in fact, Shaun made his point abundantly clear -- the point is you can't say that because a teacher's style *doesn't* work for some, the teacher is a bad teacher. Snape's students learn. We get several indications of that, even if readers may choose to reject some of that evidence. Snape's comments to Umbridge about having a higher than typical number of students doing well on OWLs, and the number of students in the NEWT class in HBP both seem to indicate that a fairly high number of the students make quite high OWL potions scores. Sure, some like Neville do poorly, but the few that do poorly are *not* an indicator of a bad teacher. Any teacher can have a few poor students. The self-esteem issue is often brought up, but there's a lot of debate about educational methods and self-esteem and I realize there can be a huge gulf in the different theories and opinions. Many believe that achievement in a tough classroom like Snape's ultimately produces much better esteem than in the supportive, caring environment. For this argument, it doesn't matter which is correct. The point is that both sides of the question have legitimate arguments and *neither* side can be characterized as "abusive" teaching simply because the other side doesn't like the teaching style. > phoenixgod2000 > Once again, how old you were you when you were fired up by that > approach? I'd bet that you'd be older than Harry in that situation. > I can see how Snape might work with older students, but this was a > beginning class, trying to get across the fundamental principlesof > something new to children. You don't start off a fundamental > principles class by calling kids stupid and making a couple look > like fools. You just don't if you want to get the best out of very > young students. these aren't 15 or 16 year olds. they are eleven and > have absolutely no grounding in the subject snape was teaching > unless they just happen to have memorized their textbook which is a > little much to ask for the first day of school. wynnleaf Once again -- this mostly subjective opinion because you can't produce data that proves that the teaching style you dislike actually produces worse results than the one you advocate. And the point really isn't which one produces the most successful students -- as though we're wondering whether Snape's style get's 20% better or worse results. The real question here is whether Snape's style is so awful that it's abusive. Or whether it's so terrible that he should be considered a poor teacher. All we have are anecdotes. But we can pull up anecdotes of successful teachers (even of 5th graders), who use these methods. I'm sure others could produce anecdotes of the exact opposite. But that isn't the point. The point is that Snape's style is a teaching style that *is* used in the Real World and can be used (however often or rarely) with good effect. JKR does *not* give us evidence that Snape's style is producing poor effects. One really poor student (Neville) is *no* indication of a teacher with overall poor results. Any teacher can have a student who does poorly. On the whole, JKR has chosen to give us evidence of fairly good results -- a good number of students doing well on OWL exams, Umbridge commenting on the advanced work in the class, a fairly sizable number of students in the 6th year class, and Hermione doing noticeably worse under the caring and supportive style of Slughorn than she did under Snape. phoenixgod2000 > Hermione is a pretty unusual case. there aren't many students like > her around. you could put her in pretty much any class and she would > do well if she wanted to. She gets good grades in Binn's class for > god's sake! To me that says nothing about Snape's teaching style > and everything about Hermione's desire to learn. wynnleaf Hermione is an example of the best that an excellent student can be expected to do (not including Snape and Lily who were apparently both brilliant *and* highly creative, the two not being the same thing). The best that extremely bright Hermione could do in Slughorn's class was noticeably worse than she was able to do in Snape's class. Yet if Slughorn was a better teacher, shouldn't we have seen Hermione producing the same perfect results that she got in Snape's classes? It would be even easier for her to do well with Slughorn, right? Wrong. Slughorn, regardless how encouraging and supportive his style appears, did not teach the level of content Snape taught. (I have to assume Snape taught the same better methods like he wrote in the Potions book, because Hermione can follow Snape's instructions and produce perfect results, but follow Slughorn's required text and not get perfect results.) phoenixgod2000 > Harry wants to pass the class, which is a vastly different animal > than doing well. And do you think if he didn't need the class to be > an Auror, he would even bother with the class? wynnleaf On this, I disagree with Shaun, but don't agree with phoenixgod2000 either. Harry spends lots of time in his Potions classes quite distracted by paying attention to the actions and conversations of other students, his out-of-class concerns, or just fuming over something (often Snape). He regularly puts potions together without paying careful attention. Further, Harry tends to put off his homework until the last minute. Are these problems because of Snape or does Harry do this with other classes? My impression is that classes like Charms and Transfiguration, while they may be tough classes in their own right, don't require the level of focus that potions requires. Harry can be distracted off and on in class and it doesn't matter. It's hard to tell whether Harry's problems in Potions are due to his dislike of Snape, or whether he'd have the same difficulties in other classes if they demanded the focus that potions demands. > > Shaun: > > > > It worked for me (-8 > phoenixgod2000 > Wouldn't work on me. > > there, now our annecdotal stories cancel each other out :) wynnleaf No, they don't. Your anecdotal stories combined are simply making the same point Shaun made: that different people do well under different types of teaching styles. JKR has *not* shown us that lots of students do poorly under Snape. Without that evidence, we can't assume that Snape has any worse results among his students than the anecdotal examples Shaun and I gave. > > Shaun's teachers example > > "I am the best Classics Master in this country. I am an extremely > effective teacher. What I am > > not is warm and cuddly. I don't know how to be. But I do know how > to turn obnoxious > > adolescent boys into people capable of appreciating the combined > culture of 25 centuries. > > Personally I think that's worth doing. If I can't do it without > making a few boys cry. Tough. > > They'll thank me for it as adults. Or they'll hate me. Either way, > they'll be better for it." > phoenixgod2000 > Sounds like an obnoxious guy with an ego problem to me. wynnleaf Or someone who knows his strengths and realizes that the whole reason he's being asked this question is because those strengths and characteristics are acknowledged. > phoenixgod2000 > It's a matter of tone. Making it a challenge is good. It's what I > do in my classrooms. But you have to present the challenge in such > a way as to make the students want to meet the challenge. I don't > think that Snape does that successfully for most of the class. From > the way students seem to talk about Snape, he is something to be > endured, not someone to learn from. wynnleaf The way students talk about a teacher is not an indicator of how good that teacher is. One of the most successful teachers in our school system (a high school teacher) is a teacher students "love to hate," if you know what I mean. Only one of her courses is required, but students crowd into her classes, voluntarily taking elective classes from someone they're going to complain about, shout about, cry over her decisions and supposed unfairness, and tell "I hate Ms. X" stories about for years. But her classes remain some of the most popular, time consuming, and difficult in the school and apparently she stirs a passion for her subject, since many of her students go on to teach the same subject. > phoenixgod2000 > Still, I am strangely okay with going out on the limb of saying that > he is a bad teacher :) wynnleaf And amazingly, many people still learn a lot from this type of teacher. And while some will argue that the evidence that Snape's students by and large do well can be explained away, still the only evidence of teaching *results* that JKR gives us are positive -- high numbers of students getting high OWL marks, an advanced curriculum, a good number of students in 6th year NEWTS, and Hermione unable to do as well under the "good" teacher as she did under Snape. wynnleaf From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu May 10 04:03:08 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 04:03:08 -0000 Subject: The book that belongs to the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > Ok so I'm reading HBP for the 3rd or 4th time and why this just hit me > I have no clue....but seriously how much older than Harry is Snape? > Why is it the school is still using the same textbook one of the > professors would of had in their day? LOL It can't be that much > different in the Wizard world than the real world. A book that is what > maybe at least 30 years old, still being used?! I just find that > odd...no one else on this? :-) > > TK > wynnleaf I don't think we know what potions text Snape was using. Slughorn obviously wanted this particular textbook. Snape typically has the instructions for potions written out on the board, so students are probably getting the benefit of his modifications and improvements to the texts. The use of the older text may be the result of bringing back an elderly, retired teacher on the spur of the moment, who decides to use the texts he's familiar with. On the other hand, the Wizarding World might typically continue to use very old methods and research. It would certainly fit in with a lot of the other older customs, laws, and culture of the Wizarding World. wynnleaf From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu May 10 04:43:41 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:43:41 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: <4642E968.9567.3959B2@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: <46432F9D.5816.14BA372@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168492 On 10 May 2007 at 2:47, phoenixgod2000 wrote: > I agree here as well. Not every style works with every student. > But I have made a point of studying teaching styles. I find the > differences between teachers fascinating and I'm always looking for > ways to improve myself. And in my experience, while Snape's style > can work with some students, it is among the most inefficient of > styles because far more students will react poorly to it than will > react positively to it. And when it is effective, it is mostly > effective on older, more mature students rather than 11 year olds. Shaun: I've also made a point of studying teaching styles. It's one of my hobby-horses, as it happens. And I am swinging into the saddle as I write this. (-8 I disagree - and my experience disagrees - that far more children react badly to this style of teaching than react well to it (I believe the numbers who do well and do poorly are fairly evenly split) - but even if I granted that point, my question then is - so what? The students who react well to it are as entitled to an education that meets their needs as the students who react badly to it. Why should the (say) 20% of children who would learn well with this style of teaching CONSTANTLY have to see their needs sacrificed for the other 80%? If the only teaching styles we treat as valid are the ones that work for *most* kids, we wind up neglecting the education of those children who aren't in the majority. I spent eight years in schools which catered to the majority at the expense of the minority - and I was part of the minority. The experience almost killed me - that's no exagerration. Sure, my teachers may have been using the methods that worked for *most* children - but I personally happen to think that at least at some point, occasionally, they might have decided - hey, maybe we should pay some attention to the minority as well. phoenixgod2000: > that's not the arguement I am making. I am an auditory learner. I > learn best through almost pure lecture and I realize how uncommon > that is. I'm speaking from efficiency. Snape's style just isn't all > that great because it isn't the style that will do the greatest good > for the greatest number. It is just the style that is best suited > for his personality. > > That doesn't make it a great style. Shaun: The 'greatest good for the greatest number' - so nobody else matters? If a school is teaching 80% of its students well, the other 20% can be ignored? I don't think anybody would call that good teaching. Just for a second consider this - can you imagine for a moment how much it *hurts* me to hear the forms of teaching that *worked best* for me in environments where ninety percent of my schooling didn't work, being derided as *bad teaching*? Just imagine how much *worse* it feels when some people go even further and call it 'child abuse'. It leaves me wondering what these people think should have happened to me? Would it have been better if at age 12, I had killed myself rather than been lucky enough - *finally* - after eight years of schooling to *finally* encounter a teaching style that worked for me in *some* classes. I'd have been dead - but at least I wouldn't have had to deal with those 'abusive, bad teachers' - who just happen to have helped save my life (-8 I believe that all children are entitled to an education that addresses their needs. A school *full* of Snapes would most definitely *not* achieve that - because there would be nothing there for those children who *don't* learn effectively from those teachers - whether it's a minority or a majority those kids would be seriously disadvantaged if *all* their teachers were like Snape. But that is *not* the situation that exists at Hogwarts. Not all the teachers are Severus Snape's. Maybe Snape's methods are only good for a minority of students - let's go with the 20% number, just for arguments sake. I personally would put it higher than that, but just for a number. The students at Hogwarts do seven different subjects in their first year and second year. This number increases from their third year onwards. But let's use seven classes - seven different teachers. Even if only 20% of the pupils at Hogwarts benefit from Snape's teaching style, what is wrong with 20% of students having 14% of classes meeting *their* needs? What is wrong with one fifth of the students having just one teacher out of seven delivering a class that is aimed at them, rather than everybody else? We're not talking about a situation here where the students only have one teacher - we are talking about a situation in which they have a minimum of seven teachers, only one of whom is Severus Snape. phoenixgod2000: > But were you the typical student? was what was best for you the best > for most of the class? I think you are making the same mistake. I > think you are assuming because it worked for you it must be a good > system. That is just plain bad logic :) Shaun: No, I wasn't a typical student. I was a very atypical student in some ways. And what I needed educationally was often markedly different from what most students needed. *But* where I think my position differs from the one I am challenging is that I most explicitly do *not* go around claiming that the teachers who didn't work for me were bad teachers. I tend to assume that most of them were competent teachers, and some of them were very good teachers. One of my old teachers has, in fact, been voted as one of the best teachers in Australia a few years ago. Well... she was not very effective at all at teaching *me*. I would put my experiences with her as the *worst* I had with any teacher that particular year. Her teaching style did *not* match what I needed. But that doesn't make her a bad teacher. It simply means we weren't a good match. And that is something quite different. It seems to me that when it comes to Snape, a lot of people seem to assume that because they wouldn't have done well in his classes, that makes him a bad teacher. My view is that even a good teacher - even the best teacher - has some students they are not right for. I don't assume that just because a teacher worked for me that makes them a good teacher. *But* I do tend to think that bad teachers are the ones who can't get through to anyone at all. The Snape-like teachers I had - I regard them as good teachers because they didn't just get through to me. They got through to more than 90% of the class. 90% of the class did as well as they could in their subjects. Incidentally, with the most-Snapish of them all, I had the rather odd experience of doing really well in one of his classes, while doing *very* *very* poorly in his other class at the same time. So I saw it from both ends. His teaching style was the same in both classes. The subjects were extremely similar subjects. What was different was my reaction to the classes. phoenixgod2000: > Once again, how old you were you when you were fired up by that > approach? I'd bet that you'd be older than Harry in that situation. > I can see how Snape might work with older students, but this was a > beginning class, trying to get across the fundamental principlesof > something new to children. You don't start off a fundamental > principles class by calling kids stupid and making a couple look > like fools. You just don't if you want to get the best out of very > young students. these aren't 15 or 16 year olds. they are eleven and > have absolutely no grounding in the subject snape was teaching > unless they just happen to have memorized their textbook which is a > little much to ask for the first day of school. Shaun: I was 13 when I encountered my lesser-Snape (I had two 'Snape-like' teachers - a lesser, and a greater - one being much more Snape-like than the others). Most of my classmates had encountered him at 12, but I only entered that school at 13. The greater-Snape came into my life a year later when I'd just turned 14. I was unusually emotionally immature at these ages - that's not just my judgement but was the result of psychological assessments at the time. But in general, I would certainly agree that a Snape-like teacher is probably not anywhere near as likely to be as effective with younger children as with older - and personally I do think that Snape's methods with 11 year olds were at least a little over-the-top. But I don't blame Snape for that. I blame the structure of Hogwarts. Hogwarts is, to all intents, and purposes, what I would call a 'secondary school' if I was looking for an equivalent to the education systems I am most familiar with. Where I live, kids start secondary school at 12 - and many of the criticisms I would make of Hogwarts also apply to those schools here for the same reasons (generally speaking, I tend to be rather critical of America's education system - but one thing I think America has overall got right is the fact that its high school starts a little later, and there are institutions like middle schools and junior highs for slightly younger kids - I was lucky that at 13, I wound up in one of the relatively few Australian schools that also have such a split). Hogwarts as a school seems to expect 11 year olds to learn in pretty much the same way as 16 year olds (we haven't seen Seventh Year yet, so I can't comment on that) and that's not a good assumption in my view. But it is an assumption that is outside the control of individual teachers - and if I was to level criticism at the teachers for failing to adapt to that reality, I'd be directing it just as strongly as every other teacher. We see no evidence that things are done differently for younger children in any other classes either. phoenixgod2000: > > And to me, it seems that Hermione is likely to be in that grouping > as well - very much in that > > grouping. Shaun: > Hermione is a pretty unusual case. there aren't many students like > her around. you could put her in pretty much any class and she would > do well if she wanted to. She gets good grades in Binn's class for > god's sake! To me that says nothing about Snape's teaching style > and everything about Hermione's desire to learn. Shaun: My speciality area is exceptionally and profoundly gifted children - and Hermione falls very much into that category in my view. And, yes, she *is* a pretty unusual case because of that. But the unusual cases are just as entitled to an education that meets their needs as any other children. Hermione is certainly a child who wants to learn. But she's also a child who is perfectly willing to criticise what she sees as poor teaching (such as Umbridge's classes). And even to walk out of a class she feels is teaching her nothing (Trelawney's). Hermione will - and does - challenge teachers who she doesn't feel are giving her what she needs. She doesn't just sit back placidly, and learn. Also - and this is a generalisation but it is generally true - EG and PG kids do tend to do well in classes where strict teachers set high standards - even unreasonably high standards phoenixgod2000: > Harry wants to pass the class, which is a vastly different animal > than doing well. And do you think if he didn't need the class to be > an Auror, he would even bother with the class? No, probably not - but we cannot equate enjoying a class with learning successfully in it. True, many people do enjoy the classes they do well in, but it's not a requirement. It's just a nice bonus. phoenixgod2000: > Sounds like an obnoxious guy with an ego problem to me. I don't even > want to think about what I would have done if I had had someone like > him when I was in my less self controlled high school days :) Shaun: Obnoxious - no. Arrogant - yes. Egotistical - yes. But when your classes *lowest* mark is routinely higher than the *highest* mark of the teacher teaching the same subject down the landing (and that is despite the fact that you use a horrible marking system which allows students to get negative marks on your tests, while in his class the worst you can get is a zero - and that other fellow wasn't a bad teacher by any means - I experienced his classes as well), it really isn't surprising that you have a high opinion of your skills as a teacher. phoenixgod2000: > I liked the teachers who presented the subject as a problem to be > solved, one I could discover if I worked hard enough and wanted it > enough. you don't need to be mean to do that. you need to be firm, > but more importantly, you need to be interesting. Cutting me off at > the knees and establishing my 'ignorance' on the first day would do > the opposite of that. Shaun: I'm sure it would have - but you're not the archetype for all students. They didn't break the mould after you started school. No teacher's methods will work for every single child. phoenixgod2000: > It's a matter of tone. Making it a challenge is good. It's what I > do in my classrooms. But you have to present the challenge in such > a way as to make the students want to meet the challenge. I don't > think that Snape does that successfully for most of the class. From > the way students seem to talk about Snape, he is something to be > endured, not someone to learn from. > > That is bad. Shaun: And yet there are numerous people here on this list who are making it quite clear that Snape is a teacher they would have learned from and wanted to learn from. Personally the type of challenge a teacher like him offered is the type of challenge *I* really wanted at school - and, very, very rarely got - even though some other teachers tried to offer it. 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 drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu May 10 04:56:53 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:56:53 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The book that belongs to the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <464332B5.7957.157B9A4@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168493 On 10 May 2007 at 3:08, Tandra wrote: > Ok so I'm reading HBP for the 3rd or 4th time and why this just hit > me > I have no clue....but seriously how much older than Harry is > Snape? > Why is it the school is still using the same textbook one of the > professors would of had in their day? LOL It can't be that much > different in the Wizard world than the real world. A book that is > what > maybe at least 30 years old, still being used?! I just find that > odd...no one else on this? :-) Maybe it's just a really good book. Seriously - real world examples, again. When I was at school, our Latin textbook (and I started studying Latin in 1988) dated from the 1930s. It had been reprinted but when I lost a copy, my teacher gave me a much older one that was the same inside. In some senior mathematics classes we used a book published in 1878. Sometimes an old text book can be a very good book and it remains in use because it's a very good book. 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 10 04:57:25 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 04:57:25 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50705091946y46ef54fdu4a37aabf0d32ab61@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168494 > > > Pippin: > > JKR said that Lupin is the one teacher that _she_ would like to have > > had. Logically _she_ wouldn't pick any of the others if _she_ had a choice. > > That means, IMO, that Lupin is the *only* one who's not abusing > > his power, in the sense that he's the only one who could succeed > > without a captive audience. > > Random832: > (_emphasis_ above mine) > > No, he's, if anything, the only one who would succeed for _her_. As > has been said here, different teaching styles work for different > students and JKR-as-hypothetical-student is no exception. > Pippin: Good point. We can presume there is no teacher that every student likes so much that they would voluntarily take the class, (Draco certainly doesn't want Lupin as a teacher) and therefore *all* the teachers are abusing their power -- the system forces them to do it. If the worst results of Snape's abuse of power are that some of his students don't like him, some of them lose interest in his subject, and some do less well in his subject than they might have done with another teacher, then we have seen all those results with other teachers. If Snape is to be punished for his failings as a teacher, then all the rest should be as well. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen. Pippin From ida3 at planet.nl Thu May 10 06:19:09 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 06:19:09 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168495 Pippin: > If the worst results of Snape's abuse of power are that some of his > students don't like him, some of them lose > interest in his subject, > and some do less well in his subject than they might have done with > another teacher, then we have seen all those results with other > teachers. > > If Snape is to be punished for his failings as a teacher, then all > the rest should be as well. Somehow I don't think that's going to > happen. Dana: My problem with Snape as a teacher is not about his teaching methods but about his misuse of power to express his favoritism and his dislikes. When he ridicules and bullies his students, it has nothing to do with him teaching potions but everything to do with his personal dislike of the student. And we see how different he is from one student to the next. Both Hermione and Draco are good at the subject, yet he ridicules Hermione while acting nice towards Draco. There are other bad students in his class but he doesn't call them stupid or bullies them constantly. As someone else has pointed out he got mad at Harry for not preventing Neville to make a mistake but when Hermione tries to help Neville in later years Snape punishes her for her efforts. If Snape teaching methods were all about teaching then he would treat everybody the same and then I could agree it would work for some but not for others but that is not what we have seen on page now have we? No, we see that he bullies specific students while treating other students normal. He even elevates the feelings of superiority of those students he treats normal by allowing them to mock the same students he dislikes, in front of him because it boosts his own ego to have these students laugh with him. If he was all about fairness then Draco's arrogance and feeling of superiority should equally cause Snape the same worries that people are saying it must be the reason for why Snape treats Harry the way he does but he doesn't now does he. No, he actually enforces this behavior in Draco by letting Draco openly amuse himself at Harry's coast. And why do you think that is? Because Snape is a personal friend of the Malfoy's and if Snape would ever got it in his head to treat Draco in the same way he does Harry then Lucius would be in his office so fast, Snape would not know what hit him. And we also see that Snape did not make an ever lasting impression on Draco either now did he as Draco drops Snape like a brick in HBP so if Snape was really that good a teacher then why is he dropped without blinking twice? Might this be because he is as hollow as the wholes in a cheese? Would you think people would drop their other teachers as fast as Draco drops Snape? Would Harry drop Lupin if he would come in the same situation? No, what we actually see is that in a case of real need Harry even forgets about Snape and while McGonagall might be firm and not a teacher to rub the wrong way, Harry knows she would be there if he needed her and we see him go to her many times not just as his head of house. Harry not revealing information at the end of HBP had nothing to do with him distrusting her but everything to do with his promise to DD. I strongly believe that Snape's dislikes of Neville go way beyond Neville being a bad student in his class, just like his hatred for Harry goes way beyond Harry just being another student. I personally think he dislikes or even hates Neville because if LV had just made a different choice then Snape would have never been in this mess. JMHO Snape's knowledge about the subject of potions might indeed be something every student could learn a lot from but Snape the person, no one wants to stick their neck out for and without DD trust in him, no one would ever have trusted Snape and that is saying something. To keep within his own words "Knowledge isn't everything". JMHO Dana From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu May 10 06:37:51 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 23:37:51 -0700 Subject: Sexy Witch Roll Call (was: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1869870194.20070509233751@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168496 As a male HP fan, I demand equal time for the delectable *ladies* of the Potterverse! Granted, there are fewer of them in Canon, and indeed some of my entries are historic or offstage personae whose sex appeal is only hypothetical. But if I were to put together a female HP pinup calendar to compliment the one of the guys, here's what it would look like: January: Madam Rosemerta The classic barmaid! If she looks anything (as I surmise) like the waitresses at "Gulliver's", no wonder Ron fancies her! I put her in January because her mead and butterbeer will keep you warm in winter. :) (Look elsewhere if you seek Imperious Curse-fighting strength of character, though.) February: Andromeda Tonks We know virtually nothing about her at this point, but I imagine her as like her daughter, but a bit more graceful and stately, like the classical princess who shares her name. I still hold out hope she may play a role in _DH_ (with a connection to "Perseus Evans"??) March: Madame Maxime Based on "Hagrid's Tale", while stately and matronly, she's also very brave and magically agile. And let us not forget that she's "an excellent dancer"! April: Hestia Jones This is probably the most speculative in my line-up, but her classical namesake is Goddess of the Hearth, suggesting a warm and hospitable personality. And "pink-cheeked and black-haired" is encouraging too. :) May: Celestina Warbeck The songs she sings in _HBP_ suggest to me the sorceress version of Peggy Lee, who could really belt them out(!), and yet also had her tender side. (It was Peggy's tearful pleading that persuaded Disney to let Trusty live at the end of _Lady and the Tramp_.) June: Rowena Ravenclaw "Fair Ravenclaw from glen" -- All this and brains too! July: Helga Hufflepuff "Sweet Hufflepuff, from valley broad", who vows to "teach the lot, and treat them just the same". (It seems appropriate somehow to put her in the month of our hero's birth!) August: Elladora Ketteridge Granted this is a real stretch, since I don't think she's even Canon: She's depicted on a wizard card in the computer game. However, my excuse for her inclusion is that since there are things in the computer games that were later "Canonized" in the books (e.g. Fire Crabs and _Diffindo_), I'm assuming Jo was consulted on the games, and that Elladora can be considered "Virtually Canonical". So, according to the wizard card, she is the discoverer of Gillyweed, and looks like Glynis Johns in the film, _The Court Jester_. September: The Mermaid in the Prefect's Bathroom No comment. :) October: The Weird Sisters True, they're shown as a boy band in The-Film-That-Must-Not-Be- Named, but I think Jo meant them to be named after the three sisters in The-Scottish-Play-That-Must-Not-Be-Named, so my Gen-X mind sees them as the witch equivalent of the Bangles, or maybe Josie and the Pussycats. :) November: Fleur Delacour The alluring semi-Veela, whose love for her man goes deeper than meets the eye! (And I can't resist French girls!) December: Nymphadora Tonks I've saved the best for last!! Sweet, sprightly, sassy, and with a loving heart! Honorary big sister to the Weasleys and source of comfort to a tormented middle-aged werewolf! (Also previously reported in HP fandom as the inventor of "The Dance of the Seven Noses".) :) Dave From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 06:46:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 06:46:35 -0000 Subject: The book that belongs to the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168497 Tandra wrote: > > Ok so I'm reading HBP for the 3rd or 4th time and why this just hit me I have no clue....but seriously how much older than Harry is Snape? Why is it the school is still using the same textbook one of the professors would of had in their day? LOL It can't be that much different in the Wizard world than the real world. A book that is what maybe at least 30 years old, still being used?! I just find that odd...no one else on this? :-) > Carol responds: Snape is about twenty-one and a half years older than Harry (JKR said that he was 35 or 36 as of GoF when Harry is 14 and his birthday is January 9 compared with July 31 for Harry). It seems to be the teacher, not the school, that chooses the textbooks (note that the DADA text changes almost every year). If Snape uses a textbook at all for his NEWT Potions students (and we usually see him casting the directions onto the board rather than assigning potions from a book) it's probably not the same book he used as a student, which he knows to be out of date. (Possibly he uses his own improved versions of those potions.) It's Slughorn, not Snape, who's chosen to use a fifty-year-old textbook in HBP. (Whether a better book is available, we don't know.) Slughorn taught both Tom Riddle some fifty years before HBP (about the time that the Libatius Borage book was published) and Severus Snape some twenty years before HBP. Since Severus seems to have used the same then-thirty-year-old textbook for NEWT Potions that Harry is using, it would seem that Slughorn has used that same book since it came out--that is, he used it till he retired and Snape took his place as Potions master, and he can't be bothered to see whether a more modern textbook has come out now that he's out of retirement. If no new book has come out, maybe it's because the MoM's requirements for the Potions NEWT haven't changed in fifty years. Or maybe a new book has come out but Slughorn prefers to use the old one because it's familiar and comfortable, just as he still loves candied pineapple, or whatever that sweet is he's so fond of. As for Snape, the book he used as a student isn't necessarily the book he uses, if any, as NEWT Potions teacher. My guess is that he uses the same potions that are in the Borage book, with perhaps a few additions, but casts his own improved potions on the board (as he also seems to do in his non-NEWT potions classes). HRH occasionally consult a book for a Potions essay, but they don't seem to use one in Snape's class (in contrast to Slughorn's). Carol, hoping that post-DH Snape will get a chance to write some badly needed improved textbooks for Hogwarts students From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu May 10 06:56:16 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 06:56:16 -0000 Subject: Enrollment at Hogwarts Was: Battle/Cloak/Apparate/... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168498 --- "anne_t_squires" wrote: > > > > > > Geoff wrote: > > > > ... a British style public school. Most > > > > schools of this type would (be) ... in the 500- > > > > 800 range; just maybe up to 1000. ... > > > > A.N.Other > > > ... I don't see any reason to think there aren't > > > 1000 students at hogwarts. > > > > Geoff: > > True, but contrarywise there is no reason to think > > that there /are/ 1000 students. > > ... > Anne Squires: > > ... > > I teach at a high school in the United States. ... > We have an enrollment of 1200, .... In order to > accommodate this number of students we have ... > eighty-six teachers. bboyminn: As I've said before, when I encounter a consistency problem rather than rant and rave that it is wrong, I assume it is right, and look for a logical explanation by which it could be right. JKR said Hogwarts was a school of 1,000, yet, clearly Hogwarts does not have 1,000 students; absolutely does NOT have 1,000 students. So, how can we make these contradictory statements consistent? The answer is the answer I already gave, the /school/ is 1,000 students, but that doesn't mean their are 1,000 students. In other words, 1,000 represents the school capacity, and the lesser perceived but unknown number reflects the current enrollment. That makes JKR's comment a consistent statement. On another note; JKR has already admitted that this is never going to add up. So, rather than an absolutely consistent explanation, we are going to have to settle for a /relatively/ consistent explanation. > Anne: > ... > > Class sizes vary; but ... twenty-five students per > class per block is average. ...And it still takes > eighty-six people to teach the students. bboyminn: And how many subjects are being taught at the school by those 86 teachers? Using Geoff's example of Maths and Science, we have arithmetic, Algebra, Trigonometry, Geometry, Business Math & Statistics, possibly Calculus, General Science, Chemistry, Biology, Health, Physics, and that list of Math and Science comes close to the total Hogwarts curriculum. To that we add, National History, World History, Social Studies, Home Economics, Applied English, English Literature, Geography, an assortment of shop/vocational classes, plus assorted Arts & Music classes. I'm sure there are many I have forgotten. Also, note that students at Hogwarts are not required to take all 12 available classes. Harry and Ron have something like (roughly) 6 classes up through 3rd year, then take 9 classes to the end of 5th year. At NEWT level they are taking 5 or 6 classes again, but many students have dropped out of those upper level classes, so that all Houses are combined into one classroom. My point is that not all students are taking all classes, and that there are far few subjects available than the typical American or English school. > Anne: > > ...this would just be impossible from a logistical > standpoint, IMHO, if there are 1000 students. > bboyminn: That is true IF there are 1,000 active students, but logically there are not. > Anne: > ... But where do they all sit at meal times? I know > some, like Trelawny, do not always eat in The Great > Hall. However, Trelawny seems to be the exception, > not the rule. > > Anne bboyminn: Teachers at the head table are not an indication of the total number of teachers. Like I said, assume what you see is right, then create an explanation that makes it right. I suspect we have both 'Day' teachers and 'Boarding' teachers. Several teacher have room and board included in their compensation contracts. That is why they are seated at the Head table. Several teachers likely live in the village or commute to school, and therefore do NOT get room or board as part of their compensation. They do not eat at the head table. They bring a lunch or go out for lunch. Is that true, well we don't know, but true or not, it is a logical explanation for what we see. Keeping in mind that it is never going to truly add up. Steve/bboyminn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu May 10 07:30:47 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 07:30:47 -0000 Subject: Sexy Witch Roll Call (was: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call) In-Reply-To: <1869870194.20070509233751@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > As a male HP fan, I demand equal time for the delectable *ladies* of > the Potterverse! Granted, there are fewer of them in Canon, and indeed > some of my entries are historic or offstage personae whose sex appeal is only > hypothetical. But if I were to put together a female HP pinup calendar to > compliment the one of the guys, here's what it would look like: > > January: Madam Rosemerta > The classic barmaid! If she looks anything (as I surmise) like the > waitresses at "Gulliver's", no wonder Ron fancies her! I put > her in January because her mead and butterbeer will keep you warm > in winter. :) (Look elsewhere if you seek Imperious Curse- fighting > strength of character, though.) > > February: Andromeda Tonks > We know virtually nothing about her at this point, but I imagine > her as like her daughter, but a bit more graceful and stately, like > the classical princess who shares her name. I still hold out hope > she may play a role in _DH_ (with a connection to "Perseus Evans"??) > > March: Madame Maxime > Based on "Hagrid's Tale", while stately and matronly, she's also > very brave and magically agile. And let us not forget that she's > "an excellent dancer"! > > April: Hestia Jones > This is probably the most speculative in my line-up, but > her classical namesake is Goddess of the Hearth, suggesting a > warm and hospitable personality. And "pink-cheeked and > black-haired" is encouraging too. :) > > May: Celestina Warbeck > The songs she sings in _HBP_ suggest to me the sorceress version > of Peggy Lee, who could really belt them out(!), and yet also had > her tender side. (It was Peggy's tearful pleading that persuaded > Disney to let Trusty live at the end of _Lady and the Tramp_.) > > June: Rowena Ravenclaw > "Fair Ravenclaw from glen" -- All this and brains too! > > July: Helga Hufflepuff > "Sweet Hufflepuff, from valley broad", who vows to "teach the lot, > and treat them just the same". (It seems appropriate somehow to > put her in the month of our hero's birth!) > > August: Elladora Ketteridge > Granted this is a real stretch, since I don't think she's even > Canon: She's depicted on a wizard card in the computer game. > However, my excuse for her inclusion is that since there > are things in the computer games that were later "Canonized" > in the books (e.g. Fire Crabs and _Diffindo_), I'm assuming Jo > was consulted on the games, and that Elladora can be considered > "Virtually Canonical". So, according to the wizard card, she is > the discoverer of Gillyweed, and looks like Glynis Johns in > the film, _The Court Jester_. > > September: The Mermaid in the Prefect's Bathroom > No comment. :) > > October: The Weird Sisters > True, they're shown as a boy band in The-Film-That-Must-Not-Be- > Named, but I think Jo meant them to be named after the three sisters > in The-Scottish-Play-That-Must-Not-Be-Named, so my Gen-X mind sees > them as the witch equivalent of the Bangles, or maybe Josie and the > Pussycats. :) > > November: Fleur Delacour > The alluring semi-Veela, whose love for her man goes deeper than > meets the eye! (And I can't resist French girls!) > > December: Nymphadora Tonks > I've saved the best for last!! Sweet, sprightly, sassy, and with a > loving heart! Honorary big sister to the Weasleys and source of > comfort to a tormented middle-aged werewolf! (Also previously > reported in HP fandom as the inventor of "The Dance of the Seven > Noses".) :) > > > Dave > Hickengruendler: Where's Lily on that list? ;-) Granted, she's ded, but so is Helga Hufflepuff, (who, by the way, I never saw as particularly sexy. I always imagined her more like the mothering type, like Molly Weasley, and the picture of her on JKR's website sort of confirmed this for me. Rowena on the other hand, definitely sexy ). Ditch the Weird Sisters, who I have always seen as male, and add our favourite sacrificial redhead* instead, and I'll buy the calendar. *g* *Dumbledore, of course, is my favourite sacrificial ex-redhead. ;-) Hickengruendler From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu May 10 08:06:35 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 08:06:35 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <46432F9D.5816.14BA372@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168500 > Shaun: > The students who react well to it are as entitled to an education that meets their needs as the > students who react badly to it. > Why should the (say) 20% of children who would learn well with this style of teaching > CONSTANTLY have to see their needs sacrificed for the other 80%? Because that's the real world? I sympathize and understand where you are coming from. I do. But I made my teaching bones by working in the inner city of the California Public School System. I had 40 kids in a class. I had students who could barely string sentences together in English. And I was teaching History, the one class virtually no student respects. A teacher does what he can with the situation he is given. And when you have a huge glut of students that all need to be taught, the greatest good for the greatest number is the best that a lot of over worked teachers can do. kids like who you were, gifted, great kids, slip through the cracks all the time and every teacher who hasn't had his soul destroyed by the bureaucracy of the educational system hates that fact. We try to catch who we can, but no one can get them all. Every teacher I have ever met knows that we don't always do enough for the minority of students who, for a variety of reasons don't respond well to traditional school, but when you have such huge numbers of students it is just not always practical. > If a school is teaching 80% of its students well, the other 20% can be ignored? > > I don't think anybody would call that good teaching. Its not perfect teaching but I think if you are reaching most of the students most of the time you are doing a pretty good job. > Just for a second consider this - can you imagine for a moment how much it *hurts* me to > hear the forms of teaching that *worked best* for me in environments where ninety percent of > my schooling didn't work, being derided as *bad teaching*? I can, because its the same hurt I get when I hear people talk about Snape's 'old school' teaching methods verses newer methods that are described contemptuously as 'touchy-feely' as if those are the only two options for teachers--Ass or Sap. and since I'm not an ass, I must be a sap. Just because I don't chew nails and spit bullets doesn't mean we spend every class period sitting in a circle talking about self esteem and gazing at our navels. > Just imagine how much *worse* it feels when some people go even further and call it 'child > abuse'. There is a vicious personal element to the Harry/Snape relationship that goes beyond simple classroom philosophy that I think can be characterized as abusive. That is not wholly Snape's fault. Dumbledore should have reigned him in and never does. > I believe that all children are entitled to an education that addresses their needs. Absolutely. Get started on that and I'll sign up in a second :) > But that is *not* the situation that exists at Hogwarts. Not all the teachers are Severus > Snape's. But he is the only potion teacher. > Even if only 20% of the pupils at Hogwarts benefit from Snape's teaching style, what is wrong > with 20% of students having 14% of classes meeting *their* needs? What is wrong with one > fifth of the students having just one teacher out of seven delivering a class that is aimed at > them, rather than everybody else? Nothing is wrong with that. But that means that every other student is getting a much worse education in a core subject that seems pretty darn important. I don't think that's all right either. When you are the only teacher of your subject at your school--and it's a required class, I think you have a duty to be a little more accessible than a teacher teaching a niche elective. > We're not talking about a situation here where the students only have one teacher - we are > talking about a situation in which they have a minimum of seven teachers, only one of whom > is Severus Snape. But once again, he is the only teacher for a core subject. That necessitates being more flexible. > Incidentally, with the most-Snapish of them all, I had the rather odd experience of doing really > well in one of his classes, while doing *very* *very* poorly in his other class at the same time. > So I saw it from both ends. His teaching style was the same in both classes. The subjects > were extremely similar subjects. What was different was my reaction to the classes. That makes absolutely no sense at all :) if it was his teaching style that responded to so well, why would changing classes matter at all? > No, probably not - but we cannot equate enjoying a class with learning successfully in it. > True, many people do enjoy the classes they do well in, but it's not a requirement. It's just a > nice bonus. True, but we were specifically talking and Hermione and Harry responding to Snape's teaching methods. You said you thought Harry responded to Snape's class. I disagree. If Harry had responded, he would have had a fire lit under him. A fire to learn everything he could about potions. And he doesn't get that fire. Instead, Potions becomes a class to be endured and to do what he can to pass. He has no love, no desire for the subject--which if Snape were a great teacher he would have. If Harry didn't absolutely have to take the class he would drop in a minute. Not what I would call overwhelmingly successful. > I'm sure it would have - but you're not the archetype for all students. They didn't break the > mould after you started school. Now be nice ;) We are having an argument about whether or not Snape is a good teacher and I have to wonder if it matters to him in the slightest. Is he using his methods because he believes that they work or because they fit his general disposition as an evil sourpuss and thus the path of least resistance? Seems to me like he only has that job because Dumbledore needed him close by. If he were a truly free man would he be a teacher? Does he have the calling? I don't think he does and ultimately that's what bothers me about him. I don't think he cares about the students and I don't think he cares if they learn anything or not. He's just marking time and I think he's doing it at the expense of the students of Hogwarts. As someone who thinks of teaching as his calling that offends me. phoenixgod2000 From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Thu May 10 09:23:15 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:23:15 -0000 Subject: Sexy Witch Roll Call (was: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > Where's Lily on that list? ;-) Granted, she's ded, but so is Helga Hufflepuff, (who, by the way, I never saw as particularly sexy. I always imagined her more like the mothering type, like Molly Weasley, and the picture of her on JKR's website sort of confirmed this for me. Rowena on the other hand, definitely sexy ). Ditch the Weird Sisters, who I have always seen as male, and add our favourite sacrificial redhead* instead, and I'll buy the calendar. *g* Hickengruendler ________________ Im not a male, but if I were, I'd definitely definitely definitely add Bellatrix LeStrange !! Inge From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu May 10 09:34:33 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:34:33 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: <46432F9D.5816.14BA372@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: <464373C9.19549.255F916@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168502 On 10 May 2007 at 8:06, phoenixgod2000 wrote: > > > Shaun: > > > Why should the (say) 20% of children who would learn well with > > this style of teaching CONSTANTLY have to see their needs sacrificed >> for the other 80%? > > phoenixgod2000 > > Because that's the real world? > > I sympathize and understand where you are coming from. I do. But I > made my teaching bones by working in the inner city of the > California Public School System. I had 40 kids in a class. I had students who > could barely string sentences together in English. And I was > teaching History, the one class virtually no student respects. A teacher > does what he can with the situation he is given. And when you have a > huge glut of students that all need to be taught, the greatest good for > the greatest number is the best that a lot of over worked teachers can > do. > > kids like who you were, gifted, great kids, slip through the > cracks all the time and every teacher who hasn't had his soul destroyed > by the bureaucracy of the educational system hates that fact. We try > to catch who we can, but no one can get them all. Every teacher I > have ever met knows that we don't always do enough for the minority of > students who, for a variety of reasons don't respond well to > traditional school, but when you have such huge numbers of students > it is just not always practical. Shaun: In the real world, it can be very hard, if not impossible, to *always* cater to every single child in a classroom - but that isn't what I am talking about. In fact, it is quite *explicitly* not what I am talking about. I'm not looking for every classroom being right for every single child. In fact, I explicitly accept that not every classroom will be right for every single child by saying that I don't think that is the standard we need to meet for a teacher to be a good teacher. It seems to me that the people who expect a 100% success rate as the only measure of being a good teacher they will contemplate, are those who want to condemn the teaching of Severus Snape. They are the people who keep raising specific examples of his supposed failures with individual students as if they prove he's a bad teacher. I'm much more tolerant than that - I don't expect every teacher to succeed with every single student, and I don't assume that any failure cancels out everything else. The key word in what I said above - and that's I've requoted it is the word 'constantly'. That's why I capitalised it - because it is the key word. I can certainly accept that an individual teacher teaching one class may find themselves forced into a situation where they have to decide to sacrifice the needs of some children so they can meet the needs of others, and *if* a teacher is in that situation, it does make sense, all other things being equal, to focus on the largest group of children as possible. But while that may be a valid response by an individual teacher in one classroom, it's a far less valid response across an entire school or an entire system. If Mrs Jones teaching English uses the same teaching methods as Mr Huan teaching Geography uses the same teaching methods as Mr Robinson teaching Mathematics uses the same teaching methods as Mrs Bowen teaching Science - then in every single class, the same children are getting taught effectively and the same children are missing out. *If* instead the school has a range of different teachers using a range of teaching methods, it becomes *much* more likely that across the whole school and across the whole school day, the largest possible number of children will get some real value out of their schooling. Far less children will be wasting their time at school. Far less children will be being sacrificed all the time for the sake of others. If anything, a situation in which teachers find themselves limited by lack of resources, lack of circumstances, lack of time, etc - that is a situation which calls out for the widest possible range of teaching methods being used in that school - because maybe the English teacher can't do more than she is doing - but if the Geography teacher uses a different method, there's a better chance he's going to be able to plug some of the gaps she's had to miss out on. No, it won't do much good in terms of subject content - but imagine the difference it can make to the child who has *never* has a class directed at their needs, to instead know that for one class a day, that's changed. That alone can make a real difference - far less than any potential harm that is likely to be done to other students discovering that instead of six classes a day being aimed at them, there's now only five. No, no one teacher can get them all. No one teacher can be an affective teacher for every single child in their classes. *BUT* that is the reason *why* the teacher who does things differently and winds up targeting a different group of students from other teachers (and therefore has a different group 'falling down the cracks') is a good thing. > Shaun: > > > If a school is teaching 80% of its students well, the other 20% > > can be ignored? > > > > I don't think anybody would call that good teaching. > > phoenixgod2000 > > Its not perfect teaching but I think if you are reaching most of > the students most of the time you are doing a pretty good job. Shaun: I deliberately said 'school' above, not teacher. I happen to think if a particular individual teacher is reaching 80% of their students, they are probably doing a sterling job. But if a school is only teaching 80% well - and *ignoring* the other 20%, that is not a good job. The 80% success rate isn't necessarily a problem in itself. In some circumstances, with particular populations, and particular issues, 80% might be quite a reasonable success rate. But it's when they decide the 80% is enough, and they give up on the 20% - that's what I am talking about. And a school which has students who it is failing, and refuses to try different methods for that 20% because they are a minority, and "We serve the majority" - that's not a good situation. You're never going to get all the kids, perhaps. But by deciding that a teaching style that could *work* for even some of them isn't acceptable because it doesn't work for everyone else - then you are sacrificing them for no good reason at all. phoenixgod2000: > Just because I don't chew nails and spit bullets doesn't mean we > spend > every class period sitting in a circle talking about self esteem > and > gazing at our navels. Shaun: Of course not, and I would *NEVER* suggest that you do. Personally I have *nothing* whatsoever against 'touchy-feely' methods of education, even for those teachers who *do* use them - they most assuredly didn't work for me, but I have seen kids for whom they do work - and that's great. But like you, I also don't think they are the only two options - there's a massive continuum in between, and I happen to think a *lot* of the methods on that continuum are good methods, and a lot of them are bad. And I don't think you can judge 'good' or 'bad' they are based on how close they are to the extremes. There are good and bad methods across the entire continuum. I happen to think Snape's 'old school' teaching methods are valid - but I don't teach that way personally. I can't. It doesn't match my personality. That's not who I am as a teacher. I happen to think the way I teach is a pretty good method, as well. I think there are a lot of different good methods. phoenixgod2000: > There is a vicious personal element to the Harry/Snape > relationship > that goes beyond simple classroom philosophy that I think can be > characterized as abusive. That is not wholly Snape's fault. > Dumbledore should have reigned him in and never does. Shaun: Yes, but that's not what everybody is talking about. Many link the teaching method very closely to their views of abuse. I happen to think Snape's treatment of Harry is personally reprehensible - he holds a grudge against a child based on the boy's father - I just don't think it has much at all to do with his teaching. > Shaun: > > > But that is *not* the situation that exists at Hogwarts. Not all > > the teachers are Severus Snape's. > > phoenixgod2000 > > But he is the only potion teacher. > > Shaun: The same is true of every other subject (except, eventually, unusually, Divination). If we allow that to be an excuse for never letting its children experience anything other that a majority- aimed teaching style, we are making things even *worse* for any child who isn't part of the majority. Yes, overall, it may make sense to cater to the majority over the minority - but in *EVERY* single class? *Every* single time? Even if you decide the minority only deserve a minority of consideration, there's a lot of difference between a 'minority' and 'none at all'. I'm asking for one class out of seven - the structure of the school doesn't allow me to ask for anything less except *nothing* at all. phoenixgod2000: > Nothing is wrong with that. But that means that every other student > is getting a much worse education in a core subject that seems pretty > darn important. I don't think that's all right either. When you > are the only teacher of your subject at your school--and it's a > required class, I think you have a duty to be a little more accessible than > a teacher teaching a niche elective. Shaun: It really doesn't mean that, though. Just because a particular class now *targets* 20% of the students instead of *targeting* 80%, doesn't mean that all of the 80% are now going to be worse off. In fact, it would be very surprising if they were. A fair proportion of the 80% probably learn pretty much as well with both methods - the kids in the middle between the two extemes. Some may even learn a little better. Some will probably be a little worse off - but it won't be the whole 80%. phoenixgod2000: > That makes absolutely no sense at all :) if it was his teaching > style that responded to so well, why would changing classes matter at > all? Shaun: Largely because of my attitude to the different classes. One was Latin, and one was Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek was meant to be an elective, and I chose Drama over it. After a month or so, I was moved against my will from Drama (and part of that was that she was a very fluffy teacher and we had a 'personality conflict' - in actual fact, I was close to having flashbacks to my hellish experiences of the past - and she *wasn't* a bad teacher, just completely wrong for me - she reminded me too much of the one *truly* bad teacher I ever really think I had) into the Ancient Greek class and forced to drop drama. I did well in Latin - I did absolutely apallingly in Ancient Greek for a long time. phoenixgod2000: > True, but we were specifically talking and Hermione and Harry > responding to Snape's teaching methods. You said you thought Harry > responded to Snape's class. I disagree. If Harry had responded, he > would have had a fire lit under him. A fire to learn everything he > could about potions. And he doesn't get that fire. Instead, > Potions > becomes a class to be endured and to do what he can to pass. He has > no > love, no desire for the subject--which if Snape were a great > teacher > he would have. If Harry didn't absolutely have to take the class > he > would drop in a minute. Not what I would call overwhelmingly > successful. Shaun: Harry's OWL results: Astronomy: A CoMC: E Charms: E DADA: O Divination: P Herbology: E History of Magic: D Potions: E Transfiguration: E One 'Outstanding', Five 'Exceeds Expectations', One 'Acceptable', One 'Poor', One 'Dreadful'. Harry's marks reveal he is an 'E' standard student. What mark did he get in Potions? An 'E'. Harry did as well in potions as his marks give us any reason to think he should have done. To me, that seems a pretty clear indication he was taught to a reasonable standard in that subject. He may not have enjoyed the experience - but he seems to have been as successful as he had any right to expect. phoenixgod2000: > > > I'm sure it would have - but you're not the archetype for all > > students. They didn't break the mould after you started school. > > Now be nice ;) Shaun: I think I am being nice - I was just trying to emphasise a point in an amusing way. I apologise if that didn't come across. phoenixgod2000: > > We are having an argument about whether or not Snape is a good > teacher and I have to wonder if it matters to him in the slightest. Is he > using his methods because he believes that they work or because > they fit his general disposition as an evil sourpuss and thus the path > of least resistance? > > Seems to me like he only has that job because Dumbledore needed > him close by. If he were a truly free man would he be a teacher? Does > he have the calling? I don't think he does and ultimately that's > what bothers me about him. I don't think he cares about the students and > I don't think he cares if they learn anything or not. He's just > marking time and I think he's doing it at the expense of the students of > Hogwarts. As someone who thinks of teaching as his calling that > offends me. Shaun: I really don't think he is marking time. I think he is passionate about his subject, and, yes, I do think that's why he teaches the way he does. It's not his only passion - DADA obviously appeals as well. But it *is* a passion: ""You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potionmaking," he began. He spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word - like Professor McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort. "As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic. I don't expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses . . . I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death - if you aren't as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach."" To me that is a man who *loves* his subject. And who wants to teach it - to students who are capable of learning it. But that's just my interpretation. 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Thu May 10 13:31:44 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:31:44 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <464373C9.19549.255F916@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168503 Shaun: > It seems to me that the people who expect a 100% success rate as the only measure of being a good > teacher they will contemplate, are those who want to condemn the teaching of Severus > Snape. They are the people who keep raising specific examples of his supposed failures with > individual students as if they prove he's a bad teacher. Dana: The problem is this argument is used both ways because according to many his *individual* treatment of Neville and Harry IS what is claimed to be Snape success as a teacher. They claim Snape was successful on an individual level for treating these students bad and making them succeed because of it. You would be right if Snape treated all students in the same way and then some fail and some succeed because of that but that is not how Snape behaves. He treats some students well and he bullies others so if Snape is incapable of treating his students nice then why is he praising Draco while not Hermione? Why is he treating Neville like a vermin, fouling his classroom while being nice to Grabbe and Goyle? Why does he treat Harry as someone that must be arrogant because of his status as the boy who lives, while not correcting Draco who expresses more arrogance in his presents then Harry ever did and even having more responsibility over Draco as his Head of House. Draco is even more at risk then Harry is because Snape knows his daddy is a DE and therefore Draco is more at risk to stray into the wrong path then Harry? And if Snape is really against LV then shouldn't he be glad Harry might be his one ticket out? No, he constantly tells Harry he is nothing special and nothing important and he even wonders why the Dark Lord even thinks he is. And most of the time he expresses this outside of his classroom because it has nothing to do with him being a teacher but everything to do with his hatred for James and Sirius and them always stealing his glory and now Harry does too. He hates all three of them because according to Snape it is their fault he even is in this mess. If James had not saved him and he did not owe him a debt because of it, he would not have blinked twice about LV killing the Potters. My problem with calling Snape a good teacher has everything to do with his personal vendetta's, he is working out in his classroom and are not part of his teaching methods but are part of Snape's personality and his personal convictions. I wouldn't even be surprised that he treats Hermione bad because she is a muggleborn, because essentially Hermione is the same kind of student Snape was (but with a moral compass working properly while that of Snape has always pointed in all direction but the right one), she wants to be the best in everything she does and so does Snape. So if Snape really knows how to read his students then he should be delighted with Hermione's will to succeed but he doesn't, he is working against her at ever opportunity he got. That is what makes Snape a horrible teacher because to him teaching is not his main priority; it's just killing time at the expense of his students. And if you really think Snape is a good teacher then help me understand what Snape teaching methods have to do with telling Hermione "he sees no difference" about her enlarged teeth, in front of other students? Hermione does not need this so-called individual re-enforcement to do well in potions and she certainly does not deserve this kind of treatment as a student in his potions class. His extraordinary high NEWT level submission requirement is another example he does not care about his students because he doesn't want to waste time with those he has to guide through this level, he only wants those that can do it on their own. He doesn't care about his student's future because if he did then he would know that most students would never have passed into his NEWT class while potions is essential to the future of most. If he really cared then he would not have such high requirements that only a few could reach. If there hadn't been a change of teacher's in the 6th year then both Ron and Harry could have kissed their future of becoming an auror goodbye and this while some people claim that Snape individual treatment of Harry was what got him through or even claim that Snape had a high success rate in making his students pass but then to kill it right then and there by eliminating all that didn't do good enough according to his personal standards and we see that no other teachers has such high requirements and I am sorry but why does Snape consider his potions class to be only for the elite? What makes his class so much more important that the average student, with just an Exceeding Expectations on his OWL, not good enough for his class. Because Snape doesn't care about teaching but only cares about his own status and if he can make all his students pass NEWT level without much effort it makes him look like a better teacher then the rest of those losers. JHMO Dana From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 10 15:25:35 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:35 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168504 > Shaun: > > > It seems to me that the people who expect a 100% success rate as > the only measure of being a good teacher they will contemplate, are those who want to condemn the teaching of Severus > > Snape. They are the people who keep raising specific examples of > his supposed failures with individual students as if they prove he's a bad teacher. > > > Dana: > The problem is this argument is used both ways because according to > many his *individual* treatment of Neville and Harry IS what is > claimed to be Snape success as a teacher. They claim Snape was > successful on an individual level for treating these students bad and > making them succeed because of it. Pippin: In my case at least, that's not quite it. It's more that the qualities which make Snape give Harry and Neville a hard time in potions are the same qualities that enable him to save their lives, and other students', when they're threatened by Voldemort. Snape's single-minded ferocity and his willingness to trust his own perceptions instead of following the crowd would make it difficult for him to stay in Voldemort's service and also allow him to perceive, when no one else did, that Harry was in danger from a curse and not from mishandling his broom. Unfortunately the same characteristics would also make it difficult for anyone to make him understand that he's misjudging Harry very badly. Harry shares these qualities, and in his case it's unquestionable that they've led him to heroic actions, but it's also possible that they've led him to ignore what he's been told by others and misjudge Snape as badly as Snape has misjudged him. The question of why Snape treats Harry as if he must be a carbon copy of James has, IMO, the same answer as the question of why Harry treats Snape as if he must be a villain who hates him for no reason and who is bent on treachery and murder. I saw a Cathy comic strip the other day that about sums it up. Cathy's mom made an innocuous comment and Cathy responded with a barrage of defensive self-deprecation. When Irving bewilderedly asked what brought that on, Cathy says, "You heard the last twenty seconds. I heard the last twenty years." That's *exactly* what I see going on between Harry and Snape. On that first day of class, Snape saw seven years of James in everything that Harry did. In everything Snape did, Harry saw ten years of the kiddie-lit/cartoon villains whom Snape so much resembles, down to the hooked nose and sarcastic manner. IMO, it's a case of mistaken identity, one of so many in the books. Harry has the misfortune to resemble James. Snape's subconscious identifies Harry as James, who persecuted Snape for years. Every time Harry does something that would have been hostile if James had done it, Snape's subconscious perceives a threat and Snape reacts reflexively. Meanwhile Harry's subconscious tells him Snape would like nothing better than to ruin Harry's life, although Dumbledore tells him that he's actually been working very hard to save it. Snape had no business to blame Harry for Neville's accident. But I suspect he figured Neville would get it right since Neville's parents were both Aurors and therefore skilled at potions. He probably wasn't paying attention for once, blamed himself for the accident and immediately thought of a reason to blame Harry instead. Now who does that sound like? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 15:42:40 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:42:40 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168505 Pippin: > I saw a Cathy comic strip the other day that about sums it up. > Cathy's mom made an innocuous comment and Cathy > responded with a barrage of defensive self-deprecation. When > Irving bewilderedly asked what brought that on, Cathy says, "You > heard the last twenty seconds. I heard the last twenty years." > > That's *exactly* what I see going on between Harry and Snape. > On that first day of class, Snape saw seven years of James in > everything that Harry did. In everything Snape did, Harry saw > ten years of the kiddie-lit/cartoon villains whom Snape so > much resembles, down to the hooked nose and sarcastic > manner. Alla: I see no support that Harry saw a villain in Snape until Snape attacked him, even despite him thinking that Snape made his scar hurt. I **still** hear that remark of Snape having a gift to keep class quiet, which to me can only be read as positive, as openness, as being ready to like the teacher. While I personally see in "you and your filfy father" an iron clad support ( to me of course) that Snape saw James and only James in Harry. I do wonder, can it be that Harry had an open enough mind to Snape and Snape did not? Or does it just **have to be** that Harry is guilty in misjudging Snape as well? It sure diminishes Snape responsibility as I see it, but I see no support for that. IMO of course. Pippin: > IMO, it's a case of mistaken identity, one of so many in the books. > Harry has the misfortune to resemble James. Snape's subconscious > identifies Harry as James, who persecuted Snape for years. Alla: Yeah, he does have that misfortune. As an aside, I just cannot agree with "persecuted for years" stated as fact. But IMO of course. Pippin: > Meanwhile Harry's subconscious tells him Snape would like > nothing better than to ruin Harry's life, although Dumbledore > tells him that he's actually been working very hard to save it. Alla: The key difference for me is of course that Harry's subconscious **only** tells him that after Snape did something to provoke it IMO. I personally find it amasing that after being told staff about Slytherins, he is still interested in positive way. I think he was much more open than could be expected. But after that lesson? Pippin: > Snape had no business to blame Harry for Neville's accident. But > I suspect he figured Neville would get it right since Neville's parents > were both Aurors and therefore skilled at potions. He probably > wasn't paying attention for once, blamed himself for the accident > and immediately thought of a reason to blame Harry instead. Now > who does that sound like? Alla: Oh I don't know ;) Snape blaming himself? Like ever? From shmantzel at yahoo.com Thu May 10 15:59:11 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 08:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <326960.60834.qm@web56511.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168506 . > >>Phoenixgod2000: > How many students over the years have decided they never want to > have anything to do with potions because Snape killed their > interest before it had the chance to develop? Betsy Hp: I'm pretty sure none, actually. Certainly none that we've seen. (Unless one squints and does a whole lot of wishing. ) Hermione is the most interested student that we get to follow through Snape's classroom and his style catches her hook, line and sinker. Mainly because I'd imagine that if you were a student in that class and you had a clue about just *one* of the questions, you'd feel a sort of excitment that maybe you're *not* one of the usual dunderheads Snape has to put up with. Or if your potion turned out correctly, that would bring a certain thrill of accomplishment too. Dantzel replies: It seems like everyone uses Hermione as an example of someone who was captivated by Snape's first lesson, but I don't think she works as an example. Hermione was interested in ALL of her classes, every year, no matter who taught it - with the exception of Trelawney, and I think that may have had something to do with the fact that Hermione was taking too many 'elective' classes. Now, if we really knew what an 'average' student's reaction - besides Ron and Harry - was, then I feel it may be valid. I know I'll get knocked down for this view as well, but I honestly think that Hermione is not a normal student, and she will listen to any teacher and do well, she's just that way. --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 16:15:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:15:46 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168507 Phoenixgod wrote: > Seems to me like he only has that job because Dumbledore needed him close by. If he were a truly free man would he be a teacher? Does he have the calling? I don't think he does and ultimately that's what bothers me about him. I don't think he cares about the students and I don't think he cares if they learn anything or not. He's just marking time and I think he's doing it at the expense of the students of Hogwarts. As someone who thinks of teaching as his calling that offends me. Carol responds: Although I disagree that Snape's teaching is harmful to the students at Hogwarts (I really don't see a single student harmed by him, and Ernie Macmillan, a *Hufflepuff,* seems to think he's a good teacher), I agree that Snape would rather be doing something else (probably research) involving the types of magic he excels at rather than teaching. As far as he is concerned, the students are there to learn the subject, and it's the subject (both Potions and DADA) that he loves. But he's not alone. Does Professor Binns, droning on about goblin rebellions and giant wars, care about the kids falling asleep in his classroom? He can't even be bothered to learn their names. Does Hagrid care about any of the kids except HRH? He brings dangerous creatures to their first-ever lesson and then gives them useless flobberworms as a project. Does Trelawney care about the kids? Harry is an interesting "object" (she loves predicting his death), but she insults Hermione so greatly that Hermione walks out of her class and never returns. She even thinks preparing the kids for their OWLs is beneath her and her beloved subject. Does Slughorn care about the kids? He either "collects" them to be used for his own benefit or ignores them. He doesn't know Ron's name after having him in a class of twelve students for six months. As Slughorn himself says to Trelawney, "We all think our subject is most important." IOW, we all care about the subject we teach. Some of us (those who, like Snape, McGonagall, and Flitwick lecture about the importance of OWLs) care that the students learn it. But few or none of us care about the entire student body as people. Few or none of us, except in exceptional circumstances, care about the students' feelings. Look what happens when Snape says to Draco, "I know you're upset about your father." He storms out of the room. Best to leave feelings alone and stick to the subject. Or that's how Snape would feel. The WW is a tough world, and many of the subjects at Hogwarts are dangerous. The teachers know that, which is why the better ones advocate a no-nonsense approach. And if Harry hadn't been so sure from the beginning that Snape hated Gryffindors in general and him in particular, perhaps that approach would have worked for him as it did for the ten students who go O's on their Potions OWLs with little praise and no coddling (not even Draco is coddled; if he had messed up a potion in Snape's class, Harry, and therefore the narrator, would have noticed). Carol, who thinks that a WW educational reformer who suggested that would-be teachers study adolescent psychology and worry about their students' self-esteem would be laughed out of the room From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 16:27:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:27:01 -0000 Subject: Sexy Witch Roll Call (was: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168508 hickengruendler wrote: > > > Where's Lily on that list? ;-) Inge: > Im not a male, but if I were, I'd definitely definitely definitely add Bellatrix LeStrange !! Carol: Neither am I, but surely the list should include beautiful, pale Narcissa kneeling at Snape's feet and kissing his hands, her long blonde hair streaming down her back and her big blue eyes overflowing with tears? I'll bet even the Narcissa haters would melt seeing that picture, and many who don't understand Snape now would understand why he took the vow, or think they did. I'm talking about male calendar viewers, of course. But maybe women, or at least mothers, would be moved by Narcissa's grief and men with a chivalric streak by her helplessness and beauty. (A feminist calendar wouldn't include that scene, of course.) Carol, visualizing a moving wizarding photo of the scene, in which Narcissa's hair and eyes provide almost the only color From belviso at attglobal.net Thu May 10 16:35:26 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:35:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call References: Message-ID: <006901c79321$38d20400$f8b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168509 > Dana: > My problem with Snape as a teacher is not about his teaching methods > but about his misuse of power to express his favoritism and his > dislikes. When he ridicules and bullies his students, it has nothing to > do with him teaching potions but everything to do with his personal > dislike of the student. And we see how different he is from one student > to the next. Both Hermione and Draco are good at the subject, yet he > ridicules Hermione while acting nice towards Draco. There are other bad > students in his class but he doesn't call them stupid or bullies them > constantly. Magpie: Snape's favoritism seems, to me, to be rather exaggerated. He clearly hates Harry and his treatment of him is personal and unfair, but if you want a teacher who's OTT showing favoritism that would be Slughorn, comically so. Yet for some reason he's usually considered not so bad because he's kind of a nice guy (or for some other reason, perhaps)--even thought he's the one *blatantly* trying to promote some students over others and allotting his attention accordingly. One of the running themes in his class was the irritation of students over this. Snape's personal needling of Harry is unacceptable, but the students don't constantly talk about despising him. (I remember Betsy once saying that she thought even if a non-Slytherin student said they liked a class of Snape's it would be dismissed, and when it came up it was.) Snape does dislike Hermione for being a know-it-all--and once he really insults her badly--but she doesn't seem graded unfairly. He "seems to like" Malfoy just as Hagrid clearly doesn't like Malfoy and likes Harry, but still his class isn't about blatant favoritism of Draco so much as Slughorn's is about liking Harry. He even does much more praising depending on the person. Snape uses Malfoy as an example the first day, but it's not like Potions is all about Malfoy being praised and praised again. Dana: > As someone else has pointed out he got mad at Harry for not preventing > Neville to make a mistake but when Hermione tries to help Neville in > later years Snape punishes her for her efforts. If Snape teaching > methods were all about teaching then he would treat everybody the same > and then I could agree it would work for some but not for others but > that is not what we have seen on page now have we? No, we see that he > bullies specific students while treating other students normal. Magpie: Yes, but at base, a teacher of any sort treats children differently. First, it's human nature that they're going to warm to some students more than others. I had a teacher that obviously disiliked me and liked another student, but she still seemed considered a good teacher. But beyond that students are all different so of course they'd be treated differently. In Snape's case he has no patience for Neville and when he causes a meltdown he calls him stupid. We don't see Crabbe and Goyle having the same issues in class, but I doubt he's pretending they're better than they are. I imagine their detentions in HBP where he seems to be trying to drag them by the ear through their DADA OWLS were just as punishing. The main difference is Crabbe and Goyle don't seem half so sensitive as Neville to being spoken to that way. Harry at first notes that Snape criticizes everyone--had Crabbe caused his own Potion to explode in CoS I wouldn't be surprised if Snape criticized him for it or called him an idiot. Dana: He even > elevates the feelings of superiority of those students he treats normal > by allowing them to mock the same students he dislikes, in front of him > because it boosts his own ego to have these students laugh with him. > > If he was all about fairness then Draco's arrogance and feeling of > superiority should equally cause Snape the same worries that people are > saying it must be the reason for why Snape treats Harry the way he does > but he doesn't now does he. No, he actually enforces this behavior in > Draco by letting Draco openly amuse himself at Harry's coast. And why > do you think that is? Because Snape is a personal friend of the > Malfoy's and if Snape would ever got it in his head to treat Draco in > the same way he does Harry then Lucius would be in his office so fast, > Snape would not know what hit him. Magpie: This is not what Sean meant by "fairness." He said, specifically, that a teaching style that worked for a minority of students still had merit, that they shouldn't always have to have the teachers that work better for other people. Usually it's Snape being obnoxious in his class--it's not like Harry sits in Potions and has Draco insult him the whole class. Snape keeps the class in control (and insults Harry using his own authority, unfairly). No, he doesn't swoop in and scold Draco if he mocks Harry, but neither would most teachers probably swoop in if Harry mocked Malfoy. He keeps the class controlled, but also shows that he dislikes Harry and enjoys when he's uncomfortable. Dana: > And we also see that Snape did not make an ever lasting impression on > Draco either now did he as Draco drops Snape like a brick in HBP so if > Snape was really that good a teacher then why is he dropped without > blinking twice? Might this be because he is as hollow as the wholes in > a cheese? Would you think people would drop their other teachers as > fast as Draco drops Snape? Would Harry drop Lupin if he would come in > the same situation? Magpie: I think HBP totally undermines the case you're trying to make here. Draco does not drop Snape. The relationship between Snape and Draco may be what saves Draco, and part of that relationship is Draco challenging him as he goes through his own growing pains. According to this model Dumbledore did Harry no good because he "dropped" him in OotP. Snape seems to have actually done a good job providing what Draco needed up until this point, and he's still there for him when things get tough. Tough in a way I'd think Snape as an adult (in some respects!) would understand. Dana: > Snape's knowledge about the subject of potions might indeed be > something every student could learn a lot from but Snape the person, no > one wants to stick their neck out for and without DD trust in him, no > one would ever have trusted Snape and that is saying something. Magpie: Ironically, trust in Snape seems to be something that victory might have wound up depending on, so I don't think there's nobody willing to trust him or care about him. phoenixgod2000: Nothing is wrong with that. But that means that every other student is getting a much worse education in a core subject that seems pretty darn important. I don't think that's all right either. When you are the only teacher of your subject at your school--and it's a required class, I think you have a duty to be a little more accessible than a teacher teaching a niche elective. Magpie: Canonically this is not happening. There's no issue with kids not getting a good Potions education. Snape isn't teaching to his niche of kids, he seems to be teaching most kids. It would be great of Snape could be more flexible, but it would also be great if every teacher could be more flexible, and few seem to be. They're all the types of teachers they are. phoenixgod2000: I disagree. If Harry had responded, he would have had a fire lit under him. A fire to learn everything he could about potions. And he doesn't get that fire. Instead, Potions becomes a class to be endured and to do what he can to pass. He has no love, no desire for the subject--which if Snape were a great teacher he would have. Magpie: That seems a bit of an idealized goal for a high school student. Harry has fire for exactly one subject: DADA--and that's not due to having great teachers consistently. His favorite teacher fails to get him fired up about his subject. It's great to imagine a teacher so wonderful everyone loves his subject, but how many high school teachers do that? Snape seems to fire up some students. Sure Harry might drop the subject if he didn't have to take it. He does drop other subjects he was taking--it's not a tragedy. He's picking all his classes based on what he needs to be an Auror, not which ones he has a great passion for. Dana: His extraordinary high NEWT level submission requirement is another example he does not care about his students because he doesn't want to waste time with those he has to guide through this level, he only wants those that can do it on their own. He doesn't care about his student's future because if he did then he would know that most students would never have passed into his NEWT class while potions is essential to the future of most. If he really cared then he would not have such high requirements that only a few could reach Magpie: Or it shows that he cares about his subject and not reaching out to individual students, which is consistent with his speech on the first day. Again, there's a continuum. He seems to take students with lower marks in DADA--perhaps even A students for all we know. There's always discussion about this type thing--McG doesn't want Neville in Transfig because his grade shows he couldn't handle the coursework. At NEWT level it presumably is more about handling the coursework than learning to love the subject. Snape's clearly allowed to have this high standard, so that where McG only allows O and E students Snape only allows Os. He would have lost 2 students from his NEWT class, but of course nobody's teaching requirements are expected to revolve around whether Harry Potter and Ron Weasley can be Aurors. If they really wanted it they could retake their OWLS, as C&G are doing in HBP. I wouldn't be surprised if requiring the highest grades in Potions made sense given the work being done. Snape's treatment of Harry is I think indefensible as anything like a teaching method, and Harry has every right to complain that he's being treated unfairly. Many students have had this experience in school--it's a pitfall of humans teaching humans, even more so in this case. I still think it's a bit funny that Snape's demanding Os for his NEWT class is considered career and future ruining when Slughorn is openly trying to choose students who should have careers as a hobby. Snape demanding Os isn't unfair in terms of giving people a chance--everybody has the same opportunity to get an O as anyone else. It's another hurtle to jump to get into the elite group called the Aurors. That's the bar you have to clear, but nobody is entitled to clear it. Harry is an E student, it seems, but he's also not shown putting an extra effort into Potions to get the O he knows he needs. Suddenly I'm thinking of the movie LEGALLY BLONDE. She wants to go to Harvard, they have very high standards, so she must get higher than that grade on her LSAT. Dantzel: Now, if we really knew what an 'average' student's reaction - besides Ron and Harry - was, then I feel it may be valid. I know I'll get knocked down for this view as well, but I honestly think that Hermione is not a normal student, and she will listen to any teacher and do well, she's just that way. Magpie: True, Hermione's interested in all classes. And Ron and Harry are relatively blase about the same thing throughout school. Which I would think is normal for all the teachers and not something they've all failed at. -m From dkrasnansky at hotmail.com Thu May 10 16:52:39 2007 From: dkrasnansky at hotmail.com (david_krasnansky) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:52:39 -0000 Subject: The book that belongs to the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168510 > Tandra wrote: > Ok so I'm reading HBP for the 3rd or 4th time and why this just hit > me I have no clue....but seriously how much older than Harry is Snape? > Why is it the school is still using the same textbook one of the > professors would of had in their day? LOL It can't be that much > different in the Wizard world than the real world. A book that is what > maybe at least 30 years old, still being used?! I just find that > odd...no one else on this? :-) David responds: Perhaps all text books are bound magically to their master copy and when that master book is updated all the other copies wherever they are are also updated. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 17:08:32 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:08:32 -0000 Subject: Slugghorn favoritism WAS Re: Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: <006901c79321$38d20400$f8b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168511 > Magpie: > Snape's favoritism seems, to me, to be rather exaggerated. He clearly hates > Harry and his treatment of him is personal and unfair, but if you want a > teacher who's OTT showing favoritism that would be Slughorn, comically so. > Yet for some reason he's usually considered not so bad because he's kind of > a nice guy (or for some other reason, perhaps)--even thought he's the one > *blatantly* trying to promote some students over others and allotting his > attention accordingly. One of the running themes in his class was the > irritation of students over this. Alla: I am not sure why is it surprising for you that Slugghorn may not be considered not so bad because he is nice guy. I mean, **absolutely** that is one of the reasons why I consider him to be not so bad. He **is** practicing favoritism, who can argue with that - it IS canon, but to me it is, I don't know, so much more **harmless** than what Snape does? But I am still yet to read about Slughorn being some student's boggart, I am also still yet to read about Slugghorn breaking the potion. Oh, another thing - of course he picks whoever he wants in his club, but I also do not remember him **grading** unfairly, which IMO what I would consider truly ruining students career. It is like I don't know, just seems to me that Slug club is **extracirricular" activity, something students do not have an entitlement to, unless teacher picks them? While IMO they are entitled to be treated decently on the lessons. And of course as a reader, it is also immensely satisfying for me to read the potions teacher treating Harry decently for once. And to put Malfoy in his place for once on Potion lesson. But this has nothing to do with the story itself, obviously, just extra bonus for me. And point for your cheek tells me that JKR had something like that in mind too ( to show the contrary treatment) IMO of course I do agree with Lupinlore that nice guys often get a pass and should get a pass more than not nice guys. Slugghorn has his favorites, I am just yet to see him **harming** those whom he does not favorite. He is just ignoring them, which is NOT good of course, but I just see it as less harm if it makes sense. JMO, Alla From jnferr at gmail.com Thu May 10 17:08:48 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:08:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705101008m7d9e46e8wdc8db700c102acf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168512 > > > Betsy Hp: > There's nothing wrong with a > teacher > > hitting his students with near impossible questions to set up what > > sort of classroom he's going to run. > > Phoenixgod2000: > > As a teacher, let me say sure there is. You establish your > classroom all right, you establish it as an unfair class and kids > will tune you out. There are few better ways to get your students > to have their backs up and resist you than what Snape did. Look at > what happened with Harry. How many students over the years have > decided they never want to have anything to do with potions because > Snape killed their interest before it had the chance to develop? > > Snape actuallty starts out well with his Potions are powerful speech > but undercuts it right away by setting up his classroom as > adversarial. That is no way to get students to love a subject he > plainly has passion for. > > >Sure, the student being asked > > the questions feels like an idiot, but that's not an abuse of > > authority, IMO. > > It may or may not be an abuse of authority but it certainly isn't > good teaching. It doesn't make the student interested in finding > the answers to his questions, which is what a skilled teacher could > easily do. The job of a teacher is to convey knowledge, not to make > students feel stupid. montims: Maybe things are different now, but I went to an English girls' school in the 70s, and my teachers spent the whole time telling us we were idiots and dunderheads. My French teacher used to tell us we were the worst class she ever had - she hated coming to teach us - and she would pick on a girl each class and grill her mecilessly. Fifteen minutes of repeating Therese, in order to pronounce the acute and grave accents differently, caused one girl, who could NOT hear the difference, to run out of the class in tears one time. Because of that, my French accent is flawless and my knowledge of French grammar meant learning Italian while I lived there was easy. I took French to A Level. Most didn't. I think this current trend of coddling and protecting "children" is a phase that will pass, along with Dr Spock and others. When I grew up, the prevailing theme really was that children should be seen and not heard, and that adults were their betters and expected respect even when they didn't earn it. And that is the attitude that carries over in the JKR books. Being called an idiot is not abuse, it is a challenge... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 17:18:05 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:18:05 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705101008m7d9e46e8wdc8db700c102acf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168513 > montims: >When I grew up, the prevailing theme really was that children > should be seen and not heard, and that adults were their betters and > expected respect even when they didn't earn it. And that is the attitude > that carries over in the JKR books. Being called an idiot is not abuse, it > is a challenge... Alla: Is it an attitude that carries in JKR books though? Or is it an attitude that she implies may need to change as so many things in WW do? Because the teacher whom she would like to teach her daughter does not call kids *idiots* and does not demand unearned respect IMO. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 17:31:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:31:25 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <006901c79321$38d20400$f8b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168514 Dana wrote: No, he actually enforces this behavior in Draco by letting Draco openly amuse himself at Harry's coast. And why do you think that is? Because Snape is a personal friend of the Malfoy's and if Snape would ever got it in his head to treat Draco in the same way he does Harry then Lucius would be in his office so fast, Snape would not know what hit him. Carol responds: Can you provide evidence that Lucius Malfoy would act this way? When we see him at Borgin and Burke's in CoS, he seems to hold Draco responsible for his own marks, expecting him to be ashamed of being beaten in every class (which would include Potions) by "a girl of no wizarding family." The teachers have nothing to do with it. And what do you mean by "Snape would not know what hit him"? If you mean that Lucius Malfoy can outduel Snape, I rather doubt it. If you mean that Malfoy could pull rank and get Snape fired, I doubt that, too. He's off the board of governors after CoS, and Dumbledore would never let Snape be fired for giving Draco a detention, nor would the board of governors consider any such request. Snape does on occasion speak sternly to Draco. In GoF, he points at Draco, not even addressing him by name, and says, "Explain" (GoF Am. ed. 299). Even in HBP, where he has to avoid giving Draco detention because he's posing as a loyal DE (my interpretation), he still speaks sternly or angrily to him: "'Keep your voice down!' spat Snape," and a bit later, "Now listen to me! You are being incautious," etc. (Now, yes, this is a supposed DE speaking to another DE, but it's an adult in authority speaking to a novice. The conversation breaks down when Snape starts to consider Draco's *feelings.*) As for the one incident in which the supposedly injured Draco insists that Harry and Ron help him with his potion, Snape could have ordered Draco to work with his fellow Slytherins, but he's probably enjoying the moment. Petty, to be sure, but perhaps he spoke to Draco after class about faking his injury. We just don't know because we see from Harry's point of view. Note that Draco doesn't usually act up in front of Snape (or any other teacher). He makes sure that Snape's back is turned before he flashes his Cedric Diggory badge, for example. At any rate, Lucius Malfoy in Snape's office is highly unlikely. He seems to respect Snape's abilities as a teacher and to leave him entirely alone. He doesn't show up at Hogwarts when McGonagall assigns Draco detention in the Forbidden Forest in SS/PS. He doesn't even show up when Buckbeak injures Draco, though he does try to get Hagrid fired. And in CoS, when he still has some power as a member of the board of governors, it's Dumbledore that he's after. Exactly what the relationship is between Snape and the Malfoys, especially Lucius Malfoy, is still not clear (though the "lapdog" comment seems to refer to their school days when Lucius was an upperclassman and Severus a little kie). But the idea that Snape would be terrified or upset in the unlikely event that Lucius Malfoy showed up in his office strikes me as contrary to canon. Whatever their relationship, it does not seem to be based on intimidation, nor is Snape likely to be intimidated by any wizard, even Voldemort, to whom he lies without detection. (Note Snape's attitude toward Bellatrix, as deadly a DE as they come. And even Fenrir Greyback seems to be afraid of Snape.) I'm also not sure what you mean by treating Draco as he treats Harry. If he'd asked Draco those questions in SS/PS, Draco would probably have gotten at least one of them right, and if he didn't, snape might well have said that he expected better of Lucius Malfoy's son. Draco doesn't toss a firecracker in his class so that, say, Pansy, can steal potion ingredients from Snape's stores. Draco doesn't talk back to Snape, at least not until HBP. And Draco doesn't make careless mistakes, like omitting key ingredients (Harry leves out a Bezoar when he's making an antidote because his mind is on the Yule Ball, for example) or invade Snape's privacy by entering a memory that he's placed in a Pensieve for safekeeping. So there's no reason for Snape to treat Draco as he treats Harry, even if it weren't for the James connection and Snape's expectations for the Prophecy Boy. Carol, wondering where this idea of Lucius Malfoy storming into Snape's office or exerting some sort of power over him came from From bartl at sprynet.com Thu May 10 17:33:36 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sexy Witch Roll Call (was: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll Message-ID: <19023539.1178818416826.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168515 Carol: >Neither am I, but surely the list should include beautiful, pale >Narcissa kneeling at Snape's feet and kissing his hands, her long >blonde hair streaming down her back and her big blue eyes overflowing >with tears? I'll bet even the Narcissa haters would melt seeing that >picture, and many who don't understand Snape now would understand why >he took the vow, or think they did. Bart: Two words: Ann Coulter. Bart (To List Elves: if a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a word picture worth?) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu May 10 18:04:09 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:04:09 -0000 Subject: Slughorn (was: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call) In-Reply-To: <006901c79321$38d20400$f8b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168516 > Magpie: > Snape's favoritism seems, to me, to be rather exaggerated. He clearly hates > Harry and his treatment of him is personal and unfair, but if you want a > teacher who's OTT showing favoritism that would be Slughorn, comically so. > Yet for some reason he's usually considered not so bad because he's kind of > a nice guy (or for some other reason, perhaps)--even thought he's the one > *blatantly* trying to promote some students over others and allotting his > attention accordingly. Hickengruendler: While that's true, at least Slughorn gives everyone a fair chance. Sure, he has his favourites, and blatantly so, but at least everyone can belong to his group of favourites, if they excel academically. If a student convinces him, they can join the elitist circle. With Snape, it seems to me, that nothing could change his pre-existing likes or dislikes. (I am basing this mainly on his treatment about Hermione). That said, I find Slughorn frustrating as a teacher, because I had someone like him. He was my music teacher and he blatantly favoured those, who were in the school choir. He was always nice and didn't do anything to put the others down, but nonetheless his favourism was obvious and I ended up really disliking this man, because of this. This sort of overshadows my opinion about Slughorn as well, even though I do like him as a character. I also really hesistate to call Slughorn actually nice. The way he treated the students in the train, who didn't fulfill his expectations certainly wasn't nice. Didn't he hand out sweets and ignored the "unsatisfying" students the second time around? Hickengruendler From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 10 18:06:41 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:06:41 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168517 > Alla: > > I see no support that Harry saw a villain in Snape until Snape > attacked him, even despite him thinking that Snape made his scar > hurt. Pippin: Are you forgetting the dream that Harry had his first night? "He was wearing Professor Quirrell's turban, which kept talking to him, telling him he must transfer to Slytherin at once, because it was his destiny. Harry told the turban he didn't want to be in Slytherin; it got heavier and heavier; he tried to pull it off but it tightened painfully--and there was Malfoy, laughing at him as he struggled with it-- then Malfoy turned into the hook-nosed teacher, Snape, whose laugh became high and cold--there was a burst of green light and Harry woke, sweating and shaking." PS/SS ch 7 The next day Harry didn't remember the dream -- but we know that in the Potterverse your subconscious never forgets anything. However open-minded Harry meant to be, his subconscious had already identified Snape with Malfoy, Voldemort and associated them all with cliches about people with hooked-noses who try to seduce you to the dark side. > Alla: > > Oh I don't know ;) Snape blaming himself? Like ever? Pippin: Only sociopaths have no guilt feelings. Are you now claiming that Snape is one of them? Pippin From ida3 at planet.nl Thu May 10 18:07:23 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:07:23 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168518 Pippin: > In my case at least, that's not quite it. It's more that the > qualities which make Snape give Harry and Neville a hard time in > potions are the same qualities that enable him to save their lives, > and other students', when they're threatened by Voldemort. Dana: Sorry but are these the same qualities that enables him to take lives? In my opinion it is a presumption that Snape saves lives because they are threatened by Voldemort because at this moment the only reason for saving Harry's life and trying to safe James's life that canon supports is that he owed James a debt. And it is interesting that DD is not believed when he tells Harry this but that he is believed when he states Snape can be trusted. So either DD is right in both or both are equally questionable. His saving people rate is at this moment, equals to his own claimed rate of killing people or being responsible for their deaths. And to me it is still a matter of opinion if Snape did anything to safe anybody out of the goodness of his heart or because of his own personal interest. So the qualities in question are still very debatable. JMHO And I am surely of the opinion that the qualities Snape really has, being his own man through and through, is making him act out so disgracefully against his students because he has such fun with it and what else is he to do. It is not that he can walk out at any time he likes because that would make DD very suspicious about his true intentions now wouldn't it and like he claims he had a comfortable job so why not make the best of it? Pippin: > Snape's single-minded ferocity and his willingness to trust his > own perceptions instead of following the crowd would > make it difficult for him to stay in Voldemort's service and also > allow him to perceive, when no one else did, that Harry was in > danger from a curse and not from mishandling his broom. Dana Interesting because Hermione perceived this too and was far more effective in saving Harry then Snape was with his muttering counter- curses. Snape like Hermione knows it takes eye contact so why not go to Quirrell and smack him in the head? Didn't he follow the crowed when he entered LV service in the first place? And wasn't it LV interpretation of the prophecy, Snape brought him, in relation to the debt he owed James according to DD the reason for his return? That doesn't sound like he is single-minded. Yes, he trusts his own perceptions more then that of others and it makes him so very wrong on more then one occasion and till HBP these errors in judgments had no critical consequences but unfortunately for Snape his last willingness to trust his own perception caused him to be tight up in a neat little bow of his own spider's web. Sure he is strong minded but not because of high moral standards but only if to serve himself. Snape was still in service with LV when he took the prophecy to him and LV was already killing people so if Snape strong sense of morality could no longer keep him in LV's service then why did he take the prophecy to LV in the first place, he would know that LV would be going to kill people that were a threat to his reign and why he never let himself be defied by his followers and why no one lives long enough to tell the tale (well no one but Snape of course so yes Snape is strong minded to keep himself alive) and why didn't Snape go to DD before LV interpreted the prophecy in a for Snape negative way? Well my personal answer because he didn't care when it did not effect him personally. Pippin: > Unfortunately the same characteristics would also make it > difficult for anyone to make him understand that he's misjudging > Harry very badly. Harry shares these qualities, and in his case it's > unquestionable that they've led him to heroic actions, but > it's also possible that they've led him to ignore what he's > been told by others and misjudge Snape as badly as Snape > has misjudged him. Dana: Harry does not shares these qualities because Harry judges Snape by Snape's treatment of Harry and his insults about Harry's father, a man he never got to know because of an action this person took when he was still serving LV. No, one is telling Harry that he should like Snape because he is such a nice man and just misunderstood. No, he doesn't buy everybody believing Snape because DD trusts him and Snape actions not being analogue to this claim. The problem is that nobody is buying it if it wasn't for DD so Snape actions raises a lot of questions with various people and we see the same thing on the other side of the fence where LV is vouching for him, don't we? I do not see any heroic actions on Snape's part, I only see calculated actions that never put him at any risk. Many perceive his return to LV as putting himself in danger but I no longer do because him not returning would be the higher risk by far and I do not believe Snape trusts DD's power to keep him safe enough that he would risk defying LV for it. We see that he never risks this after LV's down fall by helping to round up DE's for the MoM either. I'm still not convinced that him sending the Order (in OotP) put himself at risk and that not doing anything was the bigger risk to his cover on the Order's side and why he took the gamble of sending them but not as a heroic deed on Snape's part to safe anybodies live. It is my opinion of course but I do not see Snape jumping around on the front line to safe his fellow Order members and I do not buy the "he could do nothing because he would risk his cover crap". We see Remus not caring about his cover when he is dealing with Greyback. And besides he has no trouble blowing his cover to kill DD in HBP. Many people want to believe this was a heroic deed on Snape's part, killing a wandless and defenseless man but I am not buying it. Saving Katie was not a heroic deed that put himself on the front line risking his life. I do not hear any praises for Harry's timely actions to safe Ron, no that is contributed to Snape too because Harry got the information out of the HBP book but if that is so then we should contribute Harry almost killing Draco to Snape as well because he got that information out of the same book too. And no the vow did not put Snape in any risk either because Snape did not take the vow as a heroic deed to save Draco. He gambled LV would ask him to finish Draco's job in case he failed anyway so he thought he could play the knight in shining armor with Narcissa and he would not go against LV's whishes by taking the vow because doing it on LV request and at the same time for Narcissa's would not make any difference to Snape, the outcome would be the same and LV would never know. The only problem is Snape trusting his own perceptions of things made him gamble wrong because LV never asked him to do it. Snape is not LV's man but Snape's man through and through and he at first just wanted to keep his lines open with DD just in case but when Snape thought he could not longer maintain this, at least not at his own expense he was very willing to sacrifice DD. And I believe he sacrificed other order information to LV as well to keep LV happy enough because LV was posing the bigger threat to Snape's life then DD would ever do. JMHO Pippin: > The question of why Snape treats Harry as if he must be a carbon > copy of James has, IMO, the same answer as the question of why > Harry treats Snape as if he must be a villain who hates him for no > reason and who is bent on treachery and murder. Dana: I disagree because Harry would never have hated Snape the way he does if Snape would never have treated Harry the way he did. So to me it is not the same answer because besides seeing Sirius loathing for Snape, Harry never experienced James hatred for Snape, so if Snape would have brought him flowers from the first day he came to school, told him what a wonderful man his father was and how proud he must be to look so much like him, Harry would never have thought about Snape in any different way then his other teachers (well that is not true he would probably seriously question the flower thing but anyway) Harry saw Snape wanting to have Sirius soul sucked without wanting to listen, he heard Snape tell Fudge he hoped DD would not make any trouble and he saw with his own eyes how Snape goaded Sirius by calling him a coward something Snape himself has a tremendous problem with. He heard Snape threatening him over and over again and you still expect Harry to dislike Snape just because Snape disliked his father. I do not think so. It was Snape own actions and choices that made Harry look at Snape the way he does and he even felt pity for Snape after seeing his father handle Snape. Pippin: > That's *exactly* what I see going on between Harry and Snape. > On that first day of class, Snape saw seven years of James in > everything that Harry did. In everything Snape did, Harry saw > ten years of the kiddie-lit/cartoon villains whom Snape so > much resembles, down to the hooked nose and sarcastic > manner. Dana: Harry did not have an opinion about Snape until Snape looked at him with great dislike at the Sorting feast at the beginning of the year and then Snape's treatment of Harry in the first lesson that made it sure that this man did not dislike him but actually hated him and to him there was indeed no good reason for it. Pippin: > IMO, it's a case of mistaken identity, one of so many in the books. > Harry has the misfortune to resemble James. Snape's subconscious > identifies Harry as James, who persecuted Snape for years. > Every time Harry does something that would have been hostile > if James had done it, Snape's subconscious perceives a threat > and Snape reacts reflexively. Dana: It is not Snape's subconscious that perceives a threat, he consciously chooses to take his hatred for James out on his son, just like he takes it out on Sirius and Lupin. I am sorry but I'm not buying the poor victim Snape excuse and him not having control over his reflexes when it comes to Harry because Snape's goading Harry starts with his referral to Harry's status of being famous and not out of reaction to anything Harry did to him. He also already gave Harry a look of great dislike before Snape has one interaction with him. We see in the pensieve scene that Snape, the poor victim, is not on his guard when he wonders the ground and that he still feels confident enough to call Lilly a mudblood in front of James and have a go at James. We hear he did not fear cursing James at every chance he got. So why would Harry cause Snape such uncontrolled anxiety that he can't help himself. We also see that his reactions are very calculated and not mere reflexes of his subconscious fight or flight response. We see him not fear confronting Sirius and Lupin in the Shrieking Shack and have a real kick out of threatening them with a Dementor's kiss. The only uncontrolled behavior we see Snape have is when he doesn't get his revenge played out the way he truly wanted it too. If Snape is such a poor victim and scared of being hurt then how do you explain him ending up at LV's side being an active DE? (Even if he was just a spy it is still actively participating in LV's little army). Snape is not driven by a subconscious anything he chooses to treat Harry the way he does because it is his one chance to payback James, because he could never win from James because James was better then him and when he finally got a chance to get the marauders, the guy even dares to safe his life which seriously influences Snape's adult life still. Pippin: > Meanwhile Harry's subconscious tells him Snape would like > nothing better than to ruin Harry's life, although Dumbledore > tells him that he's actually been working very hard to save it. Dana: Sorry but to me telling Harry that Snape was trying to safe Harry's life so he would be even with James is not telling Harry Snape was trying to save Harry's life out of the goodness of his heart. And to be honest DD's explanations of Snape's behavior in OotP are very weak in comparison to what Harry sees of Snape actions. And yes, I hope Snape pays his dues and the more people come with ridiculous excuses for adult Snape's behavior the more I whish JKR will not only proof Snape is bad to the core (because he will do anything that serves himself) but has him pay dearly for his mistreatment of other people. I sincerely hope she will make Harry right about Snape and that she then let Harry proof to Snape that he isn't anything like him because regardless of Harry's hatred for Snape he will never lower himself to the same level as Snape did. JMHO. Pippin: > Snape had no business to blame Harry for Neville's accident. But > I suspect he figured Neville would get it right since Neville's parents > were both Aurors and therefore skilled at potions. He probably > wasn't paying attention for once, blamed himself for the accident > and immediately thought of a reason to blame Harry instead. Now > who does that sound like? Dana: That sound like Snape is blaming everybody else but himself like we see him do many times after this incident as well. Washing himself of responsibility like saying James died because he was so arrogant to believe in Black, instead of blaming himself for bringing the prophecy to LV in the first place. I am sorry if I get you wrong but to me it seems that you are giving Snape a free pass to treat Neville and Harry a certain way because Snape makes presumptions about these kids parents. Is that their fault or Snape's? JMHO Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 19:05:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:05:33 -0000 Subject: Slugghorn favoritism WAS Re: Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168519 Alla wrote: > > I am not sure why is it surprising for you that Slugghorn may not be > considered not so bad because he is nice guy. I mean, **absolutely** > that is one of the reasons why I consider him to be not so bad. > > He **is** practicing favoritism, who can argue with that - it IS > canon, but to me it is, I don't know, so much more **harmless** than > what Snape does? > > But I am still yet to read about Slughorn being some student's > boggart, I am also still yet to read about Slugghorn breaking the > potion. > > Oh, another thing - of course he picks whoever he wants in his club, > but I also do not remember him **grading** unfairly, which IMO what I would consider truly ruining students career. Carol responds: Leaving Snape out of it for once, let's look at Slughorn. Is he really a nice guy? He was charmed by Tom Riddle and treated him better than he treated Tom's fellow Slytherins, all of whom appear almost as nonentities in the Pensieve memory. (Two are addressed by their last names, though Tom is addressed as "Tom" or "m'boy," and told they'll get detention if they don't turn in their essays. Otherwise, they're all ignored.) Of course, he regrets that particular incident later, but he continues his favoritism, Slug Club and all, into later years, always favoring students with connections or natural talent over those who have neither. In fact, his treatment of Tom exactly mirrors his treatment of Harry, who is still his favorite even after he asks about Horcruxes and whose slipshod performance after he hides the HBP's Potions book he credits to young love. He invites Ginny to his luncheon on the train based on her Bat Bogey hex, but never bothers to ask her name. And once he learns that Marcus Belby is not on good terms with his uncle, who invented Wolfsbane Potion, he ignores Marcus, who doesn't get any pie. He fawns on the arrogant Blaise Zabini, whose mother is notorious for being beautiful and having had seven husbands. (Did she poison them all, I wonder?) And while he initially rewards Hermione with house points for knowing all the answers (probably a deliberate contrast on JKR's part to Snape's view of Hermione as "an insufferable know-it-all"), she seems to slip out of his awareness once he sees Harry's supposed natural genius at Potions. All her efforts go for nothing. Even when she has separated her blended poison into its ten constituent poisons and added fifty-two ingredients to her antidote, Harry (who has no idea what he's doing) outshines her because he "cheekily" hands Slughorn a Bezoar. Fair? Not in my opinion. (He also calls attention to what he evidently considers to be his own openmindedness in acknowledging magical talent in a Muggleborn, as he did earlier in speaking of Lily. He seems to consider an aptitude for potion-making in a Muggleborn some sort of phenomenon.) And poor Ron is even more of a nonentity than the Slytherins (other than Tom) in the Pensieve scene. While Harry is "Harry, m'boy" and Hermione is "Miss Granger," Ron is either ignored altogether or called by the wrong name ("Happy birthday, Ralph," 397; "your poor friend Rupert," 485). For example, in "Silver and Opals," he tries to persuade Harry to join the Slug Club parties, speaks for "Miss Granger" when he says that she loves them but interrupts her response, then "with a regal wave, he waddled out of the shop, taking as little notice of Ron as though he had been a display of Cockroach Clusters" (HBP Am. ed. 244). Ron is understandably hurt and annoyed by this behavior. Hermione hastily changes the subject away from Slughorn's parties when she sees his expression, and he continues to look moody and merely shrugs when she asks where he wants to go next (244). And Ron seems offended by any reference to Slughorn's parties, from which he is excluded. And, though Ron doesn't mention it, Slughorn falls apart when Ron's life is in danger, not thinking to "stuff a Bezoar down his throat." Though this has nothing to do with his teaching, per se, Slughorn also uses adults to achieve his own ends, not only former Slug Club members but Hagrid, attending Aragog's funeral to obtain Acromantula venom and plying Hagrid with drinks to obtain unicorn hair. We never see them on such cozy terms again. As for marks, are you sure that a student's marks in a particular class have any bearing on his future career (as opposed to taking the next year's class as opposed to repeating the same class)? It's the OWL scores that determine whether a student can take a NEWT class in a particular subject and NEWT scores which, as I understnad it, determine career choice and whether a wizard is fully qualified. (I wish JKR would clear that one up, but we know that Draco isn't fully qualified yet and neither are Fred and George despite being of age, so I think that's determined by NEWTs.) As for grading fairly, I think that poor Hermione deserved the highest marks in Slughorn's class, but Slughorn was blinded by Harry's supposed genius and the resemblance of his eyes to Lily's. (Just as Snape and Sirius Black see James in Harry, Slughorn sees Lily, and treats him accordingly, favoring Harry as he favored Lily. But that's all right, I suppose, because it enables Harry to be rewarded for producing outstanding potions without understanding why they're outstanding.) Carol, wondering how Ron and Harry will ever learn enough about Potions to become Aurors, assuming that they both survive DH From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu May 10 19:30:41 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:30:41 -0000 Subject: Sexy Witch Roll Call (was: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168520 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Inge: > > Im not a male, but if I were, I'd definitely definitely definitely > add Bellatrix LeStrange !! > > Carol: > Neither am I, but surely the list should include beautiful, pale > Narcissa kneeling at Snape's feet and kissing his hands, her long > blonde hair streaming down her back and her big blue eyes overflowing > with tears? I'm sold. Narcissa the pale icy beauty as Miss December (I wonder if sh'd pose in a santa hat) and Bellatrix as Miss October. just so long as Ginny is no where near the teen version of the calendar :) phoenixgod2000 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu May 10 19:38:36 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:38:36 -0000 Subject: Slugghorn favoritism WAS Re: Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168521 Alla: > I am not sure why is it surprising for you that Slugghorn may not be considered not so bad because he is nice guy. I mean, **absolutely** that is one of the reasons why I consider him to be not so bad. Ceridwen: I'd like to separate nice Horace Slughorn from the blatantly fawning Professor Slughorn. I see a lot of nice traits in the man, not least of all Dumbledore identifying him as a friend. For a man who was apparently raised in an extremely prejudiced environment, his feeble attempts to overcome early conditioning are notable. Yeah, feeble, but still notable. Alla: He **is** practicing favoritism, who can argue with that - it IS canon, but to me it is, I don't know, so much more **harmless** than what Snape does? Ceridwen: Not to most of the Weasleys we've heard from about, or seen reacting to, Professor Slughorn. Carol went through Ron's many negative reactions to Professor Slughorn's inattentions, and mentioned the various ways he minimizes Ron's existence. A person who can't even get someone's name right if that someone is of no use to him is downright infuriating. Especially when the boy sat in his class for weeks and months and he still can't get the name right. Molly Weasley has an unfavorable report on Slughorn: "I know what you mean," said Mrs Weasley, nodding wisely. "Of course he can be charming when he wants to be, but Arthur's never liked him much. The Ministry's littered with Slughorn's old favorites, he was always good at giving legs ups, but he never had much time for Arthur -- didn't seem to think he was enough of a highflier. Well, that just shows you, even Slughorn makes mistakes. I don't know whether Ron's told you in any of his letters -- it's only just happened -- but Arthur's been promoted!" (HBP, Scholastic hardcover, chapter five, pg. 84) I think Molly's trying to be diplomatic about a teacher Harry will probably have during the coming year. But the bitterness in Molly's assessment comes out when she says the Ministry is "littered" with Slughorn's favorites. Not packed, jammed, full of, but littered, like they're so much trash. He didn't have time for Arthur, she says, and you know how protective Molly is of her family. She doesn't like the man, even years after school is over for her. And, no wonder she suddenly brings up Arthur's promotion right after saying that Slughorn had made a mistake about him. Alla: But I am still yet to read about Slughorn being some student's boggart, I am also still yet to read about Slugghorn breaking the potion. Ceridwen: So am I. We only see him fawning over his favorites, in class and out, and ignoring the rest. He barely pays attention to the students in his class outside of his Slug Club members. How good of an education are those other students getting? To him, it's like they aren't even there. Alla: Oh, another thing - of course he picks whoever he wants in his club, but I also do not remember him **grading** unfairly, which IMO what I would consider truly ruining students career. It is like I don't know, just seems to me that Slug club is **extracirricular" activity, something students do not have an entitlement to, unless teacher picks them? While IMO they are entitled to be treated decently on the lessons. Ceridwen: I don't recall any of the teachers grading unfairly. Trelawney comes close, I think, with her assessment of Hermione's weak aura. In Divination, that could mean something more than just having a poor aura, but we don't know that. It just sounds different in that class. Students' future classes and careers seem to depend on their O.W.L. and N.E.W.T. marks, not on their grades in class. Which may not be fair for students with test anxieties, but that's probably the most impartial way to do it. And, sure Horace Slughorn has every right to invite whoever he pleases into his club. But Professor Slughorn, in my opinion, doesn't have the right to treat his non-club students as nothings. Ceridwen. From muellem at bc.edu Thu May 10 19:58:04 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:58:04 -0000 Subject: Sexy Witch Roll Call (was: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll In-Reply-To: <19023539.1178818416826.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168522 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Carol: > >Neither am I, but surely the list should include beautiful, pale > >Narcissa kneeling at Snape's feet and kissing his hands, her long > >blonde hair streaming down her back and her big blue eyes overflowing > >with tears? I'll bet even the Narcissa haters would melt seeing that > >picture, and many who don't understand Snape now would understand why > >he took the vow, or think they did. > > Bart: > Two words: Ann Coulter. > > Bart (To List Elves: if a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a word picture worth?) > colebiancardi: hmmm, If I remember correctly, Narcissa is described as beautiful....so, I am not sure who your two words are supposed to describe - it cannot be Narcissa. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu May 10 19:59:40 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:59:40 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <464373C9.19549.255F916@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > No, no one teacher can get them all. No one teacher can be an affective teacher for every > single child in their classes. *BUT* that is the reason *why* the teacher who does things > differently and winds up targeting a different group of students from other teachers (and > therefore has a different group 'falling down the cracks') is a good thing. Is there any evidence really that Snape's methods are targetting kids that are slipping through the cracks? Harry isn't in any danger of that. Neville isn't a great wizard but the only class he almost seems paralyzed in is potions. If Snape was able to modify his style to more closely mimic Sprouts, might he be more successful with Neville? I don't see Snape really reaching students with his methods. I suppose the debate boils down to our personal opinions on Snape's methods. You've seen them do a lot of good. I've seen them do a lot of harm outside of very narrow circumstances. One place I do think Snape's methods could work well is in a school system that was mostly discipline centered like in a school for kids with criminal records or a continuation school. Snape's remorseless nature and management style would go far in breaking them of bad habits. But that isn't Hogwarts. > Shaun: > > Harry's OWL results: > > Astronomy: A > CoMC: E > Charms: E > DADA: O > Divination: P > Herbology: E > History of Magic: D > Potions: E > Transfiguration: E > > One 'Outstanding', Five 'Exceeds Expectations', One 'Acceptable', One 'Poor', One > 'Dreadful'. > > Harry's marks reveal he is an 'E' standard student. What mark did he get in Potions? An 'E'. > > Harry did as well in potions as his marks give us any reason to think he should have done. To > me, that seems a pretty clear indication he was taught to a reasonable standard in that > subject. He may not have enjoyed the experience - but he seems to have been as successful > as he had any right to expect. I see Harry's Potion results as an anomaly. IIRC, he gets lucky by having his essay question on a potion he knows intimately. If the question hadn't been about polyjuice, I'm not sure he would have done so well. and you can't attribute his polyjuice knowledge to Snape--just their ingredients :) > Shaun: > > I really don't think he is marking time. I think he is passionate about his subject, and, yes, I do > think that's why he teaches the way he does. Passionate about his subject yes, but passionate about teaching his subject is very different beast and I just don't think he has it in him. I think that if Dumbledore had been the Supreme determiner of Cauldron bottom thickness, Snape would be a Cauldron Tester. > To me that is a man who *loves* his subject. And who wants to teach it - to students who are > capable of learning it. > But that's just my interpretation. I disagree, but that's what makes these books so great. phoenixgod2000 From belviso at attglobal.net Thu May 10 20:22:50 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:22:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slughorn favoritism WAS Re: Snape as Neville's teacher References: Message-ID: <00c301c79340$fcb10c80$f8b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168524 Alla: > > I am not sure why is it surprising for you that Slugghorn may not be > considered not so bad because he is nice guy. I mean, **absolutely** > that is one of the reasons why I consider him to be not so bad. > > He **is** practicing favoritism, who can argue with that - it IS > canon, but to me it is, I don't know, so much more **harmless** than > what Snape does? Magpie: My point was that Snape's favoritism is a sign that he should never be teaching, but obviously favoritism in itself isn't always a problem at all, or even unusual. Otherwise Slughorn would inspire more horror, since that's what he's about. Alla: > > But I am still yet to read about Slughorn being some student's > boggart, I am also still yet to read about Slugghorn breaking the > potion. Magpie: I admit, this just doesn't mean that much to me. A kid having his mean teacher as his boggart doesn't necessarily seem that bad. Not that I don't take the pain Neville suffers seriously for himself, but I do think Snape is just his mean teacher. I could easily imagine many teachers people would consider good turning up as a kids' boggart. Alla: > Oh, another thing - of course he picks whoever he wants in his club, > but I also do not remember him **grading** unfairly, which IMO what I > would consider truly ruining students career. Magpie: Neither does Snape ruin anyone's career grading unfairly that we see. Slughorn, however, is the teacher building careers as a hobby and choosing which people to introduce to others, and so perpetuating the type of network he represents. So if we're talking about affecting kids' careers, I think Slughorn's obviously more about manipulating that area than Snape is. Croneyism can be a serious problem in the professional world. Alla: > It is like I don't know, just seems to me that Slug club is > **extracirricular" activity, something students do not have an > entitlement to, unless teacher picks them? While IMO they are > entitled to be treated decently on the lessons. Magpie: Slughorn's extra curriculum activity spills over blantantly into his lessons. He doesn't yell at people, which is certainly a plus, but I don't know whether I'd felt like I'd been treated all that decently in his class. Alla: > I do agree with Lupinlore that nice guys often get a pass and should > get a pass more than not nice guys. Slugghorn has his favorites, I am > just yet to see him **harming** those whom he does not favorite. He > is just ignoring them, which is NOT good of course, but I just see it > as less harm if it makes sense. Magpie: Sure they often get a pass--but why assume Slughorn seems so nice to kids in is class? (Or assume that nice always should get a pass, since "nice" is different than "good?") Slughorn might not be Snape, but he seems potentially just as discouraging and he's insulting in his own way. When we start talking about the "harm" they cause I think unfortunately we're always coming down to something as potentially unimportant than how you feel about a class. Slughorn doesn't seem to harm anybody the way Snape harms Neville, no. But I think Slughorn's contributing to something far bigger and potentially harming by working his own people into positions by introducing them to other of his own people. That could certainly affect the world and the chances of others in it. McClaggen isn't mistaken in the way he approaches Harry for the Quidditch team. Hickengruendler: While that's true, at least Slughorn gives everyone a fair chance. Sure, he has his favourites, and blatantly so, but at least everyone can belong to his group of favourites, if they excel academically. If a student convinces him, they can join the elitist circle. With Snape, it seems to me, that nothing could change his pre-existing likes or dislikes. (I am basing this mainly on his treatment about Hermione). Magpie: Slughorn also elevates people due to their blood and family connections, and can dismiss them if their personality doesn't measure up or their connections aren't what he thinks. Academic excellence is one thing that might catch his eye (Hermione also brings being Harry's best friend to the table), though other things can count against that. Slughorn is looking for people he thinks have star quality, and that leaves out plenty of deserving, potentially brilliant students. All the kids in his Potions class have shown academic excellence, after all, by getting Os. I remember reading an article about the Ivy Leagues that very much related to Slughorn, because they look for the same things. Schools that go strictly for academic brilliance don't produce half as many famous rich people as the Ivy Leagues. Hickengruendler: That said, I find Slughorn frustrating as a teacher, because I had someone like him. He was my music teacher and he blatantly favoured those, who were in the school choir. He was always nice and didn't do anything to put the others down, but nonetheless his favourism was obvious and I ended up really disliking this man, because of this. This sort of overshadows my opinion about Slughorn as well, even though I do like him as a character. I also really hesistate to call Slughorn actually nice. Magpie: I agree--and I don't think you're unreasonable at all to have wound up disliking this teacher for that reason. That's the way I probably would have reacted too. Snape could be just as difficult in getting to like you personally if he didn't start out liking you, but Slughorn is much more about personally liking people. And I think students have good reason to realize at a certain point that they're never going to be in his inner circle. Hickengruendler: The way he treated the students in the train, who didn't fulfill his expectations certainly wasn't nice. Didn't he hand out sweets and ignored the "unsatisfying" students the second time around? Magpie: Yes--when I said he "seems nicer" or whatever I said I was intentionally trying to say something that was lukewarm and didn't speak to necessarily being good. He's not nice on the train--nor is he showing any moral judgment in rejecting Malfoy. Alla refered to him putting Malfoy in his place, but it's just a coincidence that Slughorn's personal protection leads him to reject any kid with DE parents. Draco says Lucius was "a great favorite" of his, just like many other DEs, and that's not surprising, imo. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Thu May 10 20:34:40 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:34:40 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slugghorn favoritism WAS Re: Snape as Neville's teacher Message-ID: <6955711.1178829280230.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168525 From: justcarol67 >As for marks, are you sure that a student's marks in a particular >class have any bearing on his future career (as opposed to taking the >next year's class as opposed to repeating the same class)? It's the >OWL scores that determine whether a student can take a NEWT class in a >particular subject and NEWT scores which, as I understnad it, >determine career choice and whether a wizard is fully qualified. (I >wish JKR would clear that one up, but we know that Draco isn't fully >qualified yet and neither are Fred and George despite being of age, so >I think that's determined by NEWTs.) Bart: There are certain specific careers for which one needs NEWTS to be qualified. But there seem to be plenty that don't. I mean, how many NEWT's do you think Rosmerta has? Or Dung? Or Stanny? Or Mr. Olivander? However, note how closely the government controls careers. I suspect that, if Fred & George weren't running a joke shop and the Ministry wasn't so incompetent, the Ministry would have taken over by now, putting properly "qualified" people in charge, while giving F&G desk duty. Hagrid, who I think knows a lot more than he pretends to know, could be very useful creating new magical creatures, but can't do it openly, because he doesn't have the right NEWTS (sort of how Chuck Yeager couldn't become an astronaut because he didn't have a college degree). Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 21:10:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:10:47 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: <00c301c79340$fcb10c80$f8b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168526 > > Alla: > > > > I see no support that Harry saw a villain in Snape until Snape > > attacked him, even despite him thinking that Snape made his scar > > hurt. > > Pippin: > Are you forgetting the dream that Harry had his first night? > PS/SS ch 7 > > The next day Harry didn't remember the dream -- but > we know that in the Potterverse your subconscious never > forgets anything. However open-minded Harry meant to > be, his subconscious had already identified Snape with > Malfoy, Voldemort and associated them all with cliches > about people with hooked-noses who try to seduce you > to the dark side. Alla: I definitely do not forget this dream. But that is my point - despite this dream, despite Snape looking at him with dislike (Harry POV of course), despite Hagrid telling him stuff about Slytherins, he is STILL trying to be open minded. That is much more than I would expect from eleven year old in the new world. I do not see Snape trying to be open minded at all. IMO of course. > > Alla: > > > > Oh I don't know ;) Snape blaming himself? Like ever? > > Pippin: > Only sociopaths have no guilt feelings. Are you now > claiming that Snape is one of them? Alla: I am not claiming anything except the fact that I am still yet to see in canon Snape **himself** feeling guilty for **anything**. I mean, I remember of course Dumbledore claiming that Snape felt guilty over Potters death, but I had also heard Snape giving nice explanation of spinning to the old fool the tale of the deepest remorse. So, of course there is an indication that Snape may have felt guilty from the third party - NOT from Snape. But that is the only instance, no? And even that is not coming from Snape. So, before we start debating whether Snape is sociopath or not, *I* am not calling him that, but I am definitely challenging your assumption that Snape felt guilt over anything, and Neville incident in particular. > Dana: > Sorry but are these the same qualities that enables him to take > lives? In my opinion it is a presumption that Snape saves lives > because they are threatened by Voldemort because at this moment the > only reason for saving Harry's life and trying to save James's life > that canon supports is that he owed James a debt. And it is > interesting that DD is not believed when he tells Harry this but that > he is believed when he states Snape can be trusted. So either DD is > right in both or both are equally questionable. > Alla: Well, I don't know if I agree that it is a presumption that Snape saves lives because they are threatened by Voldemort, because IMO we do not know either way. But I am certainly agreeing that it is interesting that when DD tells Harry that Snape saved him in order to continue hating James in peace ( paraphrase), it is often dismissed, but when Dumbledore says he can trust Snape - it is an iron clad reason to believe that Snape is good. I think that Dumbledore **can** be right in both situations or wrong in both, but when he is only allowed to be right in favor of Snape OR as Neri commented few days ago Harry is only allowed to be unreliable when he is commenting negatively ( the narrator of course) about Snape, and just cannot be unreliable when he is commenting positively about Snape, it is funny too IMO. > Alla: > He **is** practicing favoritism, who can argue with that - it IS > canon, but to me it is, I don't know, so much more **harmless** than > what Snape does? > > Ceridwen: > Not to most of the Weasleys we've heard from about, or seen reacting > to, Professor Slughorn. Carol went through Ron's many negative > reactions to Professor Slughorn's inattentions, and mentioned the > various ways he minimizes Ron's existence. A person who can't even > get someone's name right if that someone is of no use to him is > downright infuriating. Especially when the boy sat in his class for > weeks and months and he still can't get the name right. > Alla: You will be surprised what many people during my years of schooling and work did with my last and first name ( last - I guess I can understand, sorta, first one - not sure, but whatever) It truly becomes unrecognizable sometimes. Do I consider those people infuriating? Not really. I mean, it is nice when person remembers your name and I suppose if you meet this person many times, you hope he or she will do that, but as I said - whatever. I understand it is being infuriating, I cannot even compare it to the person who threatens to poison my pet, sorry. It is just apple and oranges to me, IMO of course. Ceridwen: > Molly Weasley has an unfavorable report on Slughorn: (HBP, Scholastic > hardcover, chapter five, pg. 84) > > I think Molly's trying to be diplomatic about a teacher Harry will > probably have during the coming year. But the bitterness in Molly's > assessment comes out when she says the Ministry is "littered" with > Slughorn's favorites. Not packed, jammed, full of, but littered, > like they're so much trash. He didn't have time for Arthur, she > says, and you know how protective Molly is of her family. She > doesn't like the man, even years after school is over for her. > > And, no wonder she suddenly brings up Arthur's promotion right after > saying that Slughorn had made a mistake about him. Alla: As I mentioned above - I am not the biggest fan of Slugghorn, I certainly like him much better than Snape, but he is not one of my very favorite characters. But no, I am giving very little weight to this assesment of Molly, sorry. It reads to me as pure jealousy, personally, nothing more that Slugghorn did not consider Arthur to be good enough. Ceridwen: > And, sure Horace Slughorn has every right to invite whoever he > pleases into his club. But Professor Slughorn, in my opinion, > doesn't have the right to treat his non-club students as nothings. Alla: I do not see him treating his non club students as nothings, I guess. Giving them less attention for sure, but nothings? I do not see it. IMO of course. > Magpie: > My point was that Snape's favoritism is a sign that he should never be > teaching, but obviously favoritism in itself isn't always a problem at all, > or even unusual. Otherwise Slughorn would inspire more horror, since that's > what he's about. Alla: He should never teach? Why is that? I mean, if you think that teacher who picks favorites should never teach, I would agree, but**only** if you put Snape in that same category. I am not sure I get it. You are saying that Slugghorn's favoritism is of more harmful variety than Snape's? > Alla: > > > > But I am still yet to read about Slughorn being some student's > > boggart, I am also still yet to read about Slugghorn breaking the > > potion. > > Magpie: > I admit, this just doesn't mean that much to me. A kid having his mean > teacher as his boggart doesn't necessarily seem that bad. Not that I don't > take the pain Neville suffers seriously for himself, but I do think Snape is > just his mean teacher. I could easily imagine many teachers people would > consider good turning up as a kids' boggart. Alla: Yes, and that means plenty to me :) And before I get a responce what about Mcgonagall as Hermione's boggart, yes, it would have meant plenty for me as well, had I not seen evidence from other sources that Mcgonagall is not harming Hermione. > Alla: > > Oh, another thing - of course he picks whoever he wants in his club, > > but I also do not remember him **grading** unfairly, which IMO what I > > would consider truly ruining students career. > > Magpie: > Neither does Snape ruin anyone's career grading unfairly that we see. > Slughorn, however, is the teacher building careers as a hobby and choosing > which people to introduce to others, and so perpetuating the type of network > he represents. So if we're talking about affecting kids' careers, I think > Slughorn's obviously more about manipulating that area than Snape is. > Croneyism can be a serious problem in the professional world. Alla: I must clarify. I absolutely believe Snape is ruining careers by grading unfairly ( potion breaking scene for once), but in a sense of turning people away from the subject, detesting Potions maybe, staff like that. When people who need the class, may not be able to get in it because of how Snape teaches. Like what Phoenixgod said - setting unfair classroom. But sure, OWLS are the key. > Alla: > > It is like I don't know, just seems to me that Slug club is > > **extracirricular" activity, something students do not have an > > entitlement to, unless teacher picks them? While IMO they are > > entitled to be treated decently on the lessons. > > Magpie: > Slughorn's extra curriculum activity spills over blantantly into his > lessons. He doesn't yell at people, which is certainly a plus, but I don't > know whether I'd felt like I'd been treated all that decently in his class. Alla: As I told Ceridwen, or attempted to, I just do not see it. I mean I do see that he pays less attention to some students, sure - ignores Ron, etc. I just do not see proof that he gives them less attention than he is required to, if that makes sense, you know? I think that he gives his club members **a lot** of extra attention, a lot. But I see no proof that other students do not get the **minimum** attention that he is required to give everybody. In short, I think his club is his baby and I just do not see how the fact that he in his spare time takes whoever he pleases ( and not that I am happy with his collecting habits) shows that he ignores other students. > Magpie: > Sure they often get a pass--but why assume Slughorn seems so nice to kids in > is class? (Or assume that nice always should get a pass, since "nice" is > different than "good?") Alla: I am not assuming anything. As you say below - I do not see Slugghorn yelling at anybody or doing what I brought up before. I think it is nice enough. And no, to me nice is often same as good, not different, have no desire to debate this point now, sorry :) > Magpie: > Yes--when I said he "seems nicer" or whatever I said I was intentionally > trying to say something that was lukewarm and didn't speak to necessarily > being good. He's not nice on the train--nor is he showing any moral judgment > in rejecting Malfoy. Alla refered to him putting Malfoy in his place, but > it's just a coincidence that Slughorn's personal protection leads him to > reject any kid with DE parents. Draco says Lucius was "a great favorite" of > his, just like many other DEs, and that's not surprising, imo. Alla: Just a coincidence? It seems to me that Slugghorn quite clearly **chose** to run from DE instead of let them recruit him. I see him rejecting kid with DE parents due to that choice. I would love for him to fight instead of run of course ( I DO love my heroes brave :)) but I applaud him even for making that choice, which much more than Malfoys did. Lucius could have been his favorite when he was not recruited yet, no? So Slugghorn wanted rich spoiled youth in his club - I mean, if that is what he likes in people, why not? Now when such youth chose to go to Lordie Voldie, then it is a different story, no? JMO, Alla From djmitt at pa.net Thu May 10 18:13:47 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:13:47 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lillly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168527 I have been doing some research into the two sisters and I was wondering which sister is older? Petunia or Lilly? Depending which is older would shed some light on Petunia's attitude toward her sister... I was just wondering if anyone knew the answer. I can't seem to find it anywhere Thanks, Donna From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 19:43:25 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:43:25 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168528 Shaun: No, probably not - but we cannot equate enjoying a class with learning successfully in it. True, many people do enjoy the classes they do well in, but it's not requirement. It's just a nice bonus. Phoenixgod2000: True, but we were specifically talking and Hermione and Harry responding to Snape's teaching methods. You said you thought Harry responded to Snape's class. I disagree. If Harry had responded, he would have had a fire lit under him. A fire to learn everything he could about potions. And he doesn't get that fire. Instead, Potions becomes a class to be endured and to do what he can to pass. He has no love, no desire for the subject--which if Snape were a great teacher he would have. If Harry didn't absolutely have to take the class he would drop in a minute. Not what I would call overwhelmingly successful. Montavilla47: I agree with you, Phoenixgod, about what constitutes "success." Ideally, each student should have a fire lit under them and a passion to learn. But I'm not sure that was ever going be Harry's experience with Potions. What seems to light a fire under Harry is--well, what? The class he's best at is D.A.D.A. (by objective standards, it's his one "O"). What inspired Harry to get that good? Facing Voldemort. What inspired Harry to put the extra work into learning the Patronus? Fear of the Dementors. What inspired Harry to learn the extra hexes and spells for the TWT? Fear of looking stupid in front of the whole school. Harry does well in his classes, but he doesn't have a "fire" for anything but D.A.D.A. He seems to do so well because he has Hermione setting up his study schedule and nagging him through his homework. And maybe--maybe he puts in a bit more effort because he wants to be an auror. Under Slughorn, Harry wouldn't be doing any better, except that he has a book with all the answers written in. It's hard to judge whether Slughorn's style has to do with the class being N.E.W.T. level or not, but if he took the same attitude in a first year class, I could see Harry getting quickly discouraged because he'd be messing up potions right with no idea how to fix them. (Neville would be even worse off.) I'm basing this on the way that Slughorn doesn't seem to mind if the students do 80% of the potion right--although he's delighted if you get it right. Snape would have been telling Hermione exactly why her potion was the wrong color. Phoenixgod2000 We are having an argument about whether or not Snape is a good teacher and I have to wonder if it matters to him in the slightest. Is he using his methods because he believes that they work or because they fit his general disposition as an evil sourpuss and thus the path of least resistance? Seems to me like he only has that job because Dumbledore needed him close by. If he were a truly free man would he be a teacher? Does he have the calling? I don't think he does and ultimately that's what bothers me about him. I don't think he cares about the students and I don't think he cares if they learn anything or not. He's just marking time and I think he's doing it at the expense of the students of Hogwarts. As someone who thinks of teaching as his calling that offends me. Montavilla47: Actually, that bothers me a lot more about Dumbledore than it does about Snape. Snape isn't the only teacher at Hogwarts with a... questionable style. Hagrid isn't even qualified to Apparate, let alone teach. A student is seriously injured in his very first class. Dumbledore questions whether Divination is worth teaching, but he first hires a fraud and then a teacher who shares his opinion to the extent that he tells the students it's not worth even trying to divine. (Okay, I'm exaggerating, but I'm suddenly wondering if Parvati's experience in Firenze's class that first day were that different from Harry's in D.A.D.A. with Umbridge? Minus the physical torture, of course.) The history teacher is so boring that students routinely fall asleep in his class. I realize this is IMO and your mileage may vary, but I think Snape cares too much, if anything. Not about his student's egos, but about whether they learn potions--or learn enough to stay away from them if they don't have the patience, aptitude, and precision to do them right. You're right that some students are going to be completely turned off the subject by Snape's teaching style. I'm sure he's happy about that, telling himself that the world is better off without second-rate apothecaries. Montavilla47 From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 21:31:19 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:31:19 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168529 Dana: In my opinion it is a presumption that Snape saves lives because they are threatened by Voldemort because at this moment the only reason for saving Harry's life and trying to safe James's life that canon supports is that he owed James a debt. And it is interesting that DD is not believed when he tells Harry this but that he is believed when he states Snape can be trusted. So either DD is right in both or both are equally questionable. Montavilla47: Dumbledore didn't say that Snape owed James a *life* debt. He says that he *believes* that Snape hated James because James did the unforgiveable thing of saving Snape's life and that he hoped that saving Harry's life might even the score. The way that Dumbledore states this puts it very much in Snape's mind and might well be different than the "magic" that was invoked by Harry sparing Pettigrew's life. This is why many people discount the "life debt" notion and not the "trust" notion. Not because one is convenient and one is not. Dana: His saving people rate is at this moment, equals to his own claimed rate of killing people or being responsible for their deaths. Montavilla47: Let's see. He claimed to have aided in the deaths of two people: Emmeline Vance and Sirius Black. He killed Dumbledore. He aided in saving Harry's life in PS/SS. He aided in saving Harry, Hermione, Ron, Luna, Ginny, and Neville's lives in OotP. In HBP, he saved Dumbledore's life. He "prevented the spread" of Katie's curse, which probably saved her life. His information helped Harry save Ron's life. He saved Draco's life when Harry cut him up in the bathroom. He may have saved Draco and Narcissa's life by completing Draco's mission. Kills: 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 2. Saves: 1/2 + (1/2*6) + 1 + 1/4 + 1 = 5.75 (Not counting the possible saves. If you add those in, you another 3: 8.75) Dana Interesting because Hermione perceived this too and was far more effective in saving Harry then Snape was with his muttering counter- curses. Snape like Hermione knows it takes eye contact so why not go to Quirrell and smack him in the head? Montavilla47: The book is so clear about this. Quirrell is seated *behind* Snape. Snape can't know who is jinxing that broom. There are several hundred people in the stands and he can't know who the culprit is. Even Hermione, who looks in the direction that Snape and Quirrell are, facing them, doesn't notice that it's Quirrell and not Snape. Snape has no time to look around that stadium. He *has* to keep his eyes on the broom so that he can counterjinx it. Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 21:48:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:48:34 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168530 Phoenixgod wrote: > I see Harry's Potion results as an anomaly. IIRC, he gets lucky by having his essay question on a potion he knows intimately. If the question hadn't been about polyjuice, I'm not sure he would have done so well. and you can't attribute his polyjuice knowledge to Snape--just their ingredients :) Carol responds: Actually, we *can* credit Snape, who not only taught Hermione how to brew a potion, but told her of this potion's existence, what it does, and where to find the recipe: "Snape mentioned it in class a few weeks ago," says Hermione when the boys fail to recognize the name of the potion. "It transforms you into somebody else." She also informs them that "it wears off after a little while," which Snape must also have mentioned in class, and adds, "But getting hold of the recipe will be very difficult. Snape said it was in a book called 'Most Potente Potions' and it's bound to be in the Restricted Section of the library" ((CoS Am. ed. 159-160). So score another one for Snape. If he hadn't mentioned Polyjuice Potion in class, and Hermione hadn't been paying attention to Snape's lecture, Harry would not have known how to brew it and would no doubt have scored lower on the written portion of his OWL. Carol, noting that Snape also taught Harry about Bezoars and Expelliarmus, both of which Harry actually credits to Snape at one point or another From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu May 10 21:58:43 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:58:43 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168531 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > You're right that some students are going to be completely turned off > the subject by Snape's teaching style. I'm sure he's happy about that, telling > himself that the world is better off without second-rate apothecaries. So the only way to become good at potions is to learn through Snape's teaching methods? What makes someone who can't learn from Snape a 'second rate apothecary?' Phoenixgod2000 From larriepam2000 at yahoo.com Thu May 10 23:45:19 2007 From: larriepam2000 at yahoo.com (larriepam2000) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 23:45:19 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168532 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > I have been doing some research into the two sisters and I was > wondering which sister is older? Petunia or Lily? Pam: I've never been able to find the answer to this question but my pet prediction is...They are TWINS. Lily is the witch and Petunia a muggle, Lily get her letter and Petunia is left home alone after 11 years and Petunia is bitter. I can't figure out any other reason we don't know who is eldest. We know almost everyone else age except Lily and Petunia. Anyone else? Pam From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 11 00:30:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:30:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4643B940.5010505@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168533 justcarol67 wrote: > So score another one for Snape. If he hadn't mentioned Polyjuice > Potion in class, and Hermione hadn't been paying attention to Snape's > lecture, Harry would not have known how to brew it and would no doubt > have scored lower on the written portion of his OWL. Bart: I actually had a problem with that; if it was restricted, then how were students supposed to know about it for the OWL's? Bart From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri May 11 00:34:28 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 00:34:28 -0000 Subject: Draco Kills Voldemort ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168534 aussie: Everyone thinks Harry will kill Voldemort. JKR likes that. JKR loves to create storylines that are unexpected with vieled clues leading up to it. So if someone else kills Voldemort, who could it be? (be creative, not dogmatic ... think outside the box) CHARACTERISTICS TO KILL VOLDEMORT: - Occlemency (or LV will deflect any spell used) - Knows AK (Needs Dark attitude and ability.) - Can get close to LV (invisible, would help) - After Horcruxes destroyed (LV would be too defensive once he knows the last of them are gone, so LV's killer would need to know about Harry's hunt before LV does) - Prophecy? (DD in HBP said LV focuses on it, but not to be distracted by it) If the Prophecy is right, then that person: - Born at the end of July - Marked by LV as an equal - parents defied LV three times - Killed by their hand - Has a Power that LV doesn't know So is it Harry or Neville? It is JKR that pointed only to those two. That may be another distraction. Could someone else do those things? DRACO MALFOY: - Occlemency (Snape said so in HBP) - Knows AK (Needed it for DD) - Can get close to LV (Instant Darkness plus that Hand of Glory) - After Horcruxes destroyed (hmmm) - Prophecy? (Maybe) The Prophecy: - Born at the end of July (Draco was too young for Apparating test. was he born near the end of July?) - Marked by LV as an equal (Death Eater's mark on his arm) - parents defied LV three times (not sure ... but Lucius didn't go to Azkaban; His mum got Snape to do the vow to disobey LV and not just wait for Draco to AK) - Killed by their hand (He doesn't have to keep "Love as his strongest weapon") - Has a Power that LV doesn't know (the darkness or another Twin novelty) Aussie From belviso at attglobal.net Fri May 11 00:37:40 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:37:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG References: Message-ID: <015901c79364$973cdef0$f8b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168535 > Alla: > > I do not see him treating his non club students as nothings, I guess. > Giving them less attention for sure, but nothings? I do not see it. Magpie: I do. Maybe I wouldn't say he treats them like "nothing," but his snub of Belby in the first chapter is pretty impressive. Anyone in the class can see there are the students who matter and the students who don't. I would find that class very discouraging, so would that make it Slughorn's fault if I didn't become a Healer because of it? He would have ruined my enjoyment of the subject. >> Magpie: >> My point was that Snape's favoritism is a sign that he should never > be >> teaching, but obviously favoritism in itself isn't always a problem > at all, >> or even unusual. Otherwise Slughorn would inspire more horror, > since that's >> what he's about. > > > Alla: > > He should never teach? Why is that? I mean, if you think that teacher > who picks favorites should never teach, I would agree, but**only** if > you put Snape in that same category. I am not sure I get it. You are > saying that Slugghorn's favoritism is of more harmful variety than > Snape's? Magpie? I'm confused. I was saying that the thread is about how Snape is a bad teacher, so presumably should not teach, and favoritism was being used as a reason for that. Slughorn obviously also favors favoritism in class. > Alla: > > I must clarify. I absolutely believe Snape is ruining careers by > grading unfairly ( potion breaking scene for once), but in a sense of > turning people away from the subject, detesting Potions maybe, staff > like that. Magpie: That's certainly a wrong thing for Snape to do and an instance of grading unfairly in that class, and while I don't defend it I don't think it has that big of an influence on Harry's grade. (Which again, doesn't make it okay, but that incident doesn't seem to have effected Harry's future career one way or another so far.) As for turning kids' away from Potions, I can't hold up Snape to a super high ideal that no other teacher is held up to. Just as, even though I wouldn't like him as a teacher, I'm not going to blame Hagrid for turning students off of a career in Magical Creatures. Life is a series of accidents and influences. All our lives might have been different if we'd had slightly different experiences with teachers or with school, but in the end our life is our own. Maybe Harry would have been a brilliant historian if Binns hadn't been so boring, and he seems to have a better grasp on Potions than he does on History of Magic. Harry isn't turned on by any of his classes except DADA. Hogwarts is full of flawed teachers, like the real world, and they're all having effects on the students we probably can't even imagine. Alla: > > When people who need the class, may not be able to get in it because > of how Snape teaches. Like what Phoenixgod said - setting unfair > classroom. But sure, OWLS are the key. Magpie: And the same is true for every other class. Why point out only Snape for this? He doesn't even seem to be a teacher particularly struggling with getting his kids to focus and take his class seriously. >> Magpie: >> Slughorn's extra curriculum activity spills over blantantly into > his >> lessons. He doesn't yell at people, which is certainly a plus, but > I don't >> know whether I'd felt like I'd been treated all that decently in > his class. > > Alla: > > As I told Ceridwen, or attempted to, I just do not see it. I mean I > do see that he pays less attention to some students, sure - ignores > Ron, etc. > > I just do not see proof that he gives them less attention than he is > required to, if that makes sense, you know? Magpie: So Snape is doing wrong by not making the students personally passionate about the subject, and he's ruining their careers by not creating a classroom situation every student likes best, but it's fine for Slughorn to blatantly mark out certain kids as the ones worth encouraging and the ones who aren't--that couldn't possibly make a difference in the way they respond to a subject too? Slughorn: > I think that he gives his club members **a lot** of extra attention, > a lot. But I see no proof that other students do not get the > **minimum** attention that he is required to give everybody. Magpie: And the kids who are getting the very minimum of attention know it. I think Snape's students feel more of an eye on them than Slughorn's do--some would like less attention from him. Alla:> > In short, I think his club is his baby and I just do not see how the > fact that he in his spare time takes whoever he pleases ( and not > that I am happy with his collecting habits) shows that he ignores > other students. Magpie: His ignoring his other students is what shows that he ignores other students. Slughorn doesn't just forget names, for instance. He's brilliant at remembering names. His not remembering a name is a way of saying the person doesn't matter. >> Magpie: >> Yes--when I said he "seems nicer" or whatever I said I was > intentionally >> trying to say something that was lukewarm and didn't speak to > necessarily >> being good. He's not nice on the train--nor is he showing any moral > judgment >> in rejecting Malfoy. Alla refered to him putting Malfoy in his > place, but >> it's just a coincidence that Slughorn's personal protection leads > him to >> reject any kid with DE parents. Draco says Lucius was "a great > favorite" of >> his, just like many other DEs, and that's not surprising, imo. > > Alla: > > Just a coincidence? It seems to me that Slugghorn quite clearly > **chose** to run from DE instead of let them recruit him. I see him > rejecting kid with DE parents due to that choice. Magpie: It's a coincidence, yes. Slughorn is afraid of the DEs and is protecting himself. But he's fine promoting Blaise, who has the same values, because he's a Pureblood from a good family (and hot). If Theo Nott were another Sirius Black in terms of rejecting his family's values he'd be rejected too. Sure in Malfoy's case the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but there's nothing inherently admirable about judging the kids based on who their parents are, be their parents DEs or Muggles. Ultimately it's good for Malfoy that Slughorn rejects him, because the kind of values Slughorn aggressively promotes in his Slug Club are the same values Draco's been raised with and are such a turn off in him. Alla: > Lucius could have been his favorite when he was not recruited yet, no? Magpie: Sure before he was recruited. But I doubt before he had the same values he has now. Slughorn doesn't turn people away who, like Sirius' parents, totally support Voldemort but aren't DEs. If Lucius were exactly the same but without the mark I think Malfoy would have been welcomed with open arms. Alla: > > So Slugghorn wanted rich spoiled youth in his club - I mean, if that > is what he likes in people, why not? Magpie: Because his "club" is not just a school club. It's a network for the professional world based on croneyism. Exactly the way Lucius Malfoy thinks the world should work, if he might have made a few different choices in his members. I don't want to sound like I'm comparing Snape to Slughorn except in limited ways, because they're apples and oranges. I think it's wrong of Snape to personally pick on Harry--it's unprofessional as well. I also don't think he's good for Neville--though I think he's a lot like many other people Neville deals with. Remember this is the kid whose family throws him off piers because he's incompetent. But I think Slughorn also stands for some unacceptable things for a teacher. Snape may do longterm damage to kids like Neville (though I don't think he's damaged Neville) personally that they would need to deal with. But Slughorn's croneyism seems to be just as serious to me in its own way. justcarol67 wrote: > So score another one for Snape. If he hadn't mentioned Polyjuice > Potion in class, and Hermione hadn't been paying attention to Snape's > lecture, Harry would not have known how to brew it and would no doubt > have scored lower on the written portion of his OWL. Bart: I actually had a problem with that; if it was restricted, then how were students supposed to know about it for the OWL's? Magpie: It wasn't necessarily restricted by fifth year. Harry may have just felt like that was a particularly good question for him because he had personal experience to draw on. But they all might have studied what it was etc. -m From cdayr at yahoo.com Fri May 11 00:45:26 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 00:45:26 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?And_in_The_End=85GoF?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168536 The next in the continuing series of threads hoping to pick apart what in each book might play a role in DH. So, it's my very favorite, despite the sad lack of Lupin, so what's going on in GoF that will be important to the end? What do you think? A few ideas and questions to (hopefully) get us started. Please pull these apart into their own threads if you want to focus on one in particular. 1. So, Voldie's back, and he's badder than ever obviously his rebirth is the "something very important" that JKR alludes to in a number of interviews when talking about GoF. What did you think of Voldemort's return in this book? Does he live up to his evil billing? What weaknesses does he reveal in the graveyard that might play in the end (basic Evil Overlord mistakes notwithstanding (or included))? What strengths? 2. And while still thinking about it, let's just ask, where *was* Lupin? What does it tell us about Harry that his need for a father-figure shifted so suddenly to Sirius, and Lupin is all but forgotten for the year? Any good "Where was Lupin?" theories? (I've always thought he was off searching for Peter ) Why did Harry never have the bond with Lupin that he has with Sirius? 3. Ludo Bagman. Was he just a red herring for this book, or might he return as a person of importance? We know he has *some* ties to the DE, although he claimed to be clueless about his role. We also know he got off at his trial based on his celebrity, and not on deep detective work at the Ministry. Any Bagman is ESE theories left? Any Bagman theories at all? Bagman! 4. The idea of a binding magical contract is first introduced in the form of the Goblet of Fire, and I see a lot of parallels between it and the UV in HBP. I've always found the idea of being magically bound to be quite dark magic- a commitment you cannot break. What if Harry had not participated in the Triwizard Tournament? Would he have died, like a UV? Why is such a powerful spell used at a school event? 5. I'm always curious about the nature of magical objects, and a number of mysterious ones are introduced or featured in GoF- the pensieve, portkeys, wand cores- all of which have mysterious aspects (e.g. do your memories leave your mind when you put them in the pensieve?, what are the different ways a portkey can work?, etc.) Any insights on the use of these magical items in the last book? How might these appear again? 6. What are the odds on seeing students from Beauxbatons and Durmstrang again? 7. Nitpick alert: This has always bugged me why couldn't Sirius, "Lie low at Lupin's," (713) all year, if it is fine at the end of the year? Or if nothing else, why weren't his other friends (well, DD and Lupin) bringing him food and clothing in the cave? There are also some of the classic "big" questions that can be revisited or not: What is the "gleam of something like triumph" in DD's eye? What does it mean that Snape appears in the Foe-Glass (my favorite moment in all of HP)? How will "Priori Incantatem" affect the final confrontation between LV and Harry? There is my pondering on GoF for the day I know many of these questions have been answered eloquently before and there is much more to pick apart in GoF, so I hope you add to my list. What else do you think might be important to The End? Celia, not even willing to ask about SPEW, although it is a huge theme in GoF that will need to be brought to a conclusion in DH. From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri May 11 01:01:27 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:01:27 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168537 Pippin: > IMO, it's a case of mistaken identity, one of so many in the books. > Harry has the misfortune to resemble James. Snape's subconscious > identifies Harry as James, who persecuted Snape for years. Sherry: Snape is the adult here. It's not enough to blame it on his subconscious. He has to take responsibility for his actions, his words everything. He chooses to let his past cause him to treat a child, an eleven-year-old child as unkindly as he does, blaming the innocent child for what that child's father did. That is incredibly immature in my opinion. Snape seems never to have grown up at all. Pippin: > Meanwhile Harry's subconscious tells him Snape would like nothing > better than to ruin Harry's life, although Dumbledore tells him that > he's actually been working very hard to save it. Alla: The key difference for me is of course that Harry's subconscious **only** tells him that after Snape did something to provoke it IMO. Sherry: I agree with Alla--no surprise on this topic--and I would add that Harry is deciding for himself, based on Snape's day to day treatment of him. He's not relying on the tired old thought, Dumbledore trusts him, so I guess I should. And yet, Harry *does* trust Snape, based on Dumbledore's word, at least till the death of Sirius,. Even though he dislikes Snape, he tries to communicate his belief about Sirius being in danger. Pippin: > Snape had no business to blame Harry for Neville's accident. But I > suspect he figured Neville would get it right since Neville's parents > were both Aurors and therefore skilled at potions. He probably wasn't > paying attention for once, blamed himself for the accident and > immediately thought of a reason to blame Harry instead. Now who does > that sound like? Sherry: Oh yeah, the height of maturity and great teaching, blame one student for the mistakes of another just because you hated his father. As for who it sounds like--I'm guessing you mean Harry after OOTP--Harry has five years of Snape's treatment to base his feelings and anger on. and I repeat, Snape is the adult here, Harry is the hormone riddled child, going through hell and just having lost the only parental figure he has ever known. Transferring your pain is pretty common in grief and the stages of mourning. A person has to be angry at *someone*! My guess was that Harry would have moved beyond that in time, if not for the murder of Dumbledore, but that's only my own personal speculation based on my grief experiences and not something that can ever be proven. Sherry From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri May 11 01:12:26 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 01:12:26 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_And_in_The_End=85GoF?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168538 > Celai: > 3. Ludo Bagman. Was he just a red herring for this book, or might he return as a person of importance? We know he has *some* ties to the DE, although he claimed to be clueless about his role. Any Bagman is ESE theories left? Any Bagman theories at all? Goddlefrood: Indeed there are some Ludo is a bad man theories left. Ludo is someone I have studied in great detail, but I'll not bore anyone further with the full details here. My assessment of him is contained in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142009 I do believe he will be back, but probably only for a brief resolution of his story and as I said more recently, not sure if it was here :-?, Rita will enlighten us on the stories about him that would make ones hair curl. Thanks for the posers, Celia, I do have a glimmer theory, but it needs a little development, maybe I'll get back to this :-) Goddlefrood From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Fri May 11 01:19:49 2007 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <114464.29915.qm@web39507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168539 --- larriepam2000 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" > wrote: > > > I have been doing some research into the two > sisters and I was > > wondering which sister is older? Petunia or Lily? > parisfan writes: good question. I have not seen any real proof of ages. but in my imagination i have always pegged Petunia as being the oldest and Lilly being younger. That is how i can explain such jealous behavior from Petunia > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 02:34:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 02:34:06 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: <015901c79364$973cdef0$f8b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168540 > Magpie? > I'm confused. I was saying that the thread is about how Snape is a bad > teacher, so presumably should not teach, and favoritism was being used as a > reason for that. Slughorn obviously also favors favoritism in class. Alla: Ah. I see. I was confused too, sorry. But in that case let me assure you that favoritism is **not** the most important reason why I believe Snape should never teach. I mean do not get me wrong, I do not like at all that he picks favorites and would prefer Slughorn did not do it either, but to me it is what Snape **does** to his non- favorites students is the main reason why I detest him so much. Does it make sense? If he say simply favored Draco at the expense of everybody else and not run his dirty mouth at Harry and not threatened to poison Neville's toad, insulted Hermione's teeth,etc,etc. If he ignored them, did not give them as much attention as he gives Draco, while still grading fairly which I believe Slughorn does, it would have bothered me much less. > Alla: > > > > When people who need the class, may not be able to get in it because > > of how Snape teaches. Like what Phoenixgod said - setting unfair > > classroom. But sure, OWLS are the key. > > Magpie: > And the same is true for every other class. Why point out only Snape for > this? He doesn't even seem to be a teacher particularly struggling with > getting his kids to focus and take his class seriously. Alla: Why point Snape only? Because I believe he is the worst offender. I mean that is IMO obviously and there are other teachers for sure, I just believe he is the worst in that area, so I am pointing it. > Magpie: > So Snape is doing wrong by not making the students personally passionate > about the subject, and he's ruining their careers by not creating a > classroom situation every student likes best, but it's fine for Slughorn to > blatantly mark out certain kids as the ones worth encouraging and the ones > who aren't--that couldn't possibly make a difference in the way they respond > to a subject too? Alla: I guess I am not being clear again, sorry. Yes, I think Snape is very very wrong when he does that, but is it **fine** for Slughorn? No, I do not think it is fine for the kids he ignores, not at all. But contrary to what Snape does, I absolutely believe that what Slughorn does is **not** abuse of his authority. Does it make sense? I believe that as extracirricular activity it is his right to do so, if that makes sense. While I do not believe at all that Snape is entitled to do what he does to Harry and Neville in class. I am all for Slugghorn giving more attention to Ron for example. But the thing is I do not think he is **obligated to do so**. Does it make him not a good teacher? Sure, I would say not to Lupin's standards, not to Sprout's standards. The fact that I give him much higher grade than Snape as teacher, does not mean that I think that he is very good. But he is not the worst either IMO. > Magpie: > It's a coincidence, yes. Slughorn is afraid of the DEs and is protecting > himself. But he's fine promoting Blaise, who has the same values, because > he's a Pureblood from a good family (and hot). Alla: The fact that Blase is not a DE means to me that he does have some difference in values. I mean, not much I will agree with that and I would even say that I will not be surprised if he becomes such, but to me still not the same thing. I mean he certainly shares pureblood philosophy etc. Magpie: If Theo Nott were another > Sirius Black in terms of rejecting his family's values he'd be rejected too. Alla: He would be? So far Slughorn expresses regret that he did not have two Black brothers in his house, one of whom he now knows rejected his family, no? Magpie: > Sure in Malfoy's case the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but there's > nothing inherently admirable about judging the kids based on who their > parents are, be their parents DEs or Muggles. Alla: Admirable? I guess not. I was arguing that Slughorn wanting to stay away from DE and their kids by assosiation is his choice, not coincidence. I also would find it far more not admirable if Slughorn did not want to stay away from DE and their kids. Magpie: > Ultimately it's good for Malfoy that Slughorn rejects him, because the kind > of values Slughorn aggressively promotes in his Slug Club are the same > values Draco's been raised with and are such a turn off in him. Alla: Okay. > Alla: > > Lucius could have been his favorite when he was not recruited yet, no? > > Magpie: > Sure before he was recruited. But I doubt before he had the same values he > has now. Slughorn doesn't turn people away who, like Sirius' parents, > totally support Voldemort but aren't DEs. If Lucius were exactly the same > but without the mark I think Malfoy would have been welcomed with open arms. Alla: Yep, I think so too. My question is what is wrong with it? No, not with Lucius values. I see plenty of wrongs there. What is wrong with Slughorn wanting to collect him? I mean, just in general. JMO, Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 11 06:38:26 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 06:38:26 -0000 Subject: Draco Kills Voldemort ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > CHARACTERISTICS TO KILL VOLDEMORT: > DRACO MALFOY: > The Prophecy: > - Born at the end of July (Draco was too young for Apparating test. > was he born near the end of July?) Geoff: Just on the specific item above, the Lexicon gives Draco's birthday as 5th June suggesting a quote from JKR as support. I haven't had time to wade through the quotes index but that one item seems to torpedo your theory. From rduran1216 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 06:24:01 2007 From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 06:24:01 -0000 Subject: Student who becomes a teacher Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168542 Rowling has said that one of Harry's classmates will become a teacher. Instead of it being during the bulk of DH, I think Neville will be the Herbology teacher once he's older. I base this on making sense, not neessarily on any evidence. rduran1216 From ida3 at planet.nl Fri May 11 06:54:17 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 06:54:17 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168543 > Montavilla47: > Dumbledore didn't say that Snape owed James a *life* debt. He says > that he *believes* that Snape hated James because James did the > unforgiveable thing of saving Snape's life and that he hoped that > saving Harry's life might even the score. > > The way that Dumbledore states this puts it very much in Snape's > mind and might well be different than the "magic" that was invoked > by Harry sparing Pettigrew's life. > This is why many people discount the "life debt" notion and not > the "trust" notion. Not because one is convenient and one is > not. Dana: Let's see what Dumbledore has to say about it. PoA pg 311 UKed Paperback Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt. *When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them* [emphasis mine] This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry, End quote canon. James saved Snape's life so I trust that Snape was in James debt in the same way as Pettigrew is with Harry. It is not just because Harry spared Pettigrew's life in an act of mercy, it is saving Pettigrew from dying by actively preventing him being killed. And if it isn't the same as you imply then why is it enough for Snape to want to try to settle the score? If it meant nothing and he did not owe James anything then there is no score to settle. I think it is very clear that James saving Snape's life created that special bond in the same way it created a bond between Peter and Harry, just because JKR might have muddied the water by claiming Ginny did not owe Harry a debt doesn't mean it is suddenly different for Snape as well. But I believe she did not meant it that way because I believe what she did mean was that in case of Ginny it caries no real importance because Ginny would give her life for Harry any day with or without owing Harry anything. Ginny does owe Harry a debt in the strictest sense of what a debt is but she will never feel inclined to do anything, she would not already do for Harry, just because of it and why it will not play any part in what is to come. Montavilla47: > Let's see. He claimed to have aided in the deaths of two people: > Emmeline Vance and Sirius Black. He killed Dumbledore. Dana: You are forgetting James and Lily here and it almost killed Harry. Montavilla47: > He aided in saving Harry's life in PS/SS. He aided in saving Harry, > Hermione, Ron, Luna, Ginny, and Neville's lives in OotP. In HBP, > he saved Dumbledore's life. He "prevented the spread" of Katie's > curse, which probably saved her life. His information helped Harry > save Ron's life. He saved Draco's life when Harry cut him up in > the bathroom.He may have saved Draco and Narcissa's life by > completing Draco's mission. > > Kills: 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 2. > Saves: 1/2 + (1/2*6) + 1 + 1/4 + 1 = 5.75 (Not counting the possible > saves. If you add those in, you another 3: 8.75) I do not count OotP because in my opinion he is still as much at fault for this ordeal happening in the first place so that cancels out his action of saving those 6. I would have been happy to count it if he had done something to prevent Harry facing the DE's if Snape had risked his cover by informing the Order of LV's plan but he did not and I still believe Snape was very aware when Harry went of to the DoM when it was mentioned that Snape knew Harry was in the Forest with Umbridge which in my opinion he could not have known if he did not see them go in himself) So he is responsible for James, Lily, almost killing Harry, Sirius (twice let's not forget the soul sucking), Lupin (as he wanted to have him soul sucked too), Emmeline Vance, Dumbledore. And we could add Barty Crouch Jr to this list because he did nothing to prevent Fudge taking his Dementor into the castle while Snape knew how DD felt about it but for argument sake I will not count it but we do not hear Snape did any arguing with Fudge when he went to get him. I do not count Narcissa's life because it was never at risk and he might have put her more at risk with taking the vow and LV finding out she went against his whishes just as Draco's lifesaving can't be counted because Draco is still at LV mercy and was never at risk from dying by DD's hand. He saves DD, Katie and Draco, I do not count Ron because if you count Ron because Harry got the information from the book then you should add Draco with the responsible for almost dying to his list too because Harry got that information from the book too. I'll will be accounting his attempt to safe James. Responsible, claims or kills, trying to kill = 1 + 1 + ? + ? + 1/2 + 1 + 1 + 1= 6 1/2 (counting Sirius one and half times because he did actively try to get it done and will count Lupin as ?, just because he did not get his way doesn't cancel out his attempt) Saves or tries: 1 + 1 + ? + ? + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6 (counting James and Lily and trying to safe Harry but counting it half because his survival had nothing to do with Snape and the same goes for his attempt in PS) Mhhh still doesn't look like Snape is overly heroic to me, he is still pretty much responsible for as much deaths or almost deaths as he is in saving people. And if you count that he could have prevented the whole ordeal in OotP then he did not only put the lives of 6 teenagers at risk by withholding information but also risked the lives of Order members unnecessary and the same goes for HBP. So the possible safe's you are contributing to Snape are still as many as he possible put at risk with his actions. He could have been the heroic figure if he indeed put his life on the line by exposing his cover to safe or prevent putting people at risk but he doesn't. He never puts his own life at risk once and to be honest I believe he notified the Order but also notified LV that he did it for LV to show up at the DoM and covering his own butt. Tell me how else did LV know the DoM ordeal went sour for him to go in himself? Mhhh interesting thought isn't it. Montavilla47: > The book is so clear about this. Quirrell is seated *behind* Snape. Snape > can't know who is jinxing that broom. There are several hundred people in > the stands and he can't know who the culprit is. Even Hermione, who looks > in the direction that Snape and Quirrell are, facing them, doesn't notice > that it's Quirrell and not Snape. Dana: No, that is not correct because he was already on to Quirrell as it was after Halloween and thus after Harry messes with Quirrell's decoy. So why wouldn't Snape suspect this was Quirrell's doing too? Hermione wasn't on to Quirrell so she only goes by what she sees. Montavilla47: > Snape has no time to look around that stadium. He *has* to keep his eyes > on the broom so that he can counterjinx it. Dana: Sure but the problem is that if Hermione had not intervened you would never know if Snape would have been able to safe Harry this way because it was not helping Harry get both feet on the ground. So essentially his muttering counter-curses might just have delayed the inevitable of Harry falling of his broom. The twins were trying to safe Harry too by getting Harry away from his broom but you do not hear anyone giving them credit for it and neither is Hermione given any credit for saving Harry by bumping into Quirrell breaking his eye contact. That is my problem when other people do far more heroic things then Snape does then it is eerie silent like for instance Sirius saving the kids by taking care of werewolf Lupin but when Snape does something it is elevated to him being the hero of the books and this while many of his actions put the lives of people in danger too. For instance him delaying Harry might very well have caused Barty Crough SR his life, him not telling DD about Quirrell put Harry's life in danger when Quirrell lured DD away from the castle and the list goes on and on. I'm not saying Snape did not try but his attempt was far from effective and it did not prevent Harry almost falling off or the broom getting higher and higher. Would Harry have fallen off sooner if Snape did not mutter his counter curses, well he might indeed but many kids fall of their brooms in Quidditch and Harry almost fell of seconds before so maybe Harry would have been safer falling off sooner when the broom was still within the stadium borders, who knows. JMHO Dana From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri May 11 07:02:45 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:02:45 -0000 Subject: Draco Kills Voldemort ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168544 > > Aussie: > > The Prophecy: > > - Born at the end of July (Draco was too young for Apparating test. > > was he born near the end of July?) > Geoff: > Just on the specific item above, the Lexicon gives Draco's birthday > as 5th June suggesting a quote from JKR as support. I haven't had > time to wade through the quotes index but that one item seems to > torpedo your theory. Goddlefrood: The information is occluded from the official sources, JKR uses Occlumency herself at times ;). Geoff's information on Draco\s birthday being 5th June can be confirmed from the archive of JKR's birthday listings from Mugglenet, Veritaserum and many more. I would also add that Dumbledore was very clear, the Prophecy referred to Harry as being the one to kill Voldemort in chapter 23 - Horcruxes in HBP, so this theory, even if confirmed by JKR in a moment of weakness, really should be a non-starter. The Legilimency skills may need a polish, revision IOW. With all due respect Goddlefrood From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri May 11 09:21:16 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:21:16 -0000 Subject: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168545 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rduran1216" wrote: > > Rowling has said that one of Harry's classmates will become a teacher. > Instead of it being during the bulk of DH, I think Neville will be the > Herbology teacher once he's older. I base this on making sense, not > neessarily on any evidence. > > rduran1216 > Since HBP, I've been thinking it's more likely that Malfoy will end up teaching potions. Dung From phil at pcsgames.net Fri May 11 10:15:25 2007 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 06:15:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Student who becomes a teacher References: Message-ID: <031e01c793b5$516c6390$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 168546 ----- Original Message ----- From: dungrollin To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:21 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Student who becomes a teacher --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rduran1216" wrote: > > Rowling has said that one of Harry's classmates will become a teacher. > Instead of it being during the bulk of DH, I think Neville will be the > Herbology teacher once he's older. I base this on making sense, not > neessarily on any evidence. > > rduran1216 > Since HBP, I've been thinking it's more likely that Malfoy will end up teaching potions. Dung Now Phil: I predict that after losing both Divination teachers in book Seven, Ron will become the new Divination teacher. 1. He plays a great game of chess. 2. Most of his fake predictions came out to be true. 3. He gave Harry the way to defeat Voldemort in book one, when Harry asked, "And what if I wave my wand and nothing happens?" "Throw it away and punch him on the nose," Ron suggested. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri May 11 11:37:14 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:37:14 -0000 Subject: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: <031e01c793b5$516c6390$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168547 rduran1216 wrote: >> Rowling has said that one of Harry's classmates will become a > teacher. >> Instead of it being during the bulk of DH, I think Neville will be > the Herbology teacher once he's older. I base this on making sense, not neessarily on any evidence. > > Dungrollin: > Since HBP, I've been thinking it's more likely that Malfoy will end up teaching potions. > Now Phil: > I predict that after losing both Divination teachers in book Seven, Ron will become the new Divination teacher. > 1. He plays a great game of chess. > 2. Most of his fake predictions came out to be true. > 3. He gave Harry the way to defeat Voldemort in book one, when Harry asked, > "And what if I wave my wand and nothing happens?" > "Throw it away and punch him on the nose," Ron suggested. Dungrollin: Potential vacancies: . Transfiguration - since McGonagall is now Head. Wide open. . Potions - Slughorn's supposed to be retired. Wide open. . DADA - was the curse on the position, or on DD's choices? Has Snape now broken the curse? Wide open. . Divination - DD only hired Trelawney because she needed his protection, he was not convinced that the subject should continue to be taught. If both Firenze and Trelawney are unavailable, would McGonagall bother finding another teacher? . Herbology, Charms, Arithmancy, Astronomy, CoMC etc might fall vacant due to a death/retirement among the staff, however, I don't think we know of a single student who particularly excels in any of these subjects, and certainly nobody took NEWT CoMC. Potential students. The choices are from Harry's classmates (so not including Ginny, Luna, GrednForge etc): . Harry - Nope. JKR has already nixed this . Ron - Possibly, but what is his strong point? Transfiguration? . Hermione - Possibly, but JKR said not the one you might expect. . Malfoy - Possibly for Potions or DADA . Neville - Possibly for Herbology . CrabbenGoyle - well I had to put them on the list, but... nah. . Pansy, Seamus, Dean, Lavender and Parvati are all possibilities, but again, where lie their strengths? Do we know/care enough about them? Terry Boot, Mandy Brocklehurst, Michael Corner, Anthony Goldstein, Morag McDougal, Padma Patil, Lisa Turpin, Millicent Bulstrode, Daphne Greengrass, Theo Nott, Blaise Zabini, Hannah Abbot, Susan Bones, Ernie MacMillan, and Justin Finch-Fletchly I don't think are in the running, since we don't know much about them. There's always the possibility that one of them will play a large role in book 7 and will be the surprise teacher, but from where we are now I think it unlikely. I also think it unlikely that Ron would end up teaching Divination. Mostly because he's not even taking the subject at NEWT level (which isn't necessarily a barrier given that Hagrid doesn't have a single OWL), but also because if both Firenze and Trelawney kick their respective buckets, I can't see McGonagall replacing them. I don't much like the idea of Ron becoming an old fraud, either. So here are the possibilities I see, based on available information (it could all change come book 7, of course): Neville - Herbology (Sprout must be unavailable/dead) Ron - Transfiguration/DADA Malfoy - Potions/DADA Hermione - Potions/DADA (unlikely from JKR's comments) Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Ron teach Transfiguration (reflecting the start of another auburn-haired wizard's career) or Malfoy teach Potions/DADA (reflecting another Slytherin's redemption). Dungrollin From jnferr at gmail.com Fri May 11 11:48:13 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 06:48:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: References: <031e01c793b5$516c6390$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: <8ee758b40705110448v4eae4c30p3931750f54496732@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168548 > > > Dungrollin: > > Potential vacancies: > > . Transfiguration - since McGonagall is now Head. Wide open. > . Potions - Slughorn's supposed to be retired. Wide open. > . DADA - was the curse on the position, or on DD's choices? Has Snape > now broken the curse? Wide open. > . Divination - DD only hired Trelawney because she needed his > protection, he was not convinced that the subject should continue to > be taught. If both Firenze and Trelawney are unavailable, would > McGonagall bother finding another teacher? > . Herbology, Charms, Arithmancy, Astronomy, CoMC etc might fall > vacant due to a death/retirement among the staff, however, I don't > think we know of a single student who particularly excels in any of > these subjects, and certainly nobody took NEWT CoMC. montims: Ah - great list but I do believe you missed one! If Madam Hooch turns out to be on the dark side, or has a heart attack because of all the excitement, Ron is perfectly well placed to teach flying and Quidditch ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Fri May 11 12:20:44 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:20:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705110520t2f5d1319t1f877746945989ea@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168549 > > Phoenixgod wrote: > > Seems to me like he only has that job because Dumbledore > needed him close by. If he were a truly free man would he be a > teacher? Does he have the calling? I don't think he does and > ultimately that's what bothers me about him. I don't think he cares > about the students and I don't think he cares if they learn anything > or not. He's just marking time and I think he's doing it at the > expense of the students of Hogwarts. As someone who thinks of > teaching as his calling that offends me. > > Carol responds: > Although I disagree that Snape's teaching is harmful to the students > at Hogwarts (I really don't see a single student harmed by him, and > Ernie Macmillan, a *Hufflepuff,* seems to think he's a good teacher), > I agree that Snape would rather be doing something else (probably > research) involving the types of magic he excels at rather than > teaching. As far as he is concerned, the students are there to learn > the subject, and it's the subject (both Potions and DADA) that he loves. montims: and in the real world, how many people do the job they love, or even have a calling for a particular job? I am now nearly in my 50s, and for the first time in my life I am in a workplace that suits me. Until now, I took whatever job I could (and did well enough financially) but hated every minute of it. Except for my 10 years in Italy, where I taught English. And yes, when it was a matter of getting adolescents through their matriculation, I bullied them and ridiculed them, and did everything except drag them by the scruff of their necks to the books, and they all had remarkable pass rates, and they all loved me afterwards, but it took blood, sweat and many tears to get lively kids with no interest in the subject, and who wanted to be at the beach with their friends, to concentrate on Shakespeare or Wordsworth... I would add that I have some schoolteacher friends, in England, Italy and America. With only one exception, who still loves the job, they all started enthusiastically and idealistically but quickly became disillusioned and bogged down by the politics. Again with only one exception, they have no real liking for the students they teach, or for the syllabus they have to follow (while loving the subject itself). Without exception, they live for the holidays and dread going back to school at start of term. Yet they are all competent teachers, and really would stand no chance now in any other profession. They have all also mastered sarcasm to a T... Let's also remember Harry's creator. She is now doing a thing she loves - writing - but a lot of her life was just marking time in different jobs, to pay the bills. She also taught for a while, and if things had been different, would probably be teaching now. It is what she was educated for, but would she love it? Would she be a good teacher? Riddle badly wanted to be a teacher, because Hogwarts was his home. I can see Harry feeling the same way, if he hadn't had the Weasleys. If the alternative is Spinner's End, why wouldn't Snape want to teach at Hogwarts? THE school for Wizardry - the place that LV cannot touch. He is in an exceptional position of power as DD's right hand man, he is a strong disciplinarian, which is important in a boarding school full of adolescents, and he loves the subject. I think he does care whether or not the students learn, as otherwise he could just mark time by reciting potions theory at them, and having them read books, a la Umbridge. He pushes them and torments them because he wants them to excel, and he has little patience for those students who are not interested in doing so. IMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri May 11 12:36:42 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:36:42 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168550 Where have all the exciting theories gone? ::sigh:: A quick questionnaire for you: Sirius Black "had to die" (according to JKR) to: a) Hide some facts about Regulus's history which Harry can't be allowed to find out too easily. b) Keep ESE!Snape's cover ? "I don't care if Dumbledore thinks you've reformed, I know better ?" OotP, Ch24 UK p459. Sirius had begun to suspect Snape was cheating on DD, and had to be kept quiet. c) Because he would have been a complication throughout HBP, Harry would have told him his suspicions about Snape and Malfoy, and Sirius would never have let DD hear the end of it until he got some answers. Answers which JKR wants to keep for Book 7. d) Hide some facts about Snape/Lily/James history It's more convincing that Lupin was out of the loop than Sirius. e) Keep ESE!Lupin's cover ? Sirius had begun to find Lupin's behaviour a bit suspect, so the werewolf had him silenced. f) Hide some facts about horcruxes ? Sirius (somehow) has a load of information about Voldemort and his horcruxes (not through Reggie ? see a) that was unavailable to DD, Harry and all others. Perhaps his family had something to do with Grindelwald? g) Keep SecretAgent!Peter's cover ? I'm sure someone could find a way to make this work h) To hide something about what happened at GH ? was Sirius using the invisibility cloak? i) Because JKR wants Harry to be alone. Harry would have found it difficult to keep secrets from Sirius, and she didn't want anyone to help on the Horcrux hunt. j) ESE!Sirius was taken out by the bad guys because he was in danger of blowing his cover, that's why Narcissa didn't blink when Snape claimed to have helped - Kreacher never passed any information. I've kept them brief, lest I be thought to be encouraging one-liner posts, so explain, embellish, extemporise, and above all extend the list if you think of other possibilities. Dungrollin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 12:52:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:52:16 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168551 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > Where have all the exciting theories gone? ::sigh:: > > > A quick questionnaire for you: > Sirius Black "had to die" (according to JKR) to: > > a) Hide some facts about Regulus's history which Harry can't be > allowed to find out too easily. Alla: Heee, it could be included in plot related reasons, but I am not sure it is the main reason. > b) Keep ESE!Snape's cover ? "I don't care if Dumbledore thinks you've > reformed, I know better ?" OotP, Ch24 UK p459. Sirius had begun to > suspect Snape was cheating on DD, and had to be kept quiet. Alla: I love this quote ;), but dream as I am of this quote coming true as so many of Sirius' quotes about Snape are IMO, I doubt Sirius discovered Snape's treachery, hehe. Next. > c) Because he would have been a complication throughout HBP, Harry > would have told him his suspicions about Snape and Malfoy, and Sirius > would never have let DD hear the end of it until he got some answers. > Answers which JKR wants to keep for Book 7. Alla: Sure he would have been IMO, after all he did want to tell Harry about Prophecy contrary to what Dumbledore wanted ( slap DD time) But again, I would include it in the umbrella reason below. > d) Hide some facts about Snape/Lily/James history It's more > convincing that Lupin was out of the loop than Sirius. Alla: Same as Regulus plot related - could be, but not sure that it is main one. > e) Keep ESE!Lupin's cover ? Sirius had begun to find Lupin's > behaviour a bit suspect, so the werewolf had him silenced. Alla: Uhu, no thank you :) > i) Because JKR wants Harry to be alone. Harry would have found it > difficult to keep secrets from Sirius, and she didn't want anyone to > help on the Horcrux hunt. Alla: Right, I just say for Harry to be alone is one of the two major reasons, which JKR pretty much said, no? Like same reason DD died - for Harry finish the job alone with his friends without no help from parental figures. > j) ESE!Sirius was taken out by the bad guys because he was in danger > of blowing his cover, that's why Narcissa didn't blink when Snape > claimed to have helped - Kreacher never passed any information. Alla: No thank you :) Now, I do not see the one which I believe can be another plot based reason, the big one. I came to believe more and more that Sirius would give Harry some kind of last help from beyond the veil. IMO. Thanks, Dung. Alla From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri May 11 13:11:55 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:11:55 -0000 Subject: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168552 > Dungrollin: > > Potential vacancies: > > . Transfiguration - since McGonagall is now Head. Wide open. > . Potions - Slughorn's supposed to be retired. Wide open. > . DADA - was the curse on the position, or on DD's choices? Has Snape > now broken the curse? Wide open. > . Divination - DD only hired Trelawney because she needed his > protection, he was not convinced that the subject should continue to > be taught. If both Firenze and Trelawney are unavailable, would > McGonagall bother finding another teacher? > . Herbology, Charms, Arithmancy, Astronomy, CoMC etc might fall > vacant due to a death/retirement among the staff, however, I don't > think we know of a single student who particularly excels in any of > these subjects, and certainly nobody took NEWT CoMC. > > Potential students. The choices are from Harry's classmates (so not > including Ginny, Luna, GrednForge etc): > > . Harry - Nope. JKR has already nixed this > . Ron - Possibly, but what is his strong point? Transfiguration? > . Hermione - Possibly, but JKR said not the one you might expect. > . Malfoy - Possibly for Potions or DADA > . Neville - Possibly for Herbology > . CrabbenGoyle - well I had to put them on the list, but... nah. > . Pansy, Seamus, Dean, Lavender and Parvati are all possibilities, > but again, where lie their strengths? Do we know/care enough about > them? > > Terry Boot, Mandy Brocklehurst, Michael Corner, Anthony Goldstein, > Morag McDougal, Padma Patil, Lisa Turpin, Millicent Bulstrode, Daphne > Greengrass, Theo Nott, Blaise Zabini, Hannah Abbot, Susan Bones, > Ernie MacMillan, and Justin Finch-Fletchly I don't think are in the > running, since we don't know much about them. There's always the > possibility that one of them will play a large role in book 7 and > will be the surprise teacher, but from where we are now I think it > unlikely. > > I also think it unlikely that Ron would end up teaching Divination. > Mostly because he's not even taking the subject at NEWT level (which > isn't necessarily a barrier given that Hagrid doesn't have a single > OWL), but also because if both Firenze and Trelawney kick their > respective buckets, I can't see McGonagall replacing them. I don't > much like the idea of Ron becoming an old fraud, either. > > So here are the possibilities I see, based on available information > (it could all change come book 7, of course): > > Neville - Herbology (Sprout must be unavailable/dead) > Ron - Transfiguration/DADA > Malfoy - Potions/DADA > Hermione - Potions/DADA (unlikely from JKR's comments) > > Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Ron teach Transfiguration > (reflecting the start of another auburn-haired wizard's career) or > Malfoy teach Potions/DADA (reflecting another Slytherin's redemption). > > Dungrollin > Hickengruendler: It isn't Ron. That's from here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099- connectiontransc2.htm#p24 "Part 24 {43:01} Lydon: 1-800-4238255 - The Harry Potter Connection! Kathleen is on the line. Kathleen: Hi, how are you? JKR+Lydon: Hi Kathleen. Kathleen: Thank you so much for taking our call - I'm actually calling from my classroom right now. JKR: Oh, wow! Kathleen: This is a great class. JKR: Hi everyone Kathleen: This is a special treat. (to class:) She says hello to all of you. Class: Hi (in background) Kathleen: Anyway, it's very exciting; we just love Harry Potter, so we're curious - well - first of all we can't wait for books four, five, six and seven [JKR: OK], but after that, we're curious as to whether Harry is going to have a life after Hogwarts? Or if maybe Harry might be a Hogwarts teacher? JKR: Erm, well, because all your kids said hello so nicely in the background there, I'm going to give you information I haven't given anyone else, and I will tell you that one of the characters - er - one of - one of Harry's class mates, though it's not Harry himself, does end up a teacher at Hogwarts, but it is not maybe the one you'd think - hint, hint, hint! So, yes one of them does end up staying at Hogwarts, but - erm ... Lydon: Does the kids want to have a guess at it, Kathleen? Kathleen: Do you like to have a guess at who it is? Class: Ron Kathleen: They say Ron ... JKR: Noooo - it's not Ron ... Kathleen: [to class] it's not Ron ... JKR: ... because I can't see Ron as a teacher, no way. JKR+Kathleen laugh." From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Fri May 11 13:31:34 2007 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 01:31:34 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <684881.53066.qm@web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168553 --- dungrollin wrote: > A quick questionnaire for you: > Sirius Black "had to die" (according to JKR) to: > > i) Because JKR wants Harry to be alone. Harry would > have found it > difficult to keep secrets from Sirius, and she > didn't want anyone to > help on the Horcrux hunt. > Cassy; That's the answer I choose. Harry (as practically any protagonist in any heroic tale) has to stand along in the end. Sidekick are permissible, but not parent/mentor figues (that's why Dumbledore had to go as well, methinks).Also, Sirius's death should cure Harry from his "everyone's saviour complex", bacuse before that he managed to achieve almost everything he set to, save everyone. OK, Harry didn't prevent Cedric from dying, but it's not that he tried, it happened too quickly. Harry even managed to get Cedric's bosy back, as well as saving Ginny, Stone, hippogriff and Sirius from Dementors (Dudley too). He just HAD to fail sometimes. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri May 11 13:36:33 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 06:36:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <684881.53066.qm@web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168554 --- dungrollin wrote: > A quick questionnaire for you: > Sirius Black "had to die" (according to JKR) to: > > i) Because JKR wants Harry to be alone. Harry would have found it > difficult to keep secrets from Sirius, and she didn't want anyone to > help on the Horcrux hunt. > Cassy; That's the answer I choose. Harry (as practically any protagonist in any heroic tale) has to stand along in the end. Sidekick are permissible, but not parent/mentor figues (that's why Dumbledore had to go as well, methinks).Also, Sirius's death should cure Harry from his "everyone's saviour complex", bacuse before that he managed to achieve almost everything he set to, save everyone. OK, Harry didn't prevent Cedric from dying, but it's not that he tried, it happened too quickly. Harry even managed to get Cedric's bosy back, as well as saving Ginny, Stone, hippogriff and Sirius from Dementors (Dudley too). He just HAD to fail sometimes. Sherry: I don't think it's I or she could have just said that, when she was asked in an interview why she killed Sirius. But she said there was an important reason and that we'd know in book seven. So, I'm still waiting. My personal favorite theory is that since we have not seen his body, Sirius may come back through the veil. After all, poor Harry deserves some reward for killing Voldemort and saving the wizarding world! Sherry From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Fri May 11 13:53:54 2007 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 01:53:54 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <422739.88193.qm@web38305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168555 --- Sherry Gomes wrote: > --- dungrollin > wrote: > > > > > Sherry: > > I don't think it's I or she could have just said > that, when she was asked in > an interview why she killed Sirius. But she said > there was an important > reason and that we'd know in book seven. So, I'm > still waiting. My > personal favorite theory is that since we have not > seen his body, Sirius may > come back through the veil. After all, poor Harry > deserves some reward for > killing Voldemort and saving the wizarding world! > > Sherry > Cassy: Well, she said about lots and lots of things that they are important and we'll see in book seven. If she was to answer (or even briefly mention) all of those questions, bok seven would be like encyclipedia (how do you spell that?) Britannica, both in volume and style. Still, we can hope. Harry does deserve some reward, but people don't come back from death, do they? asuming, falling from veil equals dying, which we can't know for sure. Also, we don't know if Harry himself lives. ^_~ Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri May 11 14:02:08 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:02:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <422739.88193.qm@web38305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168556 > > > Sherry: > > I don't think it's I or she could have just said that, when she was > asked in an interview why she killed Sirius. But she said there was > an important reason and that we'd know in book seven. So, I'm still > waiting. My personal favorite theory is that since we have not seen > his body, Sirius may come back through the veil. After all, poor > Harry deserves some reward for killing Voldemort and saving the > wizarding world! > > Sherry > Cassy: Well, she said about lots and lots of things that they are important and we'll see in book seven. If she was to answer (or even briefly mention) all of those questions, bok seven would be like encyclipedia (how do you spell that?) Britannica, both in volume and style. Still, we can hope. Sherry: JKR has said several times that Harry's hero journey means that he has to be alone, so I don't think she would tell a child asking her about Sirius' death, that the answer would be known in book seven, if it was only the typical hero journey thing. After all, that's not a mystery. So, I'm hoping. I can hope till I hear the last word of DH. grin. Cassy: Harry does deserve some reward, but people don't come back from death, do they? asuming, falling from veil equals dying, which we can't know for sure. Also, we don't know if Harry himself lives. ^_~ Sherry: My hope is in the fact that we have not had a body, a funeral or memorial service or anything. There's something mysterious, including the fact that we aren't even sure what spell hit Sirius and sent him backward into the veil. As for Harry, I believe wholeheartedly that he will live! Sherry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri May 11 14:16:07 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:16:07 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168557 Dungrollin: > I've kept them brief, lest I be thought to be encouraging one-liner > posts, so explain, embellish, extemporise, and above all extend the > list if you think of other possibilities. zgirnius: A nice, long list, but does not mention my preferred opinion on the subject. k) Sirius will play a role in DH which can only be played by a dead person. Possibly the specific manner of his death will play a part as well (see Carol's theory). From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri May 11 14:53:19 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:53:19 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily/Black sisters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168558 > Pam: > I've never been able to find the answer to this question but my pet > prediction is...They are TWINS. Lily is the witch and Petunia a > muggle, Lily get her letter and Petunia is left home alone after 11 > years and Petunia is bitter. > > I can't figure out any other reason we don't know who is eldest. We > know almost everyone else age except Lily and Petunia. Jen: Now this could be an interesting twist, shocking to Harry because they look and act nothing alike and he can be pretty literal about things. It could explain the intense animosity Petunia feels for Lily if she felt abandoned by her rather than really thinking Lily was weird when they were 11. Lily being 'abnormal' would then be the story Petunia started to tell herself when she and Lily parted ways as adults and especially once she met Vernon. You know, I'm still trying to accept Bella as the oldest Black sister. Is that really, really definitive just because she was in line for GP? I started to say maybe since Narcissa is married she wouldn't be eligible, then remembered Bella is married as well. Darn. She acts so deferential to Narcissa in Spinner's End, just like a little sister in my opinion; maybe she's bowing to Narcissa's magical prowess and anger there. Plus there's the problem of other info we have in the books about when Snape was in school and the Slytherin gang, etc. (Can't recall the whole argument.) But...I can't imagine any benefit to the story for reversing the order in DH. I'll turn my sights to hoping we get to see Andromeda before all this is over; she's been introduced and therefore wouldn't be considered a *new* character. Technically. Hey, I think it would work out age- wise for Andromeda to have been at Hogwarts with Lily. Maybe she was one of the girls by the lake? She could turn up at the Weasley wedding with Tonks/Remus and Harry will meet her. Jen, pretty much giving up on figuring out birth order for siblings but likes the twin idea for Lily and Petunia. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 11 15:00:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 15:00:02 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168559 > A quick questionnaire for you: > Sirius Black "had to die" (according to JKR) to: > > > e) Keep ESE!Lupin's cover ? Sirius had begun to find Lupin's > behaviour a bit suspect, so the werewolf had him silenced. > Pippin: Actually I don't think Sirius was suspicious. What got Sirius killed, according to ESE!Lupin theory, was knowing too much. "Harry, take the prophecy, grab Neville, and run!" Why is the prophecy mentioned, except to inform us that Sirius knew? And how does he know? Anyone who knew the true significance of the Prophecy in Dumbledore's eyes, ie, not much, would never have asked either Harry or Neville to risk their lives for it. But if Lupin let something slip to Sirius, thinking that Harry would have told him already, then Lupin would have had some explaining to do if Sirius had lived. Maybe some of the tension between Sirius and Dumbledore was because Sirius thought Dumbledore had told Lupin about the prophecy and not him? Pippin From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Fri May 11 15:56:10 2007 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 03:56:10 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Sirius's death (was Quick Questionnaire) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <17639.76212.qm@web38312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168560 --- Sherry Gomes wrote: > My hope is in the fact that we have not had a body, > a funeral or memorial > service or anything. There's something mysterious, > including the fact that > we aren't even sure what spell hit Sirius and sent > him backward into the > veil. As for Harry, I believe wholeheartedly that > he will live! Cassy: Though I don't particulary like the idea of Sirius being alive (I've always found him rather irritating, but that's my personal problem ^_~), I still tend to agree with you. Otherwise the way Sirius died just doesn't make sence, JRK could have thought of a more impressice death than simply falling ehind a curtain, right? And Harry deserves to live, it's just I keep remembering JRK's answer to someone's question about Harry's future profession: "Are you sure he will live that long?". (Not an exact quotation, sorry) Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Fri May 11 16:06:25 2007 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 04:06:25 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <343437.86401.qm@web38304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168561 --- pippin_999 wrote: > > Maybe some of the tension between Sirius and > Dumbledore was > because Sirius thought Dumbledore had told Lupin > about the > prophecy and not him? Cassy: It seems to me more likely that Sisius was not happy about the way Dumbledore treated Harry. And he had good reason to, didn't he? Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From belviso at attglobal.net Fri May 11 16:58:52 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call References: Message-ID: <00a601c793ed$aabf1450$d072400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168562 Dana: And if it isn't the same as you imply then why is it enough for Snape to want to try to settle the score? If it meant nothing and he did not owe James anything then there is no score to settle. Magpie: For the reason Dumbledore said--people are funny sometimes. If Snape owed anything, he owed it to James, who is dead. Dumbledore, btw, did not say that Snape tried to save Harry because he owed James, he said he believed that was the reason Snape "worked so hard" to keep Harry safe, which is slightly different. Snape can very much feel a bond to James he can never undo, a magical version of the emotional tie you would feel to a person in that situation. But I don't think that necessarily undercuts Snape's actions, making them magical compulsions. Montavilla47: > Let's see. He claimed to have aided in the deaths of two people: > Emmeline Vance and Sirius Black. He killed Dumbledore. Dana: You are forgetting James and Lily here and it almost killed Harry. Magpie: But he also took steps to try to undo that. Dana: I do not count OotP because in my opinion he is still as much at fault for this ordeal happening in the first place so that cancels out his action of saving those 6. I would have been happy to count it if he had done something to prevent Harry facing the DE's if Snape had risked his cover by informing the Order of LV's plan but he did not and I still believe Snape was very aware when Harry went of to the DoM when it was mentioned that Snape knew Harry was in the Forest with Umbridge which in my opinion he could not have known if he did not see them go in himself) Magpie: I know it's pointless my making this objection again, but it's just hard to believe you would be "happy to count it" when you've come up with such, imo, flimsy and non-canonical reasons for not counting it. Dana: I do not count Narcissa's life because it was never at risk and he might have put her more at risk with taking the vow and LV finding out she went against his whishes just as Draco's lifesaving can't be counted because Draco is still at LV mercy and was never at risk from dying by DD's hand. Magpie: A UV is a risk no matter which way you slice it, period. It doesn't have to be a risk for a good reason, but you can't have characters putting themselves under spells that will potentially kill them and call it not a risk. Dana: He never puts his own life at risk once and to be honest I believe he notified the Order but also notified LV that he did it for LV to show up at the DoM and covering his own butt. Tell me how else did LV know the DoM ordeal went sour for him to go in himself? Mhhh interesting thought isn't it. Magpie: That's a new one. So why isn't Snape in as much disgrace as Lucius? LV certainly didn't need Snape to tell him anything to have ways of knowing what was going on at the Ministry. Alla: Ah. I see. I was confused too, sorry. But in that case let me assure you that favoritism is **not** the most important reason why I believe Snape should never teach. I mean do not get me wrong, I do not like at all that he picks favorites and would prefer Slughorn did not do it either, but to me it is what Snape **does** to his non- favorites students is the main reason why I detest him so much. Magpie: I see now--and that's what I thought in general on the thread. Alla: If he ignored them, did not give them as much attention as he gives Draco, while still grading fairly which I believe Slughorn does, it would have bothered me much less. Magpie: Actually, I don't know whether Slughorn grades fairly. This is such a fuzzy area in the way it only seems to matter what they do on exams, and Snape and Slughorn both seem to grade normally that way, I guess. But if it comes to just being a jerk with what the kids get in their classes, so that Snape's giving Harry a zero on a Potion he dropped was grading unfairly, I'd have a hard time believing Slughorn isn't giving higher marks to his pets. That seems to be the implication when he looks at everyone's Potions at the end of the classes, and the reason Hermone gets frustrated. > Alla: > > > > When people who need the class, may not be able to get in it because > > of how Snape teaches. Like what Phoenixgod said - setting unfair > > classroom. But sure, OWLS are the key. > > Magpie: > And the same is true for every other class. Why point out only Snape for > this? He doesn't even seem to be a teacher particularly struggling with > getting his kids to focus and take his class seriously. Alla: Why point Snape only? Because I believe he is the worst offender. I mean that is IMO obviously and there are other teachers for sure, I just believe he is the worst in that area, so I am pointing it. Magpie: Really? Because it seems to me kids are far more interested in Potions classes than they are in other classes, making other people the worst offenders. Like Binns, for example. Alla: But contrary to what Snape does, I absolutely believe that what Slughorn does is **not** abuse of his authority. Does it make sense? Magpie: I guess I'm probably seeing the same difference between them here. Snape uses his greater power as an adult and as a teacher to bully the kids. Slughorn is just subtly separating the wheat from the chaff (sp?). I don't think I'd refer to it as an abuse of authority, but I think it's potentially equally damaging if harder to pin down. But it does remind me of things people do protest about in the real world. Alla: I believe that as extracirricular activity it is his right to do so, if that makes sense. While I do not believe at all that Snape is entitled to do what he does to Harry and Neville in class. I am all for Slugghorn giving more attention to Ron for example. But the thing is I do not think he is **obligated to do so**. Magpie: I agree that Snape really has no right to pick on Harry and Neville in class, and that Slughorn has a right to his extracurricular activities. But I also find myself still leaning towards Snape as the better of the two, even if Snape's activities are more intensely unpleasant when they happen. > Magpie: > It's a coincidence, yes. Slughorn is afraid of the DEs and is protecting > himself. But he's fine promoting Blaise, who has the same values, because > he's a Pureblood from a good family (and hot). Alla: The fact that Blase is not a DE means to me that he does have some difference in values. I mean, not much I will agree with that and I would even say that I will not be surprised if he becomes such, but to me still not the same thing. I mean he certainly shares pureblood philosophy etc. Magpie: But none of these kids are DEs except Draco, and that is only because of unusual circumstances of which Slughorn knows nothing. He's not keeping Nott out of his club because he's a DE, but because his father is a DE. And anyway, someone not actually being a DE can say more about what they're willing to do for their values than what their values are. Lucius wasn't a DE from PS/SS--GoF. Magpie: If Theo Nott were another > Sirius Black in terms of rejecting his family's values he'd be rejected too. Alla: He would be? So far Slughorn expresses regret that he did not have two Black brothers in his house, one of whom he now knows rejected his family, no? Magpie: Yes, he would be. Slughorn was talking about his attitude years ago, before he was running from the DEs. He's not interested in the children of Death Eaters now. He doesn't say it matters who the child is. Magpie: > Sure in Malfoy's case the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but there's > nothing inherently admirable about judging the kids based on who their > parents are, be their parents DEs or Muggles. Alla: Admirable? I guess not. I was arguing that Slughorn wanting to stay away from DE and their kids by assosiation is his choice, not coincidence. I also would find it far more not admirable if Slughorn did not want to stay away from DE and their kids. Magpie: Yes, it is a choice. I was pointing out what the choice was. For instance, I would find Slughorn far more admirable if he gave DE children an equal chance as other children, but wasn't basically okay with a lot of their basic Pureblood Supremist beliefs. Alla: Yep, I think so too. My question is what is wrong with it? No, not with Lucius values. I see plenty of wrongs there. What is wrong with Slughorn wanting to collect him? I mean, just in general. Magpie: Because Slughorn's "collection" is about keeping "the right sort" in the positions of power. (I think people tend to focus a bit too much on the few girls we know of to prove he's looking strictly at abilities here, but he's blatantly not. Even Harry senses the tokenism at work when he talks about his mother.) I also don't see how it doesn't undercut what you feel is admirable about him in the first place for avoiding DEs in their kids. -m From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri May 11 17:13:11 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:13:11 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > Dungrollin: > > I've kept them brief, lest I be thought to be encouraging one-liner > > posts, so explain, embellish, extemporise, and above all extend the > > list if you think of other possibilities. > > zgirnius: > A nice, long list, but does not mention my preferred opinion on the > subject. > > k) Sirius will play a role in DH which can only be played by a dead > person. Possibly the specific manner of his death will play a part as > well (see Carol's theory). > Ken: I agree with k). There is something odd about the prophecy "neither can survive while the other lives". There is nothing so far that makes that literally true other than both might feel compelled to kill the other. That might be all the prophecy means, I suppose, but that would be unsatisfyingly mundane to me. I suspect that the author will create a situation where that statement will be literally true. Probably due to the suggestions of others the most likely situation seems to me to be that both Harry and LV will find themselves facing each other in some realm that is in the interface between life and death. Perhaps that realm is even the Deathly Hallows itself (themselves?). They will both realize that one of them will have to go forward (to death) and one will have to go back (to life). It is a realm where the dead like Sirius and Dumbledore can help Harry. It is a realm where the power of the love both the dead and the living have for him can help Harry. It is a realm where LV will be at a fatal disadvantage. It would echo that scene from PS/SS where Harry and Hermione faced Snape's defense of the stone. Because of the limited amount of potion available only one could go forward, the other had to go back. I'm not suggesting that there will be a row of bottles filled with potions or anything like that, just that the final confrontation will echo that situation where for some reason the two have to take different exits. I guess I hope that all the author's comments about the hero needing to go it alone in "this kind of story" are just more misdirection on her part. I hope she is going to *try* to find an original conclusion, hard as that may be, rather than adopting a formulaic one. Ken From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri May 11 17:16:40 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:16:40 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire v1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168564 > Sherry: > > I don't think it's I or she could have just said that, when she was > asked in an interview why she killed Sirius. But she said there was > an important reason and that we'd know in book seven. Dungrollin: Thanks Sherry, yes, JKR said the following: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh- ITVcubreporters.htm "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." zgirnius: A nice, long list, but does not mention my preferred opinion on the subject. Dungrollin: Yep, forgot that one. Thanks. The new list now looks like this: ----------------------- Sirius Black "had to die" (according to JKR) to: a) Hide some facts about Regulus's history which Harry can't be allowed to find out too easily. b) Keep ESE!Snape's cover ? "I don't care if Dumbledore thinks you've reformed, I know better ?" OotP, Ch24 UK p459. Sirius had begun to suspect Snape was cheating on DD, and had to be kept quiet. c) Because he would have been a complication throughout HBP, Harry would have told him his suspicions about Snape and Malfoy, and Sirius would never have let DD hear the end of it until he got some answers. Answers which JKR wants to keep for Book 7. d) Hide some facts about Snape/Lily/James history It's more convincing that Lupin was out of the loop than Sirius. e) Keep ESE!Lupin's cover ? Sirius had begun to find Lupin's behaviour a bit suspect, and/or knew too much (thanks Pippin) so the werewolf had him silenced. f) Hide some facts about horcruxes ? Sirius (somehow) has a load of information about Voldemort and his horcruxes (not through Reggie ? see a) that was unavailable to DD, Harry and all others. Perhaps his family had something to do with Grindelwald? g) Keep SecretAgent!Peter's cover ? I'm sure someone could find a way to make this work h) To hide something about what happened at GH ? was Sirius using the invisibility cloak? i) Because JKR wants Harry to be alone. Harry would have found it difficult to keep secrets from Sirius, and she didn't want anyone to help on the Horcrux hunt. j) ESE!Sirius was taken out by the bad guys because he was in danger of blowing his cover, that's why Narcissa didn't blink when Snape claimed to have helped - Kreacher never passed any information. k) Sirius will play a role in DH which can only be played by a dead person. Possibly the specific manner of his death will play a part as well (see Carol's theory). (Thanks Zgirnius.) ----------------------- I don't know why I don't like k. Perhaps because JKR's often gone on about how as a children's author you have to be a ruthless killer and I'd feel it was a bit of a cheat if Harry and/or Sirius have an escape clause. I wouldn't mind if the help from beyond the grave were somewhat figurative, but literally? Not so much my cup of tea. Which, of course, rules out nothing at all. I think I'd like it to be something about GH. Sirius did something (else) stupid that night, and never admitted it to DD or Harry. Something which would solve the mysteries surrounding that night in an instant (which wouldn't exclude communication beyond the grave). There's something about the way Snape says "... and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him off" that makes me think Sirius was already on the Death Eaters' black list. The question is *why*. Dungrollin Wondering where the slavering hordes of FEATHERBOAS pouncing on the juicy ones have got to. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 16:03:00 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:03:00 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > > > Montavilla47: > > Dumbledore didn't say that Snape owed James a *life* debt. > Dana: > Let's see what Dumbledore has to say about it. > > PoA pg 311 UKed Paperback > > Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who > is in your debt. *When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it > creates a certain bond between them* [emphasis mine] > > This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry, > > End quote canon. > > And if it isn't the same as you imply then why is it enough for Snape > to want to try to settle the score? If it meant nothing and he did > not owe James anything then there is no score to settle. > > I think it is very clear that James saving Snape's life created that > special bond in the same way it created a bond between Peter and > Harry, just because JKR might have muddied the water by claiming > Ginny did not owe Harry a debt doesn't mean it is suddenly different > for Snape as well. But I believe she did not meant it that way > because I believe what she did mean was that in case of Ginny it > caries no real importance because Ginny would give her life for Harry > any day with or without owing Harry anything. Ginny does owe Harry a > debt in the strictest sense of what a debt is but she will never feel > inclined to do anything, she would not already do for Harry, just > because of it and why it will not play any part in what is to come. > Montavilla47 again: Thanks for that explanation on why Ginny doesn't owe Harry a life debt. It's one of the most sensible I've heard. But the logic remains that if the only condition for a life debt is that one wizard save the life of another, then Ginny should owe one to Harry. The girl is eleven years old. How does the magic know that she's always going to want to give her life for Harry? To be honest, I think the life debt only applies to Snape if he is acting under compulsion--against all his better interests and inclinations--when he protects Harry. As we're assuming that Peter eventually will. Not that the life debt has stopped Peter from torturing Harry or using violating his body for the purposes of an unnatural and evil act. But getting back to Snape and life debt. I can see that the life debt would be a viable if you believe Snape hates Harry and that hatred is his principle motivation. He would need a strong outside compulsion to keep that hate from interfering with the natural impulse to protect a child from harm. Or if you believe that Snape has *no* such impulse and needs some strong, binding magic to do so. Or if you assume that Snape has no natural sense of honor that would recoil at the thought of someone saving his life and being beholde because of that. That is such a natural feeling that we don't need magic to understand it. On the other hand, it's not in Peter's nature (from what we can tell in the glimpses we've seen of him) to worry about "owing" someone. He would need the magic compulsion to help Harry. I'm going to have to stop myself before I go off on a real tangent. *** Montavilla47: > > Let's see. He claimed to have aided in the deaths of two people: > > Emmeline Vance and Sirius Black. He killed Dumbledore. > Dana: > You are forgetting James and Lily here and it almost killed Harry. Montavilla47: You're right. I did forget James and Lily. Snape never claimed to have aided in their deaths. But he should probably get 1/2 point for each. So, that's.... Kills: 1 + (1/2*4) = 3. Saves: 1/2 + (1/2*6) + 1 + 1/4 + 1 = 5.75 (Not counting the possible saves. If you add those in, you another 3: 8.75) Dana: I do not count OotP because in my opinion he is still as much at fault for this ordeal happening in the first place so that cancels out his action of saving those 6. Montavilla: I'm leaving your accounting below, and responding to it here: 1. "Almost" kills don't count. They aren't kills. 2. "Doing nothing to prevent" Barty Crouch from getting his soul sucked out isn't aiding it. Nor is soul-sucking dying (although it's worse). We're talking about deaths here. Nothing else. 3. Draco tells Myrtle that LV will kill his "family" if he doesn't kill Dumbledore. That puts Narcissa at risk. Draco also tells her that LV will kill him if he doesn't succeed. That puts Draco at risk. The reason I called his saves of Narcissa and Draco "possible" is because we don't know if LV killed anyway. 4. I only awarded Snape 1/4 credit for Ron's save, precisely because his involvement is so very indirect. But Harry gives the HBP credit, so I didn't want to overlook that. As for his spell being used against Draco, I agree with the principle, but "almost" kills don't count. 5. It's very generous of you to count his attempt to save James (I assume you mean by spying on LV before the Potters were killed?) I wouldn't, because James got killed anyway, and because we don't know for sure that it was Snape who brought the vital information to DD. Dana's Counting Method: So he is responsible for James, Lily, almost killing Harry, Sirius (twice let's not forget the soul sucking), Lupin (as he wanted to have him soul sucked too), Emmeline Vance, Dumbledore. And we could add Barty Crouch Jr to this list because he did nothing to prevent Fudge taking his Dementor into the castle while Snape knew how DD felt about it but for argument sake I will not count it but we do not hear Snape did any arguing with Fudge when he went to get him. I do not count Narcissa's life because it was never at risk and he might have put her more at risk with taking the vow and LV finding out she went against his whishes just as Draco's lifesaving can't be counted because Draco is still at LV mercy and was never at risk from dying by DD's hand. He saves DD, Katie and Draco, I do not count Ron because if you count Ron because Harry got the information from the book then you should add Draco with the responsible for almost dying to his list too because Harry got that information from the book too. I'll will be accounting his attempt to safe James. > Responsible, claims or kills, trying to kill = 1 + 1 + ? + ? + 1/2 + 1 + 1 + 1= 6 1/2 (counting Sirius one and half times because he did actively try to get it done and will count Lupin as ?, just because he did not get his way doesn't cancel out his attempt) > Saves or tries: 1 + 1 + ? + ? + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6 (counting James and Lily and trying to safe Harry but counting it half because his survival had nothing to do with Snape and the same goes for his attempt in PS) Montavilla47: I hold with my amended count. Snape is 2.75-3.75 ahead saves to kills. As for putting the responsibility of the MoM fiasco on him, I'm sorry, but I can't go along with that at all. I think we're at an impasse as far as the scoring goes. :) **** > Montavilla47: > > The book is so clear about this. Quirrell is seated *behind* > Snape. Snape > > can't know who is jinxing that broom. There are several hundred > people in > > the stands and he can't know who the culprit is. Even Hermione, > who looks > > in the direction that Snape and Quirrell are, facing them, doesn't > notice > > that it's Quirrell and not Snape. > > Dana: > No, that is not correct because he was already on to Quirrell as it > was after Halloween and thus after Harry messes with Quirrell's > decoy. So why wouldn't Snape suspect this was Quirrell's doing too? > Hermione wasn't on to Quirrell so she only goes by what she sees. Montavilla47: Snape may have been onto Quirrell wanting to get the stone. That doesn't mean that Quirrell is necessarily the one person in that stadium trying to kill Harry. As someone pointed out, there might be parents watching the game. Former DE parents. There might be seventh-year students with the skills to jinx a broom. Snape's story to LV was that he suspected Quirrell of wanting that stone for himself--not that he thought Quirrell was acting as LV's agent. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 11 17:37:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:37:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: YA Life Debt Post Message-ID: <22501857.1178905040786.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168566 From: Dana >I think it is very clear that James saving Snape's life created that >special bond in the same way it created a bond between Peter and >Harry, just because JKR might have muddied the water by claiming >Ginny did not owe Harry a debt doesn't mean it is suddenly different >for Snape as well. But I believe she did not meant it that way >because I believe what she did mean was that in case of Ginny it >caries no real importance because Ginny would give her life for Harry >any day with or without owing Harry anything. Ginny does owe Harry a >debt in the strictest sense of what a debt is but she will never feel >inclined to do anything, she would not already do for Harry, just >because of it and why it will not play any part in what is to come. Bart: Here's my take. I can see several possibilities, but this just feels right to me: In saving Ginny, Harry also saved his own life. Tommy the Horcrux was using Ginny to trap Harry; he may have kept Ginny alive for a long time until Harry took the bait. Whether Ginny would have actually died, or just lived on as an empty husk, we don't really know; it may very well be that Ginny's body had to remain alive to supply life energy to the Tommy the H. But James does not save Snape because he values Snape; he does it because it is the "right" thing to do. And Harry saves Peter because it's the "right" thing to do; in fact, he probably wanted to see Peter dead more than James would have liked to see Snape dead. So, my guess is that a life debt is created when a wizard SELFLESSLY saves another wizard's life. One reason I like it is that it means that James HAD changed; he saved Snape because his conscience would not allow him to do otherwise, and not out of fear of punishment for himself or his friends. Another part of my reasoning is that Hogwarts staff (Pommy) and the staff of St. Mungo's don't rack up life debts; they get salaries, which creates enough self-interest to avoid a life debt from being created. How about Harry in regard to Mr. Weasley and Ron? I suspect that the love that already exists between them overrides the life debt (maybe family is excluded, and Mr. Weasley is like an uncle, Ron is like a brother, and Ginny is more like a cousin. But they're kissing cousins, that's what makes it alright alright alright alright...) Bart Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri May 11 17:51:09 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:09 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire v1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168567 > Dungrollin: > k) Sirius will play a role in DH which can only be played by a dead > person. Possibly the specific manner of his death will play a part as > well (see Carol's theory). (Thanks Zgirnius.) > ----------------------- > > I don't know why I don't like k. Perhaps because JKR's often gone on > about how as a children's author you have to be a ruthless killer and > I'd feel it was a bit of a cheat if Harry and/or Sirius have an > escape clause. I wouldn't mind if the help from beyond the grave were > somewhat figurative, but literally? Not so much my cup of tea. Which, > of course, rules out nothing at all. zgirnius: If Sirius stays dead, it is not really an escape clause. I would also feel cheated if Sirius at the end of DH was back in the land of the living for the rest of his natural life. But in a fantasy series where there is magic, where dead people can leave behind imprints in portraits and ghosts, where their shades can return under special cirsumstances and affect reality, and where an evil wizard can avoid death by magical means, I guess I would not mind learning yet another way the dead can help the living. It is not as though we have never seen such a thing before. From ida3 at planet.nl Fri May 11 18:09:31 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:09:31 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168568 Montavilla47 again: > Thanks for that explanation on why Ginny doesn't owe Harry a life > debt.It's one of the most sensible I've heard. > But the logic remains that if the only condition for a life debt is > that one wizard save the life of another, then Ginny should owe one > to Harry. The girl is eleven years old. How does the magic know > that she's always going to want to give her life for Harry? > To be honest, I think the life debt only applies to Snape if he is > acting under compulsion--against all his better interests and > inclinations--when he protects Harry. As we're assuming that Peter > eventually will. Not that the life debt has stopped Peter from > torturing Harry or using violating his body for the purposes of an > unnatural and evil act. > But getting back to Snape and life debt. I can see that the life > debt would be a viable if you believe Snape hates Harry and that > hatred is his principle motivation. He would need a strong outside > compulsion to keep that hate from interfering with the natural > impulse to protect a child from harm. Or if you believe that Snape > has *no* such impulse and needs some strong,binding magic to do so. Dana: Should have quoted from PS/SS the first time because DD actually said Snape was in James debt and Snape could not stand it. PS pg 217 UKed Paperback: 'Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive.' 'What?' 'He saved his life.' 'Yes...' said Dumbledore dreamily. 'Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father quits.' 'Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in piece...' End quite from canon. So DD did refer to Snape trying to keep Harry safe because he had a debt to James. And even if it was only to James according to DD it was still the reason Snape tried to protect Harry. As Neri once said we still do not see Snape hating James's memory in piece either so... And here is the quote about Ginny not owing a debt to Harry MA: 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. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm Ginny does not have a debt to Harry in that sense that the bonds that it creates magically is probably already there and therefore the debt has no meaning it is not like Ginny is going to try to kill Harry any time soon and her love for Harry even if it would be only friendship would be enough for her to want to protect Harry and why a debt has no real importance to the story. JMHO Dana From muellem at bc.edu Fri May 11 18:29:42 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:29:42 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168569 > Dana: > Should have quoted from PS/SS the first time because DD actually said > Snape was in James debt and Snape could not stand it. > > PS pg 217 UKed Paperback: > > 'Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. > Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never > forgive.' > > 'What?' > > 'He saved his life.' > > 'Yes...' said Dumbledore dreamily. 'Funny, the way people's minds > work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's > debt I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year > because he felt that would make him and your father quits.' > > 'Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in piece...' > > End quite from canon. > > So DD did refer to Snape trying to keep Harry safe because he had a > debt to James. And even if it was only to James according to DD it > was still the reason Snape tried to protect Harry. As Neri once said > we still do not see Snape hating James's memory in piece either so... > > colebiancardi: I am not sure what the argument is anymore on the life-debt, and I have been reading this thread!! OK - DD states "I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father quits.Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in piece...' according to your quoted material. Don't have my books in front of me but I will assume that is the full quote with no additional thoughts on the matter. So, based on that, Snape is not under any compulsion to save Harry nor does Snape owe a magically-enforced life-debt to Harry. Snape kept Harry safe because he chose to do so; yes, he failed with his life-debt to James, but life-debts don't pass onto the next generation. I say they do not because Dumbledore doesn't state that Snape owed James a life-debt, failed and now that life-debt has been magically transfered to Harry. No, Dumbledore states "I do believe", which means it is HIS theory why Snape tried to protect Harry. Nothing else. Snape CHOSE of his own free will and his own reasons to protect Harry colebiancardi From djmitt at pa.net Fri May 11 17:06:38 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:06:38 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily/Black sisters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168570 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Pam: > > I've never been able to find the answer to this question but my pet > > prediction is...They are TWINS. Lily is the witch and Petunia a > > muggle, Lily get her letter and Petunia is left home alone after 11 > > years and Petunia is bitter. > > > > I can't figure out any other reason we don't know who is eldest. We > > know almost everyone else age except Lily and Petunia. > > > Jen: Now this could be an interesting twist, shocking to Harry > because they look and act nothing alike and he can be pretty literal > about things. It could explain the intense animosity Petunia feels > for Lily if she felt abandoned by her rather than really thinking > Lily was weird when they were 11. Lily being 'abnormal' would then > be the story Petunia started to tell herself when she and Lily parted > ways as adults and especially once she met Vernon. > Thanks for the input. I never really thought of fraternal twins. Good idea. I was just thinking along the lines that if Petunia was younger, her 11th birthday would have been the worse day of her life after her older sister gets all the praise of being a witch. And if she was older, then it would be the older sister jealousness of the younger sister. The first scenerio would be more devestating to her and emotionally scar her more, I would think. But twins would be a nice twist. They did have their first child at about the same time. I was reading some interviews with JKR and she stated that Harry was a m-blood because of his mother's grandparents. HUH. How would that work? The only thing I can figure out is that his grandmother, Lily's mom was a muggle and she married a squib since Petunia is not a squib. Then Harry's mom would have the gene for wizardary and she would be praised highly in her family, esp. by her squib Dad. Just some thoughts Donna From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 18:18:31 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (David) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:18:31 -0000 Subject: The Ministry of Magic and Fudge Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168571 There is one thing that I have been wondering and that is this: Who was the Minister of Magic when Voldemort was defeated? It seems that Cornelius Fudge took over afterward and ran his ministry with a complacant attitude that all was well for years and would do anything to keep his position evident in the Goblet of Fire when he tried to keep Dumbledore from revealing the truth. He seemed more fearful of losing his power than doing what was best. And the more he tightened his grip by controlling the press and the banks, he lost it when he tried to take Hogwarts in the Order of the Pheonix. It makes me wonder just how the previous administrations handled Voldemort and others like him. dragonkeeper012003 From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 11 19:17:41 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 15:17:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quick Questionnaire Message-ID: <7944259.1178911062069.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168572 From: dungrollin >A quick questionnaire for you: >Sirius Black "had to die" (according to JKR) to: Bart: Just to keep my hand in the cookie jar... k) Snape is still alive, although trapped beyond the Veil, and the Deathly Hallows will be his cries from beyond the Veil (and possibly the cries of Voldemort's victims, as well?) Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri May 11 20:22:09 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 20:22:09 -0000 Subject: Snape, Peter, and 'life debt' (WAS: Re: Snape as Neville's teacher ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168573 > Dana: > PS pg 217 UKed Paperback: > > 'Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. > Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never > forgive.' > > 'What?' > > 'He saved his life.' > > 'Yes...' said Dumbledore dreamily. 'Funny, the way people's minds > work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's > debt I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year > because he felt that would make him and your father quits.' > zgirnius: I woiuld like to start off with another quote from canon: > PoA, "Owl Post Again": > "Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt.... When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them... and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter." > "I don't want a connection with Pettigrew!" said Harry. "He betrayed my parents!" > "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." zgirnius: Two things strike be about my quote. First, that Dumbledore explicitly mentions magic here. Whereas he mentions nothing of the sort in discussing Snape in Dana's quote from PS/SS. To me, this means one of two things: either Snape was never affected by any 'magic at its deepest' regarding James Potter, or if he was, this effect is gone by the time Harry comes to Hogwarts. This could be because Snape discharged the debt in some way, or because James died. At any rate, nowhere in my quote does Dumbledore suggest Peter will do anything of his own volition. Whereas in Dana's quote, Snape is credited with taking certain actions on the basis of a psychological motivation (the funny way his mind works). My second observation is that I am deeply skeptical that Peter's life debt will force him to do anything in DH. First, because if it worked that way, surely it ought to have made him do more in GoF than a lame suggestion another person be used in the rebirthing ceremony at the start of the book. And second, because a person doing something because magic forces them to, is neither deep not impenetrable. I would describe it as obvious, myself. Finally, I find the wording of Dumbledore's statement precise in a very odd way. "you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life" is phrased to avoid the suggestion of agency on Peter's part. If the magic acted by forcing someone to repay a debt, the most natural phrasing of this remark, to me, would be something along the lines of "The time may come when Peter will return the favor". From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 20:23:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 20:23:42 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168574 Sherry: > > I don't think it's I or she could have just said that, when she was asked in an interview why she killed Sirius. But she said there was an important reason and that we'd know in book seven. So, I'm still waiting. My personal favorite theory is that since we have not seen his body, Sirius may come back through the veil. After all, poor Harry deserves some reward for killing Voldemort and saving the wizarding world! Carol responds: I think that Sirius Black "had to die" for a variety of plot-related or thematic reasons, not all of which were listed in the original post: He would have been (IMO) a hindrance rather than a help on a Horcrux hunt since the DEs know his "big disguise"; Harry can't have any mentors along because JKR wants him to rely on his own resources in the final confrontation; and Harry needs to suffer a personal loss or two in order to develop the compassion to empathize with the Voldemort-induced suffering of others in the WW, and Cedric's death, unfortunately, doesn't suffice for this purpose because he wasn't a close enough friend. Harry also has to be in anti-Snape mode throughout HBP, and blaming Snape (unfairly, as even he knows) for Black's death serves this purpose until he learns about the eavesdropping, followed by Dumbledore's death, which give him more valid reasons for his desire for revenge. (I expect a reversal of this last point in DH because vengeance is antithetical to love, but that's beside the point in this post.) But, just as Dumbledore and Snape usually have more than one reason for their actions and the one we're given (e.g., Snape's protecting Harry to pay his debt to James) often isn't the primary one, JKR is doing much more with Black's death than robbing Harry of a mentor, causing him yet more suffering and forcing him to deal with LV on his own. (DD's death also serves other purposes, I think, but those are less clear.) I think that Sherry has hit on the main reason why JKR "killed" Harry's godfather: Somehow, Harry has to go through the Veil and return (the hero's journey to the Underworld, if you like), and seeing Sirius Black provides a motive for that journey. I think that Harry may try to bring his godfather back to the land of the living, but he'll fail because Black is really dead and can't return. I do think, however, that Harry will bring his godfather's body back for burial (as he did Cedric's), so that he can have that long-delayed funeral, possibly complete with tributes and/or apologies from Lupin and others who wrongly suspected him of betraying the Potters. Not Snape, however--that would be too OOC and too saccharine for Snape-lovers and Snape-haters alike. Carol, who thinks that, plotwise, the fact of Black's death is less important than the manner of it and agrees with Sherry that the Veil is the key From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 18:08:09 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:08:09 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705101008m7d9e46e8wdc8db700c102acf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168575 --- Janette wrote: > When I grew up, the prevailing theme really was that children > should be seen and not heard, and that adults were their betters and > expected respect even when they didn't earn it. And that is the > attitude that carries over in the JKR books. Being called an idiot > is not abuse, it is a challenge... Lupinlore: Aha. Well, IMO it most certainly IS abuse, and that it has been practiced by many for a long time in no way, form, or fashion excuses it. And if JKR is putting forth this attitude as you say... well, she is a contemptible fool who deserves only to be derided. Actually, I doubt very much if she has an "attitude" at all. Like so very much about her books, it doesn't seem like she has thought this out very well. Lupinlore, who observes all this, at least as far as JKR's ultimate attitude, will mercifully be settled in 10 weeks. Ah well, the closing of an era, for better or for worse From random832 at gmail.com Fri May 11 20:46:56 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:46:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705111346p51dc69d8pdd0b4333d6f9b42b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168576 > colebiancardi: > > I am not sure what the argument is anymore on the life-debt, and I > have been reading this thread!! The argument is over whether, on the one hand, Snape's "debt" to James, described in this passage, is a real _life-debt_, "magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable", or if it's just his own sense of obligation. The fact that that language was never used to describe it seems a point against it being a life-debt in that sense, but using the term "debt" at all seems to reinforce it, especially among the sort of reader who wouldn't believe snape would ever do anything good for Harry or James unless forced to. --Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 20:54:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 20:54:20 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <00a601c793ed$aabf1450$d072400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168577 Dana wrote: > He never puts his own life at risk once and to be honest I believe he notified the Order but also notified LV that he did it for LV to show up at the DoM and covering his own butt. Tell me how else did LV know the DoM ordeal went sour for him to go in himself? Mhhh interesting thought isn't it. Carol responds: Since you don't count spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" or facing a werewolf about to transform and a supposed murderer or returning to Voldemort who believes he's a traitor or taking a UV which, if broken, will kill him as putting his own life at risk (for whatever motive), I have nothing more to say on that score except that all of those incidents are canonical. However, "how else did LV know the DoM ordeal went sour" can be defiintively answered, and it has nothing to do with Snape. Perhaps you've forgotten the scar connection between Harry and Voldemort: That's how Voldemort knows that the Prophecy orb has been shattered: Harry tells Bellatrix, "There's nothing to summon! It smashed and nobody heard what it said, tell your boss that--." Bella says he's lying and then starts screaming to Voldemort not to punish her. Harry feels terrible pain in his scar but says, "Don't waste your breath! He can't hear you from here," to which Voldie replies, "Can't I, Potter?" And after a moment, he adds, "So you smashed my Prophecy? No, Bella, he is not lying. I see the truth looking at me from within his worthless mind. Months of preparation, months of effort, and my Death Eaters have let Harry Potter thwart me again" (OoP Am. ed., ellipses eliminated). What summoned Voldemort? Not Snape, who certainly could not have known that the Prophecy orb was smashed. It was the mind link, the scar connection, which allowed him to hear Harry's words and sense their truth. Carol, suggesting that points supported by canon might be more effective than rhetorical questions in analyzing a scene from a literary work From celizwh at intergate.com Fri May 11 21:10:50 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:10:50 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_And_in_The_End=85GoF?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168578 Celia: > 7. Nitpick alert: This has always bugged me why > couldn't Sirius, "Lie low at Lupin's," houyhnhnm: "At Lupin's" what? House? He's too poor to eat or buy clothes (or a new briefcase) but he has a house? That's what has always bugged me. I want to know more about Lupin's house. Does he own or rent? Did he buy it or inherit it? (And I, too, would like to know why Sirius couldn't continue to lie low there.) houyhnhnm, returning from sef-imposed exile after colossal fox paw; I hope it's not too soon. From muellem at bc.edu Fri May 11 21:19:21 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:19:21 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50705111346p51dc69d8pdd0b4333d6f9b42b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168579 > > colebiancardi: > > > > I am not sure what the argument is anymore on the life-debt, and I > > have been reading this thread!! > > random832 wrote: > The argument is over whether, on the one hand, Snape's "debt" to > James, described in this passage, is a real _life-debt_, "magic at its > deepest, its most impenetrable", or if it's just his own sense of > obligation. > > The fact that that language was never used to describe it seems a > point against it being a life-debt in that sense, but using the term > "debt" at all seems to reinforce it, especially among the sort of > reader who wouldn't believe snape would ever do anything good for > Harry or James unless forced to. colebiancardi now: ok. Got it. I don't have my books handy, but I had thought Snape's debt to James had been referred to as a "life-debt" in the same sense as Peter's debt to Harry - the magical one. However, regardless if it is or isn't, Snape owes no such life debt to Harry in a magical sense, and therefore, Snape did it because he wanted to. Doesn't matter to me what his reasons where (so he could go back & hate James in peace), he still does it and is not forced to do so. colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 21:32:22 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:32:22 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: <015901c79364$973cdef0$f8b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168580 > Magpie: > For the reason Dumbledore said--people are funny sometimes. If Snape owed > anything, he owed it to James, who is dead. Dumbledore, btw, did not say > that Snape tried to save Harry because he owed James, he said he believed > that was the reason Snape "worked so hard" to keep Harry safe, which is > slightly different. Snape can very much feel a bond to James he can never > undo, a magical version of the emotional tie you would feel to a person in > that situation. But I don't think that necessarily undercuts Snape's > actions, making them magical compulsions. Alla: Yeah, funnily that is what I thought about Snape's actions after book 1. That he honorably tried to pay off the debt which existed only in his mind ( sorry if this does not reflect your position - I am summarizing what used to be mine and it reads to me as close to what you just said). I don't know anymore, frankly. Even forgetting about what I consider to be Snape's evil deeds, I think it is really, really open to Dana interpretation too, if I read it correctly as what Neri does. I think Dumbledore's words could be read as Snape not just feeling that he has a magical bond, but that he indeed has that magical compulsion. I think there is a reason why JKR did not give us details of how debt works, I think there just may be a reason for that, that it is going to be very important at the end. >> Magpie: > A UV is a risk no matter which way you slice it, period. It doesn't have to > be a risk for a good reason, but you can't have characters putting > themselves under spells that will potentially kill them and call it not a > risk. Alla: Sure, it is a risk. > Alla: > If he ignored them, did not give them as much > attention as he gives Draco, while still grading fairly which I > believe Slughorn does, it would have bothered me much less. > > Magpie: > Actually, I don't know whether Slughorn grades fairly. Alla: But we **see** Snape grading unfairly, we can only **assume** that Slugghorn does not grade fairly, no? Which is fair assumption, but I think that we have the stronger evidence for Snape not grading fairly. IMO. > Alla: > But contrary to what Snape does, I absolutely believe that what > Slughorn does is **not** abuse of his authority. Does it make sense? > > Magpie: > I guess I'm probably seeing the same difference between them here. Snape > uses his greater power as an adult and as a teacher to bully the kids. > Slughorn is just subtly separating the wheat from the chaff (sp?). I don't > think I'd refer to it as an abuse of authority, but I think it's potentially > equally damaging if harder to pin down. But it does remind me of things > people do protest about in the real world. Alla: Well, we just have to disagree on this point, I guess. To me it all comes down to this - I do not think that what Slugghorn does is nearly as damaging as what Snape does. To each their own. > Magpie: > Because Slughorn's "collection" is about keeping "the right sort" in the > positions of power. (I think people tend to focus a bit too much on the few > girls we know of to prove he's looking strictly at abilities here, but he's > blatantly not. Even Harry senses the tokenism at work when he talks about > his mother.) I also don't see how it doesn't undercut what you feel is > admirable about him in the first place for avoiding DEs in their kids. Alla: Well, is your interpretation that Slughorn's collection is **ONLY** about keeping "the right sort" in the positions of power? I mean I certainly agree that Slughorn wants in the position of power people whom he likes, who would be indebted to him, etc. Where I differ I suspect ( I can be wrong) is I also think that Slughorn does not want just **any** people in the position of power. He wants talented, skilled, gifted, pick your word kids in the position of power, who will of course remember his networking skills. IMO of course. And yes, I think Lily is here for a very good reason. I mean, she is so far the example of sainthood, no? And Slugghorn liked her, wanted her to succeeded, to be in his collection, etc? I did not see him asking Crabbe and Goyle to join his club for example. I think it can be both - good and bad, what Slugghorn does. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 11 22:19:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 22:19:42 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168581 Alla: > Where I differ I suspect ( I can be wrong) is I also think that > Slughorn does not want just **any** people in the position of power. > He wants talented, skilled, gifted, pick your word kids in the > position of power, who will of course remember his networking skills. Pippin: Actually, Harry notes that everyone who's in the train compartment party seems to have been invited because they were well-connected except Ginny and Harry himself. People like Arthur, who aren't connected and don't have "flair" but do have talent (flying car) are overlooked. What talents do Cormac and Blaise have aside from their connections? While Neville, who is worth ten of Blaise and Cormac, gets an invite because of his famous parents, but is then snubbed for his lack of flair, despite his outstanding talent in herbology. Alla: > I did not see him asking Crabbe and Goyle to join his club for > example. Pippin: It is implied that their fathers were outed as DE's in Rita Skeeter's article in OOP. By the way, what we don't know is what Slughorn would have done if Voldemort's servants had found him. And we know that people who secretly served Voldemort in VW I, such as Malfoy and Nott, were part of the Slug Club and must have found it very useful. For each of Snape's faults as a teacher, which I admit he had, we have been shown a respected teacher at Hogwarts who had the same faults, only more so. There are teachers who were scarier, crueller and more unfair than Snape was, only not to Harry. If Harry can fix the whole culture, more power to him, but punishing Snape alone would be like Hermione punishing the master of the one slave whose problems touch her most and thinking she has solved the House Elf problem. Like it or not, Snape was behaving as well as most Hogwarts teachers. I'm not going to claim he showed maturity or moral vision on any absolute scale, but he had as much as most of his counterparts. This is, after all, a culture where practical joke shops are a roaring success, a public official writes laws with intentional loopholes favoring his own interests, and 'proper wizard feeling' is a synonym for anti-Muggle sentiment. I think Snape has a moral vision that could be summed up in the royal Scots motto "Nemo me impune lacessit," roughly "No one provokes me without harm." He seems to make no allowances for provocations that are unintentional or may not exist anywhere except in his own mind, and that, I am sure, is deficient in Rowling's world view. But what amuses me is that those who want to see Snape suffer for his treatment of Harry and the murder of Albus Dumbledore seem to be adopting the same standard. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 11 22:40:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 22:40:07 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168582 > Alla: > > Where I differ I suspect ( I can be wrong) is I also think that > > Slughorn does not want just **any** people in the position of power. > > He wants talented, skilled, gifted, pick your word kids in the > > position of power, who will of course remember his networking skills. > > Pippin: > Actually, Harry notes that everyone who's in the train compartment > party seems to have been invited because they were well-connected > except Ginny and Harry himself. People like Arthur, who aren't > connected and don't have "flair" but do have talent (flying car) are > overlooked. What talents do Cormac and Blaise have aside from > their connections? > > While Neville, who is worth ten of Blaise and Cormac, gets an > invite because of his famous parents, but is then snubbed for his lack > of flair, despite his outstanding talent in herbology. Alla: In the part you snipped I asked whether the interpretation is that Slugghorn's collection is **only** about the right people in power. There is that part, no question about that. I am just yet to see that he wants not skilled people in power - not that he not overlooks people who deserve it as well, if that makes sense. > Alla: > > I did not see him asking Crabbe and Goyle to join his club for > > example. > > Pippin: > It is implied that their fathers were outed as DE's in Rita Skeeter's > article in OOP. By the way, what we don't know is what Slughorn > would have done if Voldemort's servants had found him. Alla: Okay. We don't know that, I agree. How is this relevant? Pippin: And > we know that people who secretly served Voldemort in VW I, > such as Malfoy and Nott, were part of the Slug Club and must > have found it very useful. Alla: Eh, sure, okay. They may have or people whom they met there may have been disgusted by them and their values eventually. Pippin: > For each of Snape's faults as a teacher, which I admit he had, we have > been shown a respected teacher at Hogwarts who had the same > faults, only more so. There are teachers who were scarier, crueller > and more unfair than Snape was, only not to Harry. Alla: No, that is your interpretation, **not** a fact. I am **yet** to see a Hogwarts teacher who did the same things to **any** student as Snape did to Harry starting with the first lesson. So, I am sorry but I disagree. Pippin: If Harry can > fix the whole culture, more power to him, but punishing Snape > alone would be like Hermione punishing the master of the one slave > whose problems touch her most and thinking she has solved the > House Elf problem. Alla: I absolutely think that we will see at least the beginning of Harry and his friends starting to fixing this culture, but I hope wholeheartedly that Snape will be punished as one of the most scariest representatives of that culture. Pippin: > Like it or not, Snape was behaving as well as most Hogwarts > teachers. Alla: That is a very **categorical** statement, Pippin. Like it or not, I **disagree** that Snape was behaving as well as most Hogwarts teachers. I think that there are teachers who behaved worse than him, certainly. But I also think that there teachers with whom Snape is not worthy to be in the room, if we were to put the good teachers in one room. Pippin: I'm not going to claim he showed maturity or moral vision > on any absolute scale, but he had as much as most of his counterparts. Alla: Yes, in your opinion, I think. In mine, he did not show one tenth of Lupin's maturity or moral vision or fairness of Mcgonagall or kindness of Sprout, etc. Pippin: > This is, after all, a culture where practical joke shops are a roaring > success, a public official writes laws with intentional loopholes > favoring his own interests, and 'proper wizard feeling' is a synonym for > anti-Muggle sentiment. Alla: Okay. Pippin: > I think Snape has a moral vision that could be summed up in the > royal Scots motto "Nemo me impune lacessit," roughly "No one provokes > me without harm." He seems to make no allowances for > provocations that are unintentional or may not exist anywhere > except in his own mind, and that, I am sure, is deficient in Rowling's > world view. But what amuses me is that those who want to see Snape > suffer for his treatment of Harry and the murder of Albus Dumbledore > seem to be adopting the same standard. Alla: Since I wholeheartedly wish Snape to suffer for his treatment of Harry and murder of Albus Dumbledore, I think this question is applicable to me. So, I am asking what standard do you think I am adopting, standard of what I am adopting and how is this relevant to this discussion? Thanks. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 11 22:55:24 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 22:55:24 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_And_in_The_End=85GoF?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168583 Celia: > 2. And while still thinking about it, let's just ask, where > *was* Lupin? What does it tell us about Harry that his need for a > father-figure shifted so suddenly to Sirius, and Lupin is all but > forgotten for the year? Any good "Where was Lupin?" theories? (I've > always thought he was off searching for Peter ) Why did Harry never > have the bond with Lupin that he has with Sirius? Pippin: Lupin was chasing Peter back to Voldemort and helping to arrange his resurrection, IMO. Voldemort in his baby form was barely able to wield a wand and had to be fed every few hours. Yet Peter was quite sure that he couldn't leave Voldemort's presence except with permission. Why couldn't he just wait until time for the next feeding and skedaddle? Answer, because there was someone available to hunt him down. I think Harry senses Lupin's lack of moral courage, though he dreams no more than most of you what depths Lupin might have sunk to because of it. Lupin never invites Harry to call him by his first name, either. It doesn't seem that he wants to risk a closer relationship with Harry, for whatever reason. Celia: > 7. Nitpick alert: This has always bugged me why couldn't > Sirius, "Lie low at Lupin's," (713) all year, if it is fine at the > end of the year? Or if nothing else, why weren't his other friends > (well, DD and Lupin) bringing him food and clothing in the cave? > Pippin: Lupin's cover story to DD would be that he was hunting in vain for Pettigrew and Voldie. Since Sirius was recovering from his ordeals and then needed to be near Harry of course he couldn't participate in this. Lupin's home is probably among the werewolves. I wonder whether Sirius was welcome among them in dog form, as long as they didn't know he was a wizard? I think Dumbledore would have advised not doing any magic in Sirius's hiding place in order to avoid attracting attention. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Fri May 11 23:10:36 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 19:10:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG References: Message-ID: <012801c79421$971f48f0$d072400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168584 > Alla: > > Yeah, funnily that is what I thought about Snape's actions after book > 1. That he honorably tried to pay off the debt which existed only in > his mind ( sorry if this does not reflect your position - I am > summarizing what used to be mine and it reads to me as close to what > you just said). > > I don't know anymore, frankly. Even forgetting about what I consider > to be Snape's evil deeds, I think it is really, really open to Dana > interpretation too, if I read it correctly as what Neri does. Magpie: I do see the possibility of the other reading too, that Snape and Peter had the same sort of Life Debt. I just think Dumbledore also explains Snape's actions in an understandable way psychologically. (And of course there's the added question of how Harry figures into a Life Debt with James.) >> Alla: >> If he ignored them, did not give them as much >> attention as he gives Draco, while still grading fairly which I >> believe Slughorn does, it would have bothered me much less. >> >> Magpie: >> Actually, I don't know whether Slughorn grades fairly. > > Alla: > > But we **see** Snape grading unfairly, we can only **assume** that > Slugghorn does not grade fairly, no? Which is fair assumption, but I > think that we have the stronger evidence for Snape not grading > fairly. IMO. Magpie: We do have one isolated incident of Snape giving Harry a zero when he doesn't deserve one and we don't have anything of the kind for Slughorn. > Alla: > Where I differ I suspect ( I can be wrong) is I also think that > Slughorn does not want just **any** people in the position of power. > He wants talented, skilled, gifted, pick your word kids in the > position of power, who will of course remember his networking skills. > IMO of course. And yes, I think Lily is here for a very good reason. > I mean, she is so far the example of sainthood, no? And Slugghorn > liked her, wanted her to succeeded, to be in his collection, etc? Magpie: He picks people on the train because he thinks they've got things that might bring them power to begin with--usually due to their family connections, because family connections are likely to lead to riches and success because they already have a leg up. (Crabbe and Goyle are the children of DEs. Can't have them. Though if they had been invited they probably would have wound up with an experience similar to Neville, who is not rejected based on his lack of skill) Sometimes he spots a Muggleborn who catches his fancy--they have to work extra hard not because he's looking for skill but because he assumes that Pure-bloods are better. McClaggen understands how the Slug Club is supposed to work when he approaches Harry for the Quidditch team, assuming that Harry's going to put him on because they're both Slug Club members, when he's not in the Slug Club for Quidditch talent. Most members we've seen are there first and foremost because of the people they're related to (though they will be dismissed if something else counters that). Sometimes Slughorn also includes other people that catch his eye and that he likes. It's very hard for me not to see Slughorn very much reflecting attitudes that have been seen as damaging in the real world, both in terms of his club and the way he subtly and not-so-subtly encourages and discourages kids based on his own questionable beliefs. I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of his former Sluggies became DEs (he shares their beliefs in Pure-blood superiority)--and I think he can express horror at the idea that Snape being one when "he taught him" because he never examines himself very closely. His first conversation with Harry about blood might sound good compared to the Malfoy's rhetoric, but I think if you translated it into real world terms he'd have trouble coming across as anything but part of the problem. -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat May 12 00:28:03 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 00:28:03 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Other_Schools_/_Glimmer_/_Foe_Glass_(Was_Re:_And_in_The_End=85GoF)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168585 > Celia: > 6. What are the odds on seeing students from Beauxbatons and > Durmstrang again? Goddlefrood: Inordinately high I should say. Fleur Delacour is to be married to Bill and I contend that book 7 will open with this as the first thing Harry takes part in in the WW after the Dursley revelations ;-) Krum will also be back, despite JKR saying that not every little thing will be explained, she has said: "You will see Krum again, though not soon." From: JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat, 4th March 2004. That after GoF, and if I'm much mistaken he has not appeared since :-?. This too: "JKR: - hints. ANVIL-sized, actually, hints, prior to this point. I certainly think even if subtle clues hadn't been picked up by the end of "Azkaban," that by the time we hit Krum in Goblet..." A crumb of comfort for we poor theorists there ;-). Mugglenet / Leaky Interview 16th July 2005. As to whether any other students from either Beauxbatons or Durmstrang will appear I have to say I severely doubt it, if for no better reason than this: "There will be some characters who you don't know particularly well, and there may be a couple of new characters, but nobody really major. You know pretty much the cast list by now." (ITV, 2005) Very suggestive of us not meeting any we have not met, and we have not realy met any other students from the other two schools named above by name, apart from Gabrielle (I use the French spelling for covenience), who will most probably be a bridesmaid or its equivalent for Fleur's wedding. Not a student but Madame Maxime will be back with some more fancy wandwork, possibly in defence of Rubeus again and I hope she saves him and they can sail off together into whatever sunset may be around at the time :-) > Celia: > What is the "gleam of something like triumph" in DD's eye? Goddlefrood: Here's a little snippet: 'Then you told me, two years later, that on the night that Voldemort returned to his body, he made a most illuminating and alarming statement to his Death Eaters. "I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality." That was what you told me he said. "Further than anybody." And I thought I knew what that meant, though the Death Eaters did not. He was referring to his Horcruxes, Horcruxes in the plural, Harry, which I do not believe any other wizard has ever had. Yet it fitted: Lord Voldemort had seemed to grow less human with the passing years, and the transformation he had undergone seemed to me to be only explicable if his soul was mutilated beyond the realms of what we might call usual evil ...' - p. 469, HBP Bloomsbury Hardback Edition My interpretation is that the gleam was quite simply because Dumbledore had had his theory about Riddle having multiple Horcruxes confirmed. That coupled with his knowledge of blood magic and the implications of why having Harry's blood in LV's veins will prove at the end to have been a tremendously poor idea on LV's part. LV really should have listened to Peter, that man often knows what he's talking about ;-) Not a huge theory, but there you have it. > Celia: > What does it mean that Snape appears in the Foe-Glass (my favorite moment in all of HP)? Goddlefrood: Only that he was a foe of Barty Jnr at that point, I don't interpret this as in any way shape or form as making Severus DDM. It is crashingly simple, IMO. > Celia: > How will "Priori Incantatem" affect the final confrontation > between LV and Harry? Goddlefrood: Perhaps I'll be proven wrong on this, but I suggest that there wil be no wands involved in the final showdown. I'll get back to the love theory another time, it's a work in process. The starting point for it I will tell you. It occurred to me that Harry Potter is the featured character of the series and when I came out from a reverie one day, there on my bookcase were the following titles: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince And soon there will be: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. >From this I could only conclude that the books concern Harry more than any other character ;-). Lord Voldemort will, of course, get the leg room he's been craving for some time, JKR has told us this. Tahnks once again, Celai, for some interesting things to give a small two penn'orth on :-) Goddlefrood, who asks you on leaving to take a look at Helga Hufflepuff's cup, or something very like it. Presenting the Rillaton Cup: http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/641/therillatongoldcup17001ep3.jpg From ida3 at planet.nl Sat May 12 00:31:09 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 00:31:09 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168586 Carol: > However, "how else did LV know the DoM ordeal went sour" can be > defiintively answered, and it has nothing to do with Snape. Perhaps > you've forgotten the scar connection between Harry and Voldemort: > That's how Voldemort knows that the Prophecy orb has been shattered: > > Harry tells Bellatrix, "There's nothing to summon! It smashed and > nobody heard what it said, tell your boss that--." Bella says he's > lying and then starts screaming to Voldemort not to punish her. > Harry feels terrible pain in his scar but says, "Don't waste your > breath! He can't hear you from here," to which Voldie > replies, "Can't I, Potter?" And after a moment, he adds, "So you > smashed my Prophecy? No, Bella, he is not lying. I see the truth > looking at me from within his worthless mind. Months of > preparation, months of effort, and my Death Eaters have let Harry > Potter thwart me again" (OoP Am. ed., ellipses eliminated). > > What summoned Voldemort? Not Snape, who certainly could not have known > that the Prophecy orb was smashed. It was the mind link, the scar > connection, which allowed him to hear Harry's words and sense their truth. Dana: The problem is that LV showed up at the moment Harry tells Bella that there is nothing to summon because it is smashed and right after that Bella starts begging LV not to punish her. So LV heard Harry tell it to Bella and had nothing to do with the scar link. Him seeing that Harry is not lying is because he is the greatest Legilimens the WW has to offer. And why does LV has to ask Harry if he already witnessed it by the scar link? The problem is that there is no canon proof that LV can actually witness Harry's thoughts through the scar link only that he could implant feelings and visions, Harry only feels LV inside him once right after the attack on Arthur when Harry felt like wanting to kill Dumbledore. Besides he does not say he sees Harry is not lying from within his own head but that he sees it *looking back* at him from within his (Harry's) worthless mind. He is using legilimency on Harry and not the scar link. He also would know that DD is down stairs but then why is he acting so surprised? Pg 717 UKed Paperback `What-?' Cried Voldemort, staring around. And then he breathed, `Dumbledore!' End quote canon. There is another interesting choice of words he uses regarding Bella. `Do you think I have entered the Ministry of Magic to listen to your *sniveling* apologies?' (same page as above canon quote) Very interesting choice of words but you probably disagree. The problem is that if LV knew through the scar link that the prophecy was lost and the Order and DD had arrived then he has no reason to enter the MoM at all and if he was monitoring the whole ordeal then why did it take him so long to intervene? Because he didn't know because if he had entered Harry's mind then we would have witnessed it because every time the link is open Harry experiences pain and we never witnessed that during the whole ordeal. Also the month of planning LV is referring to do you really believe he would let it all to chance that Harry might or might not show up that night? Or that he did not use Snape to keep him informed about Harry's whereabouts? Because I do not. Snape actions of that night are relayed to us by DD and that is second hand information and DD's explanations have some wholes in it. Like Rookwood telling LV, no one but LV or Harry could get the prophecy. Snape could never have gotten so much information from Harry through legilimency because one, Harry is avoiding eye contact (pg 520 chapter: Seen and Unforseen) and two, Snape tells us eye contact is essential to Legillimency and he also tells us "The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader. (Pg 468/469 chapter: Occlumency). So how does DD know what Rookwood told LV about the protection on the prophecy? `And then you saw Rookwood, who worked in the Department of Mysteries before his arrest, telling Voldemort ' (pg 730/ 731 chapter: the lost prophecy) Canon might not directly tell us that DD got this from Snape but DD is contributing ever other source of information so if either Hermione or Ron (who are the only other people even knowing Harry had this dream) would have told him then he would have said so and I do not believe they would go behind Harry's back on this, so for me this leaves Snape and the problem is Snape could not have gotten such an extended report from Harry on what Rookwood told LV because Snape only saw just the room and the man in just a flash, as he tells us in the first lesson, that he only sees flashes of what Harry sees and the entire time Snape is asking Harry questions Harry is looking every where but at Snape. The images go by so fast that they not even register with Harry himself so Snape could not ever have gotten more then a flash and not an entire conversation of about 10 minutes. So to me Snape had far more information then he let on and he is only relaying information to DD that he got directly from Harry as DD tells us and if DD really had gotten more from Snape then he would have told Harry because he was defending Snape in that scene but DD never does use anything to let Harry see Snape is working tirelessly for the Order and we actually see that DD does not know more then Harry does about what LV was up to. To me this is proof that Snape knew far more about what LV was planning then he ever shared with DD and why I hold him accountable for the whole ordeal at the DoM. Snape uses this information in my opinion to safeguard his own cover to give DD the impression he is really on his side but he actually does nothing to help DD because when DD hears about Rookwood, he thinks it was even more important for Harry to close his mind, yet on the next lesson Snape cancels it. Coincidence? Maybe but I'm not buying. We also see that Lucius was in charge of this job and we hear two people make reference to Snape's connection to Lucius. One you do not trust and is of course Sirius and the second is Umbridge that told Snape that Lucius speaks so highly of him and then of course Narcissa goes to Snape for help. Do you really believe Lucius would not use his contact at Hogwarts to know what Harry is up to? Of course Snape himself reveals his contact with Lucius too when he tells Sirius, Lucius recognized him on the platform. To me this whole ordeal with Snape and what happened in OotP stinks and the explanations of Snape's actions DD gives us, has wholes in them so big you can almost drive a truck through them. The timeline on the Kreacher revealing information to Narcissa and LV hearing he can't get the prophecy other then himself or Harry are off by a mile. Kreacher is lost before Christmas and Rookwood tells LV about the protection in January so it was certainly not Narcissa's information that set LV on a different course and both Bella and Narcissa are eerie silent when Snape claims to be responsible for Sirius death while Narcissa might have had her reasons to keep silent, Bella certainly did not but she said nothing. Snape is not LV's man either because he never revealed to LV that the prophecy was protected and DD claims in the same scene that the Order already knew this, so in my opinion so did Snape but I do not believe he withheld this information out of loyalty to the Order but only because it would be known it was him who told LV until Rookwood was the one to reveal it and DD now had to worry LV would shift his focus on to Harry and what happens next? DD is removed from Hogwarts by the daughter of a MoM employee, Hagrid is removed by MoM employees and McGonagall is taken out at the same time and then we hear Umbridge tells Snape how very social she is with Lucius when she tells him he speaks so highly of him. Coincidence? Maybe but I'm not buying. JMHO Dana suggesting that people answering her rhetorical questions with canon should first analyze canon a little better to make sure it actually answers the rhetorical question. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat May 12 02:29:22 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 02:29:22 -0000 Subject: The link and Voldemort's Legilimency (WAS Re: Snape as Neville's ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168587 > Dana: > The problem is that there is no canon proof that LV can actually > witness Harry's thoughts through the scar link only that he could > implant feelings and visions, Harry only feels LV inside him once > right after the attack on Arthur when Harry felt like wanting to kill > Dumbledore. zgirnius: As a purely technical point about the link and Voldemort's Legilimency, I disagree. I'd say several points of canon indicate Harry can see Voldemort's thoughts - he experiences the attack on Arthur Weasley as the snake, while Voldemort is possessing the snake, and also he sees the conversation between Voldemort and Rookwood. It seems to me that Voldemort, who is the acknowledged expert at Legilimency, should be able to manage as much. Also, Dumbledore clearly fears this happening, and again, he is an expert on the subject. It is his explanation for why he avoided Harry all year, and why he would not so much as make eye contact with Harry during OotP. He explains that if Voldemort saw them having a close relationship, he would seek to exploit this. How else would Voldemort see the closeness of Harry and Dumbledore, if not through Harry's eyes? Finally, there is that one scene where when Harry and Dumbledore make eye contact, Harry is suddenly filled with hatred and wants to bite Dumbledore. That this happened precisely when the eye contact was made seems an enormous coincidence. I would think that instead Voldmemort was looking through Harry's eyes and the sight of Dumbledore brought on those feelings. > Dana: > He is using legilimency on Harry > and not the scar link. He also would know that DD is down stairs but > then why is he acting so surprised? zgirnius: The scar link and Legilimency are not unrelated. As Snape explains, usually Legilimency requires that the subject be in the same room, and that the subject and the Legilimens make eye contact. The link makes it so that this is not necessary for Voldemort and Harry. The whole point of the Occlumency lessons is to prevent Voldemort from Legilimensing Harry (sending him visions) through the link. If it were not a form of Legilimency that Voldemort is using, then Occlumency would not be the thing Harry needs to learn to block it. Dana: > (pg 520 chapter: Seen and Unforseen) and two, Snape tells us eye > contact is essential to Legilimency zgirnius: Snape also explains that the eye contact rule is not applicable to Harry and Voldemort. If it were, there would be no danger to Harry while at Hogwarts - he would only have a need for Occlumency if he found himself in the physical presence of Voldemort. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sat May 12 02:37:58 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 02:37:58 -0000 Subject: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705110448v4eae4c30p3931750f54496732@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168588 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > > > > Dungrollin: > > > > Potential vacancies: > > > > . Transfiguration - since McGonagall is now Head. Wide open. > > . Potions - Slughorn's supposed to be retired. Wide open. > > . DADA - was the curse on the position, or on DD's choices? Has Snape > > now broken the curse? Wide open. > > . Divination - DD only hired Trelawney because she needed his > > protection, he was not convinced that the subject should continue to > > be taught. If both Firenze and Trelawney are unavailable, would > > McGonagall bother finding another teacher? > > . Herbology, Charms, Arithmancy, Astronomy, CoMC etc might fall > > vacant due to a death/retirement among the staff, however, I don't > > think we know of a single student who particularly excels in any of > > these subjects, and certainly nobody took NEWT CoMC. > > > montims: > > Ah - great list but I do believe you missed one! If Madam Hooch turns out > to be on the dark side, or has a heart attack because of all the excitement, > Ron is perfectly well placed to teach flying and Quidditch ... > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > JW: There are two - possibly three - immediate openings. Transfiguration - we will see the return of Krum, who showed transfig skills in the TWT. DADA - another possibility for Krum, but I think the leading candidate is Bill Weasley, with his extensive cursebreaking experience in the banking industry. This might also make Bill more available (as he would no longer be in Egypt) to assist HP in the curse-breaking necessary for Horcrux destruction. Potions - I assume Slughorn will return for a second year. This is a non-creative knee-jerk response, but his skills and connections might be needed in part two of the two-part miniseries within the septology. Herbology - a natural for Neville, but not in DH. More likely to be mentioned in the epilogue. Some other stuff to watch for: Hermione's arithmancy and runes knowledge will be very important. Otherwise, there would be no reason for JKR to invent them. Grawp will have an important role. He might sacrifice himself to save Hagrid; more likely he will be crucial in saving Hogwarts after the murder of Hagrid. If Grawp does not have a climactic role, then JKR will have wasted an awful lot of trees and ink on his story in OotP. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sat May 12 03:05:01 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 03:05:01 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168589 > --- dungrollin wrote: > > > > > A quick questionnaire for you: > > Sirius Black "had to die" (according to JKR) to: > > > > > > i) Because JKR wants Harry to be alone. Harry would have found it > > difficult to keep secrets from Sirius, and she didn't want anyone to > > help on the Horcrux hunt. > > > > > Cassy; > > That's the answer I choose. Harry (as practically any protagonist in any > heroic tale) has to stand along in the end. Sidekick are permissible, but > not parent/mentor figues > > Sherry: > > But she said there was an important > reason and that we'd know in book seven. So, I'm still waiting. My > personal favorite theory is that since we have not seen his body, Sirius may > come back through the veil. After all, poor Harry deserves some reward for > killing Voldemort and saving the wizarding world! > > Sherry > JW: We don't see a whole lot of folks returning from death. Why would JKR start with Sirius, and skip James, Lilly and DD? BTW, I do not believe that JKR supports the idea that heroism deserves compensation. My guess - let me re-state that as *GUESS* - HP figures out how to take a quickie (not really dead) trip to Vailsville, and gets important info from Sirius. But why didn't Sirius provide this info earlier? Perhaps it is something subtle enough so that its importance was previously overlooked. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat May 12 03:24:04 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 03:24:04 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168590 Ken: > Probably due to the suggestions of others the most likely situation > seems to me to be that both Harry and LV will find themselves > facing each other in some realm that is in the interface between > life and death. Perhaps that realm is even the Deathly Hallows > itself(themselves?). They will both realize that one of them will > have to go forward (to death) and one will have to go back (to > life). It is a realm where the dead like Sirius and Dumbledore can > help Harry. It is a realm where the power of the love both the dead > and the living have for him can help Harry. It is a realm where LV > will be at a fatal disadvantage. Jen: Even though I favor the idea of an ending in the locked room with Harry having an advantage because Voldemort would be surrounded by the power he 'detests' and doesn't understand, your idea reminded me of the graveyard, Ken, and the cave. There's something very satisfying about Voldemort being surrounded by the very things he fears the most: Death and dead bodies. It would echo the graveyard with the ghostly entities circling around LV, "his face now livid with fear as his victims prowled around him..." (GOF, chap. 34, p. 667, Am. ed) Ken: > I guess I hope that all the author's comments about the hero needing > to go it alone in "this kind of story" are just more misdirection on > her part. I hope she is going to *try* to find an original > conclusion, hard as that may be, rather than adopting a formulaic > one. Jen: I'm pretty sure Harry won't really go on alone, what with all the allies he's amassed around him and all the ways the magical world has made it possible for him to have contact with those who loved him and died trying to protect him. There's a component of Harry becoming a man and taking on adult responsibilties with the Horcrux hunt, but I'm not sure that's the hero story so much as Harry coming of age along with all his cohorts (friends and enemies). Unless you mean you hope it won't be Harry and Voldemort alone at the end? That I'm not sure about. I get the sense both will be surrounded by their allies in a grand finale. Jen From celizwh at intergate.com Sat May 12 03:36:50 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 03:36:50 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168591 Dana: > The problem is that there is no canon proof that LV > can actually witness Harry's thoughts through the scar > link only that he could implant feelings and visions, houyhnhnm: There are a couple of times when Harry has the urge to bite Dumbledore. Harry was apparently experiencing Nagini's feelings as she was being possessed by Voldemort at the same time that Voldemort was invading Harry's mind. Harry experienced the snake's feelings. We don't know what Voldemort's subjective experience was. The closest to anything that could be considered canon about what is going on in Tommy's head comes from Dumbledore, who seems to understand him in the way that Sherlock Holmes understood the workings of Moriarty's mind. This is what Dumbledore has to say about the Harry-Voldemort connection: "I was sure that if he realized that our relationship was--or had ever been--closer than that of headmaster and pupil, he would seize his chance to use you as a means to spy on me." (OotP37) So while we are not *shown* Voldemort spying through Harry's eyes (because we are never inside Voldemort's head), we have Dumbldore's stated belief that Voldemort *could* use Harry to spy through and Dumbldedore is our best authority on Voldemort. And that is canon. Dana: > He also would know that DD is down stairs but then why is > he acting so surprised? houyhnhnm: Why would Voldemort be surprised to see Dumbldore if he came on Snape's word? You mean Snape told Voldemort that he had alerted the Order, but neglected to mention that Dumbldore was right behind them. I think Snape would be in a lot of trouble. There is no satisfactory explanation for Voldemort's appearance at that particular time (perhaps he was there all along), but a Snape connection seems the least likely scenario to me. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat May 12 06:41:13 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 06:41:13 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_And_in_The_End=85GoF?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168592 --- "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Celia: > > > 7. Nitpick alert: This has always bugged me why > > couldn't Sirius, "Lie low at Lupin's," > > houyhnhnm: > > "At Lupin's" what? House? He's too poor to eat > or buy clothes (or a new briefcase) but he has a house? > That's what has always bugged me. ... > > houyhnhnm, ... bboyminn: I've always suspected that "Lupin's House" was Remus's mother's (and/or father's) house. I've always had this image of Remus's mother encouraging him to not let his condition get him down, to study on his own, and improve himself, so that someday when the time came, Remus would have the necessary qualifications to get a job. Remus seems to have a very complete knowledge of magic, far beyond what Hogwart's teaches. I suspect he learned a certain amount of it by associating with other wizard-wolves, as well as great wizard's like Dumbledore. But, in the gap between wars, Dumbledore doesn't seem to have kept in real close contact with the previous Order members. So, I have concluded that Remus spent a lot of time alone, studying magic on his own and improving his skills with the encouragement and support of his mother. Can't prove it, but the logical explanations for "Lupin's House" are either his family home, or some small flat or room that he rents on his own. The second option seem unlikely since wizard's don't seem to want to associate with werewolves that much. To some extent I suspect Remus lives as a vagabond, living off the kindness of friends and strangers, and picking up an odd job here and there. Eking out just enough of a living to keep him going. I'd like Harry to hire Remus as a consultant to teach Harry the spells it seems like he would need to know. Then at least Lupin would have a place to live and a little cash. Later, I'd like to see Fred and George hire him. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From inyia at yahoo.es Sat May 12 08:16:41 2007 From: inyia at yahoo.es (inyia) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 10:16:41 +0200 Subject: Draco Kills Voldemort ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002c01c7946d$e0958570$0100a8c0@comarca> No: HPFGUIDX 168593 > Aussie: DRACO MALFOY: - Occlumency (Snape said so in HBP) - Knows AK (Needed it for DD) - Can get close to LV (Instant Darkness plus that Hand of Glory) - After Horcruxes destroyed (hmmm) - Prophecy? (Maybe) The Prophecy: - Born at the end of July (Draco was too young for Apparating test. was he born near the end of July?) - Marked by LV as an equal (Death Eater's mark on his arm) - parents defied LV three times (not sure ... but Lucius didn't go to Azkaban; His mum got Snape to do the vow to disobey LV and not just wait for Draco to AK) - Killed by their hand (He doesn't have to keep "Love as his strongest weapon") - Has a Power that LV doesn't know (the darkness or another Twin novelty) Inyia here: Draco was born in June, it appears at JKR's website, but he can have been born prematurely (who knows). About "parents defied him 3 times". Well you know draco is not his father but you can count the "Tom Riddle's diary" as a defiance, because it was used before time and without asking LV and we are sure that they were at The Quidditch World Cup and did all that so called "party". Inyia From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat May 12 09:45:45 2007 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 05:45:45 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Twelve uses of dragon's blood Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168594 In a message dated 5/9/2007 5:02:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: there's also a plant called dragon's blood which has had medical uses since the time of the ancient Greeks. ================== Sherrie here: It's also used to make magickal inks and incense. Spells written in dragon's blood ink are supposed to have enhanced power. You can get dragon's blood at nearly any magickal supply store, most of which also sell the ink. If I weren't so lazy, I'd dig out my Cunningham's and list ALL the uses of dragon's blood. Not sure how many there are offhand, but it's more than one. It does NOT, however, make a very good oven cleaner... Sherrie "What's got YOUR wand in a knot?" - Hermione Granger, HARRY POTTER & THE GOBLET OF FIRE ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat May 12 12:35:30 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 12:35:30 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire v1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168595 > > Dungrollin: > > I'd feel it was a bit of a cheat if Harry and/or Sirius have an > > escape clause. I wouldn't mind if the help from beyond the grave were somewhat figurative, but literally? Not so much my cup of tea. Which, of course, rules out nothing at all. > > zgirnius: > If Sirius stays dead, it is not really an escape clause. I would also feel cheated if Sirius at the end of DH was back in the land of the living for the rest of his natural life. But in a fantasy series where there is magic, where dead people can leave behind imprints in > portraits and ghosts, where their shades can return under special > cirsumstances and affect reality, and where an evil wizard can avoid > death by magical means, I guess I would not mind learning yet another > way the dead can help the living. It is not as though we have never > seen such a thing before. > Dungrollin: Yeah, I know. I think... I think what doesn't irritate me about the ways we've seen of interacting with the dead so far (except for the ghosts ? I'll come back to them later) is that the portraits, the Marauder's Map, the Mirror of Erised etc all have (kind of) parallels in our world. Like watching a home video of a lost loved one, or listening to an answerphone message they left on your machine that you can't bring yourself to erase. It's still them, but not *them*. I do find the Ghosts a little out of place, they feel strange to me within the books, like an old idea she's somewhat lost interest in, but doesn't want to let go of. I'm almost certain JKR doesn't believe in ghosts in the real world (like she doesn't believe in magic), yet I can't quite see what function they perform in the Potterverse. They're not satirical, they're not even metaphorical. I know we're supposedly going to find out why some people become ghosts and why others don't, and I really hope that she's got something interesting to say there. I suppose I veer away from the idea of Harry going through the veil and seeing Sirius again because of this quote: --------------------------- DR: Harry *sees* his parents - JKR: Yes. For the first time. He can not remember what they looked like. They died when he was one year old. DR: - as perhaps you long to see your own mo- JKR: I think we all do. I think that's very common. I've met many many many people now who've said that that chapter moved them, because you do have this appalling thirst just to see them again. And it would never be enough, but that point is made in the book. You know, Harry has this obsession with returning to the mirror, to keep staring at his parents. Ultimately it's not healthy. You do have to let go. And they would want you to let go. You know, this is a very important point. --------------------------- http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1299-wamu-rehm.htm I dunno. I'm probably rationalising. I can't shake the feeling that she'd be undermining herself by allowing Harry to see Sirius again before he dies. Dungrollin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat May 12 12:55:04 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 12:55:04 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire v1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168596 > > > Dungrollin: > I suppose I veer away from the idea of Harry going through the veil and > seeing Sirius again because of this quote: > > --------------------------- > DR: Harry *sees* his parents - > > JKR: Yes. For the first time. He can not remember what they looked > like. They died when he was one year old. > > DR: - as perhaps you long to see your own mo- > > JKR: I think we all do. I think that's very common. I've met many many > many people now who've said that that chapter moved them, because you > do have this appalling thirst just to see them again. And it would > never be enough, but that point is made in the book. You know, Harry > has this obsession with returning to the mirror, to keep staring at his > parents. Ultimately it's not healthy. You do have to let go. And they > would want you to let go. You know, this is a very important point. > --------------------------- > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1299-wamu-rehm.htm > > I dunno. I'm probably rationalising. I can't shake the feeling that > she'd be undermining herself by allowing Harry to see Sirius again > before he dies. > > Dungrollin > Hickengruendler: But she already did something like this with the Priori Incantatem scene. This is not like the Mirror of Erised (where there were just images of James and Lily) or the Pensieve (which might be similar to watching a homemade video). Here some forms of James and Lily (as well as Cedric, Frank and Bertha) came out of Voldie's wand, and they directly interacted with Harry and had memories of the present. Therefore you could argue, that she already did undermine herself here, though I disagree. It's not that the ghostlike figures actually stayed, Harry had to let go of them again. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at all, if something like this happens again. JKR had found a way to explain a short-time return of the dead once, therefore she theoretically could do it again. And if it's an even as half a satisfying read for me, as the climax of GoF was, I won't complain. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat May 12 12:58:49 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 12:58:49 -0000 Subject: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168597 > > Dungrollin: > > Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Ron teach Transfiguration > > (reflecting the start of another auburn-haired wizard's career) or > > Malfoy teach Potions/DADA (reflecting another Slytherin's > redemption). > > > > Dungrollin > > > > Hickengruendler: > > It isn't Ron. > > That's from here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099- > connectiontransc2.htm#p24 > Dungrollin: Thanks for that, I'd forgotten that she'd ruled out Ron too. In which case, I'll stick with Malfoy for Potions/DADA (depending on what happens to Snape). Barring surprise vacancies (Neville, Herbology) and/or revealed aptitudes amongst the less well-known cast (anyone, anything else). Dung From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat May 12 12:57:15 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 22:57:15 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: <464373C9.19549.255F916@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: <4646464B.19426.131591C@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168598 On 10 May 2007 at 13:31, Dana wrote: > Dana: > The problem is this argument is used both ways because according to > many his *individual* treatment of Neville and Harry IS what is > claimed to be Snape success as a teacher. They claim Snape was > successful on an individual level for treating these students bad > and > making them succeed because of it. Shaun: Yes, certainly some people do make these claims. Personally, I really wouldn't. Certainly not about Harry - Neville... Neville is a problem for me. I think Harry does learn reasonably well from Snape, but I certainly don't seen Snape's methods as specifically good for him - I think Harry learns reasonably well from Snape because Snape's methods are generally effective rather than specifically effective for Harry. But Neville... Until Order of the Phoenix, I was pretty convinced that Snape's methods were likely counterproductive for Neville. I saw him as having failed to teach Neville effectively, and to be taken a fairly counterproductive approach in dealing with Neville. This didn't make Snape a bad teacher in my view, because as I think I've made clear, I don't think a teacher has to be successful with every single student to be a good teacher. Virtually all teachers have some students they are not effective at teaching. I saw Neville as one that Snape wasn't doing well with. *But* I didn't object to the way he was trying to teach Neville - because with some students, that type of method can work well. With the student who is capable of better work. With the student who is capable of rising to the challenges posed by a teacher who is a hard taskmaster. And the thing is, I saw Snape as failing with Neville, because I felt that Neville didn't have that in him. I felt Neville was too meek and mild to handle what Snape was throwing at him, and wasn't the type to rise to the challenge. But I was wrong. The Neville we see towards the end of the Order of the Phoenix - the Neville with a broken nose, and somebody elses wand held in his trembling hand, who injured and afraid, scrambled towards the Deatheathers and tried to curse them - that Neville proved me wrong. I'm still unconvinced that Snape's methods worked with Neville - because I can see no evidence that he did as well in potions as he should have - but I no longer believe that Neville was so weak it was likely they would have done him any harm. Dana: > You would be right if Snape treated all students in the same way and > then some fail and some succeed because of that but that is not how > Snape behaves. He treats some students well and he bullies others so > if Snape is incapable of treating his students nice then why is he > praising Draco while not Hermione? Why is he treating Neville like a > vermin, fouling his classroom while being nice to Grabbe and Goyle? > Why does he treat Harry as someone that must be arrogant because of > his status as the boy who lives, while not correcting Draco who > expresses more arrogance in his presents then Harry ever did and > even having more responsibility over Draco as his Head of House. Draco is > even more at risk then Harry is because Snape knows his daddy is a > DE and therefore Draco is more at risk to stray into the wrong path > then Harry? Shaun: "Nothing is more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people." Good teaching is not about treating all students the same way - because not all students have the same needs. Some students need praise. Some don't. And some are actually put off by it. So praising them all equally isn't the best way to teach them. Snape's class, in general, is at a high standard. That suggests, that, in general, he is giving them what they need. That doesn't mean treating them all identically. Look - speaking hypothetically, if I was teaching a class to these students, with the exception of Harry, and Neville (and I think as I have said above that I might be making a mistake by underestimating Neville), my approach to teaching them would be fairly close to Snape's in many ways. Granger - very, very bright girl, wants to prove herself - I'll push her to her limits. Malfoy - competent, I want him to do well, but I don't see the drive to learn in him, pushing him too hard would put him off - he needs an easier approach. Grabbe and Goyle - not bright, never going to be good at this subject - I'll try and get them through but there's no point in pushing them. Dana: > My problem with calling Snape a good teacher has everything to do > with his personal vendetta's, he is working out in his classroom and > are not part of his teaching methods but are part of Snape's > personality and his personal convictions. I wouldn't even be > surprised that he treats Hermione bad because she is a muggleborn, > because essentially Hermione is the same kind of student Snape was > (but with a moral compass working properly while that of Snape has > always pointed in all direction but the right one), she wants to be > the best in everything she does and so does Snape. So if Snape > really > knows how to read his students then he should be delighted with > Hermione's will to succeed but he doesn't, he is working against her > at ever opportunity he got. That is what makes Snape a horrible > teacher because to him teaching is not his main priority; it's just > killing time at the expense of his students. And if you really think > Snape is a good teacher then help me understand what Snape teaching > methods have to do with telling Hermione "he sees no difference" > about her enlarged teeth, in front of other students? Hermione does > not need this so-called individual re-enforcement to do well in > potions and she certainly does not deserve this kind of treatment as > a student in his potions class. Shaun: I don't believe Snape is working against Hermione. And here I am speaking as somebody who is an acknowledged expert on the education of exceptionally and profoundly gifted children, and who believes Hermione falls into that category. The way Snape deals with Hermione in the classroom is almost exactly what most psychologically healthy EG/PG kids need - a teacher who sets *very* high standards, and simply expects them to meet them. In schools which are generally aimed at the average child, this is one of the best things you can give these kids. As for the teeth comment, Snape's comment on that occasion is *absolutely* reprehensible in my view. And I have condemned it on previous occasions in this group - though not for a while, so you may never have seen me do so, or remember if you did. But... well, the easiest way I can address this is to quote from another message I wrote last year. (#152415, May 18, 2006). Quote will be between lines of asterixes. ********** And I think that what Snape said about Hermione's teeth is also utterly unjustifiable. And if a teacher made a habit, of vicious and malicious and utterly uncalled for statements like that, then I would want him gone. But the thing is - I don't think Snape does. The Hermione's teeth incident, horrifying as it is, is one incident after four years - actually I'll just include a little quote to illustrate my point of view. "'Malfoy got Hermione!' Ron said. 'Look!' He forced Hermione to show Snape her teeth - she was doing her best to hide them with her hands, though this was difficult as they had now grown down past her collar. Pansy Parkinson and the other Slytherin girls were doubled up with silent giggles, pointing at Hermione from behind Snape's back. Snape looked coldly at Hermione, then said, 'I see no difference.' Hermione let out a whimper; her eyes filled with tears, she turned on her heel and ran, ran all the way up the corridor and out of sight." (GoF, p263). To me something very telling takes place in this little scene. After four years of knowing Snape, being taught by Snape, and actively hating Snape with a passion, Ron still seems to expect Snape to act appropriately to Hermione's condition. He knows Snape is nasty, and vindictive, and vicious and whatever other label you may want to put on him. And he still expects Snape to take appropriate action. Ron is not the type of person in my opinion to *underestimate* how nasty Snape can be. What Snape does in this case is utterly unexpected - even to students like Harry, and Ron, and Hermione who hate him. It's not a normal response. I do think what Snape does in that case is wrong. But I think that is an unusual case. I've read through all of Snape's interactions with his students quite carefully and in my view that one really does stand out for petty meanness with no apparent justification. And I don't like seeing a teacher do that. I don't think it's appropriate. I didn't think it was appropriate when it was done to my friend either when I was at school. And *if* there was a way of stopping a teacher doing those things *without* stopping them doing other things that might be beneficial, I'd support that. But the problem for me, is I'm not sure if that is possible. I do make a very real distinction between a nasty comment made in a classroom environment as a form of attempting to discipline a student for a real fault, and a nasty comment made for no good reason. I think the former can be appropriate in some cases. I think the latter is inappropriate." ********** Dana: > His extraordinary high NEWT level submission requirement is another > example he does not care about his students because he doesn't want > to waste time with those he has to guide through this level, he only > wants those that can do it on their own. He doesn't care about his > student's future because if he did then he would know that most > students would never have passed into his NEWT class while potions > is > essential to the future of most. If he really cared then he would > not > have such high requirements that only a few could reach. If there > hadn't been a change of teacher's in the 6th year then both Ron and > Harry could have kissed their future of becoming an auror goodbye > and > this while some people claim that Snape individual treatment of > Harry > was what got him through or even claim that Snape had a high success > rate in making his students pass but then to kill it right then and > there by eliminating all that didn't do good enough according to his > personal standards and we see that no other teachers has such high > requirements and I am sorry but why does Snape consider his potions > class to be only for the elite? What makes his class so much more > important that the average student, with just an Exceeding > Expectations on his OWL, not good enough for his class. Because > Snape > doesn't care about teaching but only cares about his own status and > if he can make all his students pass NEWT level without much effort > it makes him look like a better teacher then the rest of those > losers. Shaun: Again, I disagree. And it's because of the way the Wizarding education system works - and it's not all that dissimilar to the education system I experienced at school. It also seems to be based on the old British O-level, A-level system. I don't know what education system you are familiar with, so perhaps nothing I am going to say here is alien or unknown to you. But it does seem to be to a lot of people who've experienced different systems. What you have to consider is that the Wizarding world has a school system in which there are intermediate qualifications, as well as high level qualifications. It's not like the system that generally applies in the United States where the only 'qualification' you can get at secondary school level is the High School Diploma at the end of High School - and if you don't get that, you've basically got nothing. It is similar to the old O-level/A-level system that operated in the United Kingdom where students got O-levels and then later on they did A-levels. It is also similar to the system that operated across a lot of Australia until quite recently of having a School Certificate and a Higher School Certificate. The O.W.L.S. - the Ordinary Wizarding Levels - are a genuine qualification, and they are the *normal* qualification a student has. There's no requirement to do N.E.W.T.S. - Fred and George are an example of this. N.E.W.T.S. *are* necessary for certain jobs. But only for certain jobs. They are a higher level qualification and you have to work hard and do very well to get them. The name reflects this - Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests. The education system I am most familiar with is the one that operates where I live, of course - well, until quite recently a *lot* of students left school completely around their 16th birthday, after finishing Year 10 - our equivalent of the OWL year. You only went on to Year 11 and Year 12 if your marks were good enough, and your future career required those two years. That is the way the system worked - and it was fair. If you did well enough to pass, you got a qualification and you could leave. If you wanted to continue you had to get the marks required to continue. Yes, Harry and Ron could have lost their chance to be aurors because their marks weren't good enough. Well, when I was 15, in Year 10, I could have lost my chance to be an Astronomer (my aim at that point) in my science mark hadn't been good enough to allow me to do Physics - my school required a mark of 90% in Year 10 Science to be allowed to do Year 11 Physics. That wasn't unfair - it was a standard the school had decided on because they believed if you didn't have that mark, you wouldn't be able to do well in the Year 11 class. The fact is, most education systems act as filters and if you don't do well enough at particular points, you lose options. Not everybody gets to go to the next level every time. In the Wizarding Education system, there's a break point between 5th and 6th year. That's the system. If you don't get the marks, you don't get on. Yes, Snape, may set higher entry standards than other teachers. That may be because he believes only the best students can achieve in his higher level classes. Setting higher standards of entry also means you can have higher standards of entry in the classes. On 10 May 2007 at 8:59, Dantzel Withers wrote: > I know I'll get knocked down for this view as well, but I honestly > think that Hermione is not a normal student, and she will listen to > any teacher and do well, she's just that way. Shaun: No, she isn't. I agree that Hermione isn't a normal student - I think she is an exceptionally gifted child. But, she doesn't just listen to any teacher and do well. Hermione wants to learn - and I think she will tolerate anything as long as she feels she is learning. But when Hermione feels like one of her teachers isn't reaching the standard necessary to teach her, she makes that pretty clear. She ultimately walks out of Trelawney's classes when she realises how useless Trelawney's teaching is. But she also criticises Hagrid's teaching. And she openly challenges Umbridge's teaching. When Hermione Granger thinks a teacher is doing a bad job, we know about it. On 10 May 2007 at 19:59, phoenixgod2000 wrote: > Is there any evidence really that Snape's methods are targetting > kids that are slipping through the cracks? Harry isn't in any danger > of that. Neville isn't a great wizard but the only class he almost > seems paralyzed in is potions. If Snape was able to modify his > style to more closely mimic Sprouts, might he be more successful > with Neville? I don't see Snape really reaching students with his > methods. Shaun: Direct evidence in the books - no, not really. Except the comment by Umbridge that the class in general is advanced, does suggest to me he must be getting most of the students. But to an extent, I base my comment about students slipping through the cracks based on what I have seen in the real world of education. The fact is, there *are* children who need the Snape-like style of teaching. I was one of them, and while I was unusual, I was not unique. I knew a reasonable number of kids in the same situation. And the ones who I knew at the schools where this never happened... well, I watched them fall through the cracks after I got out of that environment. I was the lucky one to an extent - only to an extent because the reason I got out was because I was hurt so badly by it, that the damage became apparent much earlier and was much more obvious - I wound up at a different school, but I was still living in the same community as the kids who didn't get out, and I saw them in their holidays. I watched them lose interest in school. I watched them fail. I watched them fall through the cracks. Unless these kids *have* these teachers they will fall through the cracks. They exist in the real world - there's no reason to assume they don't exist at Hogwarts. But they are not the major characters - except *possibly* Hermione - but we don't see her fall through the cracks because she is getting it from Snape. If Snape was able to modfy his style to more closely mimic Sprouts, might he be more successful with Neville? Sure. He might be. But is Snape able to do that? Does his basic personality allow him to be like Sprout - and if he tried to be, how badly might he do it? The best teaching style for a particular teacher is partly wrapped up in that teachers personality. Some teachers would *completely* mess up the strict, hard taskmaster model - but are most successful if they are all sweetness and light. So those teachers should be all sweetness and light. Use the style that you can use most effectively. Yes, make modifications *if* you can, without losing the style that works with most of your class altogether. But sometimes you can't do that. Does that mean that you may not be able to come up with something that works for a particular child? Yes, it does. But if you are effectively teaching 90% of your class, then the fact you can't get to one child doesn't make you a bad teacher. One of my teachers - this was when I was 16, I was in Form V. My father died between my fourth and fifth form year, so when I went back to school in Fifth Form, teachers were alert to the possibility I might be a bit emotionally fragile. Most of my teachers went out of their way to take account of this and treated me with kid gloves for a while. And that was fine. But my Snape-like teacher however, did not do that. And it was a very good thing that he didn't - because from him, it just wouldn't have worked. That wasn't him. phoenixgod2000: > I suppose the debate boils down to our personal opinions on Snape's > methods. You've seen them do a lot of good. I've seen them do a lot > of harm outside of very narrow circumstances. One place I do think > Snape's methods could work well is in a school system that was > mostly discipline centered like in a school for kids with criminal > records or a continuation school. Snape's remorseless nature and > management style would go far in breaking them of bad habits. But > that isn't Hogwarts. Shaun: The environment where it worked for me - and I saw it work for others - was a school that fitted, very much, the British Public School mould. A very traditional school, a very disciplined school - but not a school for kids with criminal records. A school for the privileged. A school for those seen as the future leaders of society. A school that saw its primary purpose as being to help students achieve the highest possible standards of education. I very much believe - I've written a lot on it - that this is the model of school Hogwarts is based on as well. And it's a model that a lot of people regard as a very good model - and pay a fortune to access. But it isn't a run of the mill school. phoenixgod2000: > I see Harry's Potion results as an anomaly. IIRC, he gets lucky by > having his essay question on a potion he knows intimately. If the > question hadn't been about polyjuice, I'm not sure he would have > done so well. and you can't attribute his polyjuice knowledge to > Snape--just their ingredients :) Shaun: "Hermione's bad mood persisted for most of the weekend, though Harry and Ron found it quite easy to ignore as they spent most of Saturday and Sunday revising for Potions on Monday, the exam which Harry had been looking forward to least - and which he was sure would be the downfall of his ambitions to become an Auror. Sure enough, he found the written paper difficult, though he thought he might have got full marks on the question about Polyjuice Potion; he could describe its effects accurately, having taken it illegally in his second year. The afternoon practical was not as dreadful as he had expected it to be. With Snape absent from the proceedings, he found that he was much more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever seen him during a Potions class. When Professor Marchbanks said, 'Step away from your cauldrons, please, the examination is over,' Harry corked his sample flask feeling that he might not have achieved a good grade but he had, with luck, avoided a fail." The polyjuice potion question was *one* question on the written paper of the examination - an examination that also had a practical component. Just one question - not 'his essay question'. And overall - Harry just thought he'd been lucky to avoid failing. He did significantly better than that, though. 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Sat May 12 13:29:44 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 13:29:44 -0000 Subject: The link and Voldemort's Legilimency (WAS Re: Snape as Neville's ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168599 zgirnius: > As a purely technical point about the link and Voldemort's > Legilimency, I disagree. I'd say several points of canon indicate > Harry can see Voldemort's thoughts - he experiences the attack on > Arthur Weasley as the snake, while Voldemort is possessing the > snake, and also he sees the conversation between Voldemort and > Rookwood. It seems to me that Voldemort, who is the acknowledged > expert at Legilimency, should be able to manage as much. Dana: Yes, there is canon that Harry can see through LV's eyes but there is no canon indication that LV is witnessing Harry's thoughts and conversation besides the one time he feels the snake rise inside of him when he looks at DD. Harry specifically feels LV's presents when he does that, so there is no indication LV has done that besides that one time. zgirnius > Also, Dumbledore clearly fears this happening, and again, he is an > expert on the subject. It is his explanation for why he avoided > Harry all year, and why he would not so much as make eye contact > with Harry during OotP. He explains that if Voldemort saw them > having a close relationship, he would seek to exploit this. How > else would Voldemort see the closeness of Harry and Dumbledore, if > not through Harry's eyes? Dana: Yes, DD fears this happening but besides that one time in his office, there is no indication that LV used the link that way. We only see that LV uses the link to make Harry think Sirius is in trouble by implanting a vision in to Harry's head (and I also believe by implanting other visions). What DD fears most of all is LV trying to posses Harry and we see what happens when he does that. The problem is that every time Harry looks inside LV's head or LV is present in Harry's, Harry feels it (yes, I mean in both cases) and is in sever pain because of it. There is no canon support LV used it to witness or make Harry do anything at the DoM. He specifically says that *the truth* is looking at him from within Harry's mind while he is looking at Harry directly. He wouldn't need to confirm the truth if he had witnessed the prophecy break through the scar link. Harry does not feel LV probing his mind from within and we see what happens twice when LV does that. So there is no indication that LV used the scar link to reveal this truth. Besides Harry can't probe LV's mind, he just witnesses certain events but can't go through LV's mind to see his thoughts. He can only feel LV's feelings and witnessed encounters but no personal thoughts LV has. Harry feels he is speaking through LV's mouth when LV speaks but you do not see Harry witness LV's thinking process and there is no indication that LV would have been able to do that either. Besides if this is true then another story DD tells falls apart because LV would not need Kreacher to tell him about the connection between Sirius and Harry because he could have witnessed it himself. The scar link is not an open book to Harry's mind as it is neither an open book to LV's mind and because Harry clearly feels when LV is using it even when implanting the visions, there is no proof LV witnessed events from Harry's POV at the DoM and his actions speak to the contrary actually because he clearly doesn't know DD is there and he reacts to Harry telling Bella the prophecy is smashed and not tell Bella, no he is not lying I saw it happening. He is telling Bella that he can see the truth looking at him. His actions also are not an indication that he knows through Harry that his plan went sour because he would know that there was no reason for him to go to the DoM as everything was already lost and if he knew DD was present then going in to kill Harry would be futile with DD there but he doesn't know, hence his surprised reaction when the AK is deflected by the statue. And we also see Harry tell Bella LV can't hear him so if LV had just seconds before entered Harry's mind to see what the process is on his plan then he wouldn't need to tell Bella that. I also do not believe LV would have the patients to witness his DE's being thwarted by 6 teenagers and not do anything so I do not believe he would have waited that long to enter the DoM. Another point is that if LV would have witnessed everything from Harry's POV from the moment he implants the vision then Snape should be death because then he also would have witnessed Harry trying to warn Snape and LV would also know through Harry that Snape is the only Order Member still at Hogwarts and that Harry had no interaction with any other adult besides Umbridge and Snape before he takes off to the DoM. zgirnius > Finally, there is that one scene where when Harry and Dumbledore > make eye contact, Harry is suddenly filled with hatred and wants to > bite Dumbledore. That this happened precisely when the eye contact > was made seems an enormous coincidence. I would think that instead > Voldmemort was looking through Harry's eyes and the sight of > Dumbledore brought on those feelings. Dana: Precisely, Harry feels when LV is doing that and we do not witness Harry feeling LV rise inside him besides that one time (and when LV tries to posses him). I do not think it is a coincidence because LV just had been made aware of the connection when he felt Harry's presents when he possessed Nagini and bites Arthur. That is what that scene is an indication off not LV being present in Harry before. It was just minutes before these events occurred that LV suddenly enters Harry's mind and when he does he can't hide his hatred for DD when he sees him there. DD might have been right that there was a possibility that LV might discover the link was there and might use it the other way around as we see he did but that does not proof that LV knew anything about it before this event. And DD indicates it as such in the last prophecy when he tells Harry; `Sirius told me you felt Voldemort awake inside you the very night that you had the vision of Arthur Weasley's attack. I knew at once that my worst fear were correct: `Voldemort had realized he could use you.' (pg 730 UKed Paperback: Chapter the lost prophecy) and why he arranged occlumency lessons. If DD had believed this had already been so then why didn't he have Snape teach occlumency from the beginning of the year? DD's actions were precautionary but it is no indication that LV had ever been in Harry's head before that night. The main problem I have with the idea that LV witnessed it all through Harry is Snape, yes indeed because LV would have known Snape was teaching Harry occlumency and he would know through Harry that Snape was the only one that could have warned the Order so why isn't Snape death for actively trying to thwart LV? Because I believe Snape informed LV of both and I believe this is what made LV happier in 14 years and why LV came to the DoM. If he witnessed it from Harry's POV then he would have known DD was present at the DoM but the only one that did not know DD was there, because when he alerted the Order DD wasn't at headquarters, was Snape and I believe Snape counted on Sirius not staying but did not count on Sirius leaving it up to Kreacher to tell DD (and if Kreacher would not know then DD would not have detected Kreacher was lying to him), so DD would not have known where everybody had gone to and why LV thought he could take the risk of entering the DoM because if LV had known DD was there then he would never have done so. It was the only one he ever feared and he would not willingly go in and have a confrontation with DD if he could help it and risk being expossed. (LV would have had no problem taking care of the Order just like DD had no problem dealing with the DE's) zgirnius: > The scar link and Legilimency are not unrelated. As Snape explains, > usually Legilimency requires that the subject be in the same room, > and that the subject and the Legilimens make eye contact. The link > makes it so that this is not necessary for Voldemort and Harry. The > whole point of the Occlumency lessons is to prevent Voldemort from > Legilimensing Harry (sending him visions) through the link. If it > were not a form of Legilimency that Voldemort is using, then > Occlumency would not be the thing Harry needs to learn to block it. Dana: Yes, they are related because DD fears that LV could spy on him through Harry using legilimency *through* Harry's eyes and why he avoids Harry's eye contact. LV could not spy on DD by just his mere presents if DD tells Harry nothing. So why is DD avoiding eye contact with Harry if it is just Harry's mind LV has to probe? Harry can't use legilimency on DD so there should be no fear of Harry retrieving anything from DD's mind. LV could have seen DD's relation to Harry by just witnessing Harry's despair about DD avoiding him and it would tell him enough. And the same goes for Sirius connection to Harry and according to DD, LV did not get that from Harry but from Kreacher telling Narcissa. Legilimency needs eye contact and it is still needed for the link between LV and Harry because Harry can't view inside LV's head and know what he is thinking, he experiences feelings and feels what LV feels and he looks through LV's eyes and hears through LV's ears but it is still Harry's mind because Harry thinks it is him seeing and hearing these things. So if that is anything to go by then LV could use Harry's eyes when he has eye contact with DD and what DD fears LV might use Harry for. Harry does not have an inside view of LV's head because if he had then Harry would know what LV is planning and what LV is after but he doesn't and we see no evidence it is any different for LV and his mentioning he sees the truth in Harry's worthless mind IS an indication that LV is using legilimency on Harry at that specific moment and why we do not hear Harry mentioning he feels the LV probing his mind. Pg 716 chapter the lost prophecy. His terrible snakelike face white and gaunt, his scarlet, slit- pupilled eyes *staring* `So, you smashed my prophecy?' said Voldemort, softly, *staring* at Harry with those pitiless red eyes. No, Bella, he is not lying I *see the truth looking at me* from within his worthless mind End quote canon. DD does not want Harry to learn occlumency because LV has a chance to Legilimens Harry but because Harry needs to learn to block LV out because as Snape tells him he might use Harry by making him think or do things. That is not what Legilimency is. And keeping information from Harry would be enough of a safety precaution. LV has no use for Harry's thoughts but he has use for the link so he can plant visions and because he is stronger then Harry, he can use Harry as a vessel for his own purposes, like looking out of Harry's eyes and legilimens the people Harry is looking at but he still needs to have eye contact to see Harry's own thoughts and if he witnessed the events that he does not need conformation Harry smashed his prophecy and not just telling Bella a lie. And Harry's despair about losing Sirius would make LV even think the raid was succesful wouldn't it so if he was going by Harry's thought then LV would have thought it was a done deal. And as we see Harry can't explore LV's thoughts at will and I do not believe LV could explore Harry's at will either even if he is able excess Harry's mind at his own chosing it would just make him witness Harry surroundings like Harry experiences his when he is that far into LV's mind. There is still no proof LV was present inside Harry during the DoM raid because Harry never felt the dormant snake inside him or be immobilized by the pain it cases him, the entire time he is there. Every time Harry has an interaction with LV through the link, Harry's scar hurts. There is no way for LV to use Harry without Harry feeling it so the absence of pain means the absence of LV, it is that simple. Pg 419 chapter St Mungo's hospital. It happened in a fraction of a second: in the infinitesimal pause before Dumbledore said three, Harry looked up at him ? they were very close together ? and Dumbledore's clear blue gaze moved from the portkey to Harry's face. At once, Harry's scar burned white-hot, as though the old wound had burst open again End quote canon. Harry's dreams about the door at the DoM are in my opinion not LV's thoughts but his feelings on wanting to get inside because again if Harry could see what LV was thinking then he would know why LV wants to get inside the DoM but he doesn't and personally I believe that the dreams Harry has from inside the DoM are implanted visions as well, to make sure Harry knows what the place looks like when it is time to plant the final vision. I do not believe that after Rookwood tells LV he can't get it that LV needs to go to the DoM and wander around it because if he did then he could have taken the prophecy while he was there. After Harry sees Rookwood tell LV, he also has no other visions about LV's interactions with his DE's, so to me it is looks like LV is actively blocking Harry's link to him only allowing him to see what LV wants him to see and it is Rookwood who told LV how the DoM looks inside and where the prophecy is located and why Harry only sees what the prophecy room looks like but not the other rooms or doors and if LV had been actually there this information would have been more accurate. zgirnius: > Snape also explains that the eye contact rule is not applicable to > Harry and Voldemort. If it were, there would be no danger to Harry > while at Hogwarts - he would only have a need for Occlumency if he > found himself in the physical presence of Voldemort. That is not what Snape said: Pg 471 chapter: occlumency. `He has deduced that the process is likely to work in reverse; that is to say, he has realized he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings in return ?` `And he might try and make me do things?' Harry asked `He might,' said Snape The learning occlumency is specifically to prevent LV using Harry's mind to make him do things because if DD was just afraid that LV would try to spy on him then LV is no threat to Harry at Hogwarts as well because he would just need to avoid Harry as much as possible and that would be it (and we see he thinks that is enough at first as he does not have Harry learn occlumency before) but that is not what DD feared because after Sirius tells him Harry felt LV inside him, DD was very afraid LV would try to posses Harry and make him do things and DD feared it would not be his downfall but Harry's. It is not about Harry's thoughts and his knowledge that DD fears LV might get access to but he is specifically afraid that LV might control Harry through the link and that is not the same as legilimency. Let see what DD tells us about the link Harry has through his scar. Pg729 chapter `the lost prophecy'. `For it became apparent,' , `that I was correct, and that your scar was giving you warnings when Voldemort was close to you, or else feeling powerful emotions,' `And this ability of yours ? to detect Voldemort's presence, even when he is disguised, and to know what he is feeling when his emotions are roused ? has become more and more pronounced since Voldemort returned to his own body and his full powers.' `More recently,' said Dumbledore, `I became concerned that Voldemort might realize that this connection between you exists.' `Sure enough there came a time when you entered so far into his mind and thoughts that he sensed your presence. I am speaking of course of the night when you witnessed the attack on Mr Weasley.' `You see,' Dumbledore continued, `I believed it could not be long before Voldemort attempted to force his way into your mind to manipulate and misdirect your thoughts and I was not eager to give him more incentives to do so.' `I feared the uses to which he would put you, the possibility that he might try and posses you. Harry, I believe I was right to think that Voldemort would have made use of you in such a way.' Voldemort's aim in possessing you, as he demonstrated to night would not have been my destruction. It would have been yours. End quote from canon. DD never feared LV legilimensing Harry for specific information about anyone but he feared LV would try to take over control of Harry's mind and that this would lead to Harry's destruction and what would be a threat to Harry anywhere he might be and why DD wanted to have Harry learn to close his mind in the hope it would make Harry able to block LV out. Yes, DD did not want to give LV incentives to use Harry but not because he feared LV legilimencing Harry but because he was afraid LV was going to try to use Harry against DD and DD's feelings for Harry just as we have seen him do with using Harry's feelings for Sirius. DD was afraid he could not hide these feelings well enough if LV preformed legilimency on DD through Harry. If DD really felt LV was a threat through legilimency, like he is with Draco in HBP, then he would not have allowed Snape to go near Harry and teach him occlumency and risk Snape's cover but we know Snape is a good enough occlumence so DD does not fear LV legilimens Snape by using Harry. DD only changed his view after the Rookwood incident because now he knew that LV had knowledge about the protection on the prophecy and it became even more important for Harry to close his mind so LV could not use Harry to get to it for LV as he was not going to go get it himself. But then what happens? Snape cancels the lessons. JMHO Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Sat May 12 13:43:00 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 13:43:00 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168600 houyhnhnm: > There are a couple of times when Harry has the urge to > bite Dumbledore. Harry was apparently experiencing > Nagini's feelings as she was being possessed by Voldemort > at the same time that Voldemort was invading Harry's mind. Dana: Could you point out where Harry has the urge to bite Dumbledore more then once? There is only one incident of that and that was the night LV realised Harry was present in his mind when he possessed Nagini in the bite incident with Arthur. houyhnhnm: > Harry experienced the snake's feelings. We don't know > what Voldemort's subjective experience was. The closest > to anything that could be considered canon about what is > going on in Tommy's head comes from Dumbledore, who seems > to understand him in the way that Sherlock Holmes understood > the workings of Moriarty's mind. Dana: Interesting because what DD tells about Snape's actions are taken as truth when it is second hand information as well. It doesn't matter what Voldemort's subjective experience was because he would not have been able to do anything without Harry's scar hurting and thus he can't witness things from Harry's POV without Harry feeling his presents. houyhnhnm: > Why would Voldemort be surprised to see Dumbldore if he > came on Snape's word? You mean Snape told Voldemort that > he had alerted the Order, but neglected to mention that > Dumbldore was right behind them. I think Snape would be > in a lot of trouble. I already answered this but for arguments sake. Snape is the only one not present at the DoM that doesn't know when DD arrived or even that DD knows things are taking place at the DoM. Snape only knows that DD was expected at HQ nothing more and if LV witnessed everything from Harry's POV to see the plan had gone sour then he would have known DD was there rounding up his DE's and thus nothing LV could have done about it. houyhnhnm: > There is no satisfactory explanation for Voldemort's > appearance at that particular time (perhaps he was there > all along), but a Snape connection seems the least likely > scenario to me. If LV was there all along then he would not have let it come to what actually happened because the moment the Order members arrived he would have taken control over the situation. The DE were winning at that particular moment and the prophecy wasn't lost, yet. So I think it is very unlikely that LV just took a seat and let months of planning go to waste if he 1) witnessed everything to Harry's eyes 2) was already there. The man is not that patient. 3) his DE's were a bit busy to notify him of the status of events. And to me that leaves Snape notifying LV of sending the Order and because the DE's hadn't reported back in it was a pretty sure fact they messed it up. JHMO Dana From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat May 12 13:46:03 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 13:46:03 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire v1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168601 > Dungrollin: > > I suppose I veer away from the idea of Harry going through the veil and seeing Sirius again because of this quote: > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1299-wamu-rehm.htm > > > > I dunno. I'm probably rationalising. I can't shake the feeling that she'd be undermining herself by allowing Harry to see Sirius again before he dies. > > > Hickengruendler: > > But she already did something like this with the Priori Incantatem > scene. This is not like the Mirror of Erised (where there were just > images of James and Lily) or the Pensieve (which might be similar to watching a homemade video). Here some forms of James and Lily (as > well as Cedric, Frank and Bertha) came out of Voldie's wand, and they directly interacted with Harry and had memories of the present. > Therefore you could argue, that she already did undermine herself > here, though I disagree. It's not that the ghostlike figures actually stayed, Harry had to let go of them again. > > Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at all, if something like this > happens again. JKR had found a way to explain a short-time return of the dead once, therefore she theoretically could do it again. And if it's an even as half a satisfying read for me, as the climax of GoF was, I won't complain. > Dungrollin: Yeah, I see what you mean... But she makes a very strong distinction between the shades that Harry sees, and the actual *dead person's spirit/soul/whatever* which is no longer in this world and isn't coming back. --------------------- "Which means," said Dumbledore slowly, his eyes upon Harry's face, "that some form of Cedric must have reappeared." Harry nodded again. "Diggory came back to life?" said Sirius sharply. "No spell can reawaken the dead," said Dumbledore heavily. "All that would have happened is a kind of reverse echo. A shadow of the living Cedric would have emerged from the wand ... am I correct, Harry?" "He spoke to me," Harry said. He was suddenly shaking again. "The ... the ghost Cedric, or whatever he was, spoke." "An echo," said Dumbledore, "which retained Cedric's appearance and character." --------------------- GoF ch36, UK p605-6. An echo which retained Cedric's appearance and character, the way the magnetic tape in a cassette retains a voice's rhythm, pitch and so on, *but is not the actual person, nor their soul nor spirit*. I think that crossing the veil and seeing Sirius *would* be different to seeing a portrait or a priori incantatem echo, or a ghost (which are the imprints of departed souls, but not the souls themselves). I suppose I'm probably just being pernickety, and JKR might not see it the same way. I'd probably not feel cheated if Harry found Sirius's body on the other side of the veil, and the souls of the ghosts he knows, but not Sirius's soul. As NHN says "He will not come back [...] He will have ... gone on." (OotP ch38 UK p759) Yes, if beyond the veil is some sort of waiting room which is where those who become ghosts decide they are too afraid of death to "go on", Sirius's body would be there, and he could meet up with NHN, the Bloody Baron, the Headless Hunt, Myrtle, etc. However, if he met up with Sirius or Cedric or his parents, I'd feel that JKR was cheating. In fact, if Wormtail's the kind of guy who'd become a ghost and he cops it before the grand finale, it would be an interesting situation in which he could repay his debt to Harry. There you go, I'm probably wrong. But I'd still rather that Sirius had to die because of something that happened in the past. Dung From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat May 12 15:15:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 15:15:52 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire v1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168602 > Dungrollin: > > Yeah, I know. I think... I think what doesn't irritate me about the > ways we've seen of interacting with the dead so far (except for the > ghosts ? I'll come back to them later) is that the portraits, the > Marauder's Map, the Mirror of Erised etc all have (kind of) parallels > in our world. Like watching a home video of a lost loved one, or > listening to an answerphone message they left on your machine that you > can't bring yourself to erase. It's still them, but not *them*. zgirnius: The instance I was most thinking of, actually, was Harry being helped by the shades of James and Lily, who come out of Voldemort's wand as a consequence of the Priori Incantatem effect in GoF. Personally, to me this felt like a bit more than an old video or voice recording or photo. They came, suggested a course of action, and took actions of their own which helped Harry to escape. There was also a component of poetic justice in the scene, as the shades helping Harry and hindering Voldemort were all those of Voldemort's victims (Frank Bryce, certainly not a loved one of Harry, was the first out). Dungrollin: > I dunno. I'm probably rationalising. I can't shake the feeling that > she'd be undermining herself by allowing Harry to see Sirius again > before he dies. zgirnius: I just want to be perfectly clear here. I understand you are expressing a personal preference, about how you would feel/react to a particular plot twist and why, and I am not trying to change your mind. I simply find this discussion interesting, which is why I am keeping on. :) That quote about the Mirror of Erised in PS/SS did not prevent her from bringing Harry's parents back again, to help him, in GoF. While Sirius's immediate killer was his cousin Bellatrix, surely he was a victim of Voldemort too. I guess my view is that in real life, people hold assorted beliefs about the afterlife and what happens to the departed after death. But, intending no disrespect to anyone's religious views, these beliefs are held as a matter of faith - the believers can't point to obvious, well-known phenomena that suggest (for example) some continuation of the consciousness after death. In the wizarding world we have ghosts, we have the rare phenomenon in GoF (which, however, Dumbledore was certainly familiar with), and we have the Veil (Luna seems to know exactly what the voices she hears are). The dead cannot come back, but it seems to me a bit more is known about their final disposition, and in particular, the views I personally hold on the matter (death is the end of our consciousness, nothing lives on except our children, the works we leave behind, and the memories the living have of us) are rather contradicted by facts I could observe, were I a witch. The possibility that Harry might once again see his loved ones, including Sirius, under some rare, special, and highly magical circumstances, would not seem to me a late and novel addition to what we have already seen. I would imagine that, were there to be such a scene in DH, it would be short and poignant. For example, there might be a time limit before Harry and/or Sirius would have to return to their proper places. Or the reunion could only be for a specific purpose, so they could not really take the time to enjoy one another's presence instead of the task at hand, or some such. I think the inclusion of ghosts, etc. in the story is a reflection of Rowling's own beliefs (influenced by her Christianity, no doubt, though I would not care to comment on their orthodoxy within any particular sect, being myself no expert). I don't think she believes in ghosts, just some form of an afterlife. However, by having these more tangible proofs of an afterlife in her world, she can show what she sees as the proper attitude towards death within a context in which her assumptions about it are factual. In the end, Harry may have seen some/all of his departed loved ones again, but (supposing he is not, himself, dead) he will have to go back to his life with some fond memories and the assurance (which in Real Life would be faith-based) that at the proper time, when his moment comes, he will be rejoining them. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat May 12 15:50:09 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 15:50:09 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: <4646464B.19426.131591C@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168603 > >>Dana: > > The problem is this argument is used both ways because according > > to many his *individual* treatment of Neville and Harry IS what > > is claimed to be Snape success as a teacher. > > > >>Shaun: > Yes, certainly some people do make these claims. Personally, I > really wouldn't. Certainly not about Harry - Neville... Neville is > a problem for me. > > And the thing is, I saw Snape as failing with Neville, because I > felt that Neville didn't have that in him. I felt Neville was too > meek and mild to handle what Snape was throwing at him, and wasn't > the type to rise to the challenge. > > But I was wrong. The Neville we see towards the end of the Order of > the Phoenix - the Neville with a broken nose, and somebody elses > wand held in his trembling hand, who injured and afraid, scrambled > towards the Deatheathers and tried to curse them - that Neville > proved me wrong. > Betsy Hp: Yay, Neville! Honestly, IMO, Neville is the most Gryffindor of all the Gryffindors. I do want to clarify (since I'm a huge Snape's a great teacher proponent ) that I *don't* think Snape's a great teacher for Harry. Not that he overly harms Harry all that much, IMO (and relatively speaking), but there is too much personal there. It's sort of like how many teachers try and avoid having their own children in their classroom because they fear being either too soft or too hard. Snape has a strong personal background with Harry, and it will out. Frankly, his misjudgment of Harry in their very first class together illustrated that issue perfectly, IMO. However, I *do* think Snape is a good teacher for Neville. I agree that Neville's own personal strength is easily overlooked. (Frankly, I think Neville himself overlooks it.) But we see it displayed in PS/SS when he willingly stands up against his friends. Oh, and also when he takes on Crabbe and Goyle all by himself (something Harry never does). I know much is made of Snape being Neville's boggart. That this is seen as proof that Snape has emotionally terrorized the poor boy. But the thing is, Neville rather handily defeats his Snape boggart. On the very first try. Which to me suggests Neville's made of sterner stuff. And I think Snape does recognize that on some level otherwise he wouldn't ride Neville as hard. He's very obviously *not* out to break the boy, IMO, since he ignores the weapons so conventiently close to hand (the very weapons Fake!Moody uses so gleefully). So I do think Snape's sole purpose is to get Neville through Potions. Which, I believe (more grr towards JKR for not giving us Neville's Potion's grade) Snape does. At the very least, Neville makes it to his OWLs. Something I think Neville doubted he'd be able to do. (Honestly, I think Neville went through a period of doubting he even belonged in Hogwarts.) Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Sat May 12 16:29:07 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:29:07 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168604 Dana: > Could you point out where Harry has the urge to bite > Dumbledore more then once? There is only one incident > of that and that was the night LV realised Harry was > present in his mind when he possessed Nagini in the > bite incident with Arthur houyhnhnm: The second occasion was right before Dumbldeore made his escape from the unconscious Fudge and Umbridge in OotP27. Dana: > Snape is the only one not present at the DoM that > doesn't know when DD arrived or even that DD knows > things are taking place at the DoM. houyhnhnm: I'm having a little trouble understanding that statement. Are you saying that there were people *not* at the MoM who knew what Dumbledore was up to that night? Who are they? I'd say it's much more likely that Snape is the only one not present at the MoM who *did* know of Dumbldedore's whereabouts and actions. I think it probable that Snape and Dumbledore were in regular communication during DD's absence from Hogwarts. How else did the Pensieve get back inside the cabinet in Dumbledore's office, which was barred to all except the rightful headmaster? Dana: > And to me that leaves Snape notifying LV of sending the > Order and because the DE's hadn't reported back in it > was a pretty sure fact they messed it up. houyhnhnm: The second clause in your statement strikes me as an elegant solution to the question of why Voldemort showed up at the Ministry when he did. Bringing Snape into it smacks of multiplying entities without necessity. From ida3 at planet.nl Sat May 12 16:55:31 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:55:31 -0000 Subject: The link and Voldemort's Legilimency (WAS Re: Snape as Neville's ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > > zgirnius: > > As a purely technical point about the link and Voldemort's > > Legilimency, I disagree. I'd say several points of canon indicate > > Harry can see Voldemort's thoughts - he experiences the attack on > > Arthur Weasley as the snake, while Voldemort is possessing the > > snake, and also he sees the conversation between Voldemort and > > Rookwood. It seems to me that Voldemort, who is the acknowledged > > expert at Legilimency, should be able to manage as much. > > > Dana before: > Yes, there is canon that Harry can see through LV's eyes but there > is no canon indication that LV is witnessing Harry's thoughts and > conversation besides the one time he feels the snake rise inside of > him when he looks at DD. Harry specifically feels LV's presents > when he does that, so there is no indication LV has done that > besides that one time. Dana again: I want to add one more thing LV after planting the vision has every reason to block out the link because if Harry would have open access to the link then it would risk the entire operation and therefore LV could not have intruded on Harry's mind during the time Harry believes he is busy with tormenting Sirius because it would either alert Harry LV is done with Sirius or that the vision is indeed fake and if Snape has no way of knowing (which I do not believe) when Harry went to the DoM then neither does LV. And this too is an indication LV is notified on what is happening because he had no other way of knowing. Snape are his ear and eyes at Hogwarts and I do not believe Snape has the courage to disobey a direct order from LV. I also find it interesting that LV says his DE's let themself be thwarted by Harry and not by the Order while if he did not know how long Harry was there, the Order could have shown up 10 minutes after Harry did and it would have been the Order that thwarted his plan but he specifically states that it was Harry's doing. Meaning to me that he knew perfectly well how long his DEs had been dealing with Harry before the Order showed up. And to me this indicates that someone told him and the only one that could have done so is Snape. I'm even willing to go one step further and state that the whole deal with Harry witnessing Rookwood telling LV about the protection was a set up as well, to make it possible for Snape to clear the way by cancelling out the need for Order patrols at the DoM without revealing he knew more about it as now he could tell DD he saw it through Harry. Why? Because I can't understand why LV would not understand what happened to Bode, that made him end up at St. Mungo's and we know they are aware he ended up there as they send him flowers ;o). And yes, if it is then Snape would actually be LV's man and not just out for himself. (Sure speculation, speculation but isn't it what makes reading the Potter books so much fun?) LV knows more about magic then any other wizard even DD so why would he not understand the moment he sees the effect it had on Bode that no one could get it but him or Harry, that it was magically protected? And if he did already know then either the revelation of Snape teaching Harry occlumency or even Narcissa telling LV about a way to lure out Harry would make sense while as it stands now, Rookwood tells LV after these things are suppossed to have been told to LV. It doesn't fit. And in case you wondering why Harry felt no pain when he is face to face with LV in the DoM, well simple because LV blocks the link just like Harry was suppossed to learn through occlumency from the great noble teacher Snape and his very moral teaching methods that are working so well for Harry. (Sorry could not resist) JMHO Dana From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 12 17:01:09 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:01:09 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168606 > Alla: > > In the part you snipped I asked whether the interpretation is that > Slugghorn's collection is **only** about the right people in power. > > There is that part, no question about that. I am just yet to see that > he wants not skilled people in power - not that he not overlooks > people who deserve it as well, if that makes sense. > Pippin: But he overlooks people who deserve it *more* -- people with skill and moral courage, like Neville and Luna and most of all, Ron. Ron turns out to be a capable leader, but under Slughorn's system he wouldn't even make the team. Somebody like McClaggan would. > > Pippin: By the way, what we don't know is what Slughorn would have done if Voldemort's servants had found him. > > Alla: > > Okay. We don't know that, I agree. How is this relevant? Pippin: It goes to the question of whether Slughorn showed more virtue by hiding from Voldemort than Snape ever did. We don't know whether Snape ever had any warning that Voldemort would try to recruit him and we don't know what Slughorn would have done if he hadn't had a warning. In both cases we are comparing a known to an unknown --apples and oranges. We *can* compare what Slughorn and Snape each did when they passed on information and concluded that it was being put to evil use. Snape disclosed what he had done to Dumbledore, Slughorn attempted to conceal it. When the concealment was discovered, Sluggy still didn't want to tell Dumbledore what he'd done. Snape didn't need Harry to tell him he ought to make amends. Slughorn did. > Pippin: > And we know that people who secretly served Voldemort in VW I, such as Malfoy and Nott, were part of the Slug Club and must have found it very useful. > > Alla: > > Eh, sure, okay. They may have or people whom they met there may have > been disgusted by them and their values eventually. Pippin: Right, they were so disgusted by Lucius Malfoy's values that they refused to let him serve as a governor of Hogwarts. Not. :) > Pippin: > > For each of Snape's faults as a teacher, which I admit he had, we > have been shown a respected teacher at Hogwarts who had the same > > faults, only more so. There are teachers who were scarier, crueller > > and more unfair than Snape was, only not to Harry. > > Alla: > > No, that is your interpretation, **not** a fact. I am **yet** to see > a Hogwarts teacher who did the same things to **any** student as > Snape did to Harry starting with the first lesson. So, I am sorry but > I disagree. Pippin: Let's look at Mad-eye's first lesson, bearing in mind that JKR said that Fake!Moody acted just like the real Moody. Neville was forced to witness a living creature being tortured in the same manner which drove his parents insane. His reaction was so violent that Hermione called aloud for Moody to stop it, a reaction she has never had in Snape's class. After class ended, Neville was traumatized to the point of incoherence, and though the gift book calmed him, it didn't stop him from being red-eyed and sleepless that night. Whereas after the first Potions lesson, Harry is not found standing hollow-eyed and blankly staring in the corridor. His mind is racing and his spirits are low, but he is soon delightedly hearing Hagrid call Filch "that old git." And afterwards Harry "thought that none of the lessons he'd had so far had given him as much to think about as tea with Hagrid. Had Hagrid collected that package just in time? Where was it now? And did Hagrid know something about Snape that he didn't want to tell Harry?" Those are the canon facts. That is the extent of Harry's "low spirits." I do not see how that can be in any way called worse than what Neville went through or even comparable. But none of that caused Fake!Moody to lose any respect as a teacher. Harry even thinks that he did what Lupin might have done. > Pippin: > > I think Snape has a moral vision that could be summed up in the > > royal Scots motto "Nemo me impune lacessit," roughly "No one > provokes me without harm." He seems to make no allowances for > > provocations that are unintentional or may not exist anywhere > > except in his own mind, and that, I am sure, is deficient in > Rowling's world view. But what amuses me is that those who want to see Snape suffer for his treatment of Harry and the murder of Albus Dumbledore seem to be adopting the same standard. > > Alla: > > Since I wholeheartedly wish Snape to suffer for his treatment of > Harry and murder of Albus Dumbledore, I think this question is > applicable to me. So, I am asking what standard do you think I am adopting, > standard of what I am adopting and how is this relevant to this > discussion? > Pippin: I display a garment, only the reader can decide whether it fits :) But the standard I am referring to would be "Nemo Harrium impune lacessit" if I am not mangling the grammar. No one provokes Harry without harm, IOW. I am sorry to think that the anticipated satisfaction of seeing this motto validated would cause anyone to give less than due weight to the possibility that provocation may have been unintentional or blamed on the wrong person, but I certainly see that happening with Harry. He is ignoring facts already in evidence in order to invent a motive for Snape to have murdered Dumbledore. Of course *we* have been given an alternative motive: the UV. But that is something we actually know very little about. And we too have to invent facts in order to make it prove anything conclusively.That is, we can't prove that the vow as stated would have forced Snape to drop dead if he didn't murder Dumbledore, so we can't take Snape's continued existence as proof that he did. IMO, it is inevitable that provocation will be blamed on the wrong person at least some of the time. I hope it would not be too presumptuous of me to think that Rowling and I might share a belief that in these "not secular books" there could be only one whose judgements are supposed to be true, just and righteous altogether, and his name is not Harry Potter. IMO, no one can be presumed to be right just because ignorant people call him the Chosen One. And I will be very surprised if the books do not bear that out. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat May 12 17:03:17 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:03:17 -0000 Subject: On Moral Compasses (was:Re: Snape as Neville's teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168607 > >>Dana: > > I wouldn't even be surprised that he treats Hermione bad because > she is a muggleborn, because essentially Hermione is the same kind > of student Snape was (but with a moral compass working properly > while that of Snape has always pointed in all direction but the > right one), she wants to be the best in everything she does and so > does Snape. > Betsy Hp: I have three issues with the above statement. Two are kind of smallish. (1) Snape hasn't been shown to target muggleborns, and in fact has more one on one intereaction with the pureblooded Neville. (2) We don't see Young!Snape in a classroom setting, but I'm betting he wasn't at the edge of his seat, hand in the air, begging to be called on. I see him more as sitting in the back, scribbling notes that may or may not be related to the class going on around him depending on expertise (in Young!Snape's mind) of the teacher. The third one is a bit bigger, I think. (3) I'm not all that enamored of Hermione's moral compass. In fact, I'm a bit worried it's broken, or maybe just incorrectly (or not fully?) installed. A caveat: I strongly dislike Hermione as of HBP. In fact, she actually repulses me. I'm not rereading the series until *after* DH with the hope she gets some sense shaken into her and I can reread her younger years with a lighter and more forgiving heart. So understand there may be some slight, erm, bias in my reading of things. Now, obviously Young!Snape joining the Death Eaters (and I do believe he joined them willingingly, not as Dumbledore's sleeper) shows a moral bump in Snape's principles. And obviously, Hermione hasn't chosen anything so outwardly wrong. But then again, she's not been given a choice has she? I mean, Hermione is muggleborn. She's *never* going to be recruited by the series baddies. Plus, all of her friends actively work *against* the Death Eaters. So is it fair to compare Snape joining the Death Eaters to Hermione not joining them? I don't think it is. But does Hermione show a level of unforgiving ruthlessness and elitism to suggest that if she could have she may well have joined the Death Eaters? I think so. Hermione is *all over* the Slugclub. Does it bother her that Ron isn't included in this club? Not that I've seen. Hermione's a tad bit uncomfortable discussing said club in front of Ron but not so uncomfortable she doesn't *go*. And Hermione actively supports Slughorn's efforts to recruit Harry into the Slugclub, but doesn't seem to try and get Ron included. Which suggests to me that, when she's in the in, Hermione is perfectly comfortable with exclusions. Even if some pretty decent people (I'm assuming Hermione thinks Ron is decent) are excluded. Hermione's reactions to house elves have been discussed a great deal on this list. And while I would give her a bit of credit for correctly identifying something not quite right in the WW, Hermione's weirdly stubborn refusal to *talk* with the House Elves and get their take on things is bothersome, IMO. Taken with her comfort in calling Firenze a horse (a rather ugly slur as per Centaur's we have met) it suggests a certain elitism on Hermione's part. And then there is Marietta. It really *really* bothers me that Hermione is so *not* bothered by Marietta's continuing mark. There's a callous disregard of other people *as* people being expressed here, IMO. I honestly get the sense that Hermione sees the world as those that are real people (a *very* small and exclusive group that I'm not sure include her parents) and those that just do not count. And this sort of brutal ruthlessness is very like the Death Eaters. Perhaps a bit more subtle than their usual MO, but even more cruel in its subtleness. Of course, we don't get to see inside Hermione's head. Perhaps she's shocked that Marietta's mark still hasn't gone away and is either defensively ignoring it or secretly working on a cure. But based on what we have seen, I would not credit Hermione with a strong sense of morals. I'd rather look to the current Professor Snape, who's faced his demons (IMO) and come out the other side, than Hermione "sees what she wants to see" Granger for answers to any sort of moral dilemma. So yeah, when it comes to moral compasses, I think Snape's is better. Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Sat May 12 17:17:35 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:17:35 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_And_in_The_End=85GoF?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168608 Pippin: > Lupin's home is probably among the werewolves. bboyminn: > I've always suspected that "Lupin's House" was Remus's > mother's (and/or father's) house. houyhnhnm: The details of werewolf life are a little sketchy. Some of them live in the Forbidden Forest. Lupin told Harry that he had been underground *almost* literally, which causes me to picture some kind of hollowed out den in the forest. He also spoke of werewolves living on the margins of society, so perhaps they squat. It is a good point that, just as no one wants to hire Lupin because of his affliction, it is unlikely that anyone would want to rent to him either. Still, the fact that Dumbledore refer's simply to "Lupin's", as if Sirius would know where that is without giving any directions, makes it sound like a permanent residence of some substance. And if so, where is it? Why don't we hear anything more about it? Just one more mystery about Remus Lupin, I guess. What happened to his parents? Were both of them magical? One of them must have been Muggle-born, at least, if Lupin is a half blood. bboyminn: > I'd like Harry to hire Remus as a consultant to teach > Harry the spells it seems like he would need to know. > Then at least Lupin would have a place to live and a > little cash. Later, I'd like to see Fred and George hire him. houyhnhnm: I would like to see Lupin grow a spine or else be revealed as ESE. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of his profound character deficiencies being excused away because he is a poor thing. If Lupin is a stand-in for people with disabilities, that would actually teach a bad lesson, IMO. It would be very *dis*empowering. From ida3 at planet.nl Sat May 12 17:29:35 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:29:35 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM (was: Snape as Neville's teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168609 > houyhnhnm: > > The second occasion was right before Dumbldeore made > his escape from the unconscious Fudge and Umbridge in OotP27. Dana: Could you point out the first? Because the incident you are referring to is the first. Him seeing Arthur being bitten is not LV entering Harry's head but Harry wondering so far into LV's that Harry is within Nagini at the same time and this incident causes LV to became aware of the connection and why he is checking it out the moment Harry is in DD's office. houyhnhnm: > > I'm having a little trouble understanding that statement. > Are you saying that there were people *not* at the MoM > who knew what Dumbledore was up to that night? Who are they? > > I'd say it's much more likely that Snape is the only one > not present at the MoM who *did* know of Dumbldedore's > whereabouts and actions. I think it probable that Snape > and Dumbledore were in regular communication during DD's > absence from Hogwarts. How else did the Pensieve get back > inside the cabinet in Dumbledore's office, which was barred > to all except the rightful headmaster? Dana: If Snape knew what DD was up to and where he was and could communicate with DD directly, then why did he need Sirius to stay behind to wait for DD to fill him in? He could have done that himself. Snape is the only one that doesn't know that DD arrived at the DoM besides LV because all the other DEs, the kids and the Order Members SEE DD arrive. So if LV was witnessing the ordeal to Harry's scar link then he would have known DD was there rounding up his DEs and LV would have known all was lost and he would also know that he could not be able to get to Harry (in an attempt to kill him) when DD is present there so he would never have shown up. And if LV did not know when Harry showed up at the DoM then he would not know that his DEs messed it up for him to come there himself and have a look what is taking them so long, because for all he knows it could have taken Harry forever to show up there. So to me his reason's for showing up there is because he knows when Harry went to the DoM, how long his DEs already had been busy with him and him knowing the Order could mess it up even further and why he comes in to try to safe what is left of his months of careful planning himself but he wouldn't have done so if he knew DD was there because there would have been nothing to safe. houyhnhnm: > The second clause in your statement strikes me as an > elegant solution to the question of why Voldemort showed > up at the Ministry when he did. Bringing Snape into it > smacks of multiplying entities without necessity. Dana: Again if LV did not know how long it took Harry to show up at the DoM then he would not know how long his DEs had been dealing with Harry and there would have been no reason for him to suspect things had gone wrong. How does LV know Harry was even able to get there? So how does LV know his DEs are thwarted by Harry Potter again? Unless he had been told (about when Harry left and the Order being able to intervene with the plan) and the only one who had the time to tell him anything and knew about the plan outside of his DEs is Snape. There are no other outside resources available. If he hadn't known anything then he would have read about it in the morning paper and he certainly would not have shown up to see what is going on without even knowing Harry was there and as I stated in a separate post LV could not risk taking a peak in Harry's mind because that would risk the entire operation if Harry feels LV has shifted his focus back on Harry and is no longer busy tormenting Sirius. Sure his DEs would probably have given up waiting when the sun came up but as we see Harry is already in DD's office when that happens. Personally I do not believe LV would leave months of careful planning up to so much chance and not order Snape to keep an eye on Harry and tell him when Harry took of to the DoM, just like it was Snape's duty to keep an eye on Harry from the Order's side but we hear such a lame excuse why Snape did not act out sooner. He knew as DD tells us that Harry was in the Forest with Umbridge and therefore I believe Snape did see Harry take off and if Snape didn't know and LV witnessed it all through Harry or legilimenced it out of Harry then why did Snape move up in ranks and isn't he dead for alerting the Order? JMHO Dana From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 12 17:51:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:51:02 -0000 Subject: The link and Voldemort's Legilimency (WAS Re: Snape as Neville's ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168610 > Dana again: > > I also find it interesting that LV says his DE's let themself be > thwarted by Harry and not by the Order while if he did not know how > long Harry was there, the Order could have shown up 10 minutes after > Harry did and it would have been the Order that thwarted his plan but > he specifically states that it was Harry's doing. Meaning to me that > he knew perfectly well how long his DEs had been dealing with Harry > before the Order showed up. And to me this indicates that someone > told him and the only one that could have done so is Snape. Pippin: If Snape has some instantaneous and undetectable method of communicating with Voldemort, then any Death Eater might have one. Bella could have called on her master for help as she was escaping. Would she not expect a reward for luring Harry away from Dumbledore and allowing Voldemort to recover the prophecy after all? But actually there is an easier way to account for Voldemort's appearance. According to Snape, Voldemort is not able to hear what Harry is thinking when he's awake (if his mind is not being opened by another legilimens) because of the spells of protection on Hogwarts. That would mean Voldemort might overhear Harry's thoughts elsewhere -- at the Ministry, for example, where special precautions have not been taken because no one believes Voldemort has returned. Voldemort could eavesdrop on the battle through Harry's mind but would not know that the prophecy had been lost until Harry explicitly thought about it. Dana: Why? Because I can't understand why LV would not > understand what happened to Bode, that made him end up at St. Mungo's > and we know they are aware he ended up there as they send him > flowers ;o). Pippin: How would Voldemort know that Bode had ever reached the prophecy to be damaged by it? He could have been damaged by something around it. Pippin From ida3 at planet.nl Sat May 12 17:58:29 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:58:29 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM (was: Snape as Neville's teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > > > houyhnhnm: > > > > The second occasion was right before Dumbldeore made > > his escape from the unconscious Fudge and Umbridge in OotP27. Sorry Elves for exceeding my posts for today but I realised I misread this part and you are indeed right that there is a second time. And it is causing Harry pain again. So like I said Harry would have noticed if LV was using the scar link to witness the DoM events but he doesn't do that. As far a canon supports at this moment Harry feels when LV's enters his head either by being there himself or by planting the visions. JMHO Dana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 12 18:18:05 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 18:18:05 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168612 > Pippin: > But he overlooks people who deserve it *more* -- people with > skill and moral courage, like Neville and Luna and most of all, > Ron. Ron turns out to be a capable leader, but under Slughorn's > system he wouldn't even make the team. Somebody like McClaggan > would. Alla: I have no doubt that Ron will turn out to be a capable leader, except he is not yet even in the beginning of HBP IMO. On Quidditch field even He goes through same insecurity issues he already went through in OOP. I am confused why JKR did it, but I certainly understand how Slugghorn has no signs of Ron leadership skills when he starts his club. I know Ron has it in him, does Slugghorn know that? And Luna and Neville as leaders? Neville has plenty of moral courage, as far as I can see. But leadership? Again where do you see it? Luna, I am even more confused. But she buggs me lots, I admit, so I may have to look harder for her. > > > Pippin: > By the way, what we don't know is what Slughorn would have done > if Voldemort's servants had found him. > > > > Alla: > > > > Okay. We don't know that, I agree. How is this relevant? > > Pippin: > It goes to the question of whether Slughorn showed more virtue > by hiding from Voldemort than Snape ever did. We don't know > whether Snape ever had any warning that Voldemort would try > to recruit him and we don't know what Slughorn would have > done if he hadn't had a warning. In both cases we are comparing > a known to an unknown --apples and oranges. > > We *can* compare what Slughorn and Snape each did when they > passed on information and concluded that it was being put to evil use. > Snape disclosed what he had done to Dumbledore, Slughorn > attempted to conceal it. When the concealment was discovered, > Sluggy still didn't want to tell Dumbledore what he'd done. Snape > didn't need Harry to tell him he ought to make amends. > Slughorn did. Alla: Eh, what? You are saying that Snape would have run away from DE? That he was coerced to join? Is that what you mean? Okay, we certainly do not see anything to indicate either way IMO, so sure it could have happened, I guess. But no, I do not see Snape making amends yet. SO this comparison falls for me. I find myself in the strangest position here, so maybe I should clarify again. I am **not** the biggest fun of Slugghorn or his activities, I am NOT. I take him instead of Snape as teacher any time of the day, but it is not an absolute comparison, because I will take Lupin or Mcgonagall or Sprout ANY day instead of both of them. It is a very low threshold for me to say that somebody is a better "person" or "teacher" than Snape. Does not mean I think Slugghorn all that good. > Pippin: > Let's look at Mad-eye's first lesson, bearing in mind that JKR said > that Fake!Moody acted just like the real Moody. > > Neville was forced to witness a living creature being tortured in > the same manner which drove his parents insane. His reaction > was so violent that Hermione called aloud for Moody to stop it, > a reaction she has never had in Snape's class. After class ended, > Neville was traumatized to the point of incoherence, and > though the gift book calmed him, it didn't stop him from being > red-eyed and sleepless that night. > > Whereas after the first Potions lesson, Harry is not found standing > hollow-eyed and blankly staring in the corridor. His mind is racing > and his spirits are low, but he is soon delightedly hearing Hagrid > call Filch "that old git." And afterwards Harry "thought that none > of the lessons he'd had so far had given him as much to think > about as tea with Hagrid. Had Hagrid collected that package > just in time? Where was it now? And did Hagrid know something > about Snape that he didn't want to tell Harry?" > > Those are the canon facts. That is the extent of Harry's "low > spirits." I do not see how that can be in any way called worse > than what Neville went through or even comparable. But > none of that caused Fake!Moody to lose any respect as a > teacher. Harry even thinks that he did what Lupin might > have done. Alla: Teachers, Pippin, I meant real teachers, **not** DE masquerading as teachers. Sure, what Fake Mad Eye did to Neville was worse than what Snape did to Harry. I'd like to see real teacher who did anything close to what Snape did to Harry to any other student. And yeah, I know about Umbridge, but she was worse to Harry, not anybody else. And didn't JKR say that Fake Mad Eye acted as real one that is why DD could not recognise him? I took it to mean that he acted as real Moody in front of DD. I am having a lot of trouble believing that real Moody would have done that to Neville. JMO, Alla From ida3 at planet.nl Sat May 12 18:20:25 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 18:20:25 -0000 Subject: The link and Voldemort's Legilimency (WAS Re: Snape as Neville's ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168613 Dana: > And in case you wondering why Harry felt no pain when he is face to > face with LV in the DoM, well simple because LV blocks the link just > like Harry was suppossed to learn through occlumency from the great > noble teacher Snape and his very moral teaching methods that are > working so well for Harry. (Sorry could not resist) Dana again: Please forgive me promise this is the last one but need to correct one last thing because Harry does feel pain when LV enters the DoM pg 716 UKed Paperback chapter the lost Prophecy Don't waste your breath!' yelled Harry, his eyes screwed up against the pain in his scar, now more terrible then ever. End quote from canon. So as far as I can see LV has never been able to be in Harry's presence either through the link or physically that Harry would not know about and Harry's feelings are not described like LV is inside of him. To adress Pippin about Bella notifying LV she needed help then why is she apologizing to LV for trying so hard like he already didn't know she failed? As far as I am aware that is no instant messager service between LV and his DEs besides him being able to summon then instantly through the mark and it is never stated that it works both ways or even that LV himself has such a mark as in GoF he uses Wormtail's to summon his DEs. Again if LV peaked in to Harry's mind before he came to the DoM himself then there should be an indication that Harry noticed this and I'm happy to change my perception of things if someone can point this out to me. JMHO Dana Last post of today ;o) From celizwh at intergate.com Sat May 12 18:33:49 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 18:33:49 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM (was: Snape as Neville's teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168614 Dana: > > Could you point out where Harry has the urge to bite > > Dumbledore more then once? Dana again: > Could you point out the first? Because the incident > you are referring to is the first. houyhnhnm: Page 474-475, Am. Ed. " . . . there arose within Harry a hatred so powerful he felt, for that instant, that he would like nothing better than to strike--to *bite*-- . . ." p. 622 ". . . he felt again that terrible snake-like longing to strike Dumbledore, to *bite* him . . ." [emphasis added] Dana: > If Snape knew what DD was up to and where he was and could > communicate with DD directly, then why did he need Sirius > to stay behind to wait for DD to fill him in? He could have > done that himself. houyhnhnm: Snape may not have been in contact with Dumbledore after his supsicions were aroused by the kids' failure to return from the forest, but he had to have had more recent communication with DD than the other members of the Order or it would have been neither necessary nor possible for him to tell them DD was on his way. Dumbledore says, "Professor Snape requested Sirius remain behind, as he needed somebody to remain at headquarters to tell me what happened, for I was due there at any moment." In other words, the Order did not know that DD was due at headquarters "at any moment". Snape did. Dana: > Again if LV did not know how long it took Harry to > show up at the DoM houyhnhnm: , neither did Snape. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat May 12 19:24:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 19:24:42 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168615 Alla wrote: I am **yet** to see > a Hogwarts teacher who did the same things to **any** student as Snape did to Harry starting with the first lesson. So, I am sorry but I disagree. Carol responds: True, we don't know of any other teacher who asked Harry questions he didn't know the answers to on the first day of class. But how is that more cruel than a prolonged Crucio of a spider in front of a boy whose parents were Crucio'd into insanity (all so that he can get Neville into his office and use him as part of a plot to kidnap Harry)? How is it crueler than calling Harry a liar in front of his classmates (and making him write "I will not tell lies" in his own blood for that supposed offense? BTW, you said in another post that you didn't remember Slughorn marking unfairly. It's unclear whether Slughorn actually marks the potions that the students make in class as Snape does (he doesn't supervise the making of them to tell them what they're doing wrong as snape does, either). But surely, giving Harry full credit for cheekily presenting a Bezoar (even the cheek is Teen!Snape's, not Harry's, though Slughorn isn't observant enough to recognize that) when Hermione has decanted ten poisons and added fifty-two ingredients to her half-finished antidote *and* demonstrated that she knows and understands Golpalott's Law when Harry doeesn't is not fair to Hermione (or to Harry, for that matter; getting credit you don't deserve generally comes back to you in some way). Marks or no marks, Hermione is the one who deserves praise and recognition for making such progress on a difficult assignment but Harry is the one who receives them, all because he's Slughorn's golden boy and has his mother's eyes (not to mention Teen!Snape's Potions book). Anyway, Fake!Moody and Umbridge are crueler than Snape (though they wound in other ways than sarcasm) and Slughorn is at least as unfair in terms of favoritism. The only difference is that in Slughorn's class, as in Lockhart's in second year, Harry is on the receiving end of the favoritism. Carol, who would much rather have Snape as a teacher than Fake!Moody, Umbridge, Slughorn, Binns, Lockhart, Hagrid, or Trelawney From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 12 19:39:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 19:39:10 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168616 > Carol responds: > True, we don't know of any other teacher who asked Harry questions he > didn't know the answers to on the first day of class. But how is that > more cruel than a prolonged Crucio of a spider in front of a boy whose > parents were Crucio'd into insanity (all so that he can get Neville > into his office and use him as part of a plot to kidnap Harry)? Alla: It is not more cruel, which exactly what I said upthread in this post. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168612 Here is the relevant part for you: "Alla: Teachers, Pippin, I meant real teachers, **not** DE masquerading as teachers. Sure, what Fake Mad Eye did to Neville was worse than what Snape did to Harry. I'd like to see real teacher who did anything close to what Snape did to Harry to any other student. And yeah, I know about Umbridge, but she was worse to Harry, not anybody else. And didn't JKR say that Fake Mad Eye acted as real one that is why DD could not recognise him? I took it to mean that he acted as real Moody in front of DD. I am having a lot of trouble believing that real Moody would have done that to Neville. JMO, Alla" Alla again: Although come to think of it, as far as we know, Barty Jr. has no personal connection to Neville, so what he did to him was as far as I am concerned any sick and twisted soul would do. Snape **has** personal connection to Harry. If he is feeling guilty indeed for helping disposing of Harry's parents,which I doubt, I would think he would be as humble as possible. So, I can totally see the angle under which what Snape did is more cruel, yes, in light of the connection they share. If he is DD!M of course, if he is a loyal DE, then sure, he is less cruel than Barty dear. Thank you for making me see this angle, even if purely hypothetically. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 12 20:27:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 20:27:42 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168617 > "Alla: Sure, what Fake Mad Eye did to Neville was worse than what > Snape did to Harry. Pippin: Thank you. :) Alla: > I'd like to see real teacher who did anything close to what Snape did > to Harry to any other student. Pippin: Everyone thought Moody was a real Hogwarts teacher when he did it, and no one thought he couldn't be a real Hogwarts teacher because of what he did, so I don't see how that's relevant. His rationale, "It may be harsh, but you've got to *know*" sounds like Dumbledore himself explaining why he should have told Harry about the prophecy sooner, and like JKR explaining why Dumbledore allows Snape to treat his students the way he does. It is accepted at Hogwarts by everyone including Harry himself. Alla: > And didn't JKR say that Fake Mad Eye acted as real one that is why DD > could not recognise him? I took it to mean that he acted as real > Moody in front of DD. Pippin: She did not mention Dumbledore at all. Here's the quote: SnapesForte: Is Mad Eye Moody the real Moody this time? And if he is, is he up to something fishy? Because he's acting too muhc like Crouch jr - sniffing food etc JK Rowling replies -> It's the other way around - Crouch Jnr. acted just like the real Moody.. > > > Alla again: > Although come to think of it, as far as we know, Barty Jr. has no > personal connection to Neville, so what he did to him was as far as I > am concerned any sick and twisted soul would do. > Pippin: Um, besides taking part in torturing Neville's parents? That's what he went to Azkaban for. Alla: Snape **has** personal connection to Harry. If he is feeling guilty indeed for helping disposing of Harry's parents,which I doubt, I would think he would be as humble as possible. Pippin: When Dumbledore thinks he has wronged Harry, he wants Harry to be angry with him. If Snape is DDM! and not allowed to tell Harry why Harry really should be angry with him, I think he would like Harry to be angry with him for another reason. Actually, once I knew who he really was, Fake! Moody comforting Neville made me sick. I think I've said this before, but I would feel a whole lot worse about Snape if he'd been nice to Harry under false pretenses. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 12 20:35:29 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 20:35:29 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168618 > > Alla: > > And didn't JKR say that Fake Mad Eye acted as real one that is why DD > > could not recognise him? I took it to mean that he acted as real > > Moody in front of DD. > > Pippin: > She did not mention Dumbledore at all. Here's the quote: > > SnapesForte: Is Mad Eye Moody the real Moody this time? And if he is, > is he up to something fishy? Because he's acting too muhc like > Crouch jr - sniffing food etc > JK Rowling replies -> It's the other way around - Crouch Jnr. > acted just like the real Moody.. Alla: Okay, yes, she does not mention it. I still think it is widely open to interpretation in what ways fake Moody acted as real one. I am not buying that real Moody would have done that, I can be wrong of course. > > Alla again: > > Although come to think of it, as far as we know, Barty Jr. has no > > personal connection to Neville, so what he did to him was as far as I > > am concerned any sick and twisted soul would do. > > > Pippin: > Um, besides taking part in torturing Neville's parents? That's what > he went to Azkaban for. > Alla: Yeah, besides that part :) I remember him loudly proclaiming his innocence. And do not think that Snape delivering prophecy will turn out to be a false information. But what I meant under personal connection, was just that - personal connection. If we learn that Barty Jr. had just as intense personal connection with Longbottoms, as Snape had with Marauders, I will take my words back. Snipping everything else - too different to discuss. Agree to disagree time. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat May 12 20:45:17 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:45:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Moral Compasses/Slughorn & favoritism References: Message-ID: <00d801c794d6$75b225b0$7178400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168619 BetsyHP > Hermione is *all over* the Slugclub. Does it bother her that Ron > isn't included in this club? Not that I've seen. Hermione's a tad > bit uncomfortable discussing said club in front of Ron but not so > uncomfortable she doesn't *go*. And Hermione actively supports > Slughorn's efforts to recruit Harry into the Slugclub, but doesn't > seem to try and get Ron included. Which suggests to me that, when > she's in the in, Hermione is perfectly comfortable with exclusions. > Even if some pretty decent people (I'm assuming Hermione thinks Ron > is decent) are excluded. Magpie: Yeah, I thought Hermione's reaction to the Slug Club was kind of wonderfully repulsive, especially knowing Slughorn. And one of those places where I thought maybe Rowling was being true to the character and showing a weakness without giving any authorial judgment in the text as she might have if it were, say, Blaise. Certainly she has Harry and Ginny both reject what Slughorn is offering. That could on the one hand just show that they're in sync in their beliefs that way (though Harry as the Chosen One naturally would see the Slug Club as small potatoes and Ginny is so effortlessly superior in all ways that she could easily dismiss it too). But then there's Hermione whose vanity is flattered. I mean, first, part of the reason Slughorn likes her is because of Harry--ah, you're Harry's Muggleborn friend who's the best in the class! (Are you watching, Harry?) And second, she's Muggleborn and Slughorn thinks Muggleborns are inferior. His first conversation with Harry, to me, sums up why I can't see his teaching methods as not being sinister: Canon: "Your mother was Muggle-born, of course. Couldn't believe it when I found out. Thought she must have been pure-blood, she was so good." Magpie: Ick. I'm sure that must be nice for someone to hear--but not unusual in the real world. "Your mother was black. Couldn't believe it when I found out. Thought she must have been white, she was so good!" And he thinks it's a compliment. That's how much he believes it. Canon: "One of my best friends is Muggle-born," said Harry, "and she's the best in our year." "Funny how that sometimes happens, isn't it?" said Slughorn. "Not really," said Harry coldly. Magpie: Yeah, not really at all. Canon: Slughorn looked down at him in surprise. "You mustn't think I'm prejudiced!" he said. "No, no, no! Haven't I just said your mother was one of my all-time favorite students? Magpie: You mustn't think I'm prejudiced just because I just said to you that Purebloods are better Wizards and it's just kind of funny how sometimes a Muggleborn's best in the class. If I like your mother, I couldn't be prejudiced, could I? Why, I give her extra props for overcoming her bad blood and impressing me! She could totally be my Muggle-born mascot! Canon: And there was Dirk Cresswell in the year after her too - now Head of the Goblin Liaison Office, of course - another Muggle-born, a very gifted student, and still gives me excellent inside information on the goings-on at Gringotts!" He bounced up and down a little, smiling in a self-satisfied way, and pointed at the many glittering photograph frames on the dresser, each peopled with tiny moving occupants. Magpie: In fact, here's a list of every exceptional student from the inferior race I ever put in my club! While some of the things Snape does are inexcusable, I still find it more sinister to think of this guy so consistently applying his views to his classes of kids aged 11-17. There is something almost preferable about somebody who went through an intense period of calling people Mudbloods and then actually changed by the time they taught than this. So in Slughorn's class and if you're from the "right family" you've got a point in your favor. If you're Pureblood you're assumed to have more potential and so deserve more encouragement and attention. Though you can lose those points and go down to average if you're personally unattractive or socially unskilled (even if you're good at the subject). If you're Muggleborn he assumes you're inferior. Maybe you'll be exceptional and prove him wrong--but you'll have to prove you're one of those anomolies where it works out in that funny way. I thought JKR was intentionally not showing Hermione at her best having her so flattered to be in the nice man's club, myself. It's ironic, actually, because Ron himself has always been so completely associated with not having this kind of blood prejudice despite being in a Pureblood family--(his family doesn't show up on Slughorn's radar despite being Pure). He's the one who explains how "most of us" know that this stuff is rubbish, and there's something kind of interesting about Hermione's reaction to the club. Hermione has always had a very different relationship to praise than Ron, obviously. Sometimes this leads to bad behavior from Ron, but other times Ron's instincts are better. The type of Pureblood elitism Slughorn has fits with his hiding from the DEs, I think. He's supporting their agenda, but doesn't want to face that, so he just hides. And I don't think they'd be looking to recruit him just because of his contacts either. I suspect, especially based on his conversation with Harry, that he's probably given a lot of people the impression he'd fit right in. You can support a racist agenda while still making exceptions for the "good" ones. I wouldn't be surprised if Slughorn had plenty of memories of conversations that might make our hair curl. This is another slightly odd thing about the series for me. That prejudice is supposed to be the central idea that defines the bad side, and yet more often than not it seems like the result is that bigotry is far more tolerated in this series than it would be in another book. Like, I can't believe Slughorn's conversation with Harry above and his class wouldn't be kind of shocking in a real world scenario. Alla: I have no doubt that Ron will turn out to be a capable leader, except he is not yet even in the beginning of HBP IMO. On Quidditch field even He goes through same insecurity issues he already went through in OOP. I am confused why JKR did it, but I certainly understand how Slugghorn has no signs of Ron leadership skills when he starts his club. I know Ron has it in him, does Slugghorn know that? Or thinking that Ron has less potential in Potions? Magpie: Slughorn doesn't see leadership skills in most he invites into the club on the train. He sees family connections. Or Ginny, who seems to be a type of cheeky pretty girl he likes, being like Lily. Ron, no, doesn't have these things, but why should that translate into any less attention than any other student in class? Alla: Teachers, Pippin, I meant real teachers, **not** DE masquerading as teachers. Sure, what Fake Mad Eye did to Neville was worse than what Snape did to Harry. I'd like to see real teacher who did anything close to what Snape did to Harry to any other student. And yeah, I know about Umbridge, but she was worse to Harry, not anybody else. Magpie: I think Pippin's point is that those people were not considered out of the ordinary, so this kind of behavior is perfectly fine for teachers at Hogwarts. And they were all teachers. They were all working as teachers and accepted as such. In fact, Crouch!Moody was a favorite teacher even after he was outed as a DE. Alla again: Although come to think of it, as far as we know, Barty Jr. has no personal connection to Neville, so what he did to him was as far as I am concerned any sick and twisted soul would do. Snape **has** personal connection to Harry. If he is feeling guilty indeed for helping disposing of Harry's parents,which I doubt, I would think he would be as humble as possible. Magpie: Barty disposed of Neville's parents. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat May 12 21:00:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 21:00:55 -0000 Subject: The link and Voldemort's Legilimency (WAS Re: Snape as Neville's ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168620 Dana wrote: if Snape has no way of knowing (which I do not believe) when > Harry went to the DoM then neither does LV. Carol responds: Are you saying that Snape somehow knew that Harry and his friends would decide to ride the Thestrals (which only showed up because of Grawp's blood and which some of the kids can't even see), followed tthem and watched them take off, and then immediately informed Voldemort that Harry had left for the MoM? (By owl, presumably, since the Floo network is closed off and the DEs don't use Patronuses to communicate?) That seems to me extremely improbable. Voldemort's mind link with Harry *is* active at this point--Harry keeps waiting for his scar to hurt more painfully, which would tell him that Sirius is dead. I think that LV must have been alert to Harry's emotions, too--for example, elation when he finally found a means of traveling to the MoM. To me it seems likely that he also sensed when Harry took the Prophecy orb off the shelf. I'm not saying that he saw through Harry's eyes, or, as you point out, he'd have known that Dumbledore had arrived. But the connection does seem to work both ways, as both Snape and Dumbledore state in your own quotes upthread, which makes it seem likely that Voldemort can feel or sense Harry's emotions as Harry can sense his. When he didn't sense pian and despair from Harry and when, as you said yourself, the DEs didn't report back, he may have come to check on what was happening--just in time to discover that the Prophecy orb had been shattered. Your idea that Snape has something to do with it has no canon support. He would certainly have mentioned it to Bellatrix in "Spinner's End" when she accuses him of "slithering out of action" if you were correct. Instead, he conceals from her that he sent the Order to rescue the kids and smoothly suggests that it's pointless to assign blame for the failure of the DE's mission. Carol, who thinks that the scar connection, which directly links Harry to Voldemort (in terms of their sensing each other's emotions), provides the obvious and logical explanation for LV's presence at the MoM From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Sat May 12 21:50:54 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 21:50:54 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire v1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168621 > Dungrollin: (huge snip) > An echo which retained Cedric's appearance and character, the way the > magnetic tape in a cassette retains a voice's rhythm, pitch and so > on, *but is not the actual person, nor their soul nor spirit*. I > think that crossing the veil and seeing Sirius *would* be different > to seeing a portrait or a priori incantatem echo, or a ghost (which > are the imprints of departed souls, but not the souls themselves). (more snipping) Shaunette: I realize this is a tiny part of the points made in Dungrollin's post, just wondering why a ghost is not considered the soul itself? I was under the impression that ghosts are the souls of those who are too afraid to "let go" and cross over to the other side, as explained by NHNick? From juleyjubes at yahoo.co.uk Sat May 12 21:11:16 2007 From: juleyjubes at yahoo.co.uk (juleyjubes) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 21:11:16 -0000 Subject: Madame Hooch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168622 Does anyone know what Madame Hooch does in between teaching first years how to fly for their first flying lesson and overseeing (refereeing?) the quidditch games? It seems to me she doesn't have a very busy job! juleyjubes From c2e7d at unb.ca Sat May 12 21:43:10 2007 From: c2e7d at unb.ca (melissa) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 18:43:10 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1179006190.464634ee393ef@webmail.unb.ca> No: HPFGUIDX 168623 Quoting phoenixgod2000 : > Is there any evidence really that Snape's methods are targetting > kids that are slipping through the cracks? Harry isn't in any danger > of that. Neville isn't a great wizard but the only class he almost > seems paralyzed in is potions. If Snape was able to modify his > style to more closely mimic Sprouts, might he be more successful > with Neville? I don't see Snape really reaching students with his > methods. Actually, isn't Herbology the only class that Neville does really well in? It's not just potions that he does badly in (though it's probably his worst). I think that in PS Neville seems to make mistakes in all of the classes (if I'm recalling right), and he blows up his cauldron on the very first day. I would take that as more of he's 'bad' at potions instead of being terrified of Snape--Snape hadn't even said a word to him by then. I see Neville as being naturally very nervous (as an aside--more likely a result of his family trying to force magic out of him, which seems more abusive than any of Snape's behaviour) and that being near Snape makes him worse. Neville doesn't make it into Newt Transfiguration, and I wouldn't say that maybe Minerva should have changed her teaching style (since she can be just as sarcastic at times to Neville, and, if Snape is considered abusive, then I'd say she'd have to called abusive at times as well). Do we really know whether it is Sprout's teaching style or just Neville's natural ability at Herbology? I'd be more inclined to say it is teaching style if Neville only did badly in Potions--but he only seems to do really well in Herbology. Actually, I'm really curious to how Neville did on his potions OWL...if he failed, then I'd say maybe it was due to the teaching style. If he passed, then I guess it could go either way. cnmnluvr From c2e7d at unb.ca Sat May 12 22:03:22 2007 From: c2e7d at unb.ca (melissa) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 19:03:22 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1179007402.464639aa1601a@webmail.unb.ca> No: HPFGUIDX 168624 Montavilla47: > I realize this is IMO and your mileage may vary, but I think Snape cares > too much, if anything. Not about his student's egos, but about whether > they learn potions--or learn enough to stay away from them if they don't > have the patience, aptitude, and precision to do them right. I agree with you here. He doesn't care about their feelings, but he does care whether they are competent or not--or perhaps a better phrasing is that he cares about competence. I guess that you can say that he was threatening his class to pass their owls because he only cared about his reputation, but, to me, I think he does get some satisfaction of knowing they all passed. I mean, of all the things to threaten someone to do, that's hardly bad--they should be aiming to pass anyway. I really see Snape as 'all bark and no bite.' And I take his speech (can't remember which book) on how he can get Neville to learn something through his thick head as *genuine*. The phrasing isn't nice (I tend to equate his use of 'dunderhead' and 'idiot' etc. with people who swear every second word--it's annoying, but it's not necessarily done purposely), but I think he truly *was* frustrated and truly *didn't* know what to do with him. To me, that's someone who wants to teach it, but can't figure out what he's doing wrong. cnmnluvr From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat May 12 22:23:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 22:23:29 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM (was: Snape as Neville's teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168625 Dana wrote: So like I said Harry would have noticed if LV was using the scar link to witness the DoM events but he doesn't do that. As far a canon supports at this moment Harry feels when LV's enters his head either by being there himself or by > planting the visions. > > JMHO > > Dana > Carol responds: I'm not sure why you think that Harry would have noticed that LV is using the scar link to witness events--or rather, using it to monitor Harry's emotions as Harry is using it to monitor whether Sirius os still alive, which seems more probable given what we know of how the scar link works. Harry's scar is aching or prickling on and off from the time of the vision until LV arrives (when, of course, the pain becomes much stronger). Before Harry uses Umbridge's fireplace, we have: "In truth, his scar was aching, but not so badly that he thought Voldemort had yet daalt Sirius a fatal blow. It had hurt much worse than this when Voldemort had been punishing Avery" (OoP Am. ed. 758)--a clue, perhaps, that the vision is planted but Voldemort is still tuned in, so to speak? When Ron, having followed HH into the forest with Neville et al., asks, "Has You-Know-who got Sirius or--" Harry feels the scar give "another painful prickle" (760), another indication that Voldemort is listening in. (Why else would it prickle at that point?) The pain seems to stop, or is at least not mentioned, from the time they begin their ride to the time that Harry tells Bellatrix that the Prophecy orb is broken, perhaps indicating that the emotions Voldemort senses (fear, confusion, anger) suggest to him that matters are going as he anticipated (though possibly they're taking a bit too long). However, the scar hurts again just at the point when he tells Bellatrix that the Prophecy orb is broken. I'll quote rather than summarizing this time: "Well, you're going to have to kill me, because it's gone,' Harry roared--and as he shouted it, pain seared across his forehead. His scar was on fire again, and he felt a surge of fury that was quite unconnected to his own rage. 'And he knows!' said Harry with a mad laugh to match Bellatrix's own. 'Your dear old mate Voldemort knows it's gone! The prophecy smashed when I was trying to get Neville up the steps! What do you think Voldemort'll say about that, then!' "His scar seared and burned . . . The pain of it was making his eyes stream" (811). At which point, she screams that he's a liar and we have the "nothing to summon passage that I quoted earlier, Bellatrix's begging voldemort not to punish her, pain "more terrible than ever," and Voldemort saying, "So you smashed my Prophecy" (812), echoing words that Harry spoke *before* Voldemort's arrival. It appears that Voldemort was monitoring the scar connection and that he not only sensed Harry's emotions but actually read his thoughts or heard his words when he said that the prophecy was gone. Note the timing of the pain in his scar as he speaks to Bellatrix--it "sears across his forehead" immediately after he says that the Prophecy is gone--and note Harry's elated reaction, "And he know it!" And the scar sears and burns so badly that it makes his eyes stream when he tells Bellatrix that the Prophecy smashed. I'm tempted to say "sorry, but," except that I really don't want to sound insincere and condescending, which is the way those words always sound to me. So I'll just say that the canon evidence for the scar connection causing Voldemort's arrival at exactly that point appears to be incontrovertible. Carol, with a wink and a smile for Snape, who's off the hook for this one From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun May 13 00:20:19 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 00:20:19 -0000 Subject: An Interpolation on Exceeds Expectations In-Reply-To: <1179007402.464639aa1601a@webmail.unb.ca> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168626 Goddlefrood, with his slanty hat on: While it may appear that there is little left to say on the matter of Snape / Neville / Slughorn (and many may disagree ;)), I do have a slant eyed view of Exceeds Expectations as a grade to present. The literal interpretation of this grade is clear enough to me, and I propose that it is one of JKR's little jokes :-). The reason I form this view is because if someone's performance is poor and they then surprise in an examination or practical with a better understanding / technique than was thought possible then they would having exceeded expectations. In other words if someone were expected to get a Troll, but performed well enough to astonish that expectation then they would receive an EE. Why not? Goddlefrood, who says that as a personal preference he would have taken Snape's Potions course but not his DADA course nor his one on Occlumency. I'm not the best judge of these things due to my other personal preference being a not entirely favourable view of formal education. Meaning no harm, naturally :-) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun May 13 00:49:27 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 00:49:27 -0000 Subject: Madame Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168627 > juleyjubes: > Does anyone know what Madame Hooch does in between teaching first years > how to fly for their first flying lesson and overseeing (refereeing?) > the quidditch games? > zgirnius: I have wondered too. First, I have decided that probably the first years have more than one flying lesson. In that first one we saw, some students had not gotten anywhere. Harry could do it almost instinctively, Draco I imagine already knew how from doing it at home, but this was obviously not true of Neville (and certainly not of the Muggleborn students). So I would guess those classes continued, we just did not happen to get shown any more of them. But it seems that there are none in later years. I wonder whether she might also provide supervision of practices for the House teams. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun May 13 01:42:30 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:30 -0000 Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168628 "Alla: I'd like to see real teacher who did anything close to what Snape did to Harry to any other student. And yeah, I know about Umbridge, but she was worse to Harry, not anybody else. Montavilla47: She also used that quill on Lee Jordan. She banned George and Fred Quidditch--for LIFE! And confiscated their brooms. She harmed every single student in the school by refusing to teach them the tools they need to save their lives in the next year or so. *** Alla again: Although come to think of it, as far as we know, Barty Jr. has no personal connection to Neville, so what he did to him was as far as I am concerned any sick and twisted soul would do. Snape **has** personal connection to Harry. If he is feeling guilty indeed for helping disposing of Harry's parents,which I doubt, I would think he would be as humble as possible. Montavilla47: If Barty Crouch, Jr. actually *did* participate in the torture of Neville's parents, then he does have a personal connection to Neville's parents. He's partially responsible for their insanity. This isn't a direct response to anything, but I think we're overlooking something about that first D.A.D.A. lesson. Harry is also traumatized when Fake!Moody (or Croody, as I call him), casts the AK. He's less traumatized than Neville--perhaps because he's been dealing with reliving that moment for a year now--but he does have a horrified reaction, similar to Neville's, when he sees the spider die. It's more funny than anything else, but Harry seems to feel quite victimized by Gilderoy Lockhart, who insists on embarrassing him by giving him tips about his junior celebrity status. Lockhart also sends him to the hospital for hours of pain treatment, which Snape never did. Montavilla47 From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun May 13 02:14:59 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 02:14:59 -0000 Subject: On Moral Compasses/Slughorn & favoritism In-Reply-To: <00d801c794d6$75b225b0$7178400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168629 > Magpie: > Yeah, I thought Hermione's reaction to the Slug Club was kind of wonderfully > repulsive, especially knowing Slughorn. And one of those places where I > thought maybe Rowling was being true to the character and showing a weakness > without giving any authorial judgment in the text as she might have if it > were, say, Blaise. Certainly she has Harry and Ginny both reject what > Slughorn is offering. That could on the one hand just show that they're in > sync in their beliefs that way (though Harry as the Chosen One naturally > would see the Slug Club as small potatoes and Ginny is so effortlessly > superior in all ways that she could easily dismiss it too). > It's ironic, actually, because Ron himself has always been so completely > associated with not having this kind of blood prejudice despite being in a > Pureblood family--(his family doesn't show up on Slughorn's radar despite > being Pure). He's the one who explains how "most of us" know that this stuff > is rubbish, and there's something kind of interesting about Hermione's > reaction to the club. Hermione has always had a very different relationship > to praise than Ron, obviously. Sometimes this leads to bad behavior from > Ron, but other times Ron's instincts are better. Montavilla47: I wondered if the Slug Club wasn't even more of a factor in Ron and Hermione's relationship problems than is obvious. The obvious thing is that Ron is jealous that Hermione is invited and he isn't. But I could imagine there being more to it than simple envy. I seem to remember a moment between Ginny and Ron's fight and Ron's glomming onto Lavender (and vice versa) when Ron is looking at Lavender appraisingly. Going out on a limb, I think Ron might have been wondering whether Hermione was simply out of his league--romantically speaking. Her life is on an upward trajectory--and his is not. Slughorn couldn't make that clearer if he painted a big LOSER sign on Ron's forehead. So, maybe Ron isn't appraising Lavender's physical assets in that moment. Maybe he's thinking: why take the risk of losing a friend who is posed to leave you behind socially anyway? Why not pick the girl who is obviously attracted and not so demanding in either academic or social standards? Maybe it's time to stop going for the top prize and settle for something easier? Montavilla47 From miamibarb at comcast.net Sun May 13 02:46:24 2007 From: miamibarb at comcast.net (ivogun) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 02:46:24 -0000 Subject: Draco and his Hawthorn Wand (Long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168630 Rowling in a new FAQ writes "Interestingly (to me) I decided that Draco had a hawthorn wand Spooky, but for various reasons hawthorn seems to suit Draco as holly suits Harry." Why hawthorn? I did a little research. Probably something obvious to British readers (but not to me), is that hawthorn is used in hedgerows. And hedgerows were not originally meant as a picturesque hedge, but rather they were erected as a (often thorny) barrier to keep locals off the land of wealthy landowners. The Enclosures Acts in the nineteenth century allowed landowners to enclose land, preventing locals from entering lands that previously had been open to them. http://www.gardenguides.com/plants/info/herbs/hawthorne.asp Hmm yes hawthorn suits Draco. It's just the material for wand for a pureblood wizard who wishes to keep the muggleborn out of Hogwarts and the wizard world. I think though that this is the obvious answer, but what are the other reasons? Hawthorn has *a lot* mythology associated with it. Sometimes the ideas are contradictory. I am wondering what tidbit might apply to Draco. I think something does, so I pulled some possible associations from the following two sites: http://www.paghat.com/hawthornmyths.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crataegus (My notes are in parenthesis.) In Celtic mythology, hawthorn is one of the Three Sacred Trees, along with Oak & Ash (Would a wand from a sacred wood have special properties useful to Draco?) Keeping a hawthorn thorn while fishing will guarantee a good catch. (Will Draco's wand catch something important in the next book?) Hawthorn was sacred to Hymenaeus, the Greek god of the marriage chamber. He was the son of Apollo & a Muse; or in other accounts, he is the son of Dionysius and Aphrodite; or in even other accounts he is the son of a Naiad. (Could any of this possibly apply to Draco's parents?) In a myth Zeus became so jealous of Hymenaeus that he killed him, but Dionysius resurrected him with a tonic. (Draco's death? Or faked death?) Another myth has it that Hymeanaeus was hatched from an egg laid by the Naiads (Does Draco have a connection to the merpeople? (Slytherins do have an affinity with water. In GoF, Harry's second task involved an egg and the merpeople.) The Naiads had swans as steeds. (Perhaps a little farfetched but could Cho with her swan patronus become friends with Draco?) Hymenaeus is associated wars that began over matters of desire. He bore a "hawthorne- hafted" weapon into battle. (Will Draco's wand become an important weapon?) Hawthorn boughs were used for luck & for protection in Greek And Roman households. It became symbolic of hope in the Christian era. A hawthorn sprig in the rafters of a home helped to keep bogarts, ghosts, & evil spirits at bay. (Interesting properties for a wand.) In German legend the smoke from hawthorn boughs bore souls into the afterlife. (Any connection with this legend sounds a little scary.) On the witches' holiday of Beltane (May Day), witches were supposed to be able turn themselves into Hawthorns. The greatest of all goddess-witches, Nimue, had her great victory over Merlin when she snared him eternally in the thorny branches of a hawthorn. (Another scary plot.) Due to its association with the death of Jesus & with witchcraft, it was also commonly believed that if a hawthorn were hurt, there would be bad luck or death within the family. (Wouldn't be good for the Malfoys.) In medieval England the tree was believed to be a dwelling place for the Fair Folk, who could cause good or bad luck. If their hawthorn were cut down, this person's life would be forfeit. (Also not good for Draco) In Celtic legends, hawthorn was used commonly for rune inscriptions along with Yew and Apple. It was once said to heal the broken heart. (Voldemort's wand was Yew. And runes hmm) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun May 13 05:15:02 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 01:15:02 EDT Subject: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as teacher Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168631 Posted by: "Magpie" _belviso at attglobal.net _ (mailto:belviso at attglobal.net?Subject= Re:%20Slughorn%20favoritism/%20Snape%20as%20Neville's%20teacher%20%20LONG) _sistermagpie _ (http://profiles.yahoo.com/sistermagpie) Thu May 10, 2007 5:37 pm (PST) > Alla: > > I do not see him treating his non club students as nothings, I guess. > Giving them less attention for sure, but nothings? I do not see it. Magpie: I do. Maybe I wouldn't say he treats them like "nothing," but his snub of Belby in the first chapter is pretty impressive. Anyone in the class can see there are the students who matter and the students who don't. I would find that class very discouraging, so would that make it Slughorn's fault if I didn't become a Healer because of it? He would have ruined my enjoyment of the subject. > > Alla: > > I must clarify. I absolutely believe Snape is ruining careers by > grading unfairly ( potion breaking scene for once), but in a sense of > turning people away from the subject, detesting Potions maybe, staff > like that. Magpie: That's certainly a wrong thing for Snape to do and an instance of grading unfairly in that class, and while I don't defend it I don't think it has that big of an influence on Harry's grade. (Which again, doesn't make it okay, but that incident doesn't seem to have effected Harry's future career one way or another so far.) As for turning kids' away from Potions, I can't hold up Snape to a super high ideal that no other teacher is held up to. Just as, even though I wouldn't like him as a teacher, I'm not going to blame Hagrid for turning students off of a career in Magical Creatures. Life is a series of accidents and influences. All our lives might have been different if we'd had slightly different experiences with teachers or with school, but in the end our life is our own. Maybe Harry would have been a brilliant historian if Binns hadn't been so boring, and he seems to have a better grasp on Potions than he does on History of Magic. Harry isn't turned on by any of his classes except DADA. Hogwarts is full of flawed teachers, like the real world, and they're all having effects on the students we probably can't even imagine. Magpie: So Snape is doing wrong by not making the students personally passionate about the subject, and he's ruining their careers by not creating a classroom situation every student likes best, but it's fine for Slughorn to blatantly mark out certain kids as the ones worth encouraging and the ones who aren't--that couldn't possibly make a difference in the way they respond to a subject too? Magpie: Because his "club" is not just a school club. It's a network for the professional world based on croneyism. Exactly the way Lucius Malfoy thinks the world should work, if he might have made a few different choices in his members. I don't want to sound like I'm comparing Snape to Slughorn except in limited ways, because they're apples and oranges. I think it's wrong of Snape to personally pick on Harry--it's unprofessional as well. I also don't think he's good for Neville--though I think he's a lot like many other people Neville deals with. Remember this is the kid whose family throws him off piers because he's incompetent. But I think Slughorn also stands for some unacceptable things for a teacher. Snape may do longterm damage to kids like Neville (though I don't think he's damaged Neville) personally that they would need to deal with. But Slughorn's croneyism seems to be just as serious to me in its own way. : Nikkalmati Snape is a good teacher. It is canon. His students learn and they do well on standardized tests. That's it. No, he does not treat Neville and the Trio well; yes, he seems to exempt his Slytherins from his sarcastic comments, but he does teach. Should he inspire his students? That seems a pretty high standard - to expect all students to be "inspired." Isn't the student supposed to bring something to the table? Is learning being confused with entertainment? We have no canon evidence that Snape grades unfairly. Anyone who reads this list regularly knows that whether Snape broke Harry's potion is disputed. It is not described in the book. (Yes, it was nasty for Snape to snarl at Harry and tell him he would get a zero, but if you don't turn in your assignment how can the teacher grade it?) Harry himself seemed to think it would be no problem to rebottle his potion and turn it in; how was Snape supposed to know Hermione would already have disposed of it? Binns is my candidate for the worst teacher, but maybe that's because I like history. :>) Slughorn is far worse than Snape. Umbridge at least allows the students to read the (presumably up to date) text and they can learn something. Slughorn assigns a 40-year-old text which is out of date and just plain wrong. The students can't even learn the subject matter on their own using that text. He certainly graded unfairly when he gave Harry top marks for the Bezeor incident. Can you really grade for cheek? Slughorn (BTW I do like him as a character and assume he is DDMSlughorn) is also far worse than Snape in the influence department. Snape may not allow those with less than O to take Advanced Potions and may turn off some students, but Slughorn actively brings together select students who are supposed to advance each other and keep others down long after they leave school. We are told this is one reason Arthur has not done as well as he should at the MOM - he was not a Sluggie. DD even wars Harry about this characteristic of Slughorn's and uses it to his own advantage - to recruit him as the Potions Master. The smaller the society, the worse effect this kind or cronyism has. Some students may realize pretty quickly they don't even have a chance at a good career if they are not one of his chosen ones. However, I also don't see Slughorn as having a particular pureblood bias. Draco is a pureblood; Ron is a pureblood. He doesn't like either one. He does advance Lily and Hermione, despite being Muggleborn. And his surprise that Lily was so talented? It probably is pretty rare for a Muggleborn. After all, most Muggles have no magical talent whatsoever. A truly outstanding Muggleborn is probably even more rare. Nikkalmati (who would be pretty astonished if someone said their Appaloosa had been invited to participate in the Washington D.C. International Horse Show as a jumper!). ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gypseelynn at yahoo.com Sun May 13 05:39:27 2007 From: gypseelynn at yahoo.com (Rebecca Sylvester) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 22:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: "Stupid" question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <378937.95154.qm@web32912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168632 ok, i know this is a dumb question but it's driving me crazy and I can't find the answer...what does ESE mean?? I see it all the time and I can't figure it out...there are a couple others that confuse me but this is the first I can think of off hand. Thanks :) Beckah --------------------------------- It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Sun May 13 05:49:27 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 05:49:27 -0000 Subject: "Stupid" question In-Reply-To: <378937.95154.qm@web32912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168633 Beckah wrote: > ok, i know this is a dumb question but it's driving me crazy and I can't find the answer...what does ESE mean?? I see it all the time and I can't figure it out...there are a couple others that confuse me but this is the first I can think of off hand. Thanks :) > colebiancardi: ESE = Ever So Evil DDM = Dumbledore's Man OFH = Out For Himself most of these are used for Snape :) if you click on Files(on the left hand side, under Messages, then in there, click on Admin_Files and then select HPfGU_Abbreviations.txt, you can see all of the current abbreviations here. hope this helped!! From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun May 13 06:25:53 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 06:25:53 -0000 Subject: On Moral Compasses/Slughorn & favoritism In-Reply-To: <00d801c794d6$75b225b0$7178400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168634 Magpie: > The type of Pureblood elitism Slughorn has fits with his hiding > from the DEs, I think. He's supporting their agenda, but doesn't > want to face that, so he just hides. Jen: Slughorn is important in the story as Dumbledore's ally and for holding the key to Voldemort's defeat. Regardless of his moral compass or his social agenda, he's refusing to join Voldemort in the only way a man who isn't brave is capable of doing--by hiding. He's not a Peter who allows himself to be drawn in and then tries to rationalize his behavior later, or a Bagman who passes information and claims truthfully or not that he didn't know what he was doing. No, Slughorn's a person actively attempting to avoid joining up in the first place. Magpie: > And I don't think they'd be looking to recruit him just because of > his contacts either. I suspect, especially based on his > conversation with Harry, that he's probably given a lot of people > the impression he'd fit right in. You can support a racist agenda > while still making exceptions for the "good" ones. I wouldn't be > surprised if Slughorn had plenty of memories of conversations that > might make our hair curl. Jen: And yet Slughorn's going out of his way to avoid association with DEs throughout HBP, first by hiding and later by avoiding DE children. He makes a dangerous choice to openly side with Dumbledore when he takes the job at Hogwarts, and then his final act of defiance- -the guy is getting braver as he goes along--is to give Harry the real memory and seal his own fate (imo). There's a reason given for why he might be recruited when Dumbledore said Slughorn was talented and could be useful to the other side. And when asked by Dumbledore if the DEs had come calling, Slughorn replied: "I haven't given them the chance." I understood those explanations as ones to take at face value. One main purpose for Slughorn in the story seems to be his value to Harry as an ally who looks very different from those people Harry would deem noble enough to be on his side. Problems with the moral compass are fine in Dumbledore's eyes as long as a person is opposing Voldemort. Jen From tifflblack at earthlink.net Sun May 13 07:04:20 2007 From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (tiffany black) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 00:04:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Stupid" question In-Reply-To: <378937.95154.qm@web32912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <012301c7952c$ee6785d0$6401a8c0@TIFFANY> No: HPFGUIDX 168635 Beckah:: ok, i know this is a dumb question but it's driving me crazy and I can't find the answer...what does ESE mean?? I see it all the time and I can't figure it out...there are a couple others that confuse me but this is the first I can think of off hand. Thanks :) Tiffany: Ese means ever so evil. Tiffany --------------------------------- It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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 ida3 at planet.nl Sun May 13 08:58:32 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:58:32 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM (was: Snape as Neville's teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168636 Carol responds: > I'm not sure why you think that Harry would have noticed that LV is > using the scar link to witness events--or rather, using it to > monitor Harry's emotions as Harry is using it to monitor whether > Sirius os still alive, which seems more probable given what we know > of how the scar link works. Harry's scar is aching or prickling on > and off from the time of the vision until LV arrives (when, of > course, the pain becomes much stronger). > > Before Harry uses Umbridge's fireplace, we have: "In truth, his scar > was aching, but not so badly that he thought Voldemort had yet daalt > Sirius a fatal blow. It had hurt much worse than this when Voldemort > had been punishing Avery" (OoP Am. ed. 758)--a clue, perhaps, that > the vision is planted but Voldemort is still tuned in, so to speak? > > When Ron, having followed HH into the forest with Neville et al., > asks, "Has You-Know-who got Sirius or--" Harry feels the scar give > "another painful prickle" (760), another indication that Voldemort > is listening in. (Why else would it prickle at that point?) Dana: The link between LV and Harry is through Harry's scar so to me it is a little much to assume that LV can sense more about Harry then Harry can about LV and we know that Harry can only sense LV's very strong emotions and not monitor his day to day activity by it. There is also another slight problem. LV has never been able to sense Harry emotions before and the link itself hasn't changed. LV hasn't come to realize the link is there because he felt Harry's strong emotions but because he sensed Harry presents. There is actually no canon that supports that suddenly LV could sense Harry's emotions let alone monitor it. And I think he can't. DD says LV can *access* Harry's feelings and thought but this doesn't have to mean that LV doesn't have to actively come in to access them? I do not believe Harry suddenly turned into a transmitter just because LV realizes that there is a link through the scar and if Harry is only a receiver that can sometimes fine tune into receiving LV's present time moments, then LV realizing that Harry can sense him is nothing more then LV sensing the presence of that receiver like an antenna that can sometimes interfere with other electric devices. There is no reason to think Harry suddenly turned into a transmitter that can be monitored because if he was transmitting his feelings then he had always done so but the connection between LV and Harry is through Harry's scar and to me there is no canon supporting that there was or always had been something on LV's side that just needed realization to be switched on and is now playing every tune Harry is sending out. DD did not say he was always afraid that Harry's emotions would one day make LV realize the connection is there and that he would become privy to every single emotion or thought Harry is having. He specifically states that LV could access Harry's thoughts and feelings and manipulate and misdirect them. LV can possess other creatures and people by placing his own awareness into them, which means that he could actively use the link to transmit his own conscious through it and because he send his own awareness with it he could actively experience Harry's surroundings but this still does not mean LV can other wise receive emotions and thoughts Harry is having and there is no canon indication that he can do more than make Harry receive things he wants Harry to receive and is able to somewhat like posses Harry through the link and I believe he can't do more then that and this is why. pg 693 UKed paperback 'Dumbledore never told you?' Malfoy repeated. 'Well, this explains why you didn't come earlier, Potter, the Dark Lord wondered why - ' '- you didn't come running when he showed you the place where it was hidden in your dreams. He thought natural curiosity would make you want to hear the exact wording...' End quote canon. If LV could monitor Harry to such extend that he can receive Harry's emotions without actively being present in Harry's mind then why did LV not know that Harry didn't know what was hidden in the DoM and or wonder why Harry's curiosity was not evoked by it. Because actually Harry's curiosity was evoked so much so that he didn't want the dreams to stop. When Harry has the dream about Rookwood, Harry tells Ron about it while the scar is still hurting and if LV was able to "listen in" then he would know that Harry was not thinking about anything else but his dreams and he would also know that Harry did not know what was hidden there because the emotions Harry was sending out would make it pretty clear he didn't. The Occlumency lessons also cause Harry's scar to hurt often but according to Lucius, LV had to wonder about Harry's feelings and thoughts about why he isn't doing what LV expected him to do and this makes the assumption that he was able to monitor what Harry was feeling and doing after he implanted the vision of Sirius invalide. Another point is if LV was still `listening in' then we are missing scar pricklings on several occasions that Harry is having strong emotions about Sirius, like for instance the moment he realizes Snape is the only Order Member left and him trying to warn him and his feeling of desperation that Snape might not have understood or one moment he is still on his way and wondering if they might be to late, on both occasions there is no scar pain mentioned while these were very deep emotions Harry was having. The scar prickles precisely two times after Harry checks in with Sirius through the fireplace. The first time is with what you stated above before Harry finds a way to go to the DoM. I do not see the prickling of the scar as listening in but just something LV sent out as reinforcement and because it is before Harry had found a way to go to the Dom, there is no indication LV would be able to know Harry is actually coming if this was a time that LV would be listening in. The Thestrals hadn't shown up yet. So it actually would have told LV nothing. The second time Harry scar hurts is when he is outside the MoM and which seems to be at the same interval the first reinforcement was sent and then it stops. Harry has no strong feelings at this moment he is just slightly angry that the lift is not going faster. Another problem I have with thinking LV would know precisely where Harry is by monitoring his emotions is that it assumes LV would know what each and every emotion means and what type of action it is connected too or even that Harry's emotions would reflect his whereabouts, and so even if he could sense Harry's emotions then this would be different from what we see with how Harry experiences LV's emotions. Harry does not know why LV is happy or angry (with Avery he guessed it was Avery getting punished because he just witnessed LV telling Rookwood to send in Avery). He even wonders where LV is the entire summer and he can't make conclusions based on his feelins on what LV is doing and why he is watching the news. To really know where Harry is LV would have needed to come take a look but he doesn't. Harry could very well be desperate or angry because he did not find a way to get to the DoM. And the other problem is that LV would not know if Harry took the bait with Kreacher and not go to Sirius hide out instead. So why does it take LV so long to check in with Harry again? Because like stated above he would not even know that Harry is on his way and Harry never has a strong emotion of enlightenment about finding a way because he is arguing with his friends about who is to come and who isn't. There hasn't been any "listening in" in-between these two times so LV would not have gotten any conformation that Harry actually arrived where he wanted him to be because he wouldn't know when Harry actually left and again if he actually could monitoring Harry in this way then why did he needed to be told about Harry's link to Sirius, Why doesn't he know Harry doesn't know what is hidden at the DoM, why doesn't he know precisely what is going on at the DoM and why isn't Snape dead for sending the Order while Harry had such a strong emotion realizing Snape was the only Order Member left and him trying to warn him, because I do not believe LV could sense Harry's emotions when he is not actively transmitting his own conscious through the link and we have seen that Harry feels a dormant snake-like creature rise inside him when he does and there is actually no canon supporting LV can sense Harry's emotions at all from an outside view, the above quote actually tell us the contrary. If you look at the two times Harry feels LV inside of him and conclude this must be LV sensing DD is near then why did this not happen during the DoM raid? Because I think it wasn't Harry's emotions or listening in that evoked LV to come take a look. The first time he comes in after he realized that Harry witnessed the biting incident and the second time I believe is that he is notified by Lucius that Fudge was going to get Harry Potter expelled from Hogwarts and LV checking in at that moment to see what the status of things were. Fudge had come specifically to Hogwarts for this on Umbridge notice that she could get Harry expelled. And you might think how would Lucius know this? The same way Fudge is going to tell Lucius about Draco's help. Pg 538 UKed paperback `The Malfoy boy cornered him.' `Did he, did he?' said Fudge appreciately. `I must remember to tell Lucius.' End quote canon. It wasn't a coincidence that Harry felt LV rise inside him at that moment and it weren't Harry's emotions that evoked the visit. And to me LV's actions during the DoM ordeal doesn't seem to indicate he precisely knows what is happening or else he would have shown up sooner. So to me this still could mean LV got conformation through Snape that Harry indeed was on his way to the DoM and why the reinforcements stopped. It is just my opinion of course but I do not see evidence the scar link would give LV such a wide ranged view of Harry's actions while we have never witnessed Harry being able to do the same with LV or even that LV could ever pick up on Harry's emotions at all. But more about that below. Carol responds: > The pain seems to stop, or is at least not mentioned, from the time > they begin their ride to the time that Harry tells Bellatrix that > the Prophecy orb is broken, perhaps indicating that the emotions > Voldemort senses (fear, confusion, anger) suggest to him that > matters are going as he anticipated (though possibly they're taking > a bit too long). However, the scar hurts again just at the point > when he tells Bellatrix that the Prophecy orb is broken. I'll quote > rather than summarizing this time: > > "Well, you're going to have to kill me, because it's gone,' Harry > roared--and as he shouted it, pain seared across his forehead. His > scar was on fire again, and he felt a surge of fury that was quite > unconnected to his own rage. 'And he knows!' said Harry with a mad > laugh to match Bellatrix's own. 'Your dear old mate Voldemort knows > it's gone! The prophecy smashed when I was trying to get > Neville up the steps! What do you think Voldemort'll say about that, > then!' > > "His scar seared and burned . . . The pain of it was making his eyes > stream" (811). > > At which point, she screams that he's a liar and we have the "nothing to summon passage that I quoted earlier, Bellatrix's begging voldemort not to punish her, pain "more terrible than ever," and Voldemort saying, "So you smashed my Prophecy" (812), echoing words that Harry spoke *before* Voldemort's arrival. > > It appears that Voldemort was monitoring the scar connection and > that he not only sensed Harry's emotions but actually read his > thoughts or heard his words when he said that the prophecy was > gone. Note the timing of the pain in his scar as he speaks to > Bellatrix--it "sears across his forehead" immediately after he says > that the Prophecy is gone--and note Harry's elated reaction, "And > he know it!" And the scar sears and burns so badly that it makes > his eyes stream when he tells Bellatrix that the Prophecy smashed. Dana: To me this passage points out the precise moment LV enters the DoM. When Harry roared to Bella that the prophecy is lost, Harry feels a fury *unconnected* to his own rage and his scare begins to hurt. (the word "unconnected" indicates to me this is not a personal visit Harry is experiencing but a feeling Harry is picking up from LV). This is the moment LV sees and hears that is everything is lost and that he is too late to do anything about it. Harry knows this fury is connected to the prophecy being lost while this fury was not evoked the moment the prophecy broke. Harry did not have a strong emotion about it because it did not matter to him one way or the other. So LV could not have sensed a strong emotion about the prophecy being lost and why Harry did not sense LV getting infuriated about it then. LV's fury comes from him hearing Harry tell Bella it is lost and to me it is a lot to assume that it would take LV just a minute to appear at the DoM after he hears Harry tell this to Bella (if he was using the link to pay Harry a visit) because if that is all it takes for him to arrive at the DoM then it would have been faster for him to swoop in, take the prophecy from the shelve, and swoop out and not go to months of planning to have Harry take it. Therefore I believe LV heard Harry tell Bella not from Harry's head but with his own ears as he'd just arrived. Harry would not have seen him come in because he was hiding behind the statue of the Goblin and we see by his reaction to Bella that LV is coming from her direction because she sees him first and then Harry states LV can't hear her. We never see Harry express that he feels LV is inside him like we have seen when LV does that, but the scar is hurting in the same way we have seen when LV is physically near Harry and Harry not realising it because his scar has been hurting throughout the year. Also if LV goes by the emotions Harry has then the strongest emotions he had were the loss of Sirius and his rage for Bella killing him and both emotions would be something LV would be expecting and would not arouse the suspicion that things are not going well. We do not witness LV's anger when DD is rounding up his DEs and from LV's reaction of surprise he doesn't know DD is downstairs even if he could have known by listening to Bella but he ignores her. So to me the possibility of Snape informing LV, he notified the Order and the DEs not having reported back in, is in my opinion the reason LV came to the DoM and only when he arrives there, does he find out that nothing can be saved because the prophecy is lost and when DD shows up the only thing he is left to do is fight him and make another attempt on Harry's life because he knows he can't win from DD and save any of his DEs besides Bella and if he had know all of that before he entered the DoM then he wouldn't have come and expose himself because now he lost his advantage with that action too and as we see he won nothing by coming there. And maybe it is just my opinion but LV is not that stupid, so to me something entirely outside of Harry's POV brought LV to the DoM and my theory still stands until proven otherwise by DH (or canon I overlooked which does not include the above) Carol: > I'm tempted to say "sorry, but," except that I really don't want to > sound insincere and condescending, which is the way those words always > sound to me. So I'll just say that the canon evidence for the scar > connection causing Voldemort's arrival at exactly that point appears > to be incontrovertible. Dana: You can say sorry, I do not mind I am used to the way you reply to my posts and fortunately canon does not contradict my claim and LV's actions still do not support him monitoring the scar link all through the events because his fury would have been noticed by Harry sooner and he would have arrived sooner and he would have known DD was there and he would have known the prophecy was lost and he would have known he would not be able to achieve anything by showing up there and as we see everybody arrives through the atrium as they can't apperate directly into the DoM so it is not that LV knew he would find Harry there at that moment. Emotions do not have a GPS system attached to them so even if LV would be able to sense Harry's emotions at all which I do not believe he can then he would not specifically know what means what from these emotions and I haven't seen anything in canon that indicates LV was inside Harry's head at any moment, all these events took place. JMHO Dana From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun May 13 11:04:23 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:04:23 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire v1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168637 > zgirnius: > The instance I was most thinking of, actually, was Harry being helped by the shades of James and Lily, who come out of Voldemort's wand as a consequence of the Priori Incantatem effect in GoF. Personally, to me this felt like a bit more than an old video or voice recording or photo. They came, suggested a course of action, and took actions of their own which helped Harry to escape. There was also a component of poetic justice in the scene, as the shades helping Harry and hindering Voldemort were all those of Voldemort's victims (Frank Bryce, certainly not a loved one of Harry, was the first out). > > > Dungrollin: > > I dunno. I'm probably rationalising. I can't shake the feeling that she'd be undermining herself by allowing Harry to see Sirius again before he dies. > > zgirnius: > I just want to be perfectly clear here. I understand you are > expressing a personal preference, about how you would feel/react to a > particular plot twist and why, and I am not trying to change your > mind. I simply find this discussion interesting, which is why I am > keeping on. :) Dungrollin: Yeah, I appreciate that. It's quite interesting for me to try to work out why I don't like the idea, and I don't think my reasons are good enough for me to say that I don't believe it will happen. Zgirnius: > That quote about the Mirror of Erised in PS/SS did not prevent her > from bringing Harry's parents back again, to help him, in GoF. While > Sirius's immediate killer was his cousin Bellatrix, surely he was a > victim of Voldemort too. Dungrollin: As I said in my response to Hickengruendler (msg 168601) I think that she's made a distinction between the PI shades and the actual soul which has passed on. Dumbledore describes them as echos, and I do think that crossing the veil and encountering the bit of Sirius that would *not* be preserved in paintings/photos/ghosts etc would be different. I'm quite possibly making a false distinction here, or at least, overplaying one that JKR has only really hinted at. But see that post for a better explanation. Zgirnius: > I guess my view is that in real life, people hold assorted beliefs > about the afterlife and what happens to the departed after death. > But, intending no disrespect to anyone's religious views, these > beliefs are held as a matter of faith - the believers can't point to > obvious, well-known phenomena that suggest (for example) some > continuation of the consciousness after death. Dungrollin: Yep, I'm trying very hard to think in Potterverse terms and not bring my own prejudices into it. Zgirnius: > In the wizarding world we have ghosts, we have the rare phenomenon in GoF (which, however, Dumbledore was certainly familiar with), and we have the Veil (Luna seems to know exactly what the voices she hears are). The dead cannot come back, but it seems to me a bit more is known about their final disposition, and in particular, the views I personally hold on the matter (death is the end of our consciousness, nothing lives on except our children, the works we leave behind, and the memories the living have of us) are rather contradicted by facts I could observe, were I a witch. Dungrollin: I agree, both with your views on death in the Potterverse and in RL. But I've always had the impression that JKR was leaving what really comes after death as a mystery (the bit after "going on". When Harry asks NHN "What happens when you die, anyway?", Nick says that he can't answer. "I know nothing of the secrets of death, Harry, for I chose my feeble imitation of life instead. I believe learned wizards study the matter in the Department of Mysteries ?" (OotP ch38 UK p759). Dumbledore famously regards death as "The next great adventure." I suspect that the WW may know a little about what happens immediately after you die, but I doubt that they know anything about what happens after the ghosts have been sorted from those who will go on to that next great adventure. But that's just my impression. Zgirnius: > The possibility that Harry might once again see his loved ones, > including Sirius, under some rare, special, and highly magical > circumstances, would not seem to me a late and novel addition to what > we have already seen. I would imagine that, were there to be such a > scene in DH, it would be short and poignant. For example, there might > be a time limit before Harry and/or Sirius would have to return to > their proper places. Or the reunion could only be for a specific > purpose, so they could not really take the time to enjoy one > another's presence instead of the task at hand, or some such. Yeah. Could be. Switching to a broader brush for a moment, what would be the actual point of making Harry and Sirius meet? Purely for plot- related reasons, i.e. Harry needs a hand from someone on the other side? Or would it have to be specifically Sirius? Do they have unfinished business that needs taking care of? Or would we be looking for the emotional impact that the meeting would have on Harry? But if this is already the grand finale, and the reunion must be short and poignant, is there enough time for the emotional impact on Harry to make a difference to anything? I'm certain I'm not expressing myself well; it just - given that quote upthread - smells slightly of self-indulgence to me. I do appreciate that other readers might find it incredibly moving, and I'm not even sure that I wouldn't when it came to it. Zgirnius: > I think the inclusion of ghosts, etc. in the story is a reflection of > Rowling's own beliefs (influenced by her Christianity, no doubt, > though I would not care to comment on their orthodoxy within any > particular sect, being myself no expert). I don't think she believes > in ghosts, just some form of an afterlife. However, by having these > more tangible proofs of an afterlife in her world, she can show what > she sees as the proper attitude towards death within a context in > which her assumptions about it are factual. > In the end, Harry may > have seen some/all of his departed loved ones again, but (supposing > he is not, himself, dead) he will have to go back to his life with > some fond memories and the assurance (which in Real Life would be > faith-based) that at the proper time, when his moment comes, he will > be rejoining them. Dungrollin: I think you've put your finger on it here. We don't get such solid reassurances in real life, we have to make do without them, no matter how much we would want to believe we'll be reunited with our antecedents. A fictional reassurance from a novel is no good for the reader. If she really wants to make a point about death, about our reactions to death and ways of dealing with death (both our own, and those of friends and family) I think she has to keep some semblance of reality within the magical weave. It may be that she believes she's already made the point that I'm going on about with the Mirror of Erised, and any potential journey to the underworld will be for making an entirely different point. Shaunette: I realize this is a tiny part of the points made in Dungrollin's post, just wondering why a ghost is not considered the soul itself? I was under the impression that ghosts are the souls of those who are too afraid to "let go" and cross over to the other side, as explained by NHNick? Dungrollin: Yeah, I thought they ought to be the actual souls themselves until I read OotP. NHN says that "Wizards can leave an imprint of themselves upon the earth, to walk palely where their living selves once trod." (OotP, ch 38, UK p758). Snape also says " A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth " (HBP ch21 UK p431). The implication being that the imprint which is left behind is a pale copy of the real them. Nick also says " in fact, *I* am neither here nor there [ ] I know nothing of the secrets of death, Harry, for I chose my feeble imitation of life instead." So a ghost's soul has not "gone on" to where all the others go, but neither is it still around in this world. At least, that's my interpretation. Dung Not at all sure that she's making sense. From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun May 13 12:53:24 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:53:24 -0400 Subject: Ron and the Slug Club (WAS: On Moral Compasses/Slughorn & favoritism Message-ID: <80f25c3a0705130553i117cf69an8199d9628e7267ca@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168638 Montavilla47: I wondered if the Slug Club wasn't even more of a factor in Ron and Hermione's relationship problems than is obvious. [snip] Going out on a limb, I think Ron might have been wondering whether Hermione was simply out of his league--romantically speaking. Her life is on an upward trajectory--and his is not. Slughorn couldn't make that clearer if he painted a big LOSER sign on Ron's forehead. So, maybe Ron isn't appraising Lavender's physical assets in that moment. Maybe he's thinking: why take the risk of losing a friend who is posed to leave you behind socially anyway? Why not pick the girl who is obviously attracted and not so demanding in either academic or social standards? Maybe it's time to stop going for the top prize and settle for something easier? Debbie: I think you could also say that Hermione painted the LOSER sign on Ron. She questioned his selection as prefect in OOP. She decided to confound MacLaggen even before Ron had tried out for the Quidditch team because she was uncertain he could make it on his own. The whole Lavender episode was an attempt by Ron to fit into the pigeonhole that he thought Hermione was assigning to him. The Slug Club didn't help things, but I think the turning point was Hermione's reaction. Four of the six kids from the DoM were invited to the Slug Club; only Ron and Luna were left out. When Hermione tells Harry his exploits at the DoM are part of the reason why Slughorn wants to collect him, Ron is left grasping at straws -- which Hermione ignores. I doubt Ron would have cared about the Slug Club if Hermione had not seemed so eager for Slughorn's recognition. Attempting a relationship with Lavender was a valuable lesson for Ron. He's a lot smarter than he gives himself credit for (if he would only apply himself to his work) and he realizes that there's not much to a relationship with an airhead. JKR often paints Ron as an *average* teenager but the fact that he scraped as many OWLs as Harry without seemingly doing any work suggests that he's plenty smart. To be worthy of Hermione, however, I think he needs to work a bit harder than JKR makes it seem like he does. Debbie back after a long hiatus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From technomad at intergate.com Sun May 13 14:15:03 2007 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 09:15:03 -0500 Subject: Questions for the listmind Message-ID: <001701c79569$1a715c50$e3560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 168639 Rereading the books, yet again, I find myself coming up with some questions that I don't think we've covered yet. First off---if LV was so bl**dy hot to see and hear that stupid prophecy, why didn't he have Lucius Malfoy, or some other DE supporter let him in some night, possibly after Polyjuicing himself into another's form? "Oh, I just have a few friends who want to see the place, Minister, we'll drop off the keys when we're done." Up till the DoM Raid and his arrest, Lucius Malfoy had Fudge all but eating out of his hand; he could probably have spun just about any silly story and had Fudge nodding and obeying. AFAICT, Polyjuice Potion's a nearly-unbreakable disguise; Barty Crouch, Jr. managed to fool everybody into thinking he was the real Mad-Eye Moody for months and months with the stuff. So if Voldy (who, we are told, is a genius-level wizard) wanted to do something of the sort, he'd have no problem whatsoever. Second---if Dumbledore knew that LV was panting to get his stupid hands on that stupid prophecy, why didn't he hide it someplace safe (like, say, a Gringott's vault in the name of somebody innocuous) and leave a fake prophecy in place, one rigged so that when Voldy tried to hear it, he'd get, instead, something like five pounds of plastic explosive going off in his face? Immortal he may be, but invulnerable he isn't, and losing his nice new body would, at least, set him back considerably. If it were me, any time I knew that LV was eager to get his hands on some particular object (the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone, the prophecy) hiding the real one and leaving a booby-trapped fake in its place---and Dumbledore's supposed to be a whole lot smarter than I am. Third---while I'm thinking about Polyjuice Potion, wouldn't it have been a hoot to use to fake out the enemy (for both sides)? Like, for instance, if I've got some samples of a prominent good guy's hair (or whatever else you can use to make Polyjuice Potion) and I'm an evil, evil DE, Polyjuicing myself and then going on a very public rampage, yelling "Death to all the enemies of Lord Voldemort, my lord and master!" would, at least, set off all sorts of trouble. Especially if I could time it so that the person I was impersonating didn't have a good alibi. The same would go for a good guy who wanted to sow some confusion among the DEs. Polyjuicing into the form of a captured DE and Apparating into their hideout, then opening up a whole case of whoop- at ss would, at least, hurt the DEs' cohesion..."we thought we could trust him! What got into him? He came in, yelled 'Death to the Dork Load Moldyshorts! Long Live our Glorious Leader and Ascended Illuminatus, Cornelius Fudge!' and started casting Unforgivable Curses like they were going out of style!" Of course, calling Cornelius Fudge a Glorious Leader and Ascended Illuminatus is kind of laying it on with a trowel, but DEs in general do not strike me as into subtlety. From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 13 14:10:48 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 15:10:48 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Moral Compasses (was:Re: Snape as Neville's teacher...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168640 > Betsy Hp: > But does Hermione show a level of unforgiving ruthlessness and > elitism to suggest that if she could have she may well have joined > the Death Eaters? I think so. > > Hermione is *all over* the Slugclub. Does it bother her that Ron > isn't included in this club? > Which suggests to me that, when > she's in the in, Hermione is perfectly comfortable with exclusions. > Hermione's > weirdly stubborn refusal to *talk* with the House Elves and get their > take on things is bothersome, IMO. Taken with her comfort in calling > Firenze a horse (a rather ugly slur as per Centaur's we have met) it > suggests a certain elitism on Hermione's part. > > And then there is Marietta. It really *really* bothers me that > Hermione is so *not* bothered by Marietta's continuing mark. There's > a callous disregard of other people *as* people being expressed here, > IMO. I honestly get the sense that Hermione sees the world as those > that are real people (a *very* small and exclusive group that I'm not > sure include her parents) and those that just do not count. > Jadon: Hagrid is another example of an otherwise nice person who is prejudiced about certain groups of people (straitlaced muggles, non- Gryffindors). In PS he insults the Dursleys _before_ finding out that they've been keeping information from Harry, and when Uncle Vernon insults DD he leaves Dudley with a pig's tail, which is every bit as bad as Marietta's pimples. In later books the Dursleys take abuse from whatever aurors/other adults turn up to collect Harry (except, I think, Arthur). Hagrid treats Draco badly just as Snape treats Harry/ Neville badly. Most of the WW looks down on muggles - I think someone was posting in an ESE!Arthur thread that even Arthur Weasley looks on them as 'pets'. Ravenclaws look down on people for not showing intelligence; Slytherins look down on people with the wrong type of bloodlines; and Gryffindors look down on people they feel are being wimpish. The one place Hermione is learning to be progressively more elitist throughout the series is at school. (Including from Hagrid when she spends so much time with him in...book 3?) In leaving behind her family and lying to them about e.g. not going skiing she is becoming _completely_ part of the WW - and perhaps she tries harder than Harry/ Ron/Draco to do that, both because she's Hermione and because she's muggle-born. She's lacking a Hufflepuff role model along with the rest of Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin, and if she's attracted to any other house, it's Ravenclaw, whose members don't exactly champion the qualities of Hufflepuff. So who's going to point out to her that she's being hypocritical and not very nice before some terrible punishment falls on her head (as predicted: http:// www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt43.shtml)? Harry spent much of HBP deliberately doing not that. How far aware of her behaviour is Hermione? Is _she_ in need of a subplot on redemption? Jadon From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun May 13 14:26:27 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 14:26:27 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco WAS: On Moral Compasses (was:Re: Snape as Neville's teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168641 > Jadon: Hagrid treats Draco badly just as Snape treats Harry/ > Neville badly. Alla: I snipped your whole post, because I only would like to ask for examples of Hagrid treating Draco **just as badly** as Snape treats Harry and Neville. My recollection is that nowhere Hagrid treats him just as badly, but I certainly can be wrong. Hagrid may not **like** him, that's for sure and I think after PoA he has a very good reason to do so, but I think it is a very good example where Hagrid does not let his personal dislike show off as blatantly as Snape does his. IMO of course. And Harry does not come to his first lesson determined not to hear what Snape has to say, like Draco comes to that famous lesson determined not to listen to that big oaf. In fact, Draco comes to school having bad opinion of Hagrid withoutr ever seeing him before. And as far as I could see determined to act upon it. Ugh, if I were Hagrid, Draco would have gotten from me nice long detention for a year for not listening to safety instructions. Right after he comes back from hospital wing that is. Maybe that would have taught him something. Forbidden Forest 365 days a year. Oh, and again before I have to go and defend Hagrid , he is really far from my favorite characters and teachers. Nice guy, but too blah for me. But I again put him much higher than Snape on decent characters list, hehe. JMO, Alla. From nirjhar.jain at gmail.com Sun May 13 13:52:07 2007 From: nirjhar.jain at gmail.com (Nirjhar Jain) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 13:52:07 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168642 Hi, I am a Harry Hermione shipper. I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling did not explore H/Hr as a ship? Hermione is Harry's equal intellectually. She stands upto him. She is not overawed by him. Ginny's personality was 'enhanced' in Books 5 and 6 so as to make H/G more palatable. I am not saying that Ginny is not a good match for Harry. I am just curious as to why Jo Rowling never seriously gave H/Hr a go in canon. I love Ron as a character. I just think he is too shallow and an intellectual light-weight compared to Hermione. Any thoughts on this would be most welcome. nirjhar.jain From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 13 14:38:30 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 15:38:30 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Questions for the listmind In-Reply-To: <001701c79569$1a715c50$e3560043@D6L2G391> References: <001701c79569$1a715c50$e3560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: <6941B175-88D2-434F-B838-C4C49AA773B1@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 168643 On 13 May 2007, at 15:15, Eric Oppen wrote: > Rereading the books, yet again, I find myself coming up with some > questions > that I don't think we've covered yet. > > First off---if LV was so bl**dy hot to see and hear that stupid > prophecy, > why didn't he have Lucius Malfoy, or some other DE supporter let > him in some > night, possibly after Polyjuicing himself into another's form? > "Oh, I just > have a few friends who want to see the place, Minister, we'll drop > off the > keys when we're done." Harry: Why couldn't he come and get it himself?" "Get it himself?" shrieked Bellatrix, over a cackle of mad laughter. The Dark Lord, walk into the Ministry of Magic, when they are so sweetly ignoring his return? The Dark Lord, reveal himself to the Aurors, when at the moment they are wasting their time on my dear cousin?" --OotP Either: Voldy trusts DD and the order to be guarding the prophecy if not the Ministry-controlled aurors (though that would necessitate him assuming that Harry was able to outwit DD to get into the DoM which would mean Voldy thinks Harry is cleverer than both himself and DD, which ... isn't his style.) Or: he likes playing with Harry (obsessive nature, collecting things, etc., etc.) - but this is the first time he has a *short* conversation with Harry before trying AK - just fortunately not short enough. That brings us to another question: _why_ is he using AK? Yes, we know Harry's not going to be able to resist it twice, but we don't know what it's going to do to Voldemort. He's the Dark Lord! Doesn't he have few alternative death spells up his sleeve? Hasn't he thought of a nice low-tech spell like sectumsempra and having the conversation afterwards? Jadon From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Sun May 13 14:52:32 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 14:52:32 -0000 Subject: Questions for the listmind In-Reply-To: <001701c79569$1a715c50$e3560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168644 "Eric Oppen" wrote: Snip of first question. --if Dumbledore knew that LV was panting to get his stupid hands on > that stupid prophecy, why didn't he hide it someplace safe Snip Anne Squires responds: I don't think DD cares if LV knows the entire prophecy. The whole DoM was a setup, imho. DD was just trying to flush LV out into the open to prove to the WW that LV had returned. I really don't think DD believes the prophecy, but I think DD believes that LV believes in it, especially after Harry's escape from the graveyard in GoF. At any rate, I think DD, through Snape, was encouraging LV's obsession about learning the whole prophecy. DD wanted LV to go to the DoM. He also wanted at lot of Ministry witnesses to this. Getting LV to be manipulated into doing this was the whole point of OotP. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun May 13 15:16:54 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:16:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM/Slughorn's favoritism/Hagrid and Draco References: Message-ID: <006401c79571$bec58fd0$5886400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168645 Dana: > So to me the possibility of Snape informing LV, he notified the Order > and the DEs not having reported back in, is in my opinion the reason > LV came to the DoM and only when he arrives there, does he find out > that nothing can be saved because the prophecy is lost and when DD > shows up the only thing he is left to do is fight him and make > another attempt on Harry's life because he knows he can't win from DD > and save any of his DEs besides Bella and if he had know all of that > before he entered the DoM then he wouldn't have come and expose > himself because now he lost his advantage with that action too and as > we see he won nothing by coming there. And maybe it is just my > opinion but LV is not that stupid, so to me something entirely > outside of Harry's POV brought LV to the DoM and my theory still > stands until proven otherwise by DH (or canon I overlooked which does > not include the above) Magpie: Cutting to the chase....why? As I think somebody else said earlier, it just seems like Snape is the more far-fetched solution here. If Snape informed LV that he sent the Order, then why doesn't LV consider Snape the reason the mission failed? Snape didn't have to send the Order at all, and he just informed LV that he ruined his plans on his own whim...so why isn't he, rather than Lucius, in trouble? This is LV's plan; why would he need Snape, who is miles away and would have no idea when Harry left or even possibly how he left, to tell him that maybe the mission has failed? And failed because he, Snape, decided to send in the Order? Nikkalmati: However, I also don't see Slughorn as having a particular pureblood bias. Draco is a pureblood; Ron is a pureblood. He doesn't like either one. He does advance Lily and Hermione, despite being Muggleborn. And his surprise that Lily was so talented? It probably is pretty rare for a Muggleborn. After all, most Muggles have no magical talent whatsoever. A truly outstanding Muggleborn is probably even more rare. Magpie: See, this is what I referred to in my other post. I'm truly surprised to see Slughorn defended this way given the way he's introduced. The man says flat-out that it's surprising that a Muggle-born is so good when we know it is canon that there's no difference in magical talent between Wizards based on blood purity. That's a bigoted myth. It's not just Hermione and Lily that counter it either--where have we seen any evidence of difference in talent if the person is Muggleborn? Not to mention, we see how Slughorn judges students anyway, so it's not like he's an objective judge of how well students usually do. He thinks Harry's doing well because he's inherited Lily's talent in his blood instead of Snape's Potions book. He's looking for reasons to like some students and less interested in others. He's already got lower expectations for some. He does dismiss Ron and Draco--Ron because his family isn't helpful and Draco because his father is a DE (had Lucius not been a DE Draco *would* have been in the Slug Club, just as Lucius was a favorite and apparently Grandpa was also a great friend). He does include Lily and Hermione. But making exceptions for the special ones doesn't change that Slughorn flat-out says that Pure-bloods are born more talented so he doesn't expect as much from Muggle-borns. He may pick and choose from among the Purebloods but that doesn't mean he's not starting out looking for kids with good Pureblood family connections. Slughorn is constantly working, as you say, to bring together this group of kids hand-picked by him and helped along, so all his personal preferences, imo, all come into play. Jen: Slughorn is important in the story as Dumbledore's ally and for holding the key to Voldemort's defeat. Regardless of his moral compass or his social agenda, he's refusing to join Voldemort in the only way a man who isn't brave is capable of doing--by hiding. He's not a Peter who allows himself to be drawn in and then tries to rationalize his behavior later, or a Bagman who passes information and claims truthfully or not that he didn't know what he was doing. No, Slughorn's a person actively attempting to avoid joining up in the first place. Magpie: Yes, I agree. He's got his own lines that he won't cross, and they're better than the lines other characters have. Alla: Ugh, if I were Hagrid, Draco would have gotten from me nice long detention for a year for not listening to safety instructions. Right after he comes back from hospital wing that is. Maybe that would have taught him something. Forbidden Forest 365 days a year. Magpie: If Hagrid did that I would hope the Slytherins in his classes would make him very sorry he did. Once everyone stopped laughing about Hagrid punishing anyone else for not paying enough attention to safety precautions. -m From carylcb at hotmail.com Sun May 13 14:37:25 2007 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (Caryl Brown) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 10:37:25 -0400 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168646 cnmnluvr: I agree with you here. He doesn't care about their feelings, but he does care whether they are competent or not--or perhaps a better phrasing is that he cares about competence. clcb58: But, what about Hermione? She's beyond capable and he treats her with almost as much, if not more, disdain as he treats Neville. From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 13 15:09:07 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:09:07 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid and Draco WAS: On Moral Compasses (was:Re: Snape as Neville's teacher...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85664D58-A7B3-450F-A5CE-681C07A69A55@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 168647 >> Jadon: > Hagrid treats Draco badly just as Snape treats Harry/ >> Neville badly. > > > > Alla: > > I snipped your whole post, because I only would like to ask for > examples of Hagrid treating Draco **just as badly** as Snape treats > Harry and Neville. Jadon: I didn't say *as badly* - but he shows a general lack of respect for Draco. A pre-PoA example is the detention in the Forest in PS ("Harry, you go with Fang an' this idiot"). Draco provokes him by whining - specifically the sort of thing likely to annoy Hagrid - but Neville provokes Snape through incompetence and Harry by 'existing', to reverse the situation in chapter 28 of OotP. You'd think Hagrid might stick up for Draco like he sticks up for Snape (if just professionally), but he lets HRH abuse him in his presence and occasionally joins in: "Well, I don' blame yeh fer tryin' ter curse him, Ron," said Hagrid loudly over the thuds of more slugs hitting the basin. "Bu' maybe it was a good thing yer wand backfired. 'Spect Lucius Malfoy would've come marchin' up ter school if yeh'd cursed his son. Least yer not in trouble." --CoS Here Hagrid doesn't care at all what happens to Draco and is dismissive of Lucius Malfoy - the only thing that matter's is that Ron's not in trouble. > Alla: > Draco comes to that famous lesson > determined not to listen to that big oaf Jadon: Draco makes himself difficult to defend because he goes out of his way to annoy people. But might not the Harry-filter have something to do with it? So that when Hagrid is mean to a Slytherin Harry dislikes, Harry sides with Hagrid's reasons for it - when Snape is mean to a Gryffindor, Harry sticks up for them because they're his friends and he hates Snape? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun May 13 15:32:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 15:32:11 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco WAS: On Moral Compasses (was:Re: Snape as Neville's teacher...) In-Reply-To: <85664D58-A7B3-450F-A5CE-681C07A69A55@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168648 > Alla: > Ugh, if I were Hagrid, Draco would have gotten from me nice long detention > for a year for not listening to safety instructions. Right after he comes > back from hospital wing that is. Maybe that would have taught him something. > Forbidden Forest 365 days a year. > > Magpie: > If Hagrid did that I would hope the Slytherins in his classes would make him > very sorry he did. Once everyone stopped laughing about Hagrid punishing > anyone else for not paying enough attention to safety precautions. Alla: Really? I mean, obviously the length of the detention ( 365 days a year) was an exaggeration. But do you think Malfoy should have been punished **at all**? For not listening to safety instructions, I mean? By all means together with other Slytherins he was laughing with? Or should he just had been let do as he did. Maybe that would have stopped him from participating in this disgusting ploy of having Buckbeak executed and Hagrid fired, IMO. At least every Saturday in the Forbidding forest would have been nice if you ask me. But Hagrid is too nice for his own good. > >> Jadon: > > Hagrid treats Draco badly just as Snape treats Harry/ > >> Neville badly. > > > > > > > > Alla: > > > > I snipped your whole post, because I only would like to ask for > > examples of Hagrid treating Draco **just as badly** as Snape treats > > Harry and Neville. > > > Jadon: > I didn't say *as badly* - but he shows a general lack of respect for > Draco. Alla: Sorry, I thought "treats Draco badly just as Snape treats Harry/Neville badly" equals "just as badly". Obviosly I misunderstood. Jadon: A pre-PoA example is the detention in the Forest in PS > ("Harry, you go with Fang an' this idiot"). Draco provokes him by > whining - specifically the sort of thing likely to annoy Hagrid - but > Neville provokes Snape through incompetence and Harry by 'existing', > to reverse the situation in chapter 28 of OotP. > You'd think Hagrid might stick up for Draco like he sticks up for > Snape (if just professionally), but he lets HRH abuse him in his > presence and occasionally joins in: > > "Well, I don' blame yeh fer tryin' ter curse him, Ron," said Hagrid > loudly over the thuds of more slugs hitting the basin. "Bu' maybe it > was a good thing yer wand backfired. 'Spect Lucius Malfoy > would've come marchin' up ter school if yeh'd cursed his son. Least > yer not in trouble." > --CoS > > Here Hagrid doesn't care at all what happens to Draco and is > dismissive of Lucius Malfoy - the only thing that matter's is that > Ron's not in trouble. Alla: Sure, Hagrid does not like Draco. Maybe he heard Draco's opinion of him in PS/SS before he met him? But Hagrid personally does not do anything to him, no? I do not believe that Draco coming to school and making disaparaging remarks about person he never met before as far as we know provokes any level of respect from this person. But sure, it is a good example that Hagrid lets his dislike show. He should not have do it, Hagrid I mean. I believe that Malfoy deserves every ounce of disrespect from Hagrid, but teacher should not, should not show it in my view. > > Alla: > > Draco comes to that famous lesson > > determined not to listen to that big oaf > > Jadon: > Draco makes himself difficult to defend because he goes out of his > way to annoy people. But might not the Harry-filter have something to > do with it? So that when Hagrid is mean to a Slytherin Harry > dislikes, Harry sides with Hagrid's reasons for it - when Snape is > mean to a Gryffindor, Harry sticks up for them because they're his > friends and he hates Snape? > Alla: No, I do not think so. I mean, only if you believe that Harry filter reports what happens incorrectly, because I do not. If you believe that Malfoy really was listening and was not talking, then sure. And objectively, my reasons for buying Hagrid reasons of disliking Malfoy and condemning Snape for doing what he did to Harry and Neville had nothing to do with Harry filter. Objectively, I despise Malfoy for putting down person he never met, for ofering his hand to Harry and at the same time putting down Weasleys, for participating in the plot of getting Bucky executed and Hagrid fired, for coming to Trio compartment on the train and running his mouth as he did, for planning assasination of Albus Dumbledore and almost killing two kids in the process. I think Malfoy is a very bad "person" and that has nothing to do with HArry filter, unless again Harry filter is used as to show that something else occurs instead of what described. IMO, Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Sun May 13 16:05:09 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:05:09 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM (was: Snape as Neville's teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168649 Dana: > The link between LV and Harry is through Harry's scar so > to me it is a little much to assume that LV can sense more > about Harry then Harry can about LV and we know that Harry > can only sense LV's very strong emotions and not monitor > his day to day activity by it. houyhnhnm: "Voldemort put a bit of himself in [Harry]." On the Harry end of the connection there is a bit. On the Voldemort end there is "himself". A scar on one end; on the other, a whole head. Add to that the fact that Voldemort is a powerful seventyish-year-old Dark Wizard, highly skilled at Legilimency, and Harry (in OotP) is a fifteen-year-old unable to master Occlumency and I think it is a reasonable deduction that Voldemort has the capability, at least, to extract much more information from the connection than Harry does. Even Harry is able to do more than merely sense LV's very strong emotions. During the vision of Voldemort's interview with Rookwood, Harry was not only able to hear the entire conversation, he could see the scars on Rookwood's pock-marked face; he could see the cracks and spots on the mirror. If Harry is able to perceive this much detail when he is being Voldemort, it stands to reason that Voldemort can see as much, and likely more, when he is being Harry. What is it like for Voldemort, being Harry? (And that question is not irrelevant. We are never shown Snape's inner experience. Would anyone say, therefore, that it is irrelevant?) The mechanics of the two-way connection between Harry and Voldemort are not spelled out, but it is canon that there is a *two*-way connection. When Voldemort is close by or feeling a particularly strong emotion, reception is activated on the Harry end and Harry feels the scar prickle, burn, etc., and he feels Voldemort's emotion or occasionally even sees what Voldemort is seeing and hears what is being said. What happens on the Voldemort end when Harry is feeling a particularly strong emotion? (He's a pretty emotional kid.) When Harry is tuned in to Voldemort, his scar hurts. Voldemort apparently feels nothing; he doesn't realize until the end of OotP the extent to which Harry has penetrated his mind. When Voldemort is tuned in to Harry, but not actively trying to implant visions, would Harry's scar hurt? I think possibly not. Of course, time and space matter in magic and the walls and grounds of Hogwarts are guarded by many ancient spells and charms to ensure the bodily and mental safety of those who dwell within them, but is it absolutely certain that Voldemort can never tune in to Harry undetected? Dumbledore doesn't seem to think so. Otherwise, why did he shun Harry all through OotP, even refusing to make eye contact on the few times when they were together? So I don't think it is a bit much to assume that LV can sense more about Harry than Harry can about LV. Dumbledore does not know the extent to which Voldemort can make use of the connection between himself and Harry, and he is clearly worried about it. ********* Off on a tangent related to the above only as something that is not spelled out in the books but which must have significance if one really thinks about it: Scabbers was a party to just about every private conversation between Ron and Harry from the time they met on the Hogwarts Express until his faked death at the hands of Crookshanks. How much of that information did he pass on to LV and is any of it relevant to the mysteries waiting to be resolved in DH? From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun May 13 16:16:32 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:16:32 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168650 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nirjhar Jain" wrote: > > Hi, > > I am a Harry Hermione shipper. > > I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling did not explore H/Hr as a > ship? > > Hermione is Harry's equal intellectually. She stands upto him. She is > not overawed by him. > > Ginny's personality was 'enhanced' in Books 5 and 6 so as to make H/G > more palatable. I am not saying that Ginny is not a good match for > Harry. I am just curious as to why Jo Rowling never seriously gave > H/Hr a go in canon. Hickengruendler: Probably because she doesn't think they are suited. ;-) Well, the truth is, shipping is a big deal in fandom, probably much bigger than JKR ever thought it to be, and it was clear that some shippers would ultimately be disappointed. IMO, it was clear at the latest since the Yule Ball scenes, that Ron/Hermione was the direction she was going. As for why she didn't give Harry/Hermione a chance. First of all, I don't agree that Harry is Hermione's intelectual equal. Given academical knowledge, Hermione is clearly superior to both boys. They, on the other hand, have their strong points in other fields, were Hermione lacks something. By the way, I do not think Harry/Hermione were a pretty good match. IMO, the last thing Harry with his troubled life needs is somebody as good-hearted but serious as Hermione. Someone generally more easy-going like Ginny fits IMO better. And I genuinely like Hermione, while Ginny in book 5 and particularly 6 is probably my least favourite character for the way she was written. Similarly, Ron and Hermione complete each other pretty well, IMO. (Which is not a surprise, since they are foils of each other). Hickengruendler From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun May 13 16:16:25 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:16:25 -0000 Subject: Quick Questionnaire v1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168651 > Dungrollin: > > Sirius Black "had to die" (according to JKR) to: > > > > b) Keep ESE!Snape's cover ? "I don't care if Dumbledore thinks you've > reformed, I know better ?" OotP, Ch24 UK p459. Sirius had begun to > suspect Snape was cheating on DD, and had to be kept quiet. Neri: Although my Snape theory isn't ESE, I can make this option more detailed and BANGy. It had long bothered me that at the night of the MoM battle Snape (according to Dumbledore's version) contacted Sirius at 12GP immediately. Regardless of the whole responsibility argument that I won't start again here, the picture of Sirius hearing about what had happened to Harry and just sitting patiently for several hours doing nothing and waiting for updates from Snape, of all people, simply strikes me as completely out of character. I remind you that only a few weeks before that Lupin had to stop Sirius bodily from going to Hogwarts and confront Snape about the less urgent matter of stopping the Occlumency lessons. Before HBP I explained this paradox by Snape only checking that Sirius was in 12GP but not actually telling him what had happened the first time. However, this explanation has always bothered me, because it was not likely that such little details would be elucidated in later books (especially if Snape was DDM as we all thought then) and also because it contradicted one of those (deliberately?) vague explanations from Dumbledore that Snape "told the Order as soon as he could about what had happened". Now, after HBP all this looks entirely different to me. If Snape is anything but DDM then his part in the MoM battle still needs to be revisited when all his true motives are finally revealed, and then we can get a much more consistent account of the events. Here we have a few clues that might turn out important: First, after the battle when Dumbledore joins Harry in his office, he arrive via his fire, not via portkey, which suggests he could be coming from another place in the castle, not from the MoM. The first thing he says is that Madam Pomfrey "is patching everybody now" and that they are all going to be OK, which sounds like he's coming from the hospital wing. Secondly: Dumbledore criticizes Sirius but not Snape, another thing that always strikes me as strange -- why would he attack Sirius about such petty matters before Sirius's body (if there was one) even had the chance to get cold? Then we have the narrator telling us (twice, both in the end of OotP and the beginning of HBP) that Harry only blames Snape about goading Sirius and only in order to relieve his own guilt, affectively making Harry appear like a petty child and muddying other, more tangible reasons to blame Snape. After HBP a simpler and more consistent account of the night's events suggests itself: Snape did not contact 12GP at all the first time, so Sirius was acting in character when he did nothing. When Dumbledore was back to Hogwarts from the battle, before he joined Harry he went to the hospital wing to check on the injured, and there he met Snape. Snape heard from him that Sirius was dead, so he told him that he had told Sirius everything the first time, and that Sirius was the one who had made the decision to do nothing, not even alert the rest of the Order. So during his talk with Harry, Dumbledore would be under the wrong impression that Sirius was the one responsible for the Order taking so long to respond. Of course he would not blame Sirius explicitly in front of Harry such a short time after Sirius's death, but this impression would make him criticize Sirius and not Snape. The whole strange account of that night's events that JKR and Dumbledore sell us, an account calculated to make Snape appear innocent both to us and to Dumbledore, depends on Sirius not staying alive to give his version. I doubt that this was the sole (or even main) reason why Sirius had to die, but I think it would be like JKR to take advantage of his death to eliminate evidence. Then she can clarify things in DH and change our negative impression of Sirius's actions during that night, in a similar way that a few calculated revelations in HBP change the negative impression of James's actions in Snape's Worst Memory scene. And Dumbledore muddying details in the talk after the battle reminds me a lot of Sirius and Lupin muddying details in their vague explanations after the SWM. JKR is very good at these things. > Dungrollin: > h) To hide something about what happened at GH ? was Sirius using the > invisibility cloak? > Neri: A nice possibility I didn't think about. But must it has been Sirius, and wouldn't Sirius return the cloak to James after finishing with it? > Dungrollin: > i) Because JKR wants Harry to be alone. Harry would have found it > difficult to keep secrets from Sirius, and she didn't want anyone to > help on the Horcrux hunt. > Neri: JKR has much as said that this was a reason, but perhaps not the whole reason. > Dungrollin: > k) Sirius will play a role in DH which can only be played by a dead > person. Possibly the specific manner of his death will play a part as > well (see Carol's theory). (Thanks Zgirnius.) > ----------------------- > > I don't know why I don't like k. Perhaps because JKR's often gone on > about how as a children's author you have to be a ruthless killer and > I'd feel it was a bit of a cheat if Harry and/or Sirius have an > escape clause. I wouldn't mind if the help from beyond the grave were > somewhat figurative, but literally? Not so much my cup of tea. Which, > of course, rules out nothing at all. > Neri: It's not my cup of tea either, but given also the two-way mirror, I think it's the most likely, and JKR usually pulls out these kind of things well. Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun May 13 16:45:01 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:45:01 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168652 > nirjhar.jain wrote: > > Hi, > > I am a Harry Hermione shipper. > > I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling did not explore H/Hr as a > ship? > > Hermione is Harry's equal intellectually. She stands upto him. She is > not overawed by him. > > Ginny's personality was 'enhanced' in Books 5 and 6 so as to make H/G > more palatable. I am not saying that Ginny is not a good match for > Harry. I am just curious as to why Jo Rowling never seriously gave > H/Hr a go in canon. > > I love Ron as a character. I just think he is too shallow and an > intellectual light-weight compared to Hermione. > > Any thoughts on this would be most welcome. > Neri: I think this is a very good question. The first reason that comes to mind is that JKR doesn't seem to value intellectual prowess all that much. She values courage much more, and in this Ron is Hermione's equal and in some ways better. He also has a much better sense of humor, and this seems to be another thing that JKR appreciates a lot . Also, I'd say that Hermione hooking with Ron rather than with the main hero of the series is one of the things that narrowly save her from being a deplorable Mary Sue, given that she's consciously based on Jo herself at that age. Neri From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun May 13 16:58:47 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 13 May 2007 16:58:47 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/13/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1179075527.8.55329.m50@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168653 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday May 13, 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 fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun May 13 17:05:13 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:05:13 -0000 Subject: On Moral Compasses (was:Re: Snape as Neville's teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168654 > Betsy Hp: (3) I'm not all that > enamored of Hermione's moral compass. In fact, I'm a bit worried > it's broken, or maybe just incorrectly (or not fully?) installed. > Now, obviously Young!Snape joining the Death Eaters (and I do believe > he joined them willingingly, not as Dumbledore's sleeper) shows a > moral bump in Snape's principles. And obviously, Hermione hasn't > chosen anything so outwardly wrong. But then again, she's not been > given a choice has she? > > Hermione is *all over* the Slugclub. Does it bother her that Ron > isn't included in this club? Not that I've seen. Hermione's a tad > bit uncomfortable discussing said club in front of Ron but not so > uncomfortable she doesn't *go*. And Hermione actively supports > Slughorn's efforts to recruit Harry into the Slugclub, but doesn't > seem to try and get Ron included. Which suggests to me that, when > she's in the in, Hermione is perfectly comfortable with exclusions. > Even if some pretty decent people (I'm assuming Hermione thinks Ron > is decent) are excluded. > > Hermione's reactions to house elves have been discussed a great deal > on this list. And while I would give her a bit of credit for > correctly identifying something not quite right in the WW, Hermione's > weirdly stubborn refusal to *talk* with the House Elves and get their > take on things is bothersome, IMO. Taken with her comfort in calling > Firenze a horse (a rather ugly slur as per Centaur's we have met) it > suggests a certain elitism on Hermione's part. > > And then there is Marietta. It really *really* bothers me that > Hermione is so *not* bothered by Marietta's continuing mark. There's > a callous disregard of other people *as* people being expressed here, > IMO. > > Of course, we don't get to see inside Hermione's head. But based on > what we have seen, I would not credit Hermione with a strong sense of > morals. I'd rather look to the current Professor Snape, who's faced > his demons (IMO) and come out the other side, than Hermione "sees > what she wants to see" Granger for answers to any sort of moral > dilemma. wynnleaf Another that seemed to me perfectly indicative of the kind of characteristics Hermione displays in several books is her reaction to cheating in Quidditch. When it's *her* sabotaging the chances of another student to get on the team in order for Ron's tryout to look better in comparison, then it's okay. Sure, she's maybe slightly embarrassed that Harry noticed, but she had no real crisis of conscience over it. But later, when she thought Harry had given Ron Felix Felicis in order to do well in a game, she got oh-so-indignant over the supposed cheating. She seemed to have absolutely no care for how hypocritical and self-righteous she was being, particularly in the face of her own earlier actions. I see this in Hermione several times, such as in OOTP when she is unconcerned about the effects of her own jinx on Marietta, yet wonders aloud about whether they should tell anyone about how Montague came to be injured. Note that even though she wonders about telling someone about the potentially important information about how Montague got injured -- which could be important in helping him -- Hermione does nothing. And her attitude toward the HBP potions book concerned me as well. Yes, she was right to be irritated at Harry for using it to gain a reputation for potions that he didn't deserve. But her complete unwillingness to even consider any information that didn't come out of a textbook was just amazing to me. For a gifted person to have no curiosity about those notes that were able to achieve such better results really sort of appalled me. It bordered on unrealistic to me, except for one possible reason: to me, what I felt I was seeing was a girl so used to be the "brightest" that she couldn't accept the idea that some other 6th year student -- albeit from years previously -- was far more gifted and creative than she. I felt like, just as Hermione couldn't stand the idea of Harry *appearing* to be better at potions, she also didn't like the idea that some nameless student really was far better and more creative a student than she was. So she clung tenaciously to the textbook, insisting that it was the only thing that could be used, and wouldn't even allow herself to find out those notes were achieving better results. Hermione, as we can see from her boggart as well as her constant hand-waving and need to be recognized for her knowledge, can be very insecure about being so smart. I thought the HBP potions book really brought out just how steadfastly she clings to position as "brightest" student in her year. I really hope DH turns over some apple carts as regards changing the viewpoints of many of the main characters, not just Hermione. Jadon Hagrid is another example of an otherwise nice person who is prejudiced about certain groups of people (straitlaced muggles, non- Gryffindors). In PS he insults the Dursleys _before_ finding out that they've been keeping information from Harry, and when Uncle Vernon insults DD he leaves Dudley with a pig's tail, which is every bit as bad as Marietta's pimples. In later books the Dursleys take abuse from whatever aurors/other adults turn up to collect Harry (except, I think, Arthur). Hagrid treats Draco badly just as Snape treats Harry/ Neville badly. And from another post Jadon he shows a general lack of respect for Draco. A pre-PoA example is the detention in the Forest in PS ("Harry, you go with Fang an' this idiot"). Draco provokes him by whining - specifically the sort of thing likely to annoy Hagrid Wynnleaf Thing is, in much of the HP series, Harry views any insulting or even hurting of the unpleasant people as completely okay. And through the Harry-filter, the reader is encouraged to be accept anything that happens to anyone Harry dislikes, but if something even extremely similar happens to Harry or his friends, then Harry (and usually the reader) sees it as terrible. When Hagrid gave Dudley the pig's tail, Harry (and the reader) knew that Dudley was a bully. But Hagrid really didn't know anything about Dudley and had only been exposed to Vernon's rudeness. Yet he hexed Dudley and it's presented through Harry's point of view as great. Similarly, when Hagrid calls Draco "this idiot," Harry has no problem with it and through his filter, the reader is meant to think it's perfectly okay for Hagrid to call a student an "idiot" because, after all, it's perfectly acceptable for an adult to call an 11 year old student who is terrified of the forest an "idiot" because the 11 year old is unpleasant and unpleasant people deserve this sort of thing. Yet when Snape calls Neville an "idiot" when Neville's not following instructions causes a cauldron to blow up, we see, through Harry's eyes, that Snape is being cruel to poor Neville. Neville was scared and inept. Draco was scared and unpleasant. Neville is a Gryffindor and Draco is a Slytherin. Hagrid is good and likes Harry. Snape is unpleasant and Harry thinks he hates him. Therefore, it's okay for Hagrid to call Draco an idiot, but wrong for Snape to call Neville an idiot. At least that's the way Harry reacts to it, and that's the way the reader is encouraged to feel about the two situations. I really, really, really hope in DH that JKR has Harry see what's so terribly wrong with this kind of thinking. On another note -- Magpie The type of Pureblood elitism Slughorn has fits with his hiding from the DEs, I think. He's supporting their agenda, but doesn't want to face that, so he just hides. wynnleaf I had to comment on this. Think of the US Civil War. Plenty of people were very, very much opposed to slavery, who were yet quite racist in terms of their attitudes of superiority over other races. It's perfectly possible for Slughorn to have racist attitudes of the superiority of pureblood wizards over muggleborns, and yet be completely opposed to any agenda that would seek to harm muggleborns or in any way limit their freedoms, or seek to keep the two groups separate. I don't think he supports the agenda of the DEs. He just has a degree of their same attitudes of superiority. And he doesn't even have it to the same degree as the DEs appear to have it. wynnleaf From celizwh at intergate.com Sun May 13 17:16:18 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:16:18 -0000 Subject: On Moral Compasses (was:Re: Snape as Neville's teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168655 Betsy Hp: > The third one is a bit bigger, I think. (3) I'm not all > that enamored of Hermione's moral compass. In fact, I'm > a bit worried it's broken, or maybe just incorrectly (or > not fully?) installed. > A caveat: I strongly dislike Hermione as of HBP. In fact, > she actually repulses me. I'm not rereading the series > until *after* DH with the hope she gets some sense shaken > into her and I can reread her younger years with a lighter > and more forgiving heart. So understand there may be some > slight, erm, bias in my reading of things. houyhnhnm: I think Ron's poisoning was supposed to be the wake up call that shook some sense into Hermione. She was pale faced, sniffing almost inaudibly, *unusually quiet*. Unusually quiet might not seem so significant for any other character, but for Hermione it is probably the sign of a major inner upheaval. And she does seem to tone it down a bit after that. She "wearily" lets Ron hide behind her from Lavender. She "soothingly" consoles Ron for his failure to pass his apparition test. And there aren't any more Slug Club meetings, IIRC, because Harry conveniently scares Slughorn into social seclusion by trying to get the memory. Hermione has apparently learned her lesson as far as Ron is concerned and that may be all we're going to get. She will always be brash, pushy, and sure that she knows best because that is her nature. But maybe not. Hermione's mistreatment of Ron, as well as her moment of truth, was kind of understated (At least it seemed that way to me. I didn't get it on the first read, though that's not saying much.) I mean it seemed to be glossed over or excused, but it wasn't. So it is possible that her patronizing attitude toward non-human magical creatures and her ruthlessness toward fellow students who get in her way, which seem to have been glossed over and excused, will bring about consequences in the last book which force her to grow a little more. However, I don't think we will see the agonized soul-searching of, say, Elizabeth Bennet. More likely an inaudible sniff or two. From ida3 at planet.nl Sun May 13 17:18:22 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:18:22 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM/Slughorn's favoritism/Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: <006401c79571$bec58fd0$5886400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168656 Magpie: > Cutting to the chase....why? As I think somebody else said earlier, > it just seems like Snape is the more far-fetched solution here. If > Snape informed LV that he sent the Order, then why doesn't LV > consider Snape the reason the mission failed? Snape didn't have to > send the Order at all, and he just informed LV that he ruined his > plans on his own whim...so why isn't he, rather than Lucius, in > trouble? > > This is LV's plan; why would he need Snape, who is miles away and > would have no idea when Harry left or even possibly how he left, to > tell him that maybe the mission has failed? And failed because he, > Snape, decided to send in the Order? Dana: Why isn't Snape dead for betraying LV? He was the only one that could have send the Order because he was be the only one at Hogwarts that would know Harry went missing, because all other Order Members were removed and I have absolutely no doubt that LV knew this because his plan wouldn't have worked otherwise and as we see the first thing Harry does when he received the vision is going to McGonagall, who was until that morning still in the Hospital wing. Pg 644 UKed Paperback Chapter: Out of the fire I need to see Professor McGonagall,' gasped Harry, the breath tearing his lungs. `Now it's urgent.' `She's not here, Potter,' said Madam Pomfrey sadly. `She was transferred to St Mungo's this morning.' End quote canon. And don't you think it would have created problems for Snape if Harry would have gone to him? If Harry would have gone to him in his office instead of asking for help in front of Umbridge wouldn't that have caused a problem of the whole plan falling apart because Snape would not have any other way than to check in with Sirius in front of Harry because otherwise Harry would have told DD Snape refused to help him. Snape already was a potential problem to the plan so why wasn't Snape taken out like the other Order Members? Because Snape knew of the plan and he assured LV, Harry would not come to him for help but when Harry tried to ask him for help, this left Snape with a problem because Harry would have told DD he tried to warn Snape and even if Snape wouldn't know who was captured at the place it was hidden then his previous inside into Harry's head, DD's worry and the previous incident with Arthur would not account for him not knowing something was up. That would have blown his cover with DD. Especially because it was his job to keep an eye on Harry and Harry being in Umbridge care someone who actively tried to expel Harry before would also cause a problem because if she had thrown Harry out of Hogwarts that evening and no Order member was there to provide protection for Harry then DD would not have been pleased with Snape. So there was nothing left for Snape to do then to alert the Order and DD specifically mentioning that Snape knew Harry was in the Forest with Umbridge (3x times) and this could only mean that Snape saw Umbridge and Harry go in himself. And I do not find it a good excuse that Snape waited and waited and waited for them to come out because as we see it takes the Order a long time to show up at the DoM. So it makes no sense for Snape not going after 6 kids who are in the company of an untrustworthy MoM employee, who already tried to expel Harry once, was responsible for DD no longer being at Hogwarts in an attempt to keep Harry there, removed Hagrid and McGonagall. I don't think DD would keep saying I trust Severus Snape, if he even can't do the simple job of keeping an eye on Harry right, and we have already seen that Snape failed in another simple job and I do not think Snape had a lot of room to mess up again. LV thought of everything. Removed every possibility for Harry to warn the Order directly, even covered Harry checking in on Sirius himself. Would you really believe he would not calculate a possibility that Snape had no other choice but to alert the Order? I do not think so it might have already been part of the plan from the start to have the Order send after Harry, after a sufficient amount of time had past. It would have caused DD and Harry being caught at the DoM, after Lucius and his gang had already left, a great deal of trouble not to mention Sirius. Also I heard many people say that Snape could not envision that Harry would find a way to get to the DoM, the only problem is that LV was counting on Harry finding a way otherwise why plan it at all and so it is not stretch at all for Snape to envision this as well. Snape might not have counted on Harry flying in by thestrals but he would surely know Harry would try to get to his broom and he knows from experience that these kids have no problem taking out a teacher. I do believe that Snape notified LV he send the Order because if he did not and LV found out about it and Snape would have needed to explain himself afterwards then he risked LV not believing him or risk LV blaming him for messing things up and if LV did not know when Harry arrived and he did not know how much time had passed before the Order arrived then Snape would have a big problem but if he gave LV all the information that was expected of him when it came to making a decision of sending the Order in and Snape waiting as long as he possibly could then what ever happened as a result would not have been Snape's fault. And as we see Snape is now the most trusted DE because it was not Snape who messed up and why he is not dead. There was no other person that could possibly have raised the alarm and Bella would know that none of the kids could have notified the Order and no other teacher would have know how to contact the Order or DD and that left Snape and LV is not stupid he would have known this because I believe it was on LV's orders that the Order members were removed after DD was no longer there. No not by taking them out himself but by having Lucius either whisper into Umbridge ear or by having him rub Fudge the right way. If Umbridge come up with the idea herself, that Hagrid might know where DD was then she would have gone after him sooner but she did not and I see no other reason for the raid on Hagrid so why I think this is what the MoM officials and Umbridge were doing there. DD left before the eater holidays and Hagrid is taken out during the OWL exams, which are in the beginning of June. LV talked about months of careful planning and this would include Snape possible place within that plan. Snape is not merely a teacher at Hogwarts and what ever his loyalties, LV considers him one of his but knows that Snape has a cover to keep. JMHO. Dana From bartl at sprynet.com Sun May 13 18:37:28 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 14:37:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slughorn favoritism/ Snape as Neville's teacher LONG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46475AE8.8060404@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168657 justcarol67 wrote: > Anyway, Fake!Moody and Umbridge are crueler than Snape (though they > wound in other ways than sarcasm) and Slughorn is at least as unfair > in terms of favoritism. The only difference is that in Slughorn's > class, as in Lockhart's in second year, Harry is on the receiving end > of the favoritism. Bart: Fake!Moody (no relation), Umbridge and Lockhart are CRIMINALS. That makes a big difference. We know about their criminal acts. Up until the time he kills Dumbledore, we know of no criminal actions that Snape has committed, only that he has associated with criminals, and gave them information he was legally entitled to give them which helped them commit a crime (and, from what we know, as soon as he discovered the criminal purpose for which the information would be used, he went over to the other side. In Western nations, at least, giving information to criminals without knowing in advance that it will be put to criminal use is not a crime, and going to the authorities as soon as you discover it will be used that way is considered to be convincing evidence that you did not know in advance what it would be used for). Bart From honeypi28 at yahoo.com Sun May 13 16:18:47 2007 From: honeypi28 at yahoo.com (honeypi28) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:18:47 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168658 nirjhar.jain: > I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling did not explore H/Hr as a > ship? > > Hermione is Harry's equal intellectually. She stands upto him. She is > not overawed by him. honeypi: It's a bit early to say H/Hr won't be cannon. I think Harry's relationship with Hermione is so well developed and complex that she is likely his true love and will have a large role in LV's demise. I know a lot of people disagree, but I'd be disappointed if the person whom I believe loves Harry the most doesn't turn out to be 'the one' for him. I suspect JKR is waiting until the end to reveal this pairing to emphasize it's significance and elevate it above the prerequisite teen puppy love we've seen so far. nirjhar.jain: > I love Ron as a character. I just think he is too shallow and an > intellectual light-weight compared to Hermione. honeypi: Ron is hilarious. He's the 'fun guy' and represents a carefree spirit that no doubt seems attractive to a youthful Hermione who is very much on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think it's typical of teens to look at all of their peers and learn what types compliment them best. I don't see Ron and Hermione as a viable pairing because he'd (or I guess she would) have to change too dramatically to really be even matched with her. I like Ron as he is, so I'd hate to see that happen. Of course, I haven't analyzed the books so well as many others here. These are simply my impressions from a few casual readings of the books. I look forward to reading more informed opinions. honeypi From belviso at attglobal.net Sun May 13 19:09:21 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 15:09:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM/Slughorn's favoritism/Hagrid and Draco References: Message-ID: <011001c79592$36f72980$5886400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168659 Dana: And don't you think it would have created problems for Snape if Harry would have gone to him? If Harry would have gone to him in his office instead of asking for help in front of Umbridge wouldn't that have caused a problem of the whole plan falling apart because Snape would not have any other way than to check in with Sirius in front of Harry because otherwise Harry would have told DD Snape refused to help him. Magpie: I think I see. So you're saying that LV would have to assume that Snape must act like an Order member at all times, so his whole plan includes Snape doing that--so anything Snape does as an Order member is automatically assumed to be in LV's plan. So that way it is Lucius' fault because he was expected to be expecting the Order at some point, because Snape could only hold off for so long. I see the logic. I have a couple of problems with the scenario. First, I think anyone would assume that DD had ways of knowing what was happening at Hogwarts and with Harry independent of Snape because he's Dumbledore and it's Hogwarts. LV doesn't necessarily know all the members of the Order--it makes more sense for everyone to not know everyone else. That's how the DEs work. There could also be other means DD could use when he's not in the buildling. I also think that as the person who made the plan LV has plenty of reasons to show up other than Snape telling him he sent Dumbledore. And anyway, if that was something LV assumed could happen he would have been prepared for it on his own. Second, there's a little too much here that seems to rest on it being Snape's job to "look after" Harry when that is not Snape's job. Harry is not guarded all the time at Hogwarts, and Harry being with Umbridge in the forest or not is still Harry accounted for at Hogwarts. It might actually be considered a good thing that Umbridge is keeping him busy. Then there's the moment with Snape waiting "as long as he possibly could" to alert the order. Why that moment when according to this scenario Snape has already made all these whopping mistakes like allowing Harry to be alone with Umbridge? Also, your own question applies--why couldn't LV just have Snape taken out some way so that Harry couldn't go to him for help? He could have done something as simple as tell Snape to inhale the wrong Potion fumes at the right time so he wouldn't be of help. That seems a much more obvious solution than to allow Snape to actively work against him. It just seems like Snape's always most in danger of being in trouble in this scenario at moments chosen to correspond to what he actually does rather than at moments that really seem to threaten things, which also means that Dumbledore is the big bad Snape has to worry about towing the line with, while LV is helpfully making his plans around Snape having to work against him for Dumbledore's sake. I can certainly see how your scenario fits into the canon, but I don't see how it really is suggested by it. I would see it more if, for instance, we knew that Snape alerted the Order in response to something on his own side, like if somebody else came in and told him Harry was gone and he just had to do something and watched him do it etc., and we could see that he tried to stall as long as possible. Snape can handle situations like that pretty well, as he did with Umbridge and the Veritaseum. So it seems more like starting with the results we happened to wind up with and then making them the plan in retrospect. So there's barely anything Snape could do (short of getting killed fighting for Harry openly) that wouldn't be part of LV's plan, while everything Snape does at Hogwarts show he's going against DD's orders even if they're not related to LV. wynnleaf: Plenty of people were very, very much opposed to slavery, who were yet quite racist in terms of their attitudes of superiority over other races. It's perfectly possible for Slughorn to have racist attitudes of the superiority of pureblood wizards over muggleborns, and yet be completely opposed to any agenda that would seek to harm muggleborns or in any way limit their freedoms, or seek to keep the two groups separate. I don't think he supports the agenda of the DEs. He just has a degree of their same attitudes of superiority. And he doesn't even have it to the same degree as the DEs appear to have it. Magpie: Yes, I agree. I think he knows many of his Sluggies became DEs, and that Tom himself was a favorite. I don't doubt at all that Slughorn is totally opposed to murdering Muggle-borns, just not to the point where he wants to examine his own comfortable ideas about racism. Slughorn doesn't even live in a society where this kind of prejudice is as much of a given, which might be said for abolitionists, it seems to me (though he is at least old so perhaps carrying it over from a time when it was more common--though even there you'd think that the first Voldemort war would have knocked it out of him). It just seems like nowadays we're used to looking at a lot of the attitudes abolitionists have and making that same distinction. >> Alla: >> Ugh, if I were Hagrid, Draco would have gotten from me nice long > detention >> for a year for not listening to safety instructions. Right after > he comes >> back from hospital wing that is. Maybe that would have taught him > something. >> Forbidden Forest 365 days a year. >> Magpie: >> If Hagrid did that I would hope the Slytherins in his classes > would make him >> very sorry he did. Once everyone stopped laughing about Hagrid > punishing >> anyone else for not paying enough attention to safety precautions. > > > Alla: > > Really? I mean, obviously the length of the detention ( 365 days a > year) was an exaggeration. But do you think Malfoy should have been > punished **at all**? For not listening to safety instructions, I > mean? By all means together with other Slytherins he was laughing > with? > Or should he just had been let do as he did. Maybe that would > have stopped him from participating in this disgusting ploy of > having Buckbeak executed and Hagrid fired, IMO. Magpie: No, I don't think he should have been punished at all. He learned his lesson well without that (and detention in this case from Hagrid probably would have undermined it as it would in a similar case between Harry and Snape--I don't think it would have changed his mind about Hagrid and Buckbeak one bit, except perhaps to make it even worse if possible). He was already punished by being hurt, which taught him the lesson better than anything else would have--and we see this in canon even years later. And also Hagrid didn't present his safety precautions well to begin with--Malfoy wasn't reading the scene in the book where Hagrid's line was there in print with everything else. He got a comment that should have been repeated and made clear and explained, not just thrown away as "don't insult 'em or it's the last thing ye'll do" in a moment when he happened to be the kid that was whispering with his friend, as kids do throughout class. And Hagrid should have been having the kids approach the advanced animal individually anyway, as he did with Harry. This scenario hit on Hagrid's flaws as well as Draco's. So Hagrid had a chance to learn something too on his first day. I think the last thing he needed was to convince himself safety was his forte. His first instinct is already to blame the victim, as he does with Ron in PS/SS, and I don't think that would make him a better teacher. Alla: > At least every Saturday in the Forbidding forest would have been > nice if you ask me. But Hagrid is too nice for his own good. Magpie: I don't think he's always too nice for his own good. I certainly don't see this incident as proving he's nice one way or the other. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun May 13 19:38:22 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 19:38:22 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: <011001c79592$36f72980$5886400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168660 > Magpie: > No, I don't think he should have been punished at all. He learned his lesson > well without that (and detention in this case from Hagrid probably would > have undermined it as it would in a similar case between Harry and Snape--I > don't think it would have changed his mind about Hagrid and Buckbeak one > bit, except perhaps to make it even worse if possible). He was already > punished by being hurt, which taught him the lesson better than anything > else would have--and we see this in canon even years later. Alla: Okay. So do you think Harry also should not have been punished after him using Sectusemptra on Malfoy? After all he was having guilty feelings about it, doesn't it mean that he learned that unknown curses should not have been used? Do you think Neville should not have been given that lizards or toads cutting detention in GoF? I mean it is a pretty safe speculation to make that he was hurt after breaking another cauldron or whatever he got his detention for? I mean, Malfoy gets rewarded from Snape for being hurt, he is also shamelessly gloats that he can use his injury to gets Hagrid fired. Shouldn't he also be punished for that? Magpie: > And also Hagrid didn't present his safety precautions well to begin > with--Malfoy wasn't reading the scene in the book where Hagrid's line was > there in print with everything else. He got a comment that should have been > repeated and made clear and explained, not just thrown away as "don't insult > 'em or it's the last thing ye'll do" in a moment when he happened to be the > kid that was whispering with his friend, as kids do throughout class. And > Hagrid should have been having the kids approach the advanced animal > individually anyway, as he did with Harry. This scenario hit on Hagrid's > flaws as well as Draco's. Alla: I think it is irrelevant to the question whether Malfoy should have been punished for his mistakes. Hagrid's mistakes I mean. I think it is debatable whether he presented his safety precautions well enough. But even if he did not present them well, he **presented** them, Malfoy did not listen. Why should he not been punished for that? I mean do not get me wrong, if Hogwarts has the program where they take away yearly bonuses or give warnings to teachers ( I wonder how much Snape would have gotten of those), I am fine with Hagrid being talked to by Dumbledore or whatever mentor, but I fail to see why it should relive Malfoy from punishment. Would it make him feel different about Hagrid? I doubt it, if he felt that way about Hagrid before he even met him, but maybe it would have a punitive effect in his mind. Magpie: > So Hagrid had a chance to learn something too on his first day. I think the > last thing he needed was to convince himself safety was his forte. His first > instinct is already to blame the victim, as he does with Ron in PS/SS, and I > don't think that would make him a better teacher. Alla: Well, since this victim IMO made his life hell for the whole year, I think his instinct was right personally. > Alla: > > At least every Saturday in the Forbidding forest would have been > > nice if you ask me. But Hagrid is too nice for his own good. > > Magpie: > I don't think he's always too nice for his own good. I certainly don't see > this incident as proving he's nice one way or the other. Alla: I meant because he did not punish Malfoy. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun May 13 19:42:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 19:42:40 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM (was: Snape as Neville's teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168661 Carol earlier: > > The pain seems to stop, or is at least not mentioned, from the time they begin their ride to the time that Harry tells Bellatrix that the Prophecy orb is broken, perhaps indicating that the emotions Voldemort senses (fear, confusion, anger) suggest to him that matters are going as he anticipated (though possibly they're taking a bit too long). However, the scar hurts again just at the point when he tells Bellatrix that the Prophecy orb is broken. I'll quote rather than summarizing this time: > > > > "Well, you're going to have to kill me, because it's gone,' Harry roared--and as he shouted it, pain seared across his forehead. His scar was on fire again, and he felt a surge of fury that was quite unconnected to his own rage. 'And he knows!' said Harry with a mad laugh to match Bellatrix's own. 'Your dear old mate Voldemort knows it's gone! The prophecy smashed when I was trying to get Neville up the steps! What do you think Voldemort'll say about that, then!' > > > > "His scar seared and burned . . . The pain of it was making his eyes stream" (811). > > > > At which point, she screams that he's a liar and we have the "nothing to summon passage that I quoted earlier, Bellatrix's begging Voldemort not to punish her, pain "more terrible than ever," and Voldemort saying, "So you smashed my Prophecy" (812), echoing words that Harry spoke *before* Voldemort's arrival. > > > > It appears that Voldemort was monitoring the scar connection and that he not only sensed Harry's emotions but actually read his thoughts or heard his words when he said that the prophecy was gone. Note the timing of the pain in his scar as he speaks to Bellatrix--it "sears across his forehead" immediately after he says that the Prophecy is gone--and note Harry's elated reaction, "And he know it!" And the scar sears and burns so badly that it makes his eyes stream when he tells Bellatrix that the Prophecy smashed. > > > Dana: > To me this passage points out the precise moment LV enters the DoM. When Harry roared to Bella that the prophecy is lost, Harry feels a fury *unconnected* to his own rage and his scare begins to hurt. (the word "unconnected" indicates to me this is not a personal visit Harry is experiencing but a feeling Harry is picking up from LV). This is the moment LV sees and hears that is everything is lost and that he is too late to do anything about it. Harry knows this fury is connected to the prophecy being lost while this fury was not evoked the moment the prophecy broke. Harry did not have a strong emotion about it because it did not matter to him one way or the other. So LV could not have sensed a strong emotion about the prophecy being lost > and why Harry did not sense LV getting infuriated about it then. > > LV's fury comes from him hearing Harry tell Bella it is lost and to me it is a lot to assume that it would take LV just a minute to appear at the DoM after he hears Harry tell this to Bella Therefore I believe LV heard Harry tell Bella not from Harry's head but with his own ears as he'd just arrived. Harry would not have seen him come in because he was hiding behind the statue of the Goblin and we see by his reaction to Bella that LV is coming from her direction because she sees him first and then Harry states LV can't hear her. > Carol responds: At least we agree that the fury Harry is feeling is voldemort's. However, Voldemort has not yet arrived in the MoM (thye're no longer in the DoM; they're now in the Atrium). The moment of Voldemort's arrival is crystal clear from the context. Harry doesn't see him, but Bellatrix does, and she interrupts her calling Harry a liar to scream, 'MASTER, I TRIED, I TRIED--DO NOT PUNISH ME--" (812). Clearly, Voldemort has just arrived and she seems him appear, nearly a page after Harry's says that the Prophecy is gone and his scar starts to hurt again. Note, too, that the pain intensifies ("more terrible than ever" just at that moment). How Voldemort got in, I don't know. But there's no evidence whatsoever that he's physically present until Bellatrix screams to him not to punish her. True, we don't know how Voldemort hears Harry's words or senses his thoughts without having a scar himself, but it's clearly a two-way connection, and Voldemort being not only a skilled Legilimens but the greatest Dark Wizard of the century would know how to manipulate it. Again, please note the timing. Bella tries to summon the Prophecy. Harry tells her that it's gone. His scar hurts for the first time since it prickled in the forest when Harry referred to Sirius. He interprets the pain to mean that Voldemort knows and informs Bellatrix that Voldie knows it's gone. Harry tells her that the Prophecy smashed when he was trying to get Neville up the steps. The scar hurts so badly that it brings tears to his eyes. She calls him a liar and tries to summon the Prophecy. The pain in his head is building, but he laughs to incense her and says there's nothing to summon. She calls him a liar again and then screams to Voldemort not to punish her. He has clearly arrived at that point. Harry has to "screw up his eyes" to fight the pain and, with closed eyes, tells Bellatrix that he can't hear her from there. And then Voldemort speaks and Harry opens his eyes to see LV standing in the middle of the hall. Voldie, who has already heard or sensed Harry telling Bella that the Prophecy is smashed now determines that Harry is speaking the truth through eye-to-eye Legilimency. Carol, who thinks it's crystal-clear that the two-way scar link and nothing else brought Voldemort to that exact spot at that exact moment From bartl at sprynet.com Sun May 13 21:16:43 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:16:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Madame Hooch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4647803B.5010500@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168662 juleyjubes wrote: > Does anyone know what Madame Hooch does in between teaching first years > how to fly for their first flying lesson and overseeing (refereeing?) > the quidditch games? Bart: Who do you think prepares the stuff Prof. Trelawny drinks? More likely, however, she isn't part of the regular staff, but only comes in when needed. POSSIBLY, she teaches one of the subjects that we don't hear much about, like Muggle Studies or Ancient Runes. Bart From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 13 22:23:59 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:23:59 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168663 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nirjhar Jain" wrote: > > Hi, > > I am a Harry Hermione shipper. > > I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling did not explore H/Hr as a > ship? > > Hermione is Harry's equal intellectually. She stands upto him. She is > not overawed by him. Geoff: On the other hand, I think Harry can be overawed by Hermione. There are occasions when she starts to organise people - which include Harry, Ron and other groups such as the house-elves - and finishes up by interfering with what they are doing. I think that if she and Harry were together, she might become a a nagger. Harry does not like being organised by /anyone/ and I feel that any such relationship would come under severe strain. I did pose the question some months ago as to why Harry should necessarily hook up with someone by the end of the books. Many people today wait until they are older before seeking that sort of link and often hang around with close friends with similar interests. I have to say that I don't particularly like Ginny as a potential girlfriend for him either. From BrwNeil at aol.com Sun May 13 22:46:42 2007 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 18:46:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168664 In a message dated 5/13/2007 12:46:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nkafkafi at yahoo.com writes: Also, I'd say that Hermione hooking with Ron rather than with the main hero of the series is one of the things that narrowly save her from being a deplorable Mary Sue, given that she's consciously based on Jo herself at that age. I think more than anything, JKR hooked Hermione with Ron rather than Harry just to be different. The male and female leads usually get together. JKR wanted to be different and have the female lead end up with the best friend. Unfortunately, in my opinion, she wrote them totally incompatible. An author wanting to do something is one thing. Convincing her readers that it is the right thing is a totally different matter. I have read each of the books at least six times. I've seen all the hints of what was to happen, but never any logic behind them as to why. An author can't just decide that something is going to happen. He or she must also convince her readers that it is the proper thing. There are still too many readers out there shaking their heads and asking why. She did the same thing with Harry and Ginny. Ginny from book one on was the star struck president of the Harry Potter fan club. What has JKR ever done to show us, the readers, that Ginny was any different than any of the other girls that just wanted Harry because he was famous. I haven't given up hope, however. Harry and Hermione may never get together in canon, but I can always hope that Ron and Hermione don't make it as a couple and that Ginny decides not to wait for Harry. Admit it, that would be totally different and not out of character for Ginny. She doesn't like going more than a couple days without a boyfriend. Neil ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun May 13 22:48:28 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 00:48:28 +0200 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? References: Message-ID: <011101c795b0$d370db80$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 168665 Geoff Bannister wrote: > I think that if she and Harry were together, she might become a a > nagger. > Harry does not like being organised by /anyone/ and I feel that any > such relationship would come under severe strain. Miles: I agree. But let's see... "I think that if she and Ron were together, she might become a nagger. Ron does not like being organised by /anyone/ and I feel that any such relationship would come under severe strain." I would agree to this as well ;). It was obvious that JKR wanted Ron/Hermione, I'd say from the very beginning. Hermione seems to be the kind of girl/woman who wants to create her partner, and she works on Ron from the very beginning of PS/SS. But will she be ever satisfied with the Ron she might create? And Ron - will he really tolerate being dominated the way Hermione will try to dominate any partner she has? And - what do have Hermione and Ron in common apart from Hogwarts? Hobbies? Concepts of life? Ambitions? Past? Future? I only see disaster - at best a continuing friendship if they can end it up before hurting each other. Miles, a non-shipper From catlady at wicca.net Sun May 13 22:56:07 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:56:07 -0000 Subject: Castle/Snape'sAge/Respect/ChoiceOfBadTeacher/Hawthorn Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168666 Kemper wrote in : << I'm no architectural historian, but castles of Howgarts immensity did not exist circa 997 AD.>> That's only Muggle castles. The wizards started out more advanced than Muggles -- for a while, Muggle inventions were attempts to do by 'technology' what they had seen wizards do by magic. (There's canon for that, but I can't remember which book to skim for the quote about the ways Muggles have figured out how to do things without magic.) So the wizards may have had, what are they, 14th century castles, and 19th century palaces, and 20th century flush toilets, and talking portraits (Mrs Black could be a 20th century video loop, but the portraits in Hogwarts are 21st century AI) more than 3000 or 4000 years ago. For some reason, no one is as amused as I am by my joke that the wizards had them in Atlantis before it sank, because I feel that Atlantis being real goes along with Rowling's gag that the Loch Ness monster, leprechauns, and other fables are real but concealed from Muggles by wizards. Here I go off on my digression about, since the conquest of electricity, Muggles have been inventing things without having gotten the idea from wizards (just being in the habit of inventing things) and the wizards started copying from us. Railroads may have been inspired by the Gringotts carts and gaslights by the candles that illuminate wizarding home without ever burning out, but Wizarding Wireless is obviously copied from Muggle wireless -- the Muggle radio is called 'wireless' because it was preceeded by the 'wire'(the telegraph), but the wizards didn't have a precursor named 'wire'. Tandra wrote in : << how much older than Harry is Snape? >> Harry was born on July 31, 1980. Severus, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus, and Peter were all in the same year at school; therefore they were all roughly the same age. I like to believe they were all born in the Sept 1957 through August 1958 year (thus being the same age as me) but everyone else seems to have them born in 1960, which would make Sevvie (and Harry's parents) 20 years older than Harry. Carol wrote in : << Snape is about twenty-one and a half years older than Harry (JKR said that he was 35 or 36 as of GoF when Harry is 14 and his birthday is January 9 compared with July 31 for Harry). >> JKR said Snape "is" about 35 or 36 when she was asked during the publicity tour for GoF, but didn't specify whether "is" means at the start or the end of GoF, or the start or the end of the whole seven book series, altho' I think we can safely assume she didn't mean he was 35 or 36 in the year 2000. montims wrote in : << When I grew up, the prevailing theme really was that children should be seen and not heard, and that adults were their betters and expected respect even when they didn't earn it. And that is the attitude that carries over in the JKR books. >> It may be the attitude of some of the characters, but if it were the attitude of the *books*, the readers would not be invited to joined Harry in disrespecting adults such as 1) Lord Voldemort, 2) Gilderoy Lockhart, 3) Sybil Trelawney, 4) Igor Karkaroff, 5) Cornelius Fudge, 6) Delores Umbridge ... I think Rowling wants children as well as adults to recognize evil and not do what evil people tell them to do. Carol wrote in : << would much rather have Snape as a teacher than Fake!Moody, Umbridge, Slughorn, Binns, Lockhart, Hagrid, or Trelawney >> It seems to me that Fake!Moody's students learned the material, which is more than Quirrell's or Lockhart's or Umbridge's students did. Some of Trelawney's students idolized her, and it is entirely possible that they *were* learning Divination from her; while Trelawney did go in for melodramatic rubbish and overheated rooms, she did provide a memorizable list of shapes/meanings for the tea leaves and so on. From what Professor Grubbly-Plank told High Inquisitor Umbridge, Hagrid's students were on course with the creatures likely to be included on their OWLs. Judging from my experience of taking a dog grooming class, I wouldn't have liked COMC any better with Professor Kettleburn. Out of that list, I think I would prefer Fake!Moody. MiamiBarb wrote in : << On the witches' holiday of Beltane (May Day) >> Some have heard of a May Day tradition of 'bringing in the may' -- gathering leafy twigs and flowers to leave on your true love's doorstep, or put up as decorations in your own house. Under the Old Style Calendar, the hawthorn was in bloom then (I hear tell that global warming is now making it bloom for May Day despite the New Style Calendar). I don't think I'd recognize the tree, and I've never seen its flowers, which are said to be white, but that custom caused 'may' to be an alternate name for hawthorn. 'Bringing in the may' meaning 'bringing in flowering branches of hawthorn. May Eve is the famous Walpurgisnacht, and JKR said somewhere that LV created the Death Eaters from an already existing group called The Knights of Walpurgis. Walpurgisnacht means 'Walburga's night' (named after St. Walburga) and it seems that Sirius's mother happened to be named Walburga. From muellem at bc.edu Sun May 13 23:02:13 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 23:02:13 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <011101c795b0$d370db80$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168667 > Miles: > I agree. But let's see... > "I think that if she and Ron were together, she might become a nagger. Ron > does not like being organised by /anyone/ and I feel that any such > relationship would come under severe strain." > > Hermione seems to be the kind of girl/woman who wants to create her partner, > and she works on Ron from the very beginning of PS/SS. But will she be ever > satisfied with the Ron she might create? > And Ron - will he really tolerate being dominated the way Hermione will try > to dominate any partner she has? > And - what do have Hermione and Ron in common apart from Hogwarts? Hobbies? > Concepts of life? Ambitions? Past? Future? > colebiancardi: ahhh, but how does that old saying go? A boy will marry his mother? I see a lot of Molly in Hermione and I see a lot of the relationship in Arthur & Molly and Ron & Hermoine. I don't think Hermione will dominate Ron over his will. I give a lot of credit to Ron for standing up to his own beliefs(as Arthur does to Molly). Ron just choses what battles he will fight with Hermione. It doesn't make him weak at all. I don't "see" Hermione "working" on Ron; she may push him to do better, but she doesn't expect anything that is out of Ron's character. I've seen the Ron & Hermione romance from CoS, when Ron tried to defend Hermione's honor when Draco insulted her. What do Ron & Hermione have in common outside of Hogwarts? Well, call me a romantic, but it is their love for one another. Sure, they bicker, but a lot of happy couples bicker - for some, it is a way of "foreplay". colebiancardi From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun May 13 23:16:14 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 23:16:14 -0000 Subject: On Moral Compasses (was:Re: Snape as Neville's teacher...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168668 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dracojadon at ... wrote: So who's going to point out to > her that she's being hypocritical and not very nice before some > terrible punishment falls on her head (as predicted: http:// > www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt43.shtml)? Harry spent > much of HBP deliberately doing not that. How far aware of her > behaviour is Hermione? Is _she_ in need of a subplot on redemption? > > Jadon > Hermione can certainly come across as a negative character -- being shrewish, manipulative, shrill, arrogant, and generally insufferable. But is this the way JKR sees her? And even if JKR sees her this way, will she "do" anything about it? First of all, there is a practical question here. JKR only has one book left, and that book has so much in the way of mandatory plot work to be done (horcruxes, Voldemort finale, etc) that she is going to have to be VERY selective as to what kind of discretionary plot threads she includes. The Hermione situation is one of those that, sadly, probably should have been dealt with in HBP or even OOTP. It may very well be too late to get into such a complicated and fundamental issue with someone who is, after all, a secondary character. Perhaps any Ron/Hermione subplot that develops will allow some degree of attention to Hermione's morals, or perhaps a house- unity thread would allow the same. But is there time for the kind of dramatic and intense moral realignment that many seem to want? What would trigger such a realignment? And how could it be done without making the adults seem like even bigger inept morons than they are already? Oh, it's yet another Dumbledorian "it's better if they learn it themselves" kind of policy? Well, I think that would be silly beyond belief. Not to mention it would be preaching to the point of inducing nausea. Secondly, it is to be remembered that Hermione is JKR's Mary Sue. Criticism of Hermione would to an extent be criticism of herself. Some authors are into that. Is JKR? I don't think we have much indication one way or the other. Finally there is the problem that JKR is ruled by her outlines as by an iron straitjacket. So much that fascinates fandom was not anticipated in her outlines, and ergo is not an important issue in the Potterverse. If JKR did not anticipate the reaction to Hermione and the Trio in general in some quarters -- and I think it's likely she did not -- then it may well end up finessed along with many other important issues. We will see. Lupinlore From catlady at wicca.net Sun May 13 23:18:34 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 23:18:34 -0000 Subject: The Ministry of Magic and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168669 David dragonkeeper wrote in : << There is one thing that I have been wondering and that is this: Who was the Minister of Magic when Voldemort was defeated? >> Millicent Bagnold. Page 88 of UK ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. "Fudge thinks Dumbledore's plotting to overthrow him. He thinks Dumbledore wants to be Minister for Magic." "But Dumbledore doesn't want --" "Of course he doesn't," said Mr Weasley. "He's never wanted the Minister's job, even though a lot of people wanted him to take it when Millicent Bagnold retired. Fudge came to power instead". The name of Millicent Bagnold sounds a bit like that of Millicent Bulstrode, Slytherin student. (Altho' I admit Bagnold isn't as obviously bad-guy a name as if it were Badnolg.] Perhaps "little" Millicent was named after "big" Millicent, maybe them being related, maybe "little" Millicent's parents hoping to get in good with the Minister for Magic. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun May 13 23:21:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 23:21:31 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM/Slughorn's favoritism/Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168670 > > Dana: > Why isn't Snape dead for betraying LV? He was the only one that could > have send the Order because he was be the only one at Hogwarts that > would know Harry went missing, because all other Order Members were > removed and I have absolutely no doubt that LV knew this because his > plan wouldn't have worked otherwise and as we see the first thing > Harry does when he received the vision is going to McGonagall, who > was until that morning still in the Hospital wing. Pippin: Voldemort couldn't have counted on Harry falling asleep in the middle of his History of Magic exam. But he could count on Harry falling asleep at night. If the vision had come at night, Harry would have talked to his friends first, they'd have come up with a plan of action that didn't involve teachers, and no one, Snape included, would have known what happened until the next morning. Voldemort could blame his own impatience for ruining his plan, not that it would be in character. But it's already been pointed out that Voldemort had no reason to think there weren't other teachers who were Order members. It might even be so. Flitwick might have been an Order member all along. But someone had to tell Kreacher when the vision had got through so that he could wound Buckbeak, That information must have come from Voldemort's end since Snape didn't even know about it until after Harry had talked to Kreacher. I'm sure that JKR has her reasons for not letting us know how Kreacher and Voldemort were communicating. But there are those mirrors which wouldn't have been as useful as we might think. Is that because Kreacher had stolen Sirius's mirror and Voldemort had another? I doubt that Voldemort actually trusts Snape. Psychopaths are psychologically incapable of trusting anyone, and the more powerful Snape becomes, the more Voldemort will fear losing control of him. But he does not have to be in a hurry to eliminate Snape. As long as none of his followers suppose that Snape has betrayed their master and is getting away with it, LV can take his time and plot the elaborate sort of revenge which he enjoys. Pippin From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun May 13 23:32:57 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 01:32:57 +0200 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? References: Message-ID: <012f01c795b7$0a4200c0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 168671 colebiancardi wrote: > ahhh, but how does that old saying go? A boy will marry his mother? > I see a lot of Molly in Hermione and I see a lot of the relationship > in Arthur & Molly and Ron & Hermoine. Miles: Molly was the brightest witch of her age? Molly was as ambitious as Hermione is? I really don't see it. Molly may want to push Arthur to a career he does not really want to have, but where do you see any parallels to Hermione? The only one is that Molly is the Weasley who decides things, is dominant in the family. colebiancardi: > What do Ron & > Hermione have in common outside of Hogwarts? Well, call me a > romantic, but it is their love for one another. Miles: To fall in love is sufficient for a happy time together, but not for a life together ;). JKR seems to follow the romantic pattern "they fell in love at school, married, and lived happily ever after." Well, that's not very realistic, right? Yes, it is just a novel, and fiction, so no need for realism. But the start of this thread was about "shipping", and I simply disagree with those who state that Ron and Hermione are a perfect match. They really, really aren't. Miles From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 00:04:12 2007 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:04:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <012f01c795b7$0a4200c0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: <96345.35011.qm@web61321.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168672 > > Miles: > To fall in love is sufficient for a happy time > together, but not for a life > together ;). JKR seems to follow the romantic > pattern "they fell in love at > school, married, and lived happily ever after." > Well, that's not very > realistic, right? Yes, it is just a novel, and > fiction, so no need for > realism. But the start of this thread was about > "shipping", and I simply > disagree with those who state that Ron and Hermione > are a perfect match. > They really, really aren't. Joe: Do we really know enough about the inner workings of either Ron or Hermione's minds to say what they may or may not have in common? Or even what their true hopes, dreams and aspirations are? Thats the issue with shipping, we only "see" what Harry sees. We only see the interactions Harry sees. So I don't see how you can say that they are or are not a perfect match. I know plenty of happy couples that have a H/Hr dynamic. I also know plenty of happy couples that have a R/Hr dynamic. Personally I think Hermione mothers Harry "WAY TOO" much for any relationship like that to be healthy. In fact it would creep me out but I can see it going either way in the books and I don't think there is one perfect way it had to go. Joe From celizwh at intergate.com Mon May 14 01:06:46 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 01:06:46 -0000 Subject: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168673 clcb58: > But, what about Hermione? She's beyond capable and he > treats her with almost as much, if not more, disdain as > he treats Neville. houyhnhnm: Hermione is a great memorizer. If she is capapble of original thought but never pushes herself to do it, remaining content to parrot what others have written, that would earn Snape's contempt, I think. There are some other things going on, of course, such as her close friendship with the Chosen One, as well as what would be any teacher's concern to prevent a know-it-all from taking over the class. In addition, since I am a Snapist, I wouldn't be surprised if Snape is put off by the same things many readers are put off by--Hermione's self-righteousness and questionable integrity. I suspect he considers her shallow. From muellem at bc.edu Mon May 14 01:09:20 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 01:09:20 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <012f01c795b7$0a4200c0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168674 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > colebiancardi wrote: > > ahhh, but how does that old saying go? A boy will marry his mother? > > I see a lot of Molly in Hermione and I see a lot of the relationship > > in Arthur & Molly and Ron & Hermoine. > > Miles: > Molly was the brightest witch of her age? Molly was as ambitious as Hermione > is? > I really don't see it. Molly may want to push Arthur to a career he does not > really want to have, but where do you see any parallels to Hermione? > The only one is that Molly is the Weasley who decides things, is dominant in > the family. > colebiancardi: I was referring to personality. Strip away the "brightest" stuff and their personalities are pretty similar. They both can get petty (RE: Molly's coolness towards Hermione when she thought that Hermione "broke" Harry's heart) and their strong presence. And as far as ambition goes, who is to say that Molly's ambition isn't as strong as Hermione's? They may not be the same ambition, but I can see that Molly's ambition to be a mother & a force in her family is just as ambitious as Hermione's ambition(which seems to be doing public service) > colebiancardi: > > What do Ron & > > Hermione have in common outside of Hogwarts? Well, call me a > > romantic, but it is their love for one another. > > Miles: > To fall in love is sufficient for a happy time together, but not for a life > together ;). JKR seems to follow the romantic pattern "they fell in love at > school, married, and lived happily ever after." Well, that's not very > realistic, right? Yes, it is just a novel, and fiction, so no need for > realism. But the start of this thread was about "shipping", and I simply > disagree with those who state that Ron and Hermione are a perfect match. > They really, really aren't. > colebiancardi: In your opinion. I think that Ron & Hermione are a perfect match for their age. And although I agree that most people(today) do not and should not get married at such a young age, in the past, they did and they did stay married. The WW seems to be running behind in modernity in a lot of aspects, and I can see that population being similar in their culture as a culture about 50-70 years ago. I do not think JKR will marry off any of the young characters at the end of DH. Shippers, which I am not a part of that group, are looking to pair couples up, but it doesn't mean they want them to get married and have a ton of kids. colebiancardi From belviso at attglobal.net Mon May 14 01:07:19 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:07:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid and Draco References: Message-ID: <019301c795c4$38dc2a70$5886400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168675 Alla: > > Okay. So do you think Harry also should not have been punished after > him using Sectusemptra on Malfoy? After all he was having guilty > feelings about it, doesn't it mean that he learned that unknown > curses should not have been used? Magpie: Making a mistake in class has never been cause for detention for anyone. Hexing someone else is (even if you have some minimal feelings of guilt). So no, I don't think it's particularly strange for the faculty to consider one a reason to give detention for one and not the other. Mistakes are part of the classroom experience. You don't get detention for doing something wrong that you're being taught how to do. Alla: > Do you think Neville should not have been given that lizards or > toads cutting detention in GoF? I mean it is a pretty safe > speculation to make that he was hurt after breaking another cauldron > or whatever he got his detention for? Magpie: I think that's a better analogy and no, I don't, though in Snape's case at least he's responding to a pattern--five cauldrons with no detentions. The text ascribes that detention to Snape's being more vindictive than he has been, which would indicate Harry doesn't think people should get detentions for making mistakes in class either. And that Snape hasn't given detention for it in the past. Alla: > I mean, Malfoy gets rewarded from Snape for being hurt, he is also > shamelessly gloats that he can use his injury to gets Hagrid fired. > Shouldn't he also be punished for that? Magpie: No. Nor should Harry get detention for saying something Malfoy thinks is obnoxious. Snape doesn't need to be rewarding Malfoy to want to irritate Harry. > > Magpie: >> And also Hagrid didn't present his safety precautions well to > begin >> with--Malfoy wasn't reading the scene in the book where Hagrid's > line was >> there in print with everything else. He got a comment that should > have been >> repeated and made clear and explained, not just thrown away > as "don't insult >> 'em or it's the last thing ye'll do" in a moment when he happened > to be the >> kid that was whispering with his friend, as kids do throughout > class. And >> Hagrid should have been having the kids approach the advanced > animal >> individually anyway, as he did with Harry. This scenario hit on > Hagrid's >> flaws as well as Draco's. > > > Alla: > > I think it is irrelevant to the question whether Malfoy should have > been punished for his mistakes. Magpie: Yes, I thought it was a separate issue. Malfoy should not have gotten detention because a) he just made a mistake in class and that's not something you get detention for. But b) I don't think it would be particularly good for Hagrid as a teacher to take this attitude. Alla: Hagrid's mistakes I mean. I think it > is debatable whether he presented his safety precautions well > enough. But even if he did not present them well, he **presented** > them, Malfoy did not listen. Why should he not been punished for > that? Magpie: For the same reason Neville and Harry and Ron shouldn't be punished every time they don't listen in class by anything more than what they get--they wind up doing something wrong. Kids don't listen in class every minute. Neither do adults. This particular time ought to teach both Malfoy and Hagrid something. Malfoy that he needs to always listen when Hagrid is talking about a dangerous animal because it might not be obvious when he's saying something really important, and Hagrid that he ought to be far more clear about danger. Malfoy learns his. Alla: > > I mean do not get me wrong, if Hogwarts has the program where they > take away yearly bonuses or give warnings to teachers ( I wonder how > much Snape would have gotten of those), I am fine with Hagrid being > talked to by Dumbledore or whatever mentor, but I fail to see why it > should relive Malfoy from punishment. Magpie: Because Malfoy didn't do anything to be punished for any more than Neville or Harry do when they get something wrong in Potions, or the Trio does when they chat through Charms or fall asleep in History of Magic. Alla:> > Would it make him feel different about Hagrid? I doubt it, if he > felt that way about Hagrid before he even met him, but maybe it > would have a punitive effect in his mind. Magpie: He got more of a punitive effect getting slashed by the hippogriff. > Alla: > > Well, since this victim IMO made his life hell for the whole year, I > think his instinct was right personally. Magpie: I don't think blaming the victim is a great attitude to take just in case the victim turns out to be someone you don't like. Ron didn't seem to appreciate it much when he was the victim. Sometimes victims get angry. Malfoy did something wrong in class and didn't follow directions properly. I don't think he had any reason to be punished for it--it was an obvious risk of the class Hagrid took (without seeming to realize it). And I don't think it would have done much to help Hagrid's own class experience if he did punish him. Nobody in canon ever seems to think it's odd Malfoy doesn't get punished. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 01:26:40 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 01:26:40 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: <019301c795c4$38dc2a70$5886400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168676 > Alla: > > Do you think Neville should not have been given that lizards or > > toads cutting detention in GoF? I mean it is a pretty safe > > speculation to make that he was hurt after breaking another cauldron > > or whatever he got his detention for? > > Magpie: > I think that's a better analogy and no, I don't, though in Snape's case at > least he's responding to a pattern--five cauldrons with no detentions. The > text ascribes that detention to Snape's being more vindictive than he has > been, which would indicate Harry doesn't think people should get detentions > for making mistakes in class either. And that Snape hasn't given detention > for it in the past. Alla: I am sorry I got confused with the negatives in question and answer :) Do you mind clarifying whether you think Neville should have gotten this detention or not? Thanks. And pattern or not pattern, I think we see an example of student getting the detention for something he did wrong in class. I have no doubt that Snape was being vindictive of course. We also see Harry punished by Umbridge for what he did in class, do we not? > Alla: > > I mean, Malfoy gets rewarded from Snape for being hurt, he is also > > shamelessly gloats that he can use his injury to gets Hagrid fired. > > Shouldn't he also be punished for that? > > Magpie: > No. Nor should Harry get detention for saying something Malfoy thinks is > obnoxious. Snape doesn't need to be rewarding Malfoy to want to irritate > Harry. Alla: Huh? I was saying that if it is okay to reward Malfoy for being hurt ( make Ron cut his roots for him and we know that he is perfectly capable of doing so himself), then why is it not okay to punish him for being hurt due to his carelessness IMO? What does it mean "Snape doesn't need to be rewarding Malfoy to want to irritate Harry."? > Magpie: > For the same reason Neville and Harry and Ron shouldn't be punished every > time they don't listen in class by anything more than what they get--they > wind up doing something wrong. Kids don't listen in class every minute. > Neither do adults. This particular time ought to teach both Malfoy and > Hagrid something. Malfoy that he needs to always listen when Hagrid is > talking about a dangerous animal because it might not be obvious when he's > saying something really important, and Hagrid that he ought to be far more > clear about danger. Malfoy learns his. Alla: Well, sure I know that it can teach them something and no, I do not buy that Malfoy learns his lesson. I think he is still being obnoxious brat to Hagrid IMO. But all that I was saying that I would wanted as a reader and applaud if Hagrid punished him as well. > > Alla: > > > > Well, since this victim IMO made his life hell for the whole year, I > > think his instinct was right personally. > > Magpie: > I don't think blaming the victim is a great attitude to take just in case > the victim turns out to be someone you don't like. Ron didn't seem to > appreciate it much when he was the victim. Sometimes victims get angry. Alla: No, blaming the victim is never a great attitude to take. What I was trying to say is that I find Hagrid attitude to be very understandable, because IMO this "victim" ( I just canot call Malfoy that) very quickly became an agressor and participated in year long witch hunt on Bucky and Hagrid. No, I am not exaggerating, I am truly seeing it that way. That is why since I believe that Malfoy due to his father truly was in the position of power over Hagrid, I am okay with Hagrid blaming Malfoy. I know we also disagree on that, but I think Malfoy with his behaviour traumatised Hagrid a lot. Him being framed again and all that. I find this deed of Malfoy ( oh man, I cannot even call him Draco when I type this) to be close in repulsiveness only to planning Dumbledore assasination. IMO of course. Magpie: >Nobody in canon ever seems to think it's odd Malfoy doesn't get > punished. > Alla: Sure, but I do not think that anybody would have been very surprised if he was punished. IMO of course. But again my main point is that I wanted him punished. Well, scene with Hermione was nice as carmic justice, but I wanted something more. JMO, Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon May 14 01:29:50 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 01:29:50 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168677 > Neil: > I think more than anything, JKR hooked Hermione with Ron rather than Harry > just to be different. The male and female leads usually get together. JKR > wanted to be different and have the female lead end up with the best friend. Neri: She may have done it just to be different, but I doubt it. JKR doesn't seem to be the author that does things only for the sake of being original or different. She isn't affected much by what people will say, this or that way. So, I think she realized that a lead female that is based on the the author getting together with the hero of the fantasy series would be a formula for a Mary Sue/Gary Stu couple of the worst kind. It would have also killed the interesting symmetry of the Trio, as H/Hr would have become the center of interest and Ron would have become a very secondary character. Interestingly, JKR said that Ron has acquired many of the characteristics of her best childhood friend, although he was not intended that way at first (not consciously, anyway). So Hermione may actually be a Mary Sue in the sense that she fulfills a hidden wish of the author -- to have a romance that for some reason didn't work for the author in RL. But it also could be simply JKR finding it convenient to describe a relationship that she's very familiar with. In any case Hermione is still narrowly saved from the worst of Mary-Sue-ness by Ron being portrayed as the anti-hero more than the hero. > Neil: > Unfortunately, in my opinion, she wrote them totally incompatible. An author > wanting to do something is one thing. Convincing her readers that it is the > right thing is a totally different matter. > Neri: She doesn't have to convince anybody that they are compatible. This isn't her job as the author. Her job is to convince us that their relationship is *interesting*, which is in a sense the opposite (to keep the romantic tension going the couple needs to be at least somewhat incompatible, otherwise they'd just live happily ever after the first or second book, and that would be boring). R/Hr is easily the most interesting SHIP in the series, much more interesting than the relationship between Hermione and Harry, So JKR is doing her job right. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 02:13:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 02:13:15 -0000 Subject: Snape'sAge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168678 Carol wrote in > : > > << Snape is about twenty-one and a half years older than Harry (JKR said that he was 35 or 36 as of GoF when Harry is 14 and his birthday is January 9 compared with July 31 for Harry). >> > Catlady noted: > JKR said Snape "is" about 35 or 36 when she was asked during the publicity tour for GoF, but didn't specify whether "is" means at the start or the end of GoF, or the start or the end of the whole seven book series, altho' I think we can safely assume she didn't mean he was 35 or 36 in the year 2000. Carol responds: But she also said that Sirius Black, who was in the same year in school as Severus Snape, was "about twenty-two" when the Potters were killed . So Sirius was either twenty-one going on twenty-two or already twenty-two (perhaps about to turn twenty-three) at that time, two months into the school year. If his birthday is between September 1 and October 31, he'd already have had his birthday and be (numerically) a year older than Severus (even though they were really only four or five months apart) because Severus would not have his birthday until January. If his birthday comes at any point after October 31, in November-December or January-August, he would be (numerically) the same age as Severus. So, if Sirius is already twenty-two as of October 31, 1981, he must have been born between November 1, 1958 and October 31, 1959. If he has an early birthday like Hermione, between September 1 and October 31, he'll be (numerically) a year older than Severus, who will be twenty-one at this point, not having had his birthday. If Sirius's birthday is after October 31, however, he and Severus will be the same age: twenty-two. Sirius would be "about" 35 as of October 31, 1994 (Halloween in GoF). That fits perfectly with Severus as 35 at the beginning of GoF and 35 in the second half of that year (from January 9 to the end of June). Math(s) is not my strong point, but based on these two sets of numbers, I think it's safe to say that both Sirius Black and Severus Snape are about twenty-one years older than Harry, twenty-one and a half in Snape's case and twenty-one and an unknown number of months in Black's. If JKR would only confirm that Lupin was also twenty-two at the time of Godric's Hollow, we'd know for sure about Snape, who is almost exactly two months older than Lupin. Carol, who sees January 9, 1959, as the most likely date for Severus Smape's birth, but that's ignoring the Black family tapestry as a wrench in the works From fiziwig at yahoo.com Mon May 14 02:07:09 2007 From: fiziwig at yahoo.com (Gary Shannon) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 19:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Madame Hooch In-Reply-To: <4647803B.5010500@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <20070514020709.53649.qmail@web37910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168679 > > juleyjubes wrote: > > Does anyone know what Madame Hooch does in between teaching > > first years how to fly for their first flying lesson and > > overseeing (refereeing?) the quidditch games? > Bart: >snip> > POSSIBLY, she teaches one of the subjects that we don't hear > much about, like Muggle Studies or Ancient Runes. Gary: My conclusion is that she does not teach any other subject, otherwise she would be addressed "Professor" Hooch rather than "Madam" Hooch. The non-teachers, Madam Pomfrey, Mr. Filtch, Hagrid (before CoMC), etc., all lack the title "professor". That seems to imply also that broomstick flying is more a "coaching" job than a "teaching" job. --gary From jnferr at gmail.com Mon May 14 02:32:29 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:32:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705131932r63cd8002l7b81dcc545c95492@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168680 > > > Neil: > > I think more than anything, JKR hooked Hermione with Ron rather than > Harry > > just to be different. The male and female leads usually get > together. JKR > > wanted to be different and have the female lead end up with the > best friend. > > Neri: > She may have done it just to be different, but I doubt it. JKR doesn't > seem to be the author that does things only for the sake of being > original or different. She isn't affected much by what people will > say, this or that way. So, I think she realized that a lead female > that is based on the the author getting together with the hero of the > fantasy series would be a formula for a Mary Sue/Gary Stu couple of > the worst kind. It would have also killed the interesting symmetry of > the Trio, as H/Hr would have become the center of interest and Ron > would have become a very secondary character. montims: I think I agree with Neri, though I have no idea who Mary Sue or Gary Stu are, and I'm quite well read, so I would not be surprised if JKR was also equally ignorant, and therefore did not base her story on them, whether positively or negatively. I have seen some very ugly shipping threads, and all I can say is that I'm happy for it to play the way JKR wants to, because Shesayzso, and it's her fantasy. I understand that she had the whole 7 books mapped out before she started, with backstory and futurestory in there, so I would not expect her to deviate from that to suit the millions of shippers she had no inkling would be quibbling over this years after her first book was published. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fiziwig at yahoo.com Mon May 14 02:21:01 2007 From: fiziwig at yahoo.com (Gary) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 02:21:01 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nirjhar Jain" wrote: > > Hi, > > I am a Harry Hermione shipper. > > I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling did not explore H/Hr as a > ship? >snip> This may sound ridiculous, but consider it from this perspective: Perhaps JKR simply wrote down what Harry, himself, wanted. Many years ago I wrote a few fantasy novels of my own (no, none was ever published) and I found very often the characters would take on a life of their own and it was THEIR wants and needs that drove the story line, not mine. I'm sure JKR knows Harry well enough to know what HE wants, and may have no choice but to respect Harry's preferences. Besides, we all know at least one couple that leaves us scratching our head and wondering what each sees in the other. Perhaps we must be satisfied with knowing that we'll never know for sure why one ship floats and another sinks. --gary From belviso at attglobal.net Mon May 14 02:44:47 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:44:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid and Draco References: Message-ID: <01ce01c795d1$d73114d0$5886400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168682 >> Magpie: >> I think that's a better analogy and no, I don't, though in Snape's > case at >> least he's responding to a pattern--five cauldrons with no > detentions. The >> text ascribes that detention to Snape's being more vindictive than > he has >> been, which would indicate Harry doesn't think people should get > detentions >> for making mistakes in class either. And that Snape hasn't given > detention >> for it in the past. > > Alla: > > I am sorry I got confused with the negatives in question and > answer :) Do you mind clarifying whether you think Neville should > have gotten this detention or not? Thanks. Magpie: Sorry, I seem to like those kinds of constructions and it gets me into trouble.:-) No, I don't think Neville should have gotten the detention. Alla: > And pattern or not pattern, I think we see an example of student > getting the detention for something he did wrong in class. I have no > doubt that Snape was being vindictive of course. Magpie: But it's presented as Snape being vindictive and weird when he does it. It's not even normal for Snape, since Neville's melted cauldrons before. My point of it being a pattern is that with Snape it could perhaps at least be a question of his thinking he has to do something more drastic to get Neville to stop doing it. It's not something that's normal to give detention for doing something wrong in class. If it were Neville would never get out of detention. Instead, quite rightly, he can throw Flitwick across the room while he's learning to do charms. Alla: > We also see Harry punished by Umbridge for what he did in class, do > we not? Magpie: I don't think he gets detention for getting something wrong in class, no. To use another example, McGonagall gives Draco detention for not handing in his homework twice, which is perfectly reasonable. He doesn't get detention for being given something to do in class and not getting it right. > Alla: > > Huh? I was saying that if it is okay to reward Malfoy for being hurt > ( make Ron cut his roots for him and we know that he is perfectly > capable of doing so himself), then why is it not okay to punish him > for being hurt due to his carelessness IMO? > > What does it mean "Snape doesn't need to be rewarding Malfoy to want > to irritate Harry."? Magpie: It means Snape isn't rewarding Malfoy for getting hurt. Malfoy's getting hurt just added a different variation on Snape being his usual annoying self to Harry and Ron. >> Magpie: >> For the same reason Neville and Harry and Ron shouldn't be > punished every >> time they don't listen in class by anything more than what they > get--they >> wind up doing something wrong. Kids don't listen in class every > minute. >> Neither do adults. This particular time ought to teach both Malfoy > and >> Hagrid something. Malfoy that he needs to always listen when > Hagrid is >> talking about a dangerous animal because it might not be obvious > when he's >> saying something really important, and Hagrid that he ought to be > far more >> clear about danger. Malfoy learns his. > > Alla: > > Well, sure I know that it can teach them something and no, I do not > buy that Malfoy learns his lesson. I think he is still being > obnoxious brat to Hagrid IMO. Magpie: The lesson was to listen in class, and that he learns on his own. Nobody has to learn to like Hagrid in class. But everybody has learned to be extra careful and not trust Hagrid. I don't think they'd take too kindly to the idea that they're facing not only possible danger but also detention if they make Hagrid look bad by losing a limb. Snape might be able to carry that sort of thing off but I don't think Hagrid would last long trying to do it. Malfoy's not even that much trouble. I don't consider bluntly asking about safety in class to be acting like an obnoxious brat--especially when Hagrid responds with "Don't ask stupid questions." Alla: > > I know we also disagree on that, but I think Malfoy with his > behaviour traumatised Hagrid a lot. Him being framed again and all > that. Magpie: Actually, not so much framed this time. > Alla: > > Sure, but I do not think that anybody would have been very surprised > if he was punished. IMO of course. > > But again my main point is that I wanted him punished. Well, scene > with Hermione was nice as carmic justice, but I wanted something > more. Magpie: And if Hagrid did punish him I'd love to see his class become even more "traumatizing" for him. Because we probably find the whole storyline equally repulsive, but for different reasons. -m From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon May 14 02:58:34 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:58:34 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705131932r63cd8002l7b81dcc545c95492@mail.gmail.com> References: Message-ID: <46485CFA.18798.DED02E@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168683 On 13 May 2007 at 21:32, Janette wrote: > montims: > I think I agree with Neri, though I have no idea who Mary Sue or > Gary Stu > are, and I'm quite well read, so I would not be surprised if JKR was > also > equally ignorant, and therefore did not base her story on them, > whether > positively or negatively. Shaun: Well, just for the record, a 'Mary Sue' or a 'Gary Stu' character is a term - originally drawn from Star Trek fanfiction - that is used to refer to a character in a piece of fiction who is based (consciously or unconsciously) on the author of the piece of fiction. The term is often derogatory because many 'Mary Sues' are all powerful, nearly perfect, idealised views of the author who do great things ('Mary Sue saves the Enterprise again!'), but it doesn't have to be. So when people say Hermione is JKR's Mary Sue, they are saying that Hermione is a character that represents many of JKRs own characteristics and views. To get to the question on shipping, though, maybe the reason why JKR doesn't explore a H/Hr ship in canon is simply because the idea isn't one she wants to explore. Sometimes it seems to me that some people think all novels, all stories have to have relationships as a major part of the story. That simply isn't the case. There's nothing wrong with an author exploring particular relationships in their stories if that is part of what they want to write about, of course - but there's also nothing wrong with an author not regarding these as a major part of their work. The Harry Potter novels are not romance novels. Romantic relationships are not at the core of the story - and, in fact, the overriding storyline doesn't require them at all. JKR has chosen to have some relationships shown in her novels, in some detail - but they are not the core of the story. The same basic story could easily have been told without any romantic relationships developing at all. Some people - and this includes me - are frankly rather bored with romantic relationship fiction. Personally I would be entirely happy if JKR simply had no romances going on in her books - no Harry/Cho. No Harry/Ginny. No, Ron/Hermione. No nothing/nothing. I don't object to these things being in the books because they're in there at a level that I don't find invasive - but if these were books that were *primarily* about the romantic relationships between the characters, I, for one, wouldn't be reading them. And maybe JKR wouldn't be writing them. She has a story she wanted to write. Apparently, because she has written some romance into them, part of the story she wanted to write does include some romance - but they include as much as she wants, as much as she needs to tell the story she wanted to tell. If she hasn't explored Harry/Hermione in canon, maybe it's as simple as she doesn't see it that way. Or that she doesn't like it that way. Or maybe she does, but she sees that coming later in their life than now. 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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 03:19:48 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 03:19:48 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: <01ce01c795d1$d73114d0$5886400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168684 > Magpie: > Sorry, I seem to like those kinds of constructions and it gets me into > trouble.:-) No, I don't think Neville should have gotten the detention. Alla: Thanks, no, I was truly confused, sorry about that. When I have to figure out several "no" , I sometimes am not sure what the answer is. > Alla: > > And pattern or not pattern, I think we see an example of student > > getting the detention for something he did wrong in class. I have no > > doubt that Snape was being vindictive of course. > > Magpie: > But it's presented as Snape being vindictive and weird when he does it. It's > not even normal for Snape, since Neville's melted cauldrons before. My point > of it being a pattern is that with Snape it could perhaps at least be a > question of his thinking he has to do something more drastic to get Neville > to stop doing it. It's not something that's normal to give detention for > doing something wrong in class. Alla: I do understand your point. I am just saying that if the precedent exists, abnormal or not, that the precedent exists that teacher can do that, the justification for that can be explained somehow. > Magpie: > It means Snape isn't rewarding Malfoy for getting hurt. Malfoy's getting > hurt just added a different variation on Snape being his usual annoying self > to Harry and Ron. Alla: Eh, well this is a valid interpretation. Except we read that Malfoy complains that he cannot cut his roots and Snape orders Ron to do so, so I think mine is valid as well. What do you see in the text contradicting my interpretation? In fact, I think it is both - Snape being his annoying self and Snape awarding his pet Malfoy ( my view obviously to see him as Snape pet) the easier lesson, making other boy to work for him. > Magpie: > The lesson was to listen in class, and that he learns on his own. Nobody has > to learn to like Hagrid in class. But everybody has learned to be extra > careful and not trust Hagrid. Alla: Right, I thought Malfoy's lesson that he did not learn was to be **respectful** to Hagrid, speaking to him as he should speak to teacher, NOT liking him. I do not care if he fakes such respect, just as I do not care if Snape fakes that he is well, can tolerate Harry. > Alla: > > > > I know we also disagree on that, but I think Malfoy with his > > behaviour traumatised Hagrid a lot. Him being framed again and all > > that. > > Magpie: > Actually, not so much framed this time. Alla: We will have to disagree on this one. Even Malfoy himself admits that he was **not** hurt nearly as badly as he wants to show to the world, I think that it is a frame up IMO. > > Alla: > > > > Sure, but I do not think that anybody would have been very surprised > > if he was punished. IMO of course. > > > > But again my main point is that I wanted him punished. Well, scene > > with Hermione was nice as carmic justice, but I wanted something > > more. > > Magpie: > And if Hagrid did punish him I'd love to see his class become even more > "traumatizing" for him. Because we probably find the whole storyline equally > repulsive, but for different reasons. Alla: Oh, I am pretty sure we find this storyline repulsive for very different reasons. In fact, I am assuming that since it concerns Malfoy, you dislike about it what I like and vice versa Feel free to correct me since this is just a guess about your opinions and I do not want to stay wrong if I am wrong. I find repulsive that little snob who had an opinion about Hagrid before he met him, who got hurt a little bit because he did not listen, felt it was perfectly okay to pretend that he was hurt oh so much worse to make sure Bucky is dead and Hagrid is fired. I find Hermione dealing with him to be the only satisfying part of that storyline. Satisfying I mean of course in the emotional sense, storyline wise I am perfectly okay with it and how nicely it transforms in time travel, etc. I hated how this one little twit with the powerful daddy could make this huge guy so helpless, so desperate. At the same time I wish I could feel more for Hagrid's anquish over Bucky's possible execution. Strangely, on the hurt/ comfort level his anguish is a bit blah for me. Wierd. JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Mon May 14 03:48:30 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 23:48:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid and Draco References: Message-ID: <01ef01c795da$bdbce1b0$5886400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168685 > Alla: > > I do understand your point. I am just saying that if the precedent > exists, abnormal or not, that the precedent exists that teacher can > do that, the justification for that can be explained somehow. Magpie: There's plenty of precedent for teachers being able to be jerks to students if they want and getting away with it, sure. > > Magpie: >> It means Snape isn't rewarding Malfoy for getting hurt. Malfoy's > getting >> hurt just added a different variation on Snape being his usual > annoying self >> to Harry and Ron. > > > Alla: > > Eh, well this is a valid interpretation. Except we read that Malfoy > complains that he cannot cut his roots and Snape orders Ron to do > so, so I think mine is valid as well. What do you see in the text > contradicting my interpretation? In fact, I think it is both - Snape > being his annoying self and Snape awarding his pet Malfoy ( my view > obviously to see him as Snape pet) the easier lesson, making other > boy to work for him. Magpie: I don't think Snape's trying to encourage Malfoy to get attacked in Hagrid's class more often. Perhaps Snape thinks he's giving consolation to Malfoy, for all I know. (He may see the situation differently than Harry does.) The complicated web of teachers expressing their favoritism and dislike of students and passing annoyances and all that is certainly there to see. But Snape's having Ron cut Malfoy's roots (as opposed to, say, having Goyle do it) doesn't make the idea of Hagrid giving him detention any less strange to me. >> Magpie: >> The lesson was to listen in class, and that he learns on his own. > Nobody has >> to learn to like Hagrid in class. But everybody has learned to be > extra >> careful and not trust Hagrid. > > > Alla: > > Right, I thought Malfoy's lesson that he did not learn was to be > **respectful** to Hagrid, speaking to him as he should speak to > teacher, NOT liking him. I do not care if he fakes such respect, > just as I do not care if Snape fakes that he is well, can tolerate > Harry. Magpie: I never said that was the lesson he learned. It never really occurred to me that it should be. I guess Harry should also learn that lesson and never speak disrespectfully to Snape as well, but that's not what either teacher gets 100% of the time (nor do either of them give it 100% of the time). Hagrid does get a kid who always listens to his instructions. > Alla: > > Oh, I am pretty sure we find this storyline repulsive for very > different reasons. In fact, I am assuming that since it concerns > Malfoy, you dislike about it what I like and vice versa > Feel free to correct me since this is just a guess about your > opinions and I do not want to stay wrong if I am wrong. > > I find repulsive that little snob who had an opinion about Hagrid > before he met him, who got hurt a little bit because he did not > listen, felt it was perfectly okay to pretend that he was hurt oh so > much worse to make sure Bucky is dead and Hagrid is fired. > > I find Hermione dealing with him to be the only satisfying part of > that storyline. Satisfying I mean of course in the emotional sense, > storyline wise I am perfectly okay with it and how nicely it > transforms in time travel, etc. I hated how this one little twit > with the powerful daddy could make this huge guy so helpless, so > desperate. At the same time I wish I could feel more for Hagrid's > anquish over Bucky's possible execution. Strangely, on the hurt/ > comfort level his anguish is a bit blah for me. Wierd. Magpie: I find it repulsive that the whole storyline seems so calculated to dehumanize a character, with things shifting back and forth so that he can be consciously attacked for the readers enjoyment and then made into a hate object for it. I also don't think Hagrid's helpless in the least. I actually don't think it's too odd to not feel badly about Hagrid's anguish over the execution. Hagrid's got so many animals and always wants more that I don't think he comes across as really having much personal attachment to any of them. I also don't have a big problem, it's true, with Malfoy having an opinion about Hagrid before he met him--it happens all the time. Characters have opinions about Lucius Malfoy without meeting him for the same reason--the name comes up and people report what they've heard about the person. I heard about plenty of teachers before I had them the same way. I don't think "This is what I've heard about that guy" for Hagrid any worse than if Ron had told Harry "That's Snape--I hear he's really mean and favors Slytherins" or "That's Slughorn. I've heard he's a big perv." That's too much of normal school talk to bother me, even if what Draco repeats isn't flattering to Hagrid. Obviously it's perfectly fine that you get your enjoyment out of the story in different ways I do, but I'm probably not going to be convinced that that a different reaction than my own is more valid or that it's about karmic justice when I already don't find the story to be about justice. I think part of what I really don't like about it is that it reads to me like it's pretending to be about justice when it's really about something else. -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon May 14 03:49:04 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 03:49:04 -0000 Subject: The Spy Who Was Left in the Cold Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168686 Goddlefrood enters having finally got around to look at the strange and mystifying character of Goyle Senior, through the eyes of Death Eaters' and others' interactions with his son Gregory. The tale that will unfold should tell you a great deal about the inner workings of the mind of the insane, it will also be thought as a rather too intricate tale of terror and the audaciousness of Goyle Snr. All based on Canon, but with my own takes on the meaning of the matters to be presented. Gregory is not a handsome lad, he's got "bristles that covered Goyle's forehead", this is apparently what it feels like to be Goyle (from Harry's PoV) "before his eyes, his hands began to grow, the fingers thickened, the nails broadened, the knuckles were bulging like bolts - his shoulders stretched painfully and a prickling on his forehead told him that hair was creeping down towards his eyebrows - his robes ripped as his chest expanded like a barrel bursting its hoops - his feet were agony in shoes four sizes too small. As suddenly as it had started, everything stopped. Harry lay facedown on the stone-cold floor, listening to Myrtle gurgling morosely in the end toilet. With difficulty, he kicked off his shoes and stood up. So this was what it felt like, being Goyle. His large hand trembling, he pulled off his old robes, which were hanging a foot above his ankles, pulled on the spare ones, and laced up Goyle's boatlike shoes. He reached up to brush his hair out of his eyes and met only the short growth of wiry bristles, low on his forehead." Quotes from Chapter 12 - CoS The poor lamb. He loves his Dad, though, as all boys should. I'll get back to this later. Gregory follows orders, although of the two henchmen Draco invariably hangs around with he is the least thought meritorious of relying on as back up: 'Malfoy looked at Crabbe and Goyle, sizing them up. "Crabbe," he said. "Midnight all right? We'll meet you in the trophy room; that's always unlocked."' Chapter 9 - PS / SS I suspect he has other orders from his father, and we'll get to them. Poor innocent Gregory also is not the brightest spark, from the beginning of the series until now he has been noted several times, separately from Crabbe I might add, as having failed in a task or assignment due to his academic laxity: "Harry had almost forgotten that the exam results were still to come ... They had hoped that Goyle, who was almost as stupid as he was mean, might be thrown out, but he had passed, too. It was a shame, but as Ron said, you couldn't have everything in life." Chapter 17 - PS / SS Note it's particularly Goyle who is thought incapable (this in respect of the first year exams). There's further evidence of the high respect he is held in as somewhat of an intellectual by his fellows (or is it just Ron?): 'Harry looked at Ron, bewildered. "That looks more like Goyle," said Ron. "That's how he looks every time a teacher asks him a question."' Chapter 12 - CoS He also failed his DADA OWL examination, and who could wonder why? The teachers too seem to have a high regard of Goyle's cunning plans, this in respect of, oh, it's in there: '"Well, let's check how yeh've done!" said Hagrid. "Count yer coins! An' there's no point tryin' ter steal any, Goyle," he added, his beetle-black eyes narrowed. "It's leprechaun gold. Vanishes after a few hours." Goyle emptied his pockets, looking extremely sulky.' Chapter 28 - PoA Quite clearly an entrepeneur too then. The problem is, why do the Death Eaters, at least in my opinion, dislike him, and why was his father not a participant in the DoM raid? Perhaps Goyle Snr is held in similar regard by his fellow Death Eaters as Goyle Jnr is by his classmates. Perhaps, but not necessarily. While I do think Goyle Snr might not be any great wizard in terms of his skill, he's certainly brave, he has set his own son to find out who had opened the Chamber of Secrets: '"You must have some idea who's behind it all ...... "You know I haven't, Goyle, how many times do I have to tell you?" snapped Malfoy.' Chapter 12 - CoS Tetchy, Draco, now, now, but suggestive to this reader that young Gregory had been asking before (I know it's Harry Polyjuiced, by the by), why might he do this? Because Dad asked him to, that's why. Goyle Snr has done something in his time to upset other Death Eaters, Peter and Severus to name but two (and do note for the purposes of this piece that Snape's loyalties are really not relevant). 'Goyle reached towards the Chocolate Frogs next to Ron - Ron leapt forward, but before he'd so much as touched Goyle, Goyle let out a horrible yell. Scabbers the rat was hanging off his finger, sharp little teeth sunk deep into Goyle's knuckle - Crabbe and Malfoy backed away as Goyle swung Scabbers round and round, howling, and when Scabbets finally flew off and hit the window, all three of them disappeared at once. Perhaps they thought there were more rats lurking among the sweets, or perhaps they'd heard footsteps, because a second later, Hermione Granger had come in.' Chapter 6 - PS / SS Why oh why, Peter did you bite the goon? What had his father ever done to you? Or did you suspect him, as I do, of being less than loyal like yourself, oh brave, brave Peter? Bite back at the traitor, let him feel your wrath, says I! A fond reminiscence was held regarding the late and lamented Scabbers: '"All he did was eat and sleep, Ron, you said it yourself," said George. "He bit Goyle for us once!" Ron said miserably. "Remember, Harry?" "Yeah, that's true," said Harry. "His finest hour," said Fred, unable to keep a straight face. "Let the scar on Goyle's finger stand as a lasting tribute to his memory. Oh, come on, Ron, get yourself down to Hogsmeade and buy a new rat, what's the point of moaning?"' The second mention in the series, a well remembered moment, Peter the champion of the Death Eaters smiting his foes on behalf of all that is rotten. And what's this, another scar, curious. Severus too makes an exception against Goyle in not punishing anyone for the FFF incident: 'Harry ducked swiftly down behind his cauldron, pulled one of Fred's Filibuster fireworks out of his pocket, and gave it a quick prod with his wand. The firework began to fizz and sputter. Knowing he had only seconds, Harry straightened up, took aim, and lobbed it into the air; it landed right on target in Goyle's cauldron. Goyle's potion exploded, showering the whole class. People shrieked as splashes of the Swelling Solution hit them. Malfoy got a faceful and his nose began to swell like a balloon; Goyle blundered around, his hands over his eyes, which had expanded to the size of a dinner plate - Snape was trying to restore calm and find out what had happened. Through the confusion, Harry saw Hermione slip quietly into Snape's office.' ... 'When everyone had taken a swig of antidote and the various swellings had subsided, Snape swept over to Goyle's cauldron and scooped out the twisted black remains of the firework. There was a sudden hush.' Both from Chapter 11 - CoS Not favouring the Gryffindors, surely, there MUST be more to it, Snape and Papa quite clearly have issues. No punishments were forthcoming. Could it be that Goyle Snr is the superior spy? If so then this behaviour is uncalled for children: '"Funnunculus!" Harry yelled. "Densaugeo!" screamed Malfoy. Jets of light shot from both wands, hit each other in midair, and ricocheted off at angles -- Harry's hit Goyle in the face, and Malfoy's hit Hermione. Goyle bellowed and put his hands to his nose, where great ugly boils were springing up - Hermione, whimpering in panic, was clutching her mouth.' ... '"Potter attacked me, sir -" "We attacked each other at the same time!" Harry shouted. "- and he hit Goyle - look -" Snape examined Goyle, whose face now resembled something that would have been at home in a book on poisonous fungi. "Hospital wing, Goyle," Snape said calmly. Both from Chapter 18 - GoF Again no punishment from Severus. Other incidents too were uncalled for, IMO. Gregory has been left bereft enough as it is and Dad's a possible hero, one of the unrevealed spies, perhaps, or do I read far too much into things? Goddlefrood From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon May 14 04:51:28 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:51:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Madame Hooch In-Reply-To: <20070514020709.53649.qmail@web37910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4647803B.5010500@sprynet.com> <20070514020709.53649.qmail@web37910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0705132151u106efc6ame49982436d2bc516@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168687 I would think that flying lessons are mandatory for first years, and she has a new crop every year. Also she's there for the quidditch practices and games, so she apparently does keep busy. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon May 14 05:00:04 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:00:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <46485CFA.18798.DED02E@drednort.alphalink.com.au> References: <8ee758b40705131932r63cd8002l7b81dcc545c95492@mail.gmail.com> <46485CFA.18798.DED02E@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: <2795713f0705132200t59ffc4ccu85ff930cf90efbaa@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168688 nigar jains: I am a Harry Hermione shipper. I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling did not explore H/Hr as a ship? Hermione is Harry's equal intellectually. She stands upto him. She is not overawed by him. Lynda: My answer is very simple and straightforward. H/Hr is not what JKR wanted for her story. She actually makes that quite apparent from the first book. As for enhancing Ginny's character in the later books to make her more palatable as a romantic interest for Harry, I disagree. Harry didn't notice any girl before Cho Chang after all and Ginny, like the rest of the crew, is growing up. Its quite natural that Harry would notice her when he did. Remember, this is a boy with two best friends, one a boy and one a girl and he never thought of her as a girl until halfway through GOF, either. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 06:02:26 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 06:02:26 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <012f01c795b7$0a4200c0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168689 Miles: > JKR seems to follow the romantic pattern "they fell in love at > school, married, and lived happily ever after." Well, that's not very > realistic, right? TKJ But think about it, a lot of people meet the person they are going to marry in school. In the muggle world that is usually college not HS(though it does happen) But in the WW they don't have college. They have their 7 years of school and then whatever job they go on to do. (where there might be extra training, but there also might not be) So, I think the idea that a lot (I don't say all because we do have Fleur/Bill, and Tonks/Lupin) of the characters met at Hogwarts and ended up getting married makes sense. But that's just my opinion TKJ From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 14 10:14:26 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:14:26 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM/Slughorn's favoritism/Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168690 Pippin: > Voldemort couldn't have counted on Harry falling asleep in the > middle of his History of Magic exam. But he could count on Harry > falling asleep at night. If the vision had come at night, Harry > would have talked to his friends first, they'd have come up with a > plan of action that didn't involve teachers, and no one, Snape > included, would have known what happened until the next morning. > Voldemort could blame his own impatience for ruining his plan, not that it would be in character. Dana: Although I totally understand what you are saying here, I do not agree that Harry needed to be asleep to receive the vision. And to be honest I actually do not think Harry fell asleep and then received the vision but that he came into a dream like state *because* of the vision and we have seen this before. Everytime Harry is having occlumency lessons he ends up on the ground not specifically aware of how he got there. I also believe that we have seen one vision planting when Harry is awake and this is during the last occlumency lesson we see on page (so before SWM) and here it is: Pg 522 UKed Paperback chapter: Seen and Unforeseen. Harry did not have time to gather himself together and attempt to clear his mind before Snape cried, Legilimens!' He was hurtling along the corridor towards the Department of Mysteries, past the blank stone walls, past the torches ? the plain black door growing ever larger; he was moving so fast he was going to collide with it, he was feet from it and again he could see that chink of faint blue light ?. The door had flown open! He was through it at last, inside a black- walled, black floored circular room lit with blue-flamed candles, and there were more doors all around him ? he needed to go on ? but which door ought he to take -? `POTTER!' Harry opened his eyes. He was flat on his back again with no memory of having got there; he was also panting as though he really had run the length of the Department of Mysteries corridor I've never seen that before. I mean, I told you, I've dreamed about the door but it never opened before End quote from canon. As we see this was not a memory from a previous dream Harry had so it could not have been in his head, he never had been able to go passed the door of the DoM and yet,the door suddenly opened. He also found himself on his back with no recollection of how he got on the floor. The planting of the vision did not need Harry to be asleep. Also when we look at what actually happened the moment he received the vision he had not fallen asleep. Pg 641 Chapter OWLs And nobody from Liechtenstein had wanted to come Think, he told himself, his face in his hands while all around him quills scratched out never-ending answers and the sand trickled through the hour-glass at the front He was walking along the cool, dark corridor to the Department of Mysteries again End quote canon. As you see Harry was still aware of his surroundings just a second before the vision starts. It is Harry's conclusion that he fell asleep because besides in his dreams and during occlumency, he never before had random visions when he was awake but this time he was awake and the vision was the cause of his dream-like state just as he experienced during occlumency lessons. Pippin: > But it's already been pointed out > that Voldemort had no reason to think there weren't other teachers > who were Order members. It might even be so. Flitwick > might have been an Order member all along. > But someone had to tell Kreacher when the vision had got through > so that he could wound Buckbeak, That information must have come > from Voldemort's end since Snape didn't even know about it until > after Harry had talked to Kreacher. Dana: As you can see above no one had to inform Kreacher of anything because Kreacher only had to do what he had been told to do because the time LV was going to plant the vision, was already set and he never planned to wait till Harry was asleep, because LV calculated that Harry needed time to find a way to get to the DoM and needed time to get there when he did, so if he had waited untill Harry was asleep during the night he would risk Harry getting there during the morning and it would also risk more Order members being present at GP during the night when Harry would try to make contact. The timing of the planting of the vision was chosen carefully because it gave the most chances Sirius would be alone at GP and thus make it able for Kreacher to keep him away from the fireplace. Also another thing, Harry could not warn just anybody about what he saw. He could only alert Order Members because Sirius was still a wanted criminal and thus it would be a sure thing that Harry would not go to the MoM employees during the exams or any other teacher not working for the Order. I do not agree with the assumption that LV could not have known who the Order Members were at Hogwarts because I see the attack on Hagrid as very specific and we also have Snape's claim that he provided LV with very useful information on the Order (HBP ch2). I do not think it is a stretch to assume that Snape told him and that it was not a coincidence that all Order Members where taken out accept Snape. Snape claimed he has given LV useful information on the Order himself he mentions two Order members specifically and at this moment there is no canon supporting Snape was lying. Not even the Kreacher storyline is not proof Snape was lying because both the Black sisters do not contradict the information coming from Snape. Also Wormtail could already had given LV a lot of information on the social structure of the Order in the first WW, so besides knowing which people from the previous Order were more likely be there now, he would also know that all the Order members would know each other. The only person the Order did not know anything about then was Snape but that is no longer a secret, not on either sides. And so Snape could actually not lie about not knowing who would be an Order Member at Hogwarts because he knew about Snape's presents at Order meetings and LV knew from his DEs, who went to see the giants that Hagrid was send by DD and thus working for DD on Order business. LV could also know from himself witnessing McGonagall's presents on two occasions when it concerned Harry. Two times when LV invaded Harry's mind McGonagall was there, the first time right after the bite incident and the second time when Harry was about to be expelled. Fudge could also be a witness that McGonagall worked for DD besides being his teacher when she wanted to fight with DD and he told her, she was needed at Hogwarts. This would also deduce the amount of Order Members because why would DD order McGonagall to not interfere if there were more Order Members present? LV knows about Snape. So even if Snape hadn't told LV about who were Order members at Hogwarts he could know the life lines Harry had there. And of course there is also the information from Barty Crouch Jr. because he was had intimid conversations with DD even if the Order wasn't yet formed he would could have told LV who DD trusted and who was merely a teacher. I find it interesting when people state that Snape could not do anything because it would risk his cover but that no one thinks about what he DID have to do to keep his cover. So even if Snape did not give the information about them being Order Members then LV could have asked him if Harry ever went for help to others. He could know from Lucius through Draco which teacher Harry was social with and Hagrid would be one of them, if there was a need then Harry went either to DD or his head of house and because I believe Snape could know LV has more ways then just him to find out about information on the Order I believe Snape just told him this. There was nothing to be gained by withholding it. JMHO Well I could go on and on but there were a lot of ways for LV finding out this information to know which people could interfere with his plans and he waited until he knew the coast was clear and that Harry would not go to just anyone in an attempt to contact DD because it would expose he knew about Sirius and his whereabouts. Pippin: > I'm sure that JKR has her reasons for not letting us know how > Kreacher and Voldemort were communicating. > But there are those mirrors which wouldn't have been as > useful as we might think. Is that because Kreacher had stolen > Sirius's mirror and Voldemort had another? Dana: The other mirror was in Harry's possession and JKR is referring to it as being more help then you think and I believe she means for Harry so to me this does not indicate Kreacher stole anything besides if LV could enchant a mirror then why did Kreacher needed Sirius's mirror because LV could have given Kreacher is own as again the other one is in Harry's possession, so he would need to first undo the link between Harry's mirror and the one Sirius had then make the connection to his own mirror. Seem farfetched to me. Pippin: > I doubt that Voldemort actually trusts Snape. Psychopaths are > psychologically incapable of trusting anyone, and the more > powerful Snape becomes, the more Voldemort will fear > losing control of him. Dana: That is not what we see in HBP when Bella not Narcissa tells Snape "I know that he trusts you", she has no reason to state this to rub Snape the right way. She is doing everything to rub him the wrong way and admitting LV trusts him and having to admit that she believes he is wrong about Snape is negative for her not Snape. LV's might not be a person that trusts easily like we see with DD and ever misstep a DE makes will lower him on the social ladder and flat- out betrayal will be the end of that specific DE but we actually witness Snape climbed up on that ladder for LV telling him about Draco's task, a task that at the specific moment of Spinner's End did not include Snape as an active participant in that task. Snape is also able to tell Narcissa that LV was very angry with Lucius something LV would have needed to tell Snape because he does not have a scar link to tell him what LV is feeling. I do not believe LV would make Snape privy of his plans if he really doubted Snape was loyal to him and for Snape to have come in this position he must have proven himself trustworthy to LV, precisly because LV is nothing like DD that would just trust someone because he has a good story to tell that would deliver him nothing useful. (and at this moment there is nothing more to go on to indicate there was more to DD trust in Snape, we have to wait and see if DH will change that) Pippin: > But he does not have to be in a hurry to eliminate Snape. As > long as none of his followers suppose that Snape has > betrayed their master and is getting away with it, LV can take > his time and plot the elaborate sort of revenge which he > enjoys. Dana: I agree with you here because there is always a possibility that LV did suspect Snape was not loyal to him but sending the Order was not what would have aroused that suspicion because I believe LV calculated Snape might need to act as a Order member to keep his cover with DD and at this moment we do not see that LV was willing to sacrifice his spy as Snape specifically tells Bella that he was ordered to stay behind by LV himself. And Bella's specific question to Snape, where he was on that night makes me really think she knew that Snape was up to date on what the plans were because otherwise why would she even expecting him to be there and if Snape did not know why didn't he just stated it as such instead of saying he was Ordered behind, no information on what was going down no need to tell Snape he should stay behind, behind for what? And so if Snape was DDM and he knew about the plan then why did he not actively follow Harry to make sure Harry would not find a way to go the DoM. Snape's experience with Harry and his friends should make him aware that he could take out Umbridge if given the chance. I do not believe Snape was just waiting and waiting because he believed Umbridge would keep Harry busy. If Snape could not have foreseen that Harry would find a way to go to the DoM which I do not believe because LV was counting on him finding a way, then he also could not have foreseen what Umbridge was doing with Harry in the Forest or what Harry would be doing to Umbridge. All the more reason to keep an eye out. And I find the idea that it was not Snape's job to keep an eye on Harry the strangest excuse for Snape not doing anything because if he did not feel it was his job, then why was he chasing Quirrell, trying to safe Harry's life, why was he chasing Sirius and Lupin and why was he giving Umbridge fake serum? According to many of his fans he did it all for Harry but when he actually doesn't do something for Harry when the person he is with actually could posse a threat to him then it is suddenly not Snape's responsibility, I find this interesting because it is claimed that his actions on the tower in HBP were all to safe Harry and him sending the Order was also to safe Harry but he keeping his eye on Harry was not his responsibility as a Order Member. Mhhh sounds a little conflicting to me but it is just my opinion of course. JMHO Dana From percafluvia at gmx.net Mon May 14 10:25:48 2007 From: percafluvia at gmx.net (laperchette) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:25:48 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168691 > > honeypi: > > It's a bit early to say H/Hr won't be cannon. laperchette: I agree! Not because I'm a HG/HP-shipper, but because Rowling said that her favourite twist in a book is the shipping-twist in Emma. So I think she wants to have some similar surprises, too in her last novel. To stay with the relationships how they have developped so far would be too boring. But I'm not sure whether we will have HG/HP or other unexpected pairings. On the other hand: alchemy speaks for RW/HG. Hermione is clearly mercury and that has to be paired with Sulfur (Ron), so that Salt (Harry) can stand alone. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 12:30:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:30:16 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: <01ef01c795da$bdbce1b0$5886400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168692 > Magpie: > I don't think Snape's trying to encourage Malfoy to get attacked in Hagrid's > class more often. Perhaps Snape thinks he's giving consolation to Malfoy, > for all I know. (He may see the situation differently than Harry does.) The > complicated web of teachers expressing their favoritism and dislike of > students and passing annoyances and all that is certainly there to see. Alla: Sure, consolation I will go for. Does not make Snape telling Ron to work for Malfoy any less wrong. I know you did not say it, I am just saying in general. > Magpie: > I never said that was the lesson he learned. It never really occurred to me > that it should be. I guess Harry should also learn that lesson and never > speak disrespectfully to Snape as well, but that's not what either teacher > gets 100% of the time (nor do either of them give it 100% of the time). > Hagrid does get a kid who always listens to his instructions. Alla: Eh, sure. I think Hogwarts demands from the students, including Harry obviously. Doesn't Snape constantly keep reminding Harry to call him Sir? Doesn't DD tell him to call Snape professor? So, yeah, I think Professor Hagrid should be heard from Malfoy's mouth as well. Alla: At the same time I wish I could feel more for Hagrid's > > anquish over Bucky's possible execution. Strangely, on the hurt > > comfort level his anguish is a bit blah for me. Wierd. > > Magpie: > I find it repulsive that the whole storyline seems so calculated to > dehumanize a character, with things shifting back and forth so that he can > be consciously attacked for the readers enjoyment and then made into a hate > object for it. Alla: I would phrase it differently, but the essense would be the same - that is what I like about this storyline - that at least somehow eventually Malfoy gets smacked. Magpie: I also don't think Hagrid's helpless in the least. Alla: I meant what happened made him feel helpless - he cannot stop Bucky execution without Trio and DD's help, which he did not expect. All power was in Malfoy's hands IMO till the end. Malfoy Sr, but Malfoy JKR obviously basked in that power too IMO> Magpie: I actually > don't think it's too odd to not feel badly about Hagrid's anguish over the > execution. Hagrid's got so many animals and always wants more that I don't > think he comes across as really having much personal attachment to any of > them. Alla: That's definitely not it for me. I feel the love Hagrid has to each and every one of his animals. I also did not say I did not feel badly, I said it is blah on hurt/comfort level. Hard to explain, I don't know. And I felt bad for poor Bucky for sure. Magpie: > I also don't have a big problem, it's true, with Malfoy having an opinion > about Hagrid before he met him--it happens all the time. Alla: Right, and I have huge problem with it. That is how I started despising Malfoy on the spot. Magpie: I don't think "This > is what I've heard about that guy" for Hagrid any worse than if Ron had told > Harry "That's Snape--I hear he's really mean and favors Slytherins" or > "That's Slughorn. I've heard he's a big perv." That's too much of normal > school talk to bother me, even if what Draco repeats isn't flattering to > Hagrid. Alla: When did Ron say such a thing? I do not remember at all. Didn't Percy talk to Snape about Harry? What Percy said is totally different for me because he met Snape already. And if whoever says something about person in a bd way, person they never met, yes, it annoys me a lot. Magpie: > Obviously it's perfectly fine that you get your enjoyment out of the story > in different ways I do, but I'm probably not going to be convinced that that > a different reaction than my own is more valid or that it's about karmic > justice when I already don't find the story to be about justice. I think > part of what I really don't like about it is that it reads to me like it's > pretending to be about justice when it's really about something else. Alla: Where in this thread I was saying that your reaction is less valid than mine? I thought we were doing just that - discussing our different reactions. I know our Malfoy discussions have a different feel from any other discussions, because there is no compromise possible, contrary to pretty much all other discussions. I cannot stand Malfoy and you sympathise with him, accordingly I am happy every time he is getting slapped and you are probably not. But I still do not think I was saying that your reaction is less valid than mine. Sorry if I gave you that impression. Agree to disagree time me thinks. :) From bartl at sprynet.com Mon May 14 15:00:01 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:00:01 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Madame Hooch Message-ID: <2211235.1179154802039.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168693 From: Gary Shannon >> Bart: >>snip> >> POSSIBLY, she teaches one of the subjects that we don't hear >> much about, like Muggle Studies or Ancient Runes. > >Gary: > >My conclusion is that she does not teach any other subject, >otherwise she would be addressed "Professor" Hooch rather than >"Madam" Hooch. The non-teachers, Madam Pomfrey, Mr. Filtch, >Hagrid (before CoMC), etc., all lack the title "professor". That >seems to imply also that broomstick flying is more a "coaching" >job than a "teaching" job. I do note a certain lack of physical fitness training in the school, or even facilities other than the Quidditch Pitch. I guess the concept of a "sound mind in a sound body" may not exist in the WW. This is interesting in and of itself, in terms of DADA (I wonder if JKR considered the acronym). It has been established that spells have to be aimed, and a spell aimed at a target that moves from place will miss. Therefore, it would seem to me that a useful part of DADA would be gymnastics, spellcasting while moving, etc. Going from there, one would next assume that only those who teach subjects where OWLS are awarded are professors. I therefore suspect that Madame Hooch was ORIGINALLY going to be the physical education teacher (she sure acts like one in the-medium-that-must-not-be-named). My guess is that Hogwarts was orginally supposed to have physical education, and, due to the DADA possibilities, JKR figured it would complicate things too much. Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon May 14 15:07:20 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 15:07:20 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168695 "Nirjhar Jain" wrote: > I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling > did not explore H/Hr as a ship? A Harry Hermione relationship would destroy the trio because Ron would be the odd man out. Harry, being the senior member of the trio, can survive being the odd man, Ron could not. Harry loves Hermione as a sister, he loves Ginny in another way. Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 14 14:58:22 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:58:22 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168696 Nirjhar Jain: > I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling did not explore H/Hr as a > ship? > Pippin: IMO, because JKR wants the main passion in Harry's life to be the saving people thing. Hermione, who wants to be first at everything she does, would never stand for that. :) Nirjhar: > Hermione is Harry's equal intellectually. She stands upto him. She is > not overawed by him. Pippin: Harry is an 'E' student who got one 'O'. Hermione is an 'O' student who got one 'E'. If you are looking for intellectual equals in the current cast, I'm afraid there's only Snape and Voldemort to choose from. Fortunately, Hermione has Fleur's example in front of her -- she's smart enough for any two people, just as Fleur is pretty enough. JKR's clearly more interested in couples who complement each other than in couples matched strength for strength. Ron's always had more physical courage than Hermione. He hasn't had much chance to show it since, but I don't think JKR means for the chess game in PS/SS to be his finest hour. Ron also has more emotional intelligence. Granted he can be extremely offensive, but the thing is, he usually *knows* when he's being offensive, unlike Hermione whose unwitting tactlessness is something she'll probably always have to struggle with, though she's getting better. I also think Ron gets Hermione's concern for social justice more than Harry does. He's the one who volunteers to help her with Hagrid's defense, and the one who takes her ideas about trying to free the House Elves seriously even though he disagrees with them. I don't think Ginny's personality was 'enhanced.' I thought from the moment she appeared on the platform in Book One that she had been created to captivate Harry when the time came, and that JKR would deliberately find ways to keep Harry (and inattentive readers) from noticing her charms until the time had come. But even in CoS we saw her challenge an older student with a mean reputation when she could only just have gotten a wand, we were told that shyness was not her normal personality and she had the temerity to tell a flat out lie to Dumbledore's face. It was enough to convince this reader anyway that the reason Molly was holding Ginny's hand in PS/SS was not that Ginny was unusually insecure for a ten year old but because Molly didn't want her stowing away on the Hogwarts Express. Pippin From random832 at gmail.com Mon May 14 15:45:11 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:45:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <31440775.1179156388791.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <31440775.1179156388791.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705140845p3e95ab66y8915ba8b0b7c2437@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168698 [on "Mary Sue"] > Bart: > And this shows what happens when you use obscure terms in a group, without even acknowledging their obscurity. But I still believe that they started in ST fandom as based on stereotyped rural American names, signifying a lack of soophistication. Well, actually it's supposedly based on an actual trek fanfic with a character called "Mary Sue", not as a generic or stereotype. "gary stu" (and other variations) was chosen as a rhyme for it. --Random832 From honeypi28 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 16:14:51 2007 From: honeypi28 at yahoo.com (honeypi28) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:14:51 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168699 Eggplant > > A Harry Hermione relationship would destroy the trio because Ron would > be the odd man out. Harry, being the senior member of the trio, can > survive being the odd man, Ron could not. Harry loves Hermione as a > sister, he loves Ginny in another way. > honeypi: I disagree with this premise. Ron's place in the trio is very much secure at this point. In fact, regardless of ships, I imagine the trio and their affection for each other will remain in tact (assuming they all survive the 7th book). I believe Harry loves Hermione as a friend at this point, not as a sister; and that could easily change to romantic love. I don't think Harry's in love with Ginny either. Maybe I missed that declaration or moment of realization *shrugs*. I have to say, I wish JKR had written Ginny as a more likable character if she is to be 'the one' for him. She's an absolute nightmare in HBP, though it seems the masses have embraced her. And to be fair, most of the teens behave badly in HBP - I liked them all less after reading it (except for Luna - I enjoyed what little of her there was). Based on the very end of the book, I have great hopes that they grow past this phase. JKR has room to go in any direction with the ships and maybe ships aren't at all significant in terms of how LV is defeated. I guess I just always thought, from book one, that Harry and Hermione's relationship would be pivotal in LV's downfall. But, if romantic love has nothing to do with the power to defeat LV, then I suppose it doesn't really matter who ends up with Harry. If, however, romantic love does play a part, then it will be interesting to see how JKR can develop a relationship with enough depth and complexity involving any character other than Hermione in such a short timeframe. I doubt she would even try. If romantic love is relevant - I believe it will have to be with Hermione. honeypi From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 17:28:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:28:21 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168700 Alla wrote: > > Eh, sure. I think Hogwarts demands from the students, including > Harry obviously. Doesn't Snape constantly keep reminding Harry to > call him Sir? Doesn't DD tell him to call Snape professor? So, > yeah, I think Professor Hagrid should be heard from Malfoy's mouth > as well. > Carol responds: Possibly, Draco doesn't consider Hagrid a professor because he's not a fully qualified wizard (just as, in the U.S., not all college instructors are professors, only those with PhDs and a tenured or tenure-track position). Hagrid was expelled in his third year at Hogwarts. None of the other kids call Hagrid "professor." Why should Draco be any different? Hagrid himself doesn't expect it. Snape, OTOH, is not only fully qualified and an expert potion-maker, he's been teaching for eleven years as of SS/Ps and is Head of Slytherin House. His rank alone entitles him to be called "professor" or "sir." And note that Dumbledore expects that same courtesy from young Tom Riddle. > > Alla: > > At the same time I wish I could feel more for Hagrid's anquish over Bucky's possible execution. Strangely, on the hurt comfort level his anguish is a bit blah for me. Wierd. Carol: Maybe because Hagrid is *always* shedding tears, so his anguish is old hat by the time of PoA? He blubbers like a child over his monsters from SS/PS (Norbert) onward. Anyway, that's how I feel about it. I can see eleven-year-old Neville crying over his lost toad, but Hagrid is sixty-something and nine or ten feet tall, so his tears (for me) are a bit much. I don't even like Dumbledore's single tear, which (IMO) is badly timed, at Ron's expense (I wante Ron to be made prefect for *Ron's sake). In contrast, when Harry, who never cries, surreptitiously wipes his eys on his sleeve, it's moving. For me, anyway. Magpie: > > I also don't have a big problem, it's true, with Malfoy having an opinion about Hagrid before he met him--it happens all the time. > Alla: > > Right, and I have huge problem with it. That is how I started > despising Malfoy on the spot. Carol responds: But Draco at this point is an eleven-year-old boy. His experience is different from Harry's, but in some ways just as limited. He's an only child whose contacts are other pureblood families (and possibly an occasional half-blood, like Snape. (I'd love to read the scene between him and Theo Nott that JKR wrote but couldn't find a place for, possibly because, after SS/PS, she decided to limit herself almost exclusively to Harry's pov.) His ideas and values reflect those of his family. He doesn't even have television to expose him to other ideas. Notice that he says, not contemptuously but matter-of-factly, "I've heard of him. He's a sort of servant, isn't he?" (SS/PS Am. ed. 78). And then he adds juicy tidbits that he's heard, some of them true or not far from fact," I heard he's a sort of *savage*--lives in a hut on the school grounds and every now and then he gets drunk, tries to do magic, and ends us setting fire to his bed" (78). Draco's source for this partially accurate, partially exaggerated information is almost certainly his parents, but he doesn't seem to have Lucius Malfoy's sneering attitude until Harry says coldly, "I think he's brilliant," to which Draco replies "*Do you?" with a slight sneer and changes the subject. If Harry had defended Hagrid more politely, saying something like, "Actually, he's quite knowledgeable and interesting," Draco's reply might have been "Really? Why do you think so?" Yet another opportunity for communication lost. Or I should say, the first of many such lost opportunities involving Harry and other characters. But, of course, Harry is also just eleven. Neither of them has any tact or any real interest in the other as a person with feelings. And I really don't see any difference between Draco's repeating gossip about Hagrid and Ron's repeating gossip about Snape, whom he also has not met: "Snape's Head of Slytherin House. They say he always favors them" (135). Ron's source of information is probably Fred and George, from whom Snape (quite understandably) is "always" taking points; Draco's is probably his parents. He's reflecting their upperclass prejudice against "servants" (paid laborers?); Ron is reflecting the general prejudice against Slytherin (reinforced for Harry by Hagrid's own remark that every wizard that went bad came from Slytherin--a statement Hagrid *knows* to be untrue, even though he's mistaken about the identity of the bad Gryffindor). > Alla: > > When did Ron say such a thing? I do not remember at all. Didn't Percy talk to Snape about Harry? What Percy said is totally different for me because he met Snape already. And if whoever says something about person in a bd way, person they never met, yes, it annoys me a lot. Carol: See above. Percy only says that Snape is after Quirrell's job, which may or may not be true, and that he knows a lot about the Dark Arts (125), which evidently causes Harry to associate Snape with Voldemort in the unremembered dream, which occurs before the first Potions lesson (130). Percy says nothing about Snape's unfairness. So Ron, too, is speaking of a teacher he hasn't yet met though, to be fair, he does say that they can see if it's true. (Unfortunately, IMO, the preconception is already in place. Harry might have reacted differently to the class if Neville hadn't melted Seamus's cauldron and if he hadn't already met Draco and if Hagrid hadn't told him that Slytherin is the Dark wizard house or he hadn't felt the pain in his scar when Snape looked at him--coincidence, of course). Characters are always talking about other characters, knowledgably or not, causing Harry to form preconceptions about everyone from Quirrell (based on Hagrid's misinformation) to Fake!Moody (based on the real Mad-Eye's reputation for eccentricity). Ron has preconceptions about giants (valid in most cases) which shape Harry's and Hermione's reactions to Grawp. His own preconceptions shape his initial reaction when he finds out that Lupin is a werewolf. Harry's view of his father is shaped by the fond recollections of Black, Lupin, McGonagall, etc. (as opposed to Snape's equally valid recollections of James's "arrogance"). True, Harry doesn't go around saying, "I've heard that So and So is such and such," but that's only because he's in the WW, where he hasn't heard of *anybody.* He does, however, talk about the Dursleys, shaping F&G's view of them. (They justify their use of magic on Dudley, a helpless Muggle two years younger than they are, because of what Harry has told them. They don't wait to see his bullying firsthand.) I guess you must be frequently annoyed in both the HP books and RL because people *do* say bad things about people they've never met and know only by reputation (George Bush, anyone?). And it's quite true that Hagrid lives in a hut on the grounds and gets drunk rather frequently. If Ron rather than Draco had told Harry the story of Hagrid trying to do magic and setting his bed on fire, chances are, Harry would have believed it, even after he'd met Hagrid. Carol, who has never met any of the characters in the WW but forms judgments about them, favorable or unfavorable, all the time From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon May 14 17:33:34 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:33:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:Castle/Snape'sAge/Respect/ChoiceOfBadTeacher/Hawthorn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40705141033p74d51167qe35501e2e6ceefb7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168701 > Kemper wrote in > : > > << I'm no architectural historian, but castles of Howgarts immensity > did not exist circa 997 AD.>> > Catlady replied: > That's only Muggle castles. The wizards started out more advanced than > Muggles -- for a while, Muggle inventions were attempts to do by > 'technology' what they had seen wizards do by magic. (There's canon > for that, but I can't remember which book to skim for the quote about > the ways Muggles have figured out how to do things without magic.) So > the wizards may have had, what are they, 14th century castles, and > 19th century palaces, and 20th century flush toilets, and talking > portraits (Mrs Black could be a 20th century video loop, but the > portraits in Hogwarts are 21st century AI) more than 3000 or 4000 > years ago. > Steve wrote, earlier: > Personally, I suspect what we see now is very similar > to the castle as it was originally built. But note > that in the beginning magic was not as developed as it > is now. I suspect no magical train, and likely no Floo > Network or Portkeys, and very possibly no Apparation. Kemper now: I don't like the idea that Hogwarts has not changed since it's construction/manifestation. The reader is drawn into the magic world, I believe, because we see similarities within the real world: Platform 10:Platform 9 3/4; British Boarding School:Hogwarts; Hospital:St. Mungo's. We are connected through the familiarity of scene. So, it would seem weird in JKR's world for 10th century student/apprentice who came from a hovel/hut to enter brick and mortar of Brobdingnagian proportions. Kemper From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 18:20:46 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 18:20:46 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168702 > >> Alla: > > > > At the same time I wish I could feel more for Hagrid's anquish > > over Bucky's possible execution. Strangely, on the hurt comfort > > level his anguish is a bit blah for me. Wierd. > >>Carol: > Maybe because Hagrid is *always* shedding tears, so his anguish is > old hat by the time of PoA? He blubbers like a child over his > monsters from SS/PS (Norbert) onward. Anyway, that's how I feel > about it. > Betsy Hp: I agree. For hurt/comfort to work, the hero needs to bear his hurt with a bit of dignity. Something Hagrid doesn't have much of, unfortunately. Rather than dealing with adversity in a manly way, he deals with it in a childish way. Which is why it's believable that Hagrid actually *needs* the help of three fourteen year old children (with zero experience dealing with the MoM) to help him save his pet, and why it's believable that he flubs it anyway. (I wonder why Dumbledore doesn't assist Hagrid here as he assisted Harry? Not willing to spend the political capital, maybe?) IMO, this is why Hagrid's biggest fans tend to be very young, and it's why Harry et al start moving away from him as they get older. Hagrid is, has been, and apparently always will be, a burden on the Trio, someone for *them* to look after. He's very rarely a help. Draco, on the other hand, does a pretty good job at the hurt/comfort thing. Which is part of the reason I question the easy dismissal of his injury. He may well be unable to cut his own roots, but he's not going to cry about it to Harry. (At least, not outside the more maudlin fanfics anyway. ) > >>Magpie: > > I also don't have a big problem, it's true, with Malfoy having an > > opinion about Hagrid before he met him--it happens all the time. > > > >>Alla: > Right, and I have huge problem with it. That is how I started > despising Malfoy on the spot. Betsy Hp: Hee! And see, that was one of Draco's faux pas that I *totally* related to. When I was around ten or eleven or so I once tried to impress an older girl by saying that a certain boy looked like a cow (it seemed very witty to me at the time). Unfortunately for me, he was her brother. I can say it's very hard to put a positive spin on looking like a cow, and insulting someone's little brother is not a good way to impress anyone. So lesson learned and all that, but I totally wince in sympathy whenever a child makes a similar mistake. (Just as I winced in sympathy when Ron bad-mouthed Snape while Snape was standing right behind him.) Honestly, JKR never did write anything that encouraged me to despise Draco. In fact, I think she rather cleverly cut Draco's nastier issues off at the knees so that even while disliking what he was doing, I felt for him anyway. And I think, especially after HBP, that she did so quite purposefully. Betsy Hp From shmantzel at yahoo.com Mon May 14 18:50:02 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <012f01c795b7$0a4200c0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: <796022.23337.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168703 Miles: To fall in love is sufficient for a happy time together, but not for a life together ;). JKR seems to follow the romantic pattern "they fell in love at school, married, and lived happily ever after." Well, that's not very realistic, right? Yes, it is just a novel, and fiction, so no need for realism. But the start of this thread was about "shipping", and I simply disagree with those who state that Ron and Hermione are a perfect match. They really, really aren't. Dantzel replies: Someone may have already replied to this but if I don't write now I never will. How many 'perfect couples' are out there? And what consitutes 'perfect' anyway? You don't have to be 'perfect' for each other to be happily married. I look at my own marriage as an example. My husband has about a 10% interest in reading while mine is about 90% (minus romance novel trash). He gets revved up thinking about dirt bikes and playing drums, while I get excited thinking about dance, theatre, Pilates, (things slightly more refined). Our organizational habits are rather different, in fact most things are different. But we're still happy and we still get along (well, mostly hehe). I also see little evidence of 'perfect' couples in canon, yet they are/were happy. Molly and Arthur, James and Lily, Bill and Fleur... I can't think of anymore right now. What brought the couples in HP together? I don't think we know. I just don't think that there is the definition of a 'perfect' couple, so if Ron and Hermione end up together, fabulous. May they have a long, happy life with lots of little Hermons and Riones flying about with enough brooms to go around. --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon May 14 18:51:32 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 18:51:32 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168704 > pippin: > > I don't think Ginny's personality was 'enhanced.' I thought from > the moment she appeared on the platform in Book One that > she had been created to captivate Harry when the time came, > and that JKR would deliberately find ways to keep Harry > (and inattentive readers) from noticing her charms until the > time had come. > > Ken: I agree. I can't claim to have known from her first appearance whether Ginny would be Harry's eventual love interest or just a perpetual hanger on but both possibilities were obvious from the start. Originally I thought Hermione would be the one but it became clear quite early in the series that Harry was going to view her as a sister/friend. The attraction between Ron and Hermione was obvious to the reader and Hermione long before it was to Ron and long before Harry seemed to have any real interest in girls. What do Harry and Hermione have in common? Both were raised as Muggles and essentially were Muggles until they received their Hogwarts invitations. Both were befriended early in their Hogwarts careers by the same wizzarding family. Both see in that family something they wish they had had all along. Is it so odd that both would turn to Weaselys for partners? Neither Harry nor Hermione is a full blown member of the WW in the cultural sense. To fully integrate both need a lifelong member of the culture as a partner. People don't always choose their partners on such a rational basis but in that sense these are excellent pairings. I guess I also like the fact that while the Weasleys are held in disdain by some rich purebloods, their children are attracting some very impressive wizards and witches as mates. Two boys are excellent entrepreneurs. Two more are doing well in professional positions. Even Percy the Prat still holds some promise of coming around. Taken as a whole it is a powerful statement about the importance of family and community versus wealth and arrogance. Does anyone expect anything good to come from the Malfoys? It would be depend on Draco getting religion so I'm not holding my breath. A Harry/Hermione pairing would not enhance this statement the way that the present parings do, although it would not destroy it either. I was fully prepared for Ginny to be either comic relief or an interesting young witch. I am sorry that some (many?) find her "transformation" jarring. I see it only as a awestruck young girl growing to become a capable young woman. It only seems jarring to the reader because she was flying below Harry's radar until the changes were complete. We don't get to see anything Harry doesn't notice very well but there were hints all along. I just hope that they both live to become a couple again. They are a good match, not that Harry and Hermione wouldn't be a good match too. Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 18:52:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 18:52:27 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168705 honeypi wrote: I don't think > Harry's in love with Ginny either. Maybe I missed that declaration or moment of realization > *shrugs*. Carol responds: Maybe not "love," but we certainly get of Ginny's perfume as one of the scents that Harry detects (but takes a while to recognize) in the Amortentia potion. (His attraction to her is mostly subconscious at this point.) We get all the jealousy of Dean kissing Ginny and Harry's and Ginny's first kiss. I wouldn't call it "love" any more than his attraction to Cho was love, but at least he also feels real affection for Ginny and likes her sense of humor as opposed to mere prettiness like Cho's. And Ginny isn't a fountain of tears like Cho, which makes her easier for Harry to understand and relate to. > Honeypi: > I have to say, I wish JKR had written Ginny as a more likable character if she is to be 'the one' for him. She's an absolute nightmare in HBP, And to be fair, most of the teens behave badly in HBP - I liked them all less after reading it (except for Luna - I enjoyed what little of her there was). Carol: Agreed, but JKR evidently sees things differently. Red-haired, popular, cheeky Ginny echoing red-haired, popular, cheeky Lily. Ugh. But that seems to be JKR's idea of Harry's ideal "woman," and certainly Ginny has courage, just as Lily did. I didn't actively dislike her until she lied to her mother about the dung bombs, but I didn't really like her, either. The last thing she did that I actually liked is stand up to Draco in CoS though I did feel sorry for her being manipulated by Diary!Tom. And I did see her emergence from being embarrassed in Harry's presence to being talkative and rather mischievous as realistic. I just don't like the Ginny we get (using her Bat-Bogey hex on people she doesn't like because she can or because they exist). > > Based on the very end of the book, I have great hopes that they grow past this phase. Carol: I'm assuming that you're referring to Harry's break-up with Ginny, but that's a purely practical matter. Harry is trying to protect Ginny, who's only going along with it because it's what *he* wants and because it's futile to protest. I think she's counting on his coming back to her, and I wouldn't put it past her to fan the flames a little when they see each other again. But Hermione and Ron, I think, are a couple for the duration of the series. They've liked each other almost from the beginning though it took Ron much longer to recognize the feeling, and he does start out disliking her until the troll incident. (It's Ron's words that cause Hermione to cry in the bathroom and even miss a class in SS/PS.) Although they're all still just friends in CoS, you can see a difference between Ron's and Harry's reactions when Hermione is Petrified ("'*Hermione!*' Ron groaned," CoS Am. ed. 257). There's the delightful (IMO) spat in GoF when Hermione tells Ron to ask her before someone else does next time and not as a last resort (GoF Am. ed. 432). In HBP, Ron is jealous of Krum, who may or may not have kissed Hermione two years earlier. Hermione is jealous of Lavender, to the extent that she attacks Ron with the birds she's conjured. (Not admirable conduct, but he's been hurting her feelings since the Faux!Felix incident and it can't be fun to see him publicly entwining with Lavender every spare moment.) We seem them starting to admit their affection for each other in Herbology class (HBP am. ed. 282-83), but between Ron's insecurity and Lavender Brown's, erm, affections, it takes Ron's near-death from poisoning to get Hermione to realize that Ron is more important to her than her own pride. She takes almost no part in the discussion about Ron's poisoning, and when she finally speaks, sounding like she has a bad head cold, Ron responds with "Er-my-nee" (402) and falls back to sleep. From that point on, Ron loses all interest in Lavender but lacks the nerve to break up with her. (Hermione is no longer jealous because she knows that Ron likes her, not Lavender. Ultimately, of course, Lavender, jealous of Hermione, breaks up with Ron.) After Dumbledore's funeral, we see Ron holding Hermione and stroking her hair, showing real affection and consideration rather than the adolescent hormones he displays so shamelessly with Lav-Lav, while she cries on his shoulder, not Harry's (647). Both of them tell Harry that they'll be with him whatever happens (651), loyal friends to the end. But their shared friendship for him is different from their romantic attraction to each other, which (more so than Harry's for Ginny so far) is also cemented by the bonds of friendship. Carol, who thinks that Ron and Hermione will be a fine couple once they've both grown up a little but that, for JKR and for Harry, it's friendship that really matters I really doubt that Harry, who never shows an attraction to Hermione (beyond not recognizing the pretty girl with Krum at the Yule Ball), is going to steal Hermione from Ron. He felt enough guilt wanting to date Ron's sister (which Ron, I think, has wanted him to do all along). It would be a devastating blow to Ron to take Hermione from him, and unworthy of Harry. > ends up with Harry. If, however, romantic love does play a part, then it will be interesting > to see how JKR can develop a relationship with enough depth and complexity involving any > character other than Hermione in such a short timeframe. I doubt she would even try. If > romantic love is relevant - I believe it will have to be with Hermione. > > honeypi > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 19:10:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:10:55 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168706 Betsy Hp: > Draco, on the other hand, does a pretty good job at the hurt/comfort > thing. Which is part of the reason I question the easy dismissal of > his injury. He may well be unable to cut his own roots, but he's not > going to cry about it to Harry. (At least, not outside the more > maudlin fanfics anyway. ) Alla: Oh? So Draco is just pretending that he is pretending to be hurt? How do you figure this? His smirk (smile) and accompanying words seemed quite self evident to me that his injury was not something he was concerned about. IMO of course. Betsy Hp: > Honestly, JKR never did write anything that encouraged me to despise > Draco. In fact, I think she rather cleverly cut Draco's nastier > issues off at the knees so that even while disliking what he was > doing, I felt for him anyway. And I think, especially after HBP, > that she did so quite purposefully. Alla: Here is the funny thing for me. I still hate him with passion when I read about things he had done in the past ( be it his participation in Buckbeak execution preparation, or coming to Trio's appartment, or cooking up DD assasination or so many other things). But at the end of HBP JKR satisfied my bloodfirstiness as to little twit. I mean, she lost the possibility to make me sympathise with him, that will never happen. Or maybe I should never say never, we shall see after DH But after scene on the Tower, when I reread it, I do not hate him anymore ( hate when I read other books, but not the end of HBP) I mean, when I read this scene, I felt that DD weak as he is, hold all the power in that scene, despite Draco having the wand, etc. I felt that Draco was already defeated by Dumbledore, regardless of whether he would kill Dumbledore or not, if that makes sense. So, I was happy about that, sad as I was about poor Harry and about DD. I know that JKR probably meant to write something very different than what I got from the scene - Draco's upcoming redemption, DD showing him the right side, etc. I just saw DD finally showing little twit his power and saying I am in charge here and you will do what I say. Now, if only I saw Snape in DH in the similar position, I would be even happier. If that makes any sense. . Carol: > And I really don't see any difference between Draco's repeating gossip > about Hagrid and Ron's repeating gossip about Snape, whom he also has > not met: "Snape's Head of Slytherin House. They say he always favors > them" (135). Alla: Sure, I do not see any difference either. Ron is repeating gossip as well, yes. Ron's gossip turns out to be totally true, as far as I am concerned, but he is also making a judgment about the person he never met. Not good in my view. Carol: > I guess you must be frequently annoyed in both the HP books and RL > because people *do* say bad things about people they've never met and > know only by reputation (George Bush, anyone?). And it's quite true > that Hagrid lives in a hut on the grounds and gets drunk rather > frequently. If Ron rather than Draco had told Harry the story of > Hagrid trying to do magic and setting his bed on fire, chances are, > Harry would have believed it, even after he'd met Hagrid. Alla: Not sure what RW has to do with it, but no, if person makes their own judgment about say public official, based on what he did **in public**, I think it is perfectly okay. I never met President Bush and certainly have a judgment formed about him as public official, which I consider to be well informed. I witnessed enough of his actions to know what I think about them. But actually, yes, sometimes I will be very annoyed when people say bad things about people they never met or things they have no clue about. Here is the good RW example. I am sure you heard about Russian poet and writer Boris Pasternak and read his book "Doctor Zhivago". The soviet regime did not accept the book well, to put it mildly. So, there had been massive campaign in the newspapers at that time, printing letters from "good citisens" saying basically: "I did not read the book, but I condemn Boris Pasternak for writing it" People doing staff like that makes me angry in RL. > Carol, who has never met any of the characters in the WW but forms > judgments about them, favorable or unfavorable, all the time Alla: Yes, me too, but I believe that this is different from what Draco or Ron had been doing From fiziwig at yahoo.com Mon May 14 19:12:21 2007 From: fiziwig at yahoo.com (Gary) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:12:21 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168707 This is sort of a generic response to a number of earlier posts (some going back many years, since as a newbie to this group I have been exploring the archives all the way back to the turn of the century when members were still speculating on who would be cast in various roles in the first movie.) On a fairly regular basis people will argue that this or that character is morally flawed, or of weak character in some way or another, as if such flaws were in any way unusual. If we expect a novel to be believable then we must expect to have it populated with believable characters, i.e. characters whose attitudes and behavior would not seem out of place in the real world of our daily existence. If these fictional characters were to be perfect, with unerring judgment and unwavering moral compass, we would find them quite unbelievable. Imagine yourself walking down a dark city street when a mugger jumps out in front of you waving a pistol in your face. You feel terrified, in fear for your very life. Suddenly a police officer steps out of the shadows and disarms the mugger. He is your hero. He has saved your life. He arrests the bad guy, gives you a ride home, and expresses sincere concern for your emotional well being. He can do no wrong. You don't want to know that when he goes home at night he kicks the puppy, snarls at the kids, and neglects his wife. You don't want to know that he has a gambling problem. But that's the way it is, whether we like it or not. When Hermione does something we think of as morally questionable, or Harry judges someone unfairly, or Hagrid exhibits some prejudice or another, that's just the way it is. That's just the way real people are, and like it or not, we're stuck with that in the real world, and we would probably not accept Harry's world as genuine if we didn't find the same human flaws there as well. In fact, if the people of Harry's world were too perfect I'm sure we would have dismissed the whole series of books as being "juvenile" and written for children, but of no interest to mature adults. Young children very often complain "it's not fair" of some real-world event, and expect their stories either to be fair from the outset, or to punish those who are not fair and set things right by the end of the story. Teens, on the other hand, are getting used to the idea that "life's not fair", but they still think they can do something about it. The ages 12 to 16 or so tend to bring out a kind of hyper-vigilant morality in many kids. This is the age when "moral outrage" is first born. A little later the clich? of the idealistic college student who is out to change the world because they believe themselves to be the first generation to realize that there is injustice, and that they (so they believe) have the power to set things right. By full adulthood most people adjust to the reality that the real moral compass of real-world human beings can, for many individuals, be very loose and flexible, or downright broken. Adults have learned to live with the facts that 1) nobody is perfect, 2) nobody can "fix" the fact that nobody is perfect, and 3) we can function somewhat effectively in spite of that. The very reason that there is a HPfGU group to begin with is that the series portrays people "warts and all", just as we would find them in the real world. It shows us moral ambiguity, character flaws, injustice and just plain "it's-not-fair"-ness. If the series showed us only that life IS fair it would appeal only to children. If it displayed a perfected hyper-morality, it would appeal only to teens. If it showed us that idealism alone can change the world then it would appeal to young college-age adults. The fact that it avoids these less-than-mature clich?s is the very reason that a crusty old senior citizen like myself can still find the books engaging and believable. --gary From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon May 14 19:50:12 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:50:12 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168708 "honeypi28" wrote: > Ron's place in the trio is very much secure at this point. It's clear that Ron is in love with Hermione, if Harry were to steal her away from him the trio would be dead. And even if he wasn't in love with her he'd still be the odd man out; as it is Ron's the junior member of the trio, a Harry Hermione relationship would reduce Ron to a buffoon, nothing more than comic relief. Ron deserves better. > I don't think Harry's in love with Ginny > either. Maybe I missed that declaration In fan fiction when 2 characters fall in love we readers have to endure long sickly soliloquies where they express their undying love for each. In contrast Rowling's characters don't talk about how much they love each other, they show it. > I wish JKR had written Ginny as a more likable > character if she is to be 'the one' for him. Off the top of my head I can't remember anything she did that was particularly unlikable. > She's an absolute nightmare in HBP Now hold on, I know I would remember it if Ginny had done anything THAT bad! Well OK, she did lose her temper and said some mean things to Ron, but she was provoked and had ever reason to be angry with her brother, she did not fire the first shot , Ron did. Besides it's traditional for brothers and sisters to have little spats. > JKR has room to go in any direction with the ships I think the question was settled way back in book 4. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon May 14 19:53:45 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:53:45 -0000 Subject: Madame Hooch - Physical Fitness In-Reply-To: <2211235.1179154802039.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168709 --- Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > I do note a certain lack of physical fitness training > in the school, or even facilities other than the > Quidditch Pitch. I guess the concept of a "sound mind > in a sound body" may not exist in the WW. This is > interesting in and of itself, in terms of DADA .... > > Bart > bboyminn: This concept of lack of physical fitness training has come up before, and once again I point out the massive size of Hogwarts. The main wings of the castle are 7 stories, and judging from the typical castle with very high ceilings, they are 7 very high floor. Then Harry is at the top of Gryffindor Tower which is an additional 7 floors. That means when Harry rushes to class in the Dungeons, he traverses 15 to 16 staircases. Try climbing 14 flights of stairs several time a day, then tell me you aren't getting a physical fitness workout. Further some classes like CoMC and Herbology occur outside and require the students to walk significant distances across /sloping/ lawns; in other words up and down hills. I think they get plenty of exercise. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon May 14 19:50:40 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:50:40 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168710 > Carol: > > > > I guess you must be frequently annoyed in both the HP books and RL > > because people *do* say bad things about people they've never met > and > > know only by reputation (George Bush, anyone?). And it's quite true > > that Hagrid lives in a hut on the grounds and gets drunk rather > > frequently. If Ron rather than Draco had told Harry the story of > > Hagrid trying to do magic and setting his bed on fire, chances are, > > Harry would have believed it, even after he'd met Hagrid. > > > Alla: > But actually, yes, sometimes I will be very annoyed when people say > bad things about people they never met or things they have no clue > about. Here is the good RW example. > > I am sure you heard about Russian poet and writer Boris Pasternak and > read his book "Doctor Zhivago". The soviet regime did not accept the > book well, to put it mildly. > > So, there had been massive campaign in the newspapers at that time, > printing letters from "good citisens" saying basically: > "I did not read the book, but I condemn Boris Pasternak for writing > it" > > People doing staff like that makes me angry in RL. wynnleaf This was a rather fascinating and, it seems to me, revealing example you gave. I'm not sure if you really meant to do this, but you appear to be drawing a comparison between people putting an uninformed personal and negative opinion into a letter, signing their name to it, and sending it out for the public to read it in the newspaper, to an 11 year old child making some casual negative remarks about a teacher. I just don't see a kid making casually disparaging remarks about a teacher as anywhere at all on the same level as an adult sending out a written letter to the newspaper. But if Draco's remarks are that seriously wrong, it amazes me that Ron's remarks concerning Snape could be considered perfectly acceptable. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 14 20:03:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 20:03:49 -0000 Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM/Slughorn's favoritism/Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168711 > > Dana: > Although I totally understand what you are saying here, I do not > agree that Harry needed to be asleep to receive the vision. > > And to be honest I actually do not think Harry fell asleep and then > received the vision but that he came into a dream like state > *because* of the vision and we have seen this before. Everytime Harry > is having occlumency lessons he ends up on the ground not > specifically aware of how he got there. Pippin: Although Harry's scar hurts all the time, he only has visions under very specific conditions: when he is asleep or Snape is using legilimency on him. That fits with the instructions from Dumbledore to practice occlumency "particularly every night before sleeping so you can close your mind to bad dreams." If he could have the dreams at any time, Dumbledore would have warned him. While we don't know that Harry actually fell asleep during the History of Magic exam, we do know that he was exhausted and had slept poorly the night before. Dana: The timing of the planting of the vision was chosen carefully because it gave the most chances Sirius would be alone at GP and thus make it able for Kreacher to keep him away from the fireplace. Pippin: Kreacher had to injure Buckbeak to make sure that Sirius would be busy. The Order was no longer using the Floo network, so nobody would be expecting a message through the fire, and Kreacher's presence in the kitchen would in itself be enough to keep the other Order members away except at mealtimes. It's not as if he's pleasant company. Dana: > Also another thing, Harry could not warn just anybody about what he > saw. He could only alert Order Members because Sirius was still a > wanted criminal and thus it would be a sure thing that Harry would > not go to the MoM employees during the exams or any other teacher not > working for the Order. Pippin: But Voldemort cannot reach into Harry's mind and pluck out the names of Order members, so he cannot know whether there are Order members at Hogwarts that he does not know about. If McGonagall's turn for the worse was the result of an attack, why not finish her off? Also, Voldemort was expecting Harry to try for the prophecy sooner "Well, this explains why you didn't come earlier, Potter, the Dark Lord wondered why--" and he didn't think he needed to get McGonagall and Hagrid out of the way. But the main trouble with all these machinations is that Harry hasn't thought of any of it. He's blaming Snape for goading Sirius, and we have the other shoe waiting to drop when Harry discovers the third part of the UV, so what purpose does it serve to introduce other ways in which Snape was somehow responsible for killing Sirius off? > Pippin: > > I'm sure that JKR has her reasons for not letting us know how > > Kreacher and Voldemort were communicating. > > But there are those mirrors which wouldn't have been as > > useful as we might think. Is that because Kreacher had stolen > > Sirius's mirror and Voldemort had another? > > > Dana: > The other mirror was in Harry's possession and JKR is referring to it > as being more help then you think and I believe she means for Harry > so to me this does not indicate Kreacher stole anything besides if LV > could enchant a mirror then why did Kreacher needed Sirius's mirror > because LV could have given Kreacher is own as again the other one is > in Harry's possession, so he would need to first undo the link > between Harry's mirror and the one Sirius had then make the > connection to his own mirror. Seem farfetched to me. Pippin: "The mirror that Harry got from Sirius might not have helped as much as you think but, on the other hand, will help more than you think. " It's hard to see how it wouldn't have helped if there was only one other and if Sirius had it. But maybe there were originally four mirrors, one for each Marauder. Otherwise why would Harry need to say "Sirius" to activate the mirror? Sirius's note says that he has the other one, but he could have been deceived as to whether the other ones were still extant. > Pippin: > > I doubt that Voldemort actually trusts Snape. Psychopaths are > > psychologically incapable of trusting anyone, and the more > > powerful Snape becomes, the more Voldemort will fear > > losing control of him. > > Dana: > That is not what we see in HBP when Bella not Narcissa tells Snape "I > know that he trusts you", > Pippin: IMO, Bella's delusional about Voldemort. She wants to think he's been as devoted to her as she is to him, and she reasons that if Voldemort does not trust her as he used to it's because Snape has stolen her place as his most trusted servant. Dumbledore explains in one of his lessons that though Voldemort's servants vie for his trust, none of them can ever really win it. Dana: > And so if Snape was DDM and he knew about the plan then why did he > not actively follow Harry to make sure Harry would not find a way to > go the DoM. Snape's experience with Harry and his friends should make > him aware that he could take out Umbridge if given the chance. Pippin: Just because Voldemort has insane confidence in Harry's abilities doesn't mean that Snape does. We've never seen him show *any* confidence in Harry's abilities. Snape would expect Harry to return from the forest, because Snape does not know that the DA are going to succeed in finding Harry and Hermione and returning their wands, he does not know that the thestrals are going to be attracted by the blood on Harry's sleeve, and he doesn't know that Harry is going to think of using them for transportation. In fact, Harry doesn't think of that, Luna does. Harry twice considers going back, once to get his wand, and once to get his hands on a broom. If Snape is indeed the only Order member left at Hogwarts, he would not be allowed to leave it unguarded to go on a wild goose chase after Harry. Dumbledore is emphatic in HPB that he always has had the school under guard in his absence. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 20:06:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 20:06:51 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168712 > wynnleaf > This was a rather fascinating and, it seems to me, revealing example > you gave. I'm not sure if you really meant to do this, but you > appear to be drawing a comparison between people putting an > uninformed personal and negative opinion into a letter, signing > their name to it, and sending it out for the public to read it in > the newspaper, to an 11 year old child making some casual negative > remarks about a teacher. > > I just don't see a kid making casually disparaging remarks about a > teacher as anywhere at all on the same level as an adult sending out > a written letter to the newspaper. Alla: Not at all, I just responded to RL comparison with an example of what kind of things would annoy me in RL in saying bad things about people we never met, etc. I certainly do not consider them to be on the same level. RW example is more serious to me, for sure, much more serious. It is more serious simply because Draco's remark is fictional and the other thing happened in RL, it is more serious to me, even if both things happened in RL, but Draco's remark is **enough** for me to start disliking him. That's all I am saying. wynnleaf: > But if Draco's remarks are that seriously wrong, it amazes me that > Ron's remarks concerning Snape could be considered perfectly > acceptable. Alla: Where in my post I said that Ron's remarks are acceptable? In fact, I said something to the contrary. Here is what I said: "Ron's gossip turns out to be totally true, as far as I am concerned, but he is also making a judgment about the person he never met. Not good in my view." From don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com Mon May 14 18:24:28 2007 From: don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com (Don Elsenheimer) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? Message-ID: <435292.81011.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168713 nirjhar.jain asked: I am baffled as to the reason why Jo Rowling did not explore H/Hr as a ship? Lynda answered: H/Hr is not what JKR wanted for her story. Don: Comment: If you are looking for evidence that JKR didn't want H/Hr for her story, I suggest that you don't seek it within the first five books of canon. It isn't there, in my opinion...in fact, I'd say she was exploring H/Hr up through OoTP (particularly in Book 5)...which is partly why I was so disappointed with HBP and it's forced rehabilitation/re-packaging of Ginny as a suitable match for Harry. Of course, there's JKR's interviews to fall back upon, but it's one thing to say H/Hr is "delusional," and quite another to convincingly show my opinions to be "delusional" within the sustained narrative. From kmsyarto at hotmail.com Mon May 14 20:05:17 2007 From: kmsyarto at hotmail.com (marigoldevans) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 20:05:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168714 Hi! It's been so long since I've posted to this site (or perused it, for that matter) that I might be moderated still. However, I was rereading HBP in preparation for Book 7 (yippeeee!) and noticed something that had escaped me the first time. When Dumbledore is being force-fed the potion in the black cave, he makes several statements that seem to indicate an event of some sort in the past---"please don't hurt them---hurt me instead," etc. (Sorry, I don't have access to my book at the moment.) What I'm looking for is whether or not there has been any discussion about this and which postings I might look at to find it. Thanks! Marigold From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon May 14 20:11:07 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:11:07 -0700 Subject: hagrid's emotions over his pets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168715 > >>Carol: > Maybe because Hagrid is *always* shedding tears, so his anguish is > old hat by the time of PoA? He blubbers like a child over his > monsters from SS/PS (Norbert) onward. Anyway, that's how I feel > about it. > Betsy Hp: I agree. For hurt/comfort to work, the hero needs to bear his hurt with a bit of dignity. Something Hagrid doesn't have much of, unfortunately. Rather than dealing with adversity in a manly way, he deals with it in a childish way. Which is why it's believable that Hagrid actually *needs* the help of three fourteen year old children (with zero experience dealing with the MoM) to help him save his pet, and why it's believable that he flubs it anyway. ( Sherry: As many here know from previous posts, I am accompanied through my life by a wonderful black lab guide dog. I also now work in Admissions for the organization from where I received all my guide dogs. At least a couple times a month, I'm in tears over something that happened to a dog, or from a conversation with a person who desperately wants a guide dog but is not ready and who has given up hope on life because of becoming blind. But the biggest tears are over the dogs--dogs who get sick, who are neglected or treated badly, or just dogs who are little more than mobility tools to their blind handlers, not really beloved companions. Even before starting this particular job, I would cry over any story of cruelty or pain to an animal or children, even as I rarely cry over pain or hurt to myself. Though I am nearly 50, I cannot read books that have scenes of animal or child cruelty. Does this mean I am not handling things in a mature way or that I blubber like a child? I don't think so, and of course, I don't think anyone here would think so. I'm just sensitive and compassionate about the animals and kids in the world. So, yeah, as an adult, I do like Hagrid. I feel for him. He is simple and childlike in many ways. I always thought it was because society had never taught him to hide his emotions or to "act like an adult". There are many flaws to Hagrid's character, but the fact that he cries over his pets and needs the help of children is hardly one of them in my opinion. He's actually refreshing in the PotterVerse. And, I actually think there is something more to Hagrid, something important that he knows or will do in the last book. like Dumbledore, I would trust Hagrid with my life, and there are few in the WW of whom I would say that, if I met them in real life. Sherry From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon May 14 20:19:20 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:19:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <435292.81011.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168716 Don: If you are looking for evidence that JKR didn't want H/Hr for her story, I suggest that you don't seek it within the first five books of canon. It isn't there, in my opinion...in fact, I'd say she was exploring H/Hr up through OoTP (particularly in Book 5)...which is partly why I was so disappointed with HBP and it's forced rehabilitation/re-packaging of Ginny as a suitable match for Harry. Of course, there's JKR's interviews to fall back upon, but it's one thing to say H/Hr is "delusional," and quite another to convincingly show my opinions to be "delusional" within the sustained narrative. Sherry now: Actually, though I don't care much if anything about the relationships in the books, this is a good example of how different readers see very different things. I saw Harry and Ginny from book one. I never even had a fleeting thought that JKR could be going toward a Harry Hermione ship. Books four and five really sealed that for me, especially book five. The Harry and Hermione dynamic always felt more like sister and brother to me, never the least bit more than that and good friends. Hermione is too much of a nag, and Harry resents it at times, and just blows it off at others, or ignores her. She's too darned interfering for him too,, as in the Firebolt incident in book three. As for Ginny's supposed transformation, I never saw a sudden change in her. I guessed about her personality in her first scene in book one and everything else throughout all the books only confirmed it to me. It's fascinating, how we all read the same books and how we each so strongly get different things out of it. Sherry From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon May 14 20:42:12 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:42:12 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Past? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470705141342t13fa39b2vdac7ff71ba0ba0c4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168717 Hi! It's been so long since I've posted to this site (or perused it, for that matter) that I might be moderated still. However, I was rereading HBP in preparation for Book 7 (yippeeee!) and noticed something that had escaped me the first time. When Dumbledore is being force-fed the potion in the black cave, he makes several statements that seem to indicate an event of some sort in the past---"please don't hurt them---hurt me instead," etc. (Sorry, I don't have access to my book at the moment.) What I'm looking for is whether or not there has been any discussion about this and which postings I might look at to find it. Thanks! Marigold =========================================== Jeremiah: I don't know if this has been talked about but I'm just going to bull-headedly push on to the issue. I love the question and I've tried to figure it out, too. What I think is this: -the postion make you relive/remember horrible things in your past. -the potion makes you see all your "failings" and mistakes from your past. -the potion makes you see the future and everyone who will die from your actions. I think it makes you see everyone who has died that you love and care for. Because, let's face it, DD has had a lot of people die from fighing the "good" fight and they followed him. Hope this thread flourishes with speculation. and I, too, hope this is not being repeated. (Sorry if it is). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From BrwNeil at aol.com Mon May 14 20:49:52 2007 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:49:52 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168718 In a message dated 5/14/2007 2:53:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, klhutch at sbcglobal.net writes: >I was fully prepared for Ginny to be either comic relief or an >interesting young witch. I am sorry that some (many?) find her >"transformation" jarring. I see it only as a awestruck young girl >growing to become a capable young woman. It only seems jarring to the >reader because she was flying below Harry's radar until the changes >were complete. We don't get to see anything Harry doesn't notice very >well but there were hints all along. I just hope that they both live >to become a couple again. They are a good match, not that Harry and >Hermione wouldn't be a good match too. >Ken My problem with Ginny is that JKR never showed her changing from a groupie to someone who liked Harry because he was Harry and not the boy who lived. In book one she was definitely a star struck groupie and I don't think even the most ardent H/G shipper will deny that. She is still star struck in book two, her valentine refers to Harry as the hero who defeated the dark lord. Remember in book four how all the girls wanted Harry to ask them to the Ball and how in book six everyone wanted Harry to ask them to the Christmas party. All those girls wanted Harry not for Harry, but because he was famous. When did Ginny feelings become genuine and no longer that of a groupie. JKR has never written anything in canon that shows this change take place. To me Ginny is no better than Romilda Vane. Neil Neil ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From honeypi28 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 20:47:25 2007 From: honeypi28 at yahoo.com (honeypi28) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 20:47:25 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168719 eggplant > It's clear that Ron is in love with Hermione, if Harry were to steal > her away from him the trio would be dead. honeypi I don't see it that way at all. I would really only call it a crush. Friends get crushes on each other all the time. It's entirely normal for friends to work out their feelings of jealousy and envy. It's part of growing up, and will only make them stronger. My best friend and I had a crush on the same boy again and again. We had very similar tastes - is this really such an unusual concept? Fifteen years, and we are still best friends. eggplant: >And even if he wasn't in love with her he'd still be the odd man out; > as it is Ron's the junior member of the trio, a Harry Hermione > relationship would reduce Ron to a buffoon, nothing more than comic > relief. Ron deserves better. honeypi: Well, I guess I think more of Ron than others. He is a funny bloke, but buffoon? I don't think so. Harry loves him dearly, so does Hermione. He's proven to be courageous, loyal, athletic, intelligent, and even heroic. I'm not certain of much, but I'm certain than whomever Harry and Hermione end up with, it will not cause Ron to seem like a buffoon. eggplant: > In fan fiction when 2 characters fall in love we readers have to > endure long sickly soliloquies where they express their undying love > for each. In contrast Rowling's characters don't talk about how much > they love each other, they show it. honeypi: I think you snipped too early, I said "maybe I missed that declaration or moment of realization" . A moment of realization may certain (and is likely most often) unspoken. My interpretation of what I've read is that none of the trio has ever been in love. eggplant > Off the top of my head I can't remember anything she did that was > particularly unlikable. honeypi: It seems you are pleased with Ginny's character development. I would not try to dampen your affection for her by listing her faults. And I certainly don't want to suggest that Ginny is the only one with shortcomings. eggplant: >I think the question [of which ships will be cannon] was settled way > back in book 4. honeypi: I am sure you are correct. Hermione first kissed Harry in book 4, right? As you said, they don't talk about it, they show it. I'm having a little fun at my own expense. It seems the masses believe the ships are either irrelevant (I'm leaning this way) or already set in stone. Whatever JKR does is fine, I'm sure she'll be criticized no matter what she does, which is entirely appropriate. Honeypi From belviso at attglobal.net Mon May 14 21:25:07 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 21:25:07 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168720 > Carol: > Maybe because Hagrid is *always* shedding tears, so his anguish is old > hat by the time of PoA? He blubbers like a child over his monsters > from SS/PS (Norbert) onward. Anyway, that's how I feel about it. I can > see eleven-year-old Neville crying over his lost toad, but Hagrid is > sixty-something and nine or ten feet tall, so his tears (for me) are a > bit much. I don't even like Dumbledore's single tear, which (IMO) is > badly timed, at Ron's expense (I wante Ron to be made prefect for > *Ron's sake). In contrast, when Harry, who never cries, > surreptitiously wipes his eys on his sleeve, it's moving. For me, anyway. Magpie: For me Hagrid's animal stuff comes across as too shallow and manipulated to mean anything to me. I mean, he's not really dealing with real animals, but creatures anthropomorphized to slightly different degrees. His constantly seeking out of more and more dangerous ones for his collection doesn't bother me, but it also doesn't translate into a particularly big heart or love for other living creatures, really, given the way it's presented. It's just too egocentric for it to be any more admirable as a personality trait than to me, say, Harry's being a naturally good flyer. I guess that also goes back to what I find so disturbing about this whole part of PoA, which keeps it from being a favorite of mine despite loving the Sirius Black story. It seems part of a pattern when it comes to the way the Slytherins are seen and treated for me. One I'm not sure isn't intentional, given the nature of Snape's grudge and the reaction to it from others. I don't know...I just really don't like it or Buckbeak, which I can't even really think of as an animal. Sometimes I think this story makes me feel like Snape might have felt about MWPP, or everything they represented, like there's something rancid underneath the surface. Carol: > Notice that he says, not contemptuously but matter-of-factly, "I've > heard of him. He's a sort of servant, isn't he?" (SS/PS Am. ed. 78). > And then he adds juicy tidbits that he's heard, some of them true or > not far from fact," I heard he's a sort of *savage*--lives in a hut on > the school grounds and every now and then he gets drunk, tries to do > magic, and ends us setting fire to his bed" (78). Draco's source for > this partially accurate, partially exaggerated information is almost > certainly his parents, but he doesn't seem to have Lucius Malfoy's > sneering attitude until Harry says coldly, "I think he's brilliant," > to which Draco replies Magpie: I find that passage funny.:-) The first part, I mean, where Harry angrily says he's the groundskeeper and Draco says, "Exactly." Because a groundskeeper's a servant--so he was correct. I'm sure people are constantly buzzing about Harry and what they've heard about how he defeated the Dark Lord etc. Both Draco and Ron are reporting stuff that's based on truth, but which can't be verified without actually waiting and seeing. Sherry: So, yeah, as an adult, I do like Hagrid. I feel for him. He is simple and childlike in many ways. I always thought it was because society had never taught him to hide his emotions or to "act like an adult". There are many flaws to Hagrid's character, but the fact that he cries over his pets and needs the help of children is hardly one of them in my opinion. Magpie: I don't think crying over a pet is a bad thing in an adult either, though I don't consider Hagrid usually childlike in a very positive sense. It seems like Harry himself recognizes that he's very manipulative. I guess I just see a lot of his limitations as conveniently self-serving. He can be rather clever when he's going after something he wants. I guess it's because of his childlike persona that he bothers me when he's given adult jobs and still gets given the privileged child position. I have no patience with Hagrid's job performance being blamed on a run-of-the-mill challenge of the job itself. I don't mind him getting a chance to develop skills on the job, but it still all comes down to him, imo. The problems he has at work all come directly from the way he is outside of work and the students seem to see that. Needing the help of children doesn't have to be a bad thing. But I think using or needing the help of children to do your job or get yourself out of trouble indicates something a little different. Which again, is fine, if it's acknowledged and consistent. I don't think it always is with Hagrid. Betsy Hp: Hee! And see, that was one of Draco's faux pas that I *totally* related to. When I was around ten or eleven or so I once tried to impress an older girl by saying that a certain boy looked like a cow (it seemed very witty to me at the time). Unfortunately for me, he was her brother. Magpie: LOL! Oh. Yeah, that's a hard one to recover from. -m From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon May 14 21:24:11 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 21:24:11 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, BrwNeil at ... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 5/14/2007 2:53:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > klhutch at ... writes: > > >I was fully prepared for Ginny to be either comic relief or an > >interesting young witch. I am sorry that some (many?) find her > >"transformation" jarring. I see it only as a awestruck young girl > >growing to become a capable young woman. It only seems jarring to the > >reader because she was flying below Harry's radar until the changes > >were complete. We don't get to see anything Harry doesn't notice very > >well but there were hints all along. I just hope that they both live > >to become a couple again. They are a good match, not that Harry and > >Hermione wouldn't be a good match too. > > >Ken > > Neil: > > My problem with Ginny is that JKR never showed her changing from a groupie > to someone who liked Harry because he was Harry and not the boy who lived. > > No, she doesn't show it and I guess that is the problem for those of you who hate the "new" Ginny. She doesn't show it *because Harry doesn't notice it*. It is there, very subtly, all along. I think that Ginny is *both* starstruck and genuinely attracted to Harry from the beginning. Ginny is acting her age in the beginning, the starstruck quality drops away, realistically so, but the attraction remains even when she distracts herself with other boys. *We* don't see that last bit because *Harry* doesn't notice. Harry doesn't seem to really notice girls at all until page 388 of GOF (US pb ed); when he needs to get a date for the Yule Ball. Ginny explains the evolution of her feelings for Harry in HBP. Some of you don't accept that but I find it far less jarring than Hermione's revelation of the time turner in PoA. In both cases there are plenty of clues. The time turner clues were heavy handed because we had no way to tell what they meant. The Ginny clues are much more subtle. It has been obvious to me from very early on that Harry does not regard Hermione in the same way that Ron does. Even though she is not starstruck with Ron Hermione does seem to fall into a friendship with Harry more easily because she has no romantic feelings for him. Maybe you don't accept Harry/Ginny but, and I say this kindly, if you missed the Ron/Hermione dynamic you weren't paying close attention! Ken From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon May 14 21:26:17 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:26:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168722 Neil: My problem with Ginny is that JKR never showed her changing from a groupie to someone who liked Harry because he was Harry and not the boy who lived. In book one she was definitely a star struck groupie and I don't think even the most ardent H/G shipper will deny that. She is still star struck in book two, her valentine refers to Harry as the hero who defeated the dark lord. Remember in book four how all the girls wanted Harry to ask them to the Ball and how in book six everyone wanted Harry to ask them to the Christmas party. All those girls wanted Harry not for Harry, but because he was famous. When did Ginny feelings become genuine and no longer that of a groupie. JKR has never written anything in canon that shows this change take place. To me Ginny is no better than Romilda Vane. Sherry: The problem is the whole thing of only seeing things through Harry's point of view. And yet, I did see Ginny change gradually. She seemed far less star struck, and in fact, not even star struck at all, by the middle to end of book four. and in OOTP, she didn't seem star struck at all. She seemed like a friend. Particularly, when she gives Harry hell for not talking to her about his fears that he was being possessed by Voldemort. The changes were pretty obvious to me. In some ways, I didn't like her much in the sixth book, but I didn't like Ron or Hermione either, so it was all the way around for me with not liking the kids in HBP! Except for Harry. Sherry From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon May 14 21:34:59 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:34:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168723 Magpie: I don't think crying over a pet is a bad thing in an adult either, though I don't consider Hagrid usually childlike in a very positive sense. It seems like Harry himself recognizes that he's very manipulative. I guess I just see a lot of his limitations as conveniently self-serving. He can be rather clever when he's going after something he wants. Sherry: I do understand to some extent. I didn't like the Hagrid, who seemed to let Harry take the blame for his dragon, even participating in the punishment in the forest. I always wondered if he ever went to Dumbledore and confessed that the kids were out of bounds because they were trying to help him get rid of Norbert. That's one of the Hagrid flaws I don't like. His teaching doesn't bother me, because I think I might have actually learned from him, if I'd ever taken a class from him. At least, as long as the class was about animals! I would like to have met Buckbeak. Sherry From mros at xs4all.nl Mon May 14 21:37:03 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:37:03 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On the perfection of moral virtues References: Message-ID: <000f01c79670$03375550$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 168724 So often I hear from readers the excuse that they don't want their 'heroes' to be perfect, that they like to see the characters 'warts and all', that they would think 'morally perfect heroes to be unrealistic', and they are absolutely right about that. However, the bone I have to pick with the 'heroes' of the Potterverse is not that they are morally imperfect, rude and self-absorbed little brats, but that they *stay* morally imperfect rude and self-absorbed brats. They only grow bigger, not better. Good children's books have *never* given us morally perfect children as the heroes of the story. Well, not in the past hundred years of so. Not that I can remember anyway. But they did give us morally imperfect children who *learned* from their experiences. That was usually one of the points made in the story. Take 'The Secret Garden' by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Published in 1911. A golden oldie, and with good reason. The two protagonists of the story are both spoiled, self-centered, rude and deeply unhappy children. During the story they learn how to be social, how the "whole orange does not belong to one person alone - they only may claim for one part and if they grab for the whole orange, they're likely to only get the pips". They learn how to be loving and lovable. How to be normal, ordinary children, neither perfect or imperfect. Other characters in the book also have their 'warts'. Ben Weatherstaff, who is a grumpy, sour, disagreeable man, but who is also the children's friend who secretly helps them with their garden and who'll shelter their secret. Mrs Metlock, who 'has no time for children', but who is not unkind. Mr Craven, who grieves so much for his lost wife that he totally ignores and neglects his son, but who also learns to rise above his depression and love life again. It's not the imperfection what matters in books like The Secret Garden, it's what you do with it, wether you rise above it or not. And rising above your imperfections does not mean that you must become 'nice' (Ben Weatherstaff stays grumpy and disagreeable and is nevertheless a good friend) or become 'perfect' (none of these characters ever are - they would be creepy if they were - with perhaps the exemption of Susan Sowerby who is too good to be true, but who has, luckely, a very smart role on the edge of the story) It's never about being perfect, it's about trying to grow into something better. Another example? How about The Hobbit, by Tolkien. Bilbo Baggins is a staid, self-congratulating oaf at the start of the story. During his travels he learns to use his wits, to be self-reliant, to become a hero, even if it's a very small one. When he returns home he's in now way 'morally perfect' or even particularly 'nice' (he's very scathing of his neighbours and family whom he now considers dull and provincial) but he has also learned that the world is bigger than he selfcontainedly thought before and that he himself is only a very small being in a very large world. What are those last lines again? 'Of course!', said Gandalf. 'And why should not they prove true? Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!" 'Thank goodness!', said Bilbo laughing, and handed him the tobacco-jar. Quite a different fellow from the snug, snobbish little character who waved a Great Wizard away from his door with a 'Good Morning' as 'if he were selling buttons at the door'. Quite better. Now, back to the Potter-verse. Back, in fact to Harry Potter himself. Ask yourself: has Harry learned something in his six years at Hogwarts? Has he, for instance, learned that he could be wrong about people (Quirrell, Moody, Scabbers, Sirius - to name but a few), situations ("Tonks must be mourning for Sirius to have a changed Patronus"), etc.? Does this change his behaviour. Does he, in fact, *realise* that he is often mistaken about people, situations etc? Does he ever learn that certain behaviour, such as, say, rushing in where angels fear to tread, is dangerous, to himself as well as to other people, and does he learn to be, for instance, more cautious or does he persist in this behaviour? Does Harry ever get advice from friends or allies who know more about a subject or the WW in general (Mr Weasley advising that the Marauders Map could be dangerous; Neville advising not to get the Prophecy Orb; Prof. McGonegal telling him to stay out of the Philosophers Stone business and to let the adults take care of things, etc etc) and has he ever listened or does he persist in doing whatever he wants to anyway? Does he ever engage in morally iffy things like, say, prejudices and does he ever *realise* that his knee-jerk reaction to certain people are based on prejudices and not on facts? Interestingly, anybody who has ever read a good number of British juvenile books from between 1900 and 1950 would know the stereotype of the 'greasy foreigner' - usually a Frenchman or Italian, but also often a Gypsy or a Jew. The stereotype includes greasy hair, hooked nose and sallow skin. This to differentiate between the Good Noble Cleanlimbed Redcheeked British Boy Who Is Into Sports and the Flattering Effeminate (hence the hair-pomade) Sly and Unhealthy Loungelizard of a Frenchman/Italian or the Shifty, Sly, Dishonest, Dirty (hence the greasy hair) Gypsy/Jew. Ah yes, early 20th century childrens literature is an education in itself. When I first read Snape's description I mentally ticked off all the points from my 'British juvenile literature Jingoistic stereotype' card. Funny. Harry so hates his family, but he seems to have adopted their prejudices about 'foreign looking people' just the same. Even more funny: so many of the readers, and especially those who shook their collective heads when reading how nasty Aunt Petunia and stupid Uncle Vernon thought that 'foreign looking people' were scary and creepy, so many readers who congratulated themselves on not being 'racist' like the Dursleys, so many of those readers readily, with Harry, assumed that Snape was Bad News because he *looked the part*! You've got to laugh, really. But back to the previous alinea. Has Harry ever changed in all those years in attitude? Has he grown as a person? Personally - and this is my beef with the series - I can't see *any* change. Harry was a judgemental, self-absorded, rude eleven-year-old and six year later Harry is a judgemental, self-absorded, rude sixteen-year-old. I'm still waiting for Harry to *learn*. I'm hoping Harry will finally, *finally* realise that he *needs* to change, to learn, in Book 7. Marion [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com Mon May 14 21:41:09 2007 From: don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com (don_elsenheimer) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 21:41:09 -0000 Subject: SHIP Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, BrwNeil at ... asked: > When did Ginny feelings become genuine and no longer that of a groupie? JKR has never written anything in canon that shows this change take place. To me Ginny is no better than Romilda Vane. > Don adds: It's even worse than you state. Not only did JKR fail to show on the written page when and where Ginny abandonned her "groupie" attitudes, what she does write only confirms that Ginny is a clueless groupie, right up to the very last pages of HBP! When Harry breaks up with Ginny, what's her response? She tells him that she knew he wouldn't be happy unless he was fighting Voldemort. Hello? Harry Potter is only happy when he has to be the hero? More like Ginny is only happy when Harry is living up to the "Boy-Who- Lived" image that was hard-wired into her brain back when Molly was telling her Harry Potter bedtime stories. Don Elsenheimer From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 14 21:46:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 21:46:22 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168726 Neil wrote: > My problem with Ginny is that JKR never showed her changing from a groupie to someone who liked Harry because he was Harry and not the boy who lived. > > In book one she was definitely a star struck groupie and I don't think even the most ardent H/G shipper will deny that. She is still star struck in book two, her valentine refers to Harry as the hero who defeated the dark lord. > Remember in book four how all the girls wanted Harry to ask them to the Ball and how in book six everyone wanted Harry to ask them to the Christmas party. > All those girls wanted Harry not for Harry, but because he was famous. When did Ginny feelings become genuine and no longer that of a groupie. JKR has never written anything in canon that shows this change take place. To me Ginny is no better than Romilda Vane. Carol responds: I'm no Ginny fan myself, and no Shipper of any kind, but I think it's a bit unfair to say that Ginny is no better than Romilda Vane, someone Harry doesn't even know who suddenly becomes an obsessive fan who gives him love-potion-spiked candy just to get him to take her to Slughorn's Christmas party. Ginny has always been a Harry fan, and he saved her life in CoS after she had been possessed by Diary!Tom (and releasing the Basilisk), so she has to deal with the embarrassment of seeing him at her parents' house after that. I think when she realized that he didn't see her any differently--she was still Ron's little sister--she realized that it was okay to like him, and Hermione, we're told, encouraged her to just be herself around him, so we do see a gradual change that Harry himself doesn't see. We're always limited to some degree by what Harry sees and hears, but we don't need to be so limited by the Harry filter that we turne out things happening around him that he doesn't pick up on (the change in Ginny being one of them) or interpret things as he does. In fact, IMO, if we follow his impressions too closely, we're bound to be wrong. Just as one example, when Romilda shoves a box of chocolates at him saying that they're filled with fire whiskey and she doesn't like them (nice of her to give them to him, then!), he doesn't recall that Hermione has just overheard Romilda and her friends plotting to give Harry a love potion. The reader should connect the dots: Harry doesn't. And again, to be fair, Hermione at twelve had a crush on Gilderoy Lockhart. Little girls go through those phases and get over them; the fact that Ginny doesn't get over her feelings should indicate that their not just a passing thing. She does help Harry in OoP by telling him what it's like to be possessed; she does fight alongside him in the DoM; she does give him her hand and lead him away from Dumbledore's body in HBP. As I said, I don't really like Ginny, especially her use of the Bat-Bogey hex on people who annoy her, which reminds me of James hexing people in the hallway, but she does seem more suited to Harry than Hermione does (Hermione is brainy and loyal and highly useful when he needs to train for the TWT, for example, but she always strikes me as the second-best buddy, the Lupin of their little group, whereas Ron is the best friend, the one he would miss most (and therefore the person selected to be rescued in the Second Task). Anyway, it's been clear to me since Book 1 that Ginny liked Harry and since Book 2 that Hermione liked Ron. By Book 4, it was clear even to the usually oblivious Harry that Ron also liked Hermione but hadn't yet figured it out (last scene of Yule Ball chapter). And I think it was Book 4 (might have been 5) when I realized that Ron wanted Harry and Ginny to get together. As for Harry himself, he had to get over Cho and realize that there's more to choosing a girlfriend than beauty. (On a more comic level, Ron learned the same lesson with Fleur, but he still needed his snogging sessions with Lavender to gain confidence in his own attractiveness to the opposite sex, including Hermione, who seemed to doubt his Quidditch abilities.) Carol, not sure why she's responding to SHIPping threads but thinking that Ginny needed defending here From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon May 14 22:44:40 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:44:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168727 Marigold wrote: > When Dumbledore is being force-fed the potion in the black cave, he > makes several statements that seem to indicate an event of some sort in > the past---"please don't hurt them---hurt me instead," etc. (Sorry, I > don't have access to my book at the moment.) > > What I'm looking for is whether or not there has been any discussion > about this and which postings I might look at to find it. zgirnius: Welcome back to the group as we all wait impatiently for 7/21! One thing we did some time after HBP came out was to do a series of Chapter Discussions about HBP. Different posters wrote summaries and discussion questions about each chapter. Here is a link to the opening post of the thread about "The Cave", Ch. 26 of HBP. There was some discussion of Dumbledore's words under the influence of the potion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162333 From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 14 22:55:45 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:55:45 -0000 Subject: Another time line (was: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168728 Pippin: > Just because Voldemort has insane confidence in Harry's > abilities doesn't mean that Snape does. We've never seen him > show *any* confidence in Harry's abilities. > > Snape would expect Harry to return from the forest, because Snape > does not know that the DA are going to succeed in finding Harry > and Hermione and returning their wands, he does not know that > the thestrals are going to be attracted by the blood on Harry's > sleeve, and he doesn't know that Harry is going to think of using > them for transportation. In fact, Harry doesn't think of that, Luna > does. Harry twice considers going back, once to get his > wand, and once to get his hands on a broom. > > If Snape is indeed the only Order member left at Hogwarts, he > would not be allowed to leave it unguarded to go on a wild > goose chase after Harry. Dumbledore is emphatic in HPB > that he always has had the school under guard in his absence. Dana: No Snape has no confidence in Harry but he does compliment his more talented friends in HBP Chapter: Spinner's End. I snipped the rest of your post to explore the time-line of things happening again. I want to add only a few things before I do that indicates very specifically that even Umbridge knew who Harry would be talking to when in need and who he didn't in relation to an emergency, which means she got this information from someone. I also am of the opinion that LV even counted on Harry being expelled by Umbridge and he certainly was counting on Harry to use the fireplace or otherwise what was the use of preparing Kreacher? I think you give a little to less credit to LV's intelligence and his ways to find things out. Also you say LV could not plant the vision other then Harry sleeping or during occlumency lessons, you are forgetting LV being able to invade Harry's mind while he was awake. There is no reason to believe that he could not plant the vision in an awake Harry and Harry feeling exhausted probable helped but I do not believe it was essential but then again LV could have known that too because it was during the evening Astronomy exam that Hagrid and McGonagall were taken out, so a bad night sleep was pretty much granted and as we see Harry had no dreams in the 3 hour sleep he had. Still I do not think LV needed an asleep Harry even if his tired mind would have been less resistant and probably helped. But nevertheless lets look at what Umbridge had to say. pg 655 UKed Paperback chapter: Out of the fire. 'Clearly , it was important for you to talk to somebody. Was it Albus Dumbledore? Or the half-breed, Hagrid? I doubt it was McGonagall, I hear she is still too ill to talk to anyone.' End quote from canon. To much coincidence for my taste that she mentions these three people, when she concludes that it must be really important to talk to somebody. Anyway although I know Neri already posted a timeline, I thought I amuse myself and make another one. I haven't checked with his to see if they match with what Neri wrote earlier but for me it is still cristal clear that something is not right about Snape's actions and here it is. 2.00 am ? 4.30 am Harry talks history exam. The students enter the great hall at 2.00 pg 639 chapter OWLs. 4.30 am ? 4.40 am Harry receives vision about Sirius being at the DoM, being tortured by LV. Will take 4.40 for the vision to end. 4.40 am ? 4.45 am Harry having a conversation with Professor Tofty pg 643 4.45 am ? 5.00 am Harry going to the hospital wing to see McGonagall, when he is there he hears the bell that indicates the end of classes pg 644 5.00 am ? 5.20 am Harry talking to his friends. Hermione tells him it is 5.00 am pg 645, Ginny and Luna come in. 5.20 am ? 5.35 am Harry is going to get his cloak and meets there rest in front of Umbridge office. 5.35 am ? 5.50 am Harry tries to contact Sirius. 5.50 am ? 6.10 am Harry is caught, Umbridge sends someone to get Snape. 6.10 am ? 6.45 am Snape arrives and when he is about the leave Harry tries to warn him. 6.45 am ? 7.00 am Hermione comes up with a plan to stop Umbridge crucio Harry. 7.00 am ? 7.15 am Harry, Umbridge and Hermion reach the forest, when they walk past the great Hall. Harry notices dinner is still in progress. 7.10 am ? 7.25 am Ron, Luna, Ginny and Neville escape from Draco and his gang and go after Harry. 7.15 am ? 9.00 am Harry, Hermione and Umbridge face the centaur's and Gwarp. 9.00 am ? 9.55 am Harry and his friends leave the Forest just when the sun is about to set. In Scotland in June the sunsets on between 9.50 and 9.57 am between 1996 and 2004. Jo was living in Scotland at the time she was writing OotP. On this website one can see the sunset and sunrise for Edinburgh. There are three places in Scotland that can be selected; Glasgow and Aberdeen are the other two and they have the same sunset and rise times. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.htmln=304&month=6&year =2004&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1 9.55 am ? 10.50 am Harry is still flying to London, on page 675 it is mentioned that twilight sets, it is the time when the sunset ends and night begins it takes 3.31 minutes for this to happen and for the 3 places mentioned above this takes place between 22.50 and 22.55 (10.50 - 10.55 am) http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.htmlmonth=6&year=2004& obj=sun&afl=-13&day=1&n=304 10.50 am ? 12.00 am Harry arrives at the MoM and wanders around it the DoM 12.00 am ? 1.30 pm Harry and his friends fight the DEs 1.30 pm ? 3.30 pm The Order arrives. I am giving 2 hours from the moment the Order arrives until Harry is sent to DD office. 3.30 pm ? 4.30 pm Harry waits for DD in DD's office the sun has not yet risen because Harry notices dawn is approaching and we hear DD tell Fudge he will give him 30 minutes of his time and DD has taken everybody to the hospital wing, had a chat with Snape and when he is arriving the sun is still rising and the sunrises in Scotland between 4.25 and 4.35 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.htmln=304&month=6&year =2004&obj=sun&afl=-13&day=1 - End time line - It takes Harry already almost 5 hours to get of the ground from the moment Harry received the vision, even if we stretch the events between the time of the vision until they leave the grounds and all things happened in between to a little later then it still does not change that it takes 5 hours before Harry is able to leave. >From the astronomy exam the night before we see that at 11 o'clock it is dark, Astronomy practical exam begins at 11 o'clock pg 633. If Snape knew Harry was in the Forest with Umbridge, as we are told by DD, then it still takes him an awful long time to realise something is up. If Snape finds out between 6.10 and 7.00 about Harry having a vision about Sirius, he still waits till after dark to notify the Order. And if Snape had notified the order around 11 when it was fully dark (which would still be 4 hours from the time Harry warned him if we stretch it to 7.00 and 2 hours from the moment Harry left the Hogwarts grounds) then the Order would have arrived either just before he faced the DEs or very shortly into the fight and that is not what we see. When the twilight occurs Harry is still in midair (pg 677) and as we read on we get a sense that it takes awhile from there before they reached the MoM. The end time of the DoM battle is also set because JKR gives us the dawn is approaching which is before 4.30. So we know when Harry gets the vision, we know at what time he left and we know when the whole ordeal ended and it takes almost 12 hours from start to finish. It takes Harry almost 5 hours to leave the grounds and another 7 till he ends up in DD's office and if Snape only got worried when it turned dark then we see if he had notified the Order then, which would be around 11.00, that they probably would have arrived before Harry did or at least before Harry faced the DEs. Because the Order would give or take have taken 20 minutes to get there and it would still have been 11.20 and between twilight which is 10.50 and the end of the battle which is at least a half hour before sunrise at 4.30, it still takes more then 5 hours for the whole ordeal to unfold and the Order did not battle the DEs for 3 to 4 hours and they did not arrive minutes after Harry did. Also there is another problem that does not fit about Harry not being able to get to the DoM and that is the accio brooms thing we see on three occasions. One in GoF when Harry faces the Dragon, the second time is with the twins and the third time is in HBP. To some extent it doesn't matter how Snape found out about Harry being in the forest because there is to much time that has passed for him not to find out from Draco that the 4 other kids had gone after Harry and that they did carry wands. To not know anything between 7 and 11, is to long a time to not know anything or not know that 6 kids are missing. And as you pointed out in your post that Snape could not know if the other kids would have been able to find Harry so could he not be sure they indeed did. So Harry himself being wandless would not risk him accio the brooms but when the other kids went after them, this risk became very apparent but still Snape is not searching the forest. Therefore I still hold Snape accountable for what happened because he just waited and waited from the moment Harry warned him about him receiving the vision and the time he began to worry something is up. Even if after 4 hours of wondering why Harry and Umbridge had not come out of the forest (which he would need to monitor constantly to even know they did not) and then notifying the Order, would still have made it very probable for the Order to have arrived on time. So again I asked anyone to come up with a good and logical explanation for Snape waiting so long to become worried and no, Harry not being able to get to his Firebolt is not one of them because as we have seen in PS/SS, there are enough Hogwart brooms to go around, we also see that there are more hippogriffs living in the Forest then just Buckbeak in PoA, there is a flying car running around it since CoS, we see Harry accio his broom in GoF and that more then one broom is available even if he could not get to his own, so why oh why did Snape wait that long to do something? And besides there is the problem with the fact that every year the thestrals bring the kids to Hogwarts at the beginning of the schoolyear and DD often uses them to get around, Snape can see them as JKR has mentioned in an interview and he knows Harry has seen death when Cedric died the previous year. And as we have witnessed twice Snape has a tendency to have conversations in the forest himself so I'm sure he is very aware about what is living there or that he even knows his way around it. So what was Snape doing between the time Harry warned him and the time it became dark and why wasn't he alarmed that in a 4 hour period Harry still hadn't shown up. And no, Snape did not alarm the Order at 11 and not even at 12.00 because the Order is in London and it would not take them hours to show up at the MoM and as we see from Arthur's travelling with Harry in the beginning of the book, it doesn't even take hours to get there by muggle transportation. And JKR being bad with math is not a good excuse either because she gives very specific indications on what is happening when and these indications are there for a reason and her being part of the living world makes it very improbable that she would not have know what twilight means and when it occurs or when the sun sets and when it rises. Writing up ages is very different from writing time frames and see uses specific time indications by mentioning when the OWL starts, having Hermione mentioning it is 5 o'clock when she talks to Harry and showing us that it is dark at 11.00 when she mentions the time the Astronomy OWL starts the night before. JMHO Dana PS: About the mirrors if Kreacher stole the mirror from Sirius, then LV would need to remove the enhantment Sirius put on it or otherwise the one in Harry's possesion would react to his name and LV could not risk it being activated and would not know if Harry was not carrying it on him. Also LV does not need to steal magical items from other wizards, he knows more about magic then anyone and the idea of there being more then these two seems unlikely to me. And the idea that Kreacher could keep Order members away by his mere presents seem unlikely too because we see no one ran away from Kreacher when Harry was there. The timing was in my opinion set and Kreacher had his orders to hurt Buckbeak to keep him away from the fireplace and no one needed to contact Kreacher because that would risk Sirius being in his presence when that happened. JMHO From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon May 14 23:36:08 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:36:08 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <31440775.1179156388791.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <46497F08.14240.54C01B7@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168729 On 14 May 2007 at 0:00, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Bart: > And this shows what happens when you use obscure terms in a group, > without even acknowledging their obscurity. But I still believe that > they started in ST fandom as based on stereotyped rural American > names, signifying a lack of soophistication. And you're right, Bart, they did. The term actually has a variety of shades of meaning. The name 'Mary Sue' was actually used in a parody of Star Trek fanfiction that was written around 1973 and it's from there the term came into widespread use. The parody was basically addressing a whole bunch of stereotypes that typically occurred in fanfiction. The Mary Sue character was, as I have described, intended to parody the author who put themselves into the story as a perfect heroine. Typically she saved the ship where everybody else had failed, and then got intimate with Kirk or Spock (or both) as a reward for her courage and ingenuity. The character was a wish-fulfilment fantasy - "I want to be the hero and I want to get the guy." The name 'Mary Sue' was chosen for the character because it was a stereotypical unsophisticated rural American name - because again, this was a parody and the person writing the parody was suggesting that these were the type of people writing this type of fanfic. So it parodied both. JKR has said that: "I have often said that Hermione is a bit like me when I was younger." When most fans refer to Hermione as JKR's Mary Sue, this is what they are talking about - that element of the definition. 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 zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon May 14 23:48:57 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:48:57 -0000 Subject: Another time line (was: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168730 > Dana: > 9.55 am ? 10.50 am Harry is still flying to London, on page 675 it > is mentioned that twilight sets, it is the time when the sunset ends > and night begins it takes 3.31 minutes for this to happen and for the > 3 places mentioned above this takes place between 22.50 and 22.55 > (10.50 - 10.55 am) zgirnius: There is a typo of some sort here, Dana. 3.31 minutes? Do you mean about 30? The why do you later suggest full dark is at 10:50 in Edinburgh? I will assume this is what you meant, as you go with it for the rest of the post. > Dana: > 10.50 am ? 12.00 am Harry arrives at the MoM and wanders around > it the DoM zgirnius: If 10:50 is your proposed arrival time AND the moment of full dark, then you looked up the wrong places for end of twilight. You say this is end of twilight, AND when Harry arrives. Hence, you should be looking when the end of twilight happens in London, England. As it is some 300 miles south of Edinburgh, I suspect it happens earlier in London than in any of the three cities of Scotland you mention. In fact, a check of the source you cited shows a time between 9:10 pm and 9:25 pm for sunset in London, depending on whether we look at early or late June. Which gives 10:10-10:25 for full dark assuming 1 hour. (As you seem to in Edinburgh). Harry leaves school at 9:50 and arrives in London about thirty minutes later, doing considerably better than the plane service connecting those two cities for Muggles. I find it hard to believe this is the time lapse Rowling intended, and conclude this exercise is probably doomed because she simply did not look this stuff up. Certainly, my subjective impression of the length of the trip was not 30 minutes, and that is what I trust more, as describing people's feelings seems more her forte than astronomy/timelines/maths. Harry loses all track of how long and how far they travel in that time. From cdayr at yahoo.com Tue May 15 00:17:13 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 00:17:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past? In-Reply-To: <948bbb470705141342t13fa39b2vdac7ff71ba0ba0c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168731 Marigold wrote: > When Dumbledore is being force-fed the potion in the black cave, he > makes several statements that seem to indicate an event of some sort in > the past---"please don't hurt them---hurt me instead," etc. (Sorry, I > don't have access to my book at the moment.) > > What I'm looking for is whether or not there has been any discussion > about this and which postings I might look at to find it. > > Jeremiah: > > I don't know if this has been talked about but I'm just going to > bull-headedly push on to the issue. > > I love the question and I've tried to figure it out, too. What I think is > this: > -the postion make you relive/remember horrible things in your past. > -the potion makes you see all your "failings" and mistakes from your past. > -the potion makes you see the future and everyone who will die from your > actions. > > I think it makes you see everyone who has died that you love and care for. > Because, let's face it, DD has had a lot of people die from fighing the > "good" fight and they followed him. > > Hope this thread flourishes with speculation. and I, too, hope this is not > being repeated. (Sorry if it is). > Celia now: Well, I know that this has been discussed in the past, in a number of fascinating threads, but I'm up for more. I am extremely curious about the nature of the potion in the cave, especially since I became an adherent to Pippin's theory that Snape was the person who made the potion originally, and all that might imply. See this post and the thread following it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165765 I think all of Jeremiah's theories are viable options for how the potion might operate. I particularly am intrigued by the idea that you might see the future consequences of your actions played out. But I have another suggestion, based on the "Snape made the green goo back in his DE days" theory. What if the potion itself is imprinted with the memories or feelings of its creator? Therefore, the words spoken by Dumbledore might be memories, feelings, or experiences placed into it by Snape as he made the potion. These could be placed there either as intentional torture ("Hah! I'll leave them my worst painful thoughts and feelings!"), or because that is just how this potion works ("I'm making Kill Them Slowly With My Worst Memories Potion"). It appears from the text that Dumbledore is experiencing extreme regret at the realization that his actions are causing others to die (A selection: "It's all my fault...please make it stop, I know I did wrong...don't hurt them, please, please, it's my fault, hurt me instead...not that, not that, I'll do anything...I want to die! I want to die!" (Am.PB 572-573)). So if this is Snape's memory, what is it of? Possibly the memory that DD is reliving is Snape's internal dialogue as he realizes he has condemned the Potters by revealing the prophesy to LV. (Notice I said internal, as I cannot imagine Snape ever pleading in this way out loud.) If you assume that Snape was truly regretful about causing the death of the Potters, this could fit for him. Another option is that this is some other horrid emotional memory of Snape's related to an incident we know nothing about yet, where his actions led to the death or pain of some other group of people. Any ideas? I *will* say I'm not sure the textual evidence is strong enough for this theory to have much chance. The whole "I know I did wrong, it's my fault" theme seems quite unlike the Severus that we all know. BUT, if this is his bottled-up internal emotional landscape, concentrated in potion-form, perhaps this is evidence that he *is* racked with self-loathing and regret? Whatever is going on with the potion, I think the wording of DD's screams is so strangely and specifically about a particular incident that we will find out more about it in DH. -Celia, fully prepared to admit that I live under the delusion that the next book is called "Severus Snape and the Deathly Hallows", and therefore everything with me always comes back to Snape. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 00:25:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 00:25:12 -0000 Subject: The Lucius Malfoy/Delores Umbridge connection (Was: Another time line ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168732 Dana wrote: Umbridge knew who Harry would be talking to when in need and who he didn't in relation to an emergency, which means she got this information from someone. Carol responds: I'm a bit confused. Do you think that umbridge is a Death eater and that she went after certain people (Hagrid, for example) because they were Order members or because of their connections with Harry? As I understand it, she went after Hagrid in part because of his connection with Dumbledore (same reason she sent the Dementors after Harry), but also she was a power-hungry tyrant who really wanted to sack somebody. As for McGonagall, she got in the way (Umbridge's view) when Umbridge was trying to arrest Hagrid. I'm not sure that Voldemort even knew about McGonagall's being in the hospital. Certainly, she didn't learn what she knew about Sirius Black's fondness for Harry from Snape, who tells Harry to tell no one about the Occlumency lessons, "least of all Dolores Umbridge" (OoP Am. ed. 519) and gave Umbridge fake Veritaserum to prevent her from learning about Black's or Dumbledore's whereabouts by questioning Harry. he thwarts her again by telling her that she has used the last of his Veritaserum when she wants to question Harry after he uses her fireplace to communicate with Kreacher. ("You are being deliberately unhelpful!" she says, and she's right, as his ironic bow shows.) Clearly, her source of information isn't Snape. However, there's one person with a link to both Kreacher (and the MoM Prophecy plot) on the one hand and Umbridge on the other, someone whom Umbridge doesn't know to be a Death Eater: Lucius Malfoy. We know that Umbridge knows Malfoy (she tells Snape that Lucius speaks well of him, which leads her to expect Snape's cooperation in her Harry interrogations). We know that Kreacher is reporting either to Narcissa or to both adult Malfoys, and that Lucius in turn is reporting to Voldemort. We know that Lucius has close connections with Fudge (and Fudge with Umbridge). We know that Lucius saw Sirius Black in dog form on Platform 9 3/4 and soon afterwards, the Daily Prophet reported that Black had been seen in London. Hermione immediately suspects that Lucius Malfoy told Fudge about seeing Black (which Lucius is cunning enough to do without revealing that he saw Black in Animagus form and recognized him thanks to Peter Pettigrew's description). Fudge could then have told Umbridge, who seems to know more than what's reported in the paper. At any rate, I think that a Malfoy/Umbridge connection, however indirect, makes sense, as further evidenced by the privileges she gives Draco and the Inquisitorial Squad. Not that I think she's a Death Eater or that she's deliberately targeting people that Voldemort wants targeted, but Lucius Malfoy would be a perfect go-between for her and Fudge and for Fudge/Umbridge and Voldemort, to whom she wouldn't know he was reporting. She gives Fudge information about Hogwarts, which Fudge shares with his dear friend Lucius and Lucius passes to Voldemort; Lucius in turn gives Fudge information (such as seeing Black), which Fudge then passes on to his High Inquisitor. Draco could be a source of information about Harry and Dumbledore's loyal staff members for both Umbridge and Lucius. Just a thought. I'm not arguing that Lucius Malfoy is Umbridge's and Fudge's informant regarding Black, but he seems to me a more likely candidate than Snape, and it's clear that before Malfoy's arrest, he has a good deal of influence on Fudge. Carol, who also thinks it's suspicious that Macnair, a Ministry employee as well as a DE, showed up as Voldemort's ambassador to the giants and wonders whether he was really the *Ministry's* ambassador, sent by Fudge at Malfoy's suggestion (and, of course, secretly working for Voldemort) From penhaligon at gmail.com Tue May 15 00:43:14 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:43:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <46497F08.14240.54C01B7@drednort.alphalink.com.au> References: <31440775.1179156388791.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <46497F08.14240.54C01B7@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: <0FD75B90D69D48C092F04BC27EDF30DF@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 168733 > From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] > > The name 'Mary Sue' was actually used in a parody of Star Trek fanfiction > that was written > around 1973 and it's from there the term came into widespread use. The > parody was > basically addressing a whole bunch of stereotypes that typically occurred > in fanfiction. > Wikipedia has an nice article about Mary Sue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue Panhandle penhaligon at gmail.com From belviso at attglobal.net Tue May 15 00:57:15 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 20:57:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? References: Message-ID: <00e801c7968b$fba4a380$6601a8c0@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168734 Ken: > No, she doesn't show it and I guess that is the problem for those of > you who hate the "new" Ginny. She doesn't show it *because Harry > doesn't notice it*. It is there, very subtly, all along. I think that > Ginny is *both* starstruck and genuinely attracted to Harry from the > beginning. Ginny is acting her age in the beginning, the starstruck > quality drops away, realistically so, but the attraction remains even > when she distracts herself with other boys. *We* don't see that last > bit because *Harry* doesn't notice. Harry doesn't seem to really > notice girls at all until page 388 of GOF (US pb ed); when he needs to > get a date for the Yule Ball. Magpie: Actually, I notice plenty of things Harry doesn't notice. And Harry does notice Ginny perfectly well before her personality change. It's not like she's invisible. She had, imo, a perfectly coherent personality in books 1-4 that was to me so different in Book 5-6 that Ginny's first *line* in OotP made me say, "Oh, this is the book where Ginny's going to start being pushed as the greatest girl for Harry." Literally. Not that I'm a great psychic reader or anything, but I was proved right as the book went on, obviously. Ginny is *so* showing off the new personality in that scene. It's not that the two Ginny's don't have anything in common in my mind, but in the way Ron and Harry have plenty of things in common without being the same character. For instance, Ginny's standing up for herself in Harry in CoS and GoF actually doesn't remind me of Ginny in the latter two books at all. Except in the most general "Here is Ginny being assertive" way (with different results). I'm talking about her, of course, as a fictional character. People can change and do things you don't expect. But JKR writes characters very clearly--and she knows she's unveiling somebody here. I remember going back and checking her first scene against her last scene in GoF. I think I get the joke or the point. It's supposed to be funny how the girl is all starstruck and then when she blossoms Harry has to chase her when she used to be chasing him and she was shy so Harry didn't see her not-shy personality and wow, this is what she was all the time etc. The fact that Harry "didn't notice" her personality is a joke in the text itself (and just when Harry starts noticing, other characters start liking to talk about Ginny) But I still think the hiding of her personality and revelation of it later was done in a way thatI could see but not believe except as a device. She still reads to me as first a girl I like fine but who wouldn't have been Harry's girlfriend, followed by The Best Girl Ever (in the eyes of somebody besides me). All of which leads to my never seeing H/Hr anywhere in the text (it has a mother/son vibe to me). I didn't know how the girl I first saw as Ginny was going to get Harry up until GoF, but the second she had that opening scene in OotP (where I personally think Ginny II was introduced far more effectively than Tonks as far as new characters go) it was pretty clear it was a done deal. Ron and Hermione had been the secondary couple for several books by then. They're the bickering couple; Harry and Ginny are the Romantic couple. -m From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue May 15 01:20:39 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 01:20:39 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: <000f01c79670$03375550$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168735 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: > But back to the previous alinea. > Has Harry ever changed in all those years in attitude? Has he grown as a person? > Personally - and this is my beef with the series - I can't see *any* change. Harry was a judgemental, self-absorded, rude eleven-year-old and six year later Harry is a judgemental, self-absorded, rude sixteen-year-old. > I'm still waiting for Harry to *learn*. > I'm hoping Harry will finally, *finally* realise that he *needs* to change, to learn, in Book 7. > wynnleaf I strongly agree with your post and clipped just the final part with your questions. I'd expand it to wonder if *anyone* of the central characters has truly grown and developed in terms of learning to be a better person? Maybe Ron in some ways. The funny thing about Harry's character is that he's presented as though we're to think he's *already* the "better person," simply because he's so much nicer than the Dursleys (presented as an extreme example of prejudice and general nastiness), accepts Ron in spite of his being poor (unlike "bad" Draco), likes Hagrid in spite of his being a "servant" (once again contrasted to "bad" Draco), and accepts the somewhat bossy Hermione. Dumbledore praises Harry's ability to love, so we are led to believe that Harry loves more than the average person. In fact, he doesn't. He loves people who particularly love him in return. The notable factor of Harry's love isn't that it's unusually strong, but that someone from Harry's background would have a more or less normal capacity to love in the first place. But we -- and even Harry -- are directly led to believe that his degree of love is unusually commendable. I think this is partly what I have a problem with in the way Harry's character flaws are portrayed, as though not only does he not have certain flaws, but that he in fact has great strengths in the very areas of some of his greatest flaws. Harry *does* have the "saving people" thing, although it seems far more akin to a fear, sometimes justified, that no one else can be trusted to take care of anyone that powers his desire to save people. But back to what Harry has learned. Harry has learned a lot about magic, backstories of characters, etc -- facts, in other words. He's learned that he can be quick witted in a crisis. But that doesn't develop the character. Harry's learned a bit about leadership, some teaching ability. But once again -- it's not really building character. I'm not sure that his leadership capabilities are really very strong. Harry's "capacity to love" and his "saving people thing" are exactly the same as they've always been. He has not developed in terms of learning to forgive, nor, as was pointed out, has he learned from his mistakes, but instead makes the same mistakes repeatedly. Harry continuously finds that he's trusted the wrong person, that he has led others into great danger, that he's wrong about people's motivations, etc. He is even more willing to be outwardly dishonest (an entire year with the HBP potions book), and even more willing to be dishonest with himself (feeding a case in his mind that Snape is to blame for Sirius' death). One might argue that JKR couldn't let Harry grow out of these weaknesses until the last book, because otherwise you'd end up with the later books being rather boring as Harry would already have learned and grown through his biggest weaknesses. I will hope for him to learn a great deal in DH, although I don't see why he couldn't have grown out of at least one or two of his more negative character traits earlier. wynnleaf From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue May 15 02:51:48 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 02:51:48 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > No, she doesn't show it and I guess that is the problem for those of > you who hate the "new" Ginny. She doesn't show it *because Harry > doesn't notice it*. I've heard this point from a number of people and I hate that explanation. It isn't some clever literary trick, it's just bad writing. When you are writing a multi-volume story you need to lay the foundation for different aspects of the story, you can't just spring them on the reader fully formed and expect them to buy it. Even if the main character is supposed to miss it, the reader shouldn't. this isn't a movie or tv show. we don't have any body language or looks that we can read, we just have to go on what's there. And what's there for Ginny just doesn't fit. Ginny's personality is straight out of the blue. The whole 'she never shuts up' thing isn't an indication of some hidden strength of character--its a description that could mean just about anything. you could describe Colin Creevy as someone who never shuts up as well and it would have be perfectly justified. >It is there, very subtly, all along. Really, where was the subtle hints that she liked Quiddich and was a good rider? if they were there, why did we need Hermione, the exposition Fairy to tell us she stole brooms out of the shed (yeah, 'cause that's realistic) to learn how to ride? There is not a single indication before book five Ginny is even the slightest bit sports inclined. She's horrified by the violence of the game at the Quiddich world cup and fell asleep during the group talk about the game afterwards. Harry doesn't seem to really > notice girls at all until page 388 of GOF (US pb ed); when he needs to > get a date for the Yule Ball. Not true. I got Harry's crush on Cho from back in the third book. I think Ginny comes across incredibly poorly in books five and six. The reason is she dumps Dean is just plain ugly and the way she and Harry liplock in front of him is very cruel. She's mean to Fleur for no reason and her supposed jokes at the girl's expense were anything but actually amusing. She is portrayed as a defender Luna, but calls her loony behind her back. She isn't feisty, she's just plain rude and bullying. Harry's feelings for her were characterized by the highly romantic chest monster I read a theory that said Harry was under the influence of a love potion in the HBP and I can almost buy it. Harry and Cho were such a masterful train wreck and there are so many other great couples in the story that I can't believe that JKR would so drop the ball on the romance of the title character. I don't think romance is going to be one of the cornerstones of the story but I don't think that gives it license to be shoddy either. Ginny is literally the least interesting choice she could have made for Harry's LI--which I could have accept had it been written well. But it just isn't. Phoenixgod2000, who hates Ginny with the fire of a million exploding suns (bonus points if you get the reference) From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue May 15 03:11:03 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:11:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <00e801c7968b$fba4a380$6601a8c0@Spot> References: <00e801c7968b$fba4a380$6601a8c0@Spot> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0705142011q109b3be4pf5f1a479ec91894c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168737 honeypi: Ron is hilarious. He's the 'fun guy' and represents a carefree spirit that no doubt seems attractive to a youthful Hermione who is very much on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think it's typical of teens to look at all of their peers and learn what types compliment them best. I don't see Ron and Hermione as a viable pairing because he'd (or I guess she would) have to change too dramatically to really be even matched with her. I like Ron as he is, so I'd hate to see that happen. Debbie: As a longtime member of C.R.A.B. (Cut Ron a Break!), I have to take issue with the notion that Ron needs to change dramatically to be worthy of Hermione. Ron's problem is lack of confidence, not lack of ability or interest. And others (especially Hermione) lose confidence in him because he doesn't have confidence in himself. We know he can succeed (because he does just fine on his O.W.L.s) but in the normal course he does not try. And no wonder, as he's set himself an impossible standard to follow: "Bill was Head Boy and Charlie was captain of Quidditch. Now Percy's a Prefect. Fred and George mess around a lot, but they still get really good marks and everyone thinks they're really funny. Everyone expects me to do as well as the others, but if I do, it's no big deal, because they did it first." See, I don't think Ron's nearly as carefree as he appears. He puts too much pressure on himself. When he wants to, Ron can apply himself -- he spent a lot of time on Buckbeak's defense, for example. Hermione gets on his case -- rightfully so -- for slacking off, but Ron is capable of standing up to Hermione. It's Ron, not Harry, who challenges Hermione on her attempt to free the house elves by stealth. Ron can temper her overzealousness in a way that Harry cannot. And applying himself won't deprive Ron of his sometimes sarcastic (but accurate) sense of humour, which is one of my favorite things about him. Don: If you are looking for evidence that JKR didn't want H/Hr for her story, I suggest that you don't seek it within the first five books of canon. It isn't there, in my opinion...in fact, I'd say she was exploring H/Hr up through OoTP (particularly in Book 5).. Debbie: I know many H/H shippers who were very pleased with the H/H interaction in OOP; however, I found Hermione too dictatorial and/or stealthy to have been operating as a team with anyone. I also found that some H/H shippers identify with Hermione and apply their own standards in assessing the suitability of various romantic pairings. But having said that, I agree that it is possible to read books 1-5 with a H/H slant, and only in one or two spots is the H/H reading at all strained. Structurally, however, H/H (or H/G, or anything else) never seemed right for the story. There's the point already made that a romantic relationship might freeze Ron out. That can't be allowed to happen because the Trio are a balanced threesome, and imbalance among them has historically not been good for Harry's emotional well-being. Even more importantly, Harry, as the archetypical hero, needs to face the adversary alone. Ginny demonstrates her Hero's Girl credentials by anticipating and accepting the breakup. Hermione has control-freak tendencies which might make this difficult; in fact, she and Ron insist on going along with Harry in DH. Hermione will stay with Harry until she is physically prevented from continuing, because her main role is Sidekick and not Hero's Girl. As Sidekick, she doesn't need to bow out. And Sidekicks are free to pair up with each other (hey, it gives them something to do when the Hero goes on alone!), even if it does sometimes seem a bit too Star Wars. Structurally, it works. Whether we as readers find the matchup reasonable is secondary. I don't like Ginny much, with or without Harry, and before or after her alleged personality transplant. But that's because she's too allied with other characters I regard as bullies, like the twins. She is performing her role well, and in a way that Hermione would not. Shaun: The Harry Potter novels are not romance novels. Romantic relationships are not at the core of the story - and, in fact, the overriding storyline doesn't require them at all. JKR has chosen to have some relationships shown in her novels, in some detail - but they are not the core of the story. The same basic story could easily have been told without any romantic relationships developing at all. Debbie: I would have been happy for JKR to leave the shipping out of the book altogether, especially since she is perhaps at her least successful in attempting to write romance of any kind. And yet, even though I found HBP to be overrun with awkwardly handled shipping, from Bill/Phlegm to Lupin/Tonks and every one in between, I still was able to appreciate how she chose to juxtapose teenage infatuation and teen and adult romance against HBP's chief revelation about Riddle's mother. That said, I think she did all the matching and dispatching she has planned for the entire series in HBP. Debbie who thinks Ginny suffers from some of the same problems as Sirius (another bully I dislike); in performing their roles in the mystery plots of CoS and PoA, both are forced by JKR to act in ways that appear inconsistent with their characters as subsequently revealed [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 15 03:10:55 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 03:10:55 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: <000f01c79670$03375550$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: > > So often I hear from readers the excuse that they don't want their 'heroes' to be perfect, that they like to see the characters 'warts and all', that they would think 'morally perfect heroes to be unrealistic', and they are absolutely right about that. > However, the bone I have to pick with the 'heroes' of the Potterverse is not that they are morally imperfect, rude and self-absorbed little brats, but that they *stay* morally imperfect rude and self-absorbed brats. They only grow bigger, not better. > Good children's books have *never* given us morally perfect children as the heroes of the story. Well, not in the past hundred years of so. Not that I can remember anyway. But they did give us morally imperfect children who *learned* from their experiences. That was usually one of the points made in the story. > Pippin: One of the things I like about the books is that despite Dumbledore's little sermons at the end, they're not like After-school Specials. People do not Learn Their Lesson and live happily ever after. Sor far, Hermione is always self-righteous, Ron struggles with feelings of inferiority, and Harry rushes to judgement. But they are learning to cope. It's hard to notice right now, because while JKR spent the first four books building her characters' strengths, the last two have ruthlessly exposed their weaknesses, but they have grown. In each of the first four books, the beginning chapters reveal a spiritual weakness which Harry overcomes by the end. In PS/SS he goes from thinking he's helpless to believing he can help himself. In CoS he learns the value of faith in his friends. In PoA he learns he doesn't have to let his sad memories overwhelm him (are you listening, Severus?). At the beginning of GoF he can only flee from the Death Eaters, at the end he learns he can face Voldemort himself straight-backed and proud though he has no hope of victory. But as you say, he's still judgemental and he's still learning when it's appropriate to be good-mannered and when it's more important to let people know what you think. He's struggling with his depression and anger. IMO he's going to win, but it won't be easy. I think that he's going to need all the strength of character he built in the first four books to overcome the weaknesses he reveals in the last three. And I think he will, though his faults will never be completely eradicated. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue May 15 03:46:17 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 03:46:17 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168739 wynleaf: > Dumbledore praises Harry's ability to love, so we are led to believe > that Harry loves more than the average person. In fact, he > doesn't. He loves people who particularly love him in return. The > notable factor of Harry's love isn't that it's unusually strong, > but that someone from Harry's background would have a more or less > normal capacity to love in the first place. But we -- and even > Harry -- are directly led to believe that his degree of love is > unusually commendable. Jen: I don't think Dumbledore's making the claim that Harry loves more than anyone because that removes the context from his words. He's saying that Harry is unique in being entwined with Voldemort but not following the path Voldemort represents. Harry could have chosen hatred and revenge when he learned how his parents were murdered or how he got stuck with the Dursleys. He could have given into boiling rage over Sirius' death when Voldemort possessed him and fed the link between them instead of expelling LV. Perhaps he might have decided to give up after hearing about the prophecy instead of continuing on the path Dumbledore laid out for him. Harry is 'remarkable' as a person whose life was destroyed by Voldemort and who has risen from that destruction to love and rebuild rather than hate and destroy. His love is only great because of what he lost and how he responded to those losses, not because he has some type of love no one else is capable of feeling or expressing. To speak more generally about some of the other points made in the thread about Harry, I'm not certain it's as important that Harry grow and change in his personality traits and habits as it is for him to discover who he is? Just because there are some elements of classic stories to the books, it doesn't mean JKR is going for a classic tale along the lines of The Secret Garden, where the children grow to be better people in the sense of daily interactions with others. There are enough Jungian elements and alchemy elements to suggest JKR could be talking about the transformation of the Self as a whole rather than the elemental parts that make up a person, and Harry is introduced as an orphan whose real life was hidden from him for 10 years. Learning more of his story has been the key to his success in defying Voldemort at critical junctures. I do expect certain outward changes in Harry as those last elements of discovery slip into place, the story begs for Harry to be able to feel true mercy and forgiveness in my opinion. Will that make him a better person in daily interactions? I dunno. But he'll finally be free to make choices from his authentic self as he sheds the self formed from the elements of Voldemort's action, Lily's sacrifice, the Maruader legacy and Dumbledore's plan. Jen From nirjhar.jain at gmail.com Tue May 15 03:18:28 2007 From: nirjhar.jain at gmail.com (Nirjhar Jain) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 03:18:28 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168740 Pippin: > Harry is an 'E' student who got one 'O'. Hermione is an 'O' student > who got one 'E'. If you are looking for intellectual equals in the > current cast, I'm afraid there's only Snape and Voldemort to choose > from. Fortunately, Hermione has Fleur's example in front of her -- > she's smart enough for any two people, just as Fleur is pretty > enough. Nirjhar: I guess you are right in that sense. What I was alluding was that it was obvious (at least to me) that Harry and Hermione are the male & female leads of Potterama. So, I thought that they would be paired up. I guess it would be a cliche to pair them up and Jo is not falling for that. I agree that Harry Potter is not a romance novel. So, all this shipping bit is rather inconsequential as far as JKR is concerned. Pippin: > I don't think Ginny's personality was 'enhanced.' I thought from > the moment she appeared on the platform in Book One that > she had been created to captivate Harry when the time came, > and that JKR would deliberately find ways to keep Harry > (and inattentive readers) from noticing her charms until the > time had come. I disagree with you here. IMO, Ginny's personality was indeed 'enhanced' in Books 5 & 6. Her ascent from this awed preteen to this agressive Ginny that we know of today was rather surprising and a bit unnerving. I have nothing against H/G. I just wished JKR had gone about setting H/G up in a more believale manner. I guess JKR was busy plotting up more important stuff. nj From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue May 15 04:45:08 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 00:45:08 EDT Subject: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM/Slughorn's favoritism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168741 Dana: > So to me the possibility of Snape informing LV, he notified the Order > and the DEs not having reported back in, is in my opinion the reason > LV came to the DoM and only when he arrives there, does he find out > that nothing can be saved because the prophecy is lost and when DD > shows up the only thing he is left to do is fight him and make > another attempt on Harry's life because he knows he can't win from DD > and save any of his DEs besides Bella and if he had know all of that > before he entered the DoM then he wouldn't have come and expose > himself because now he lost his advantage with that action too and as > we see he won nothing by coming there. And maybe it is just my > opinion but LV is not that stupid, so to me something entirely > out side of Harry's POV brought LV to the DoM and my theory still > stands until proven otherwise by DH (or canon I overlooked which does > not include the above) Nikkalmati I have some trouble following your theory, but as I understand it, I have problems with the attribution of the execution of any part of the plan to Snape. First, if Snape was expected to call in the Order, but late - he messed up big time. An efficient Lucius would perhaps have gathered in the Prophecy and the kids say 15 minutes after they arrived at the MOM. How long do you think the kids delayed the DEs? The resistance might have taken another 15 or 20 min. It took between 4 and 6 house (my guess) for Harry and Co. to get to London. It would take about an hour for the Order to assemble, discuss and get to the MOM. Snape cut it way too close, if he intended Lucius to get away, and would certainly have been blamed. Notice Narcissa, not to mention Bella, says nothing at Spinner's End about Snape getting her husband captured. Second, he would surly have been killed for not mentioning that DD was coming. The Order gathered at the Headquarters and decided not to wait for DD who was delayed (perhaps he was coming from further away). Snape knew DD was following the Order because he told SB to wait for DD to arrive at Headquarters. If he had talked to LV, he could not have omitted this important information and gotten away with it. Third, you are making a lot of assumptions to explain how SS could know Harry had left for the MOM. IMHO he could not have known Harry went into the forest until the Slytherins told him. They may have seen the DA members running that way after they escaped. He could not have seen Harry take off on the Threstrals unless he had been watching out a window of Hogwarts for them and why would he do that? Leaving by Threstral was probably the most unlikely way Harry could leave. Therefore, he could not have known when Harry would arrive in London, because he could not be sure of the time he left Hogwarts. Nikkalmati >Magpie: See, this is what I referred to in my other post. I'm truly surprised to see Slughorn defended this way given the way he's introduced. The man says flat-out that it's surprising that a Muggle-born is so good when we know it is canon that there's no difference in magical talent between Wizards based on blood purity. That's a bigoted myth. It's not just Hermione and Lily that counter it either--where have we seen any evidence of difference in talent if the person is Muggleborn? Nikkalmati I see it as a myth that Slughorn believes the pureblood claptrap. The point of comparison here is Muggles vs. Wizards, not Purebloods vs. Muggleborn wizards. Muggles rarely have magical talent of any kind. Most wizard born children have some magical talent. Magic is not evenly distributed throughout the human race. It is surprising to find a Muggleborn with any magical talent. It is doubly surprising that one has outstanding talent. (BTW Appaloosas can't jump worth a darn, in most cases) >Magpie Not to mention, we see how Slughorn judges students anyway, so it's not like he's an objective judge of how well students usually do. Nikkalmati Certainly, he is an elitist, not a bigot. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue May 15 05:06:42 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 01:06:42 EDT Subject: Witches, Warlocks, Wizards, and JKR Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168742 >Pippin: >"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" --whatever that meant >in biblical times, it was certainly used later as a rationale for >persecuting witches. >Bart A) It didn't mean ANYTHING in Biblical times; English didn't exist until much later. This is NOT sophistry, by the way; far too many people forget that not only is King James a translation, it's a pretty poor one at that, sometimes (as with this verse), mistranslated on purpose. >Goddlefrood: we must bear in mind the times during which the King James Bibil came about. It was shortly after a dynasty change in England and King James basically wanted to resatore relations with the Pope, such relations having been strained for close to a century before due to Henry the eighth being fed up of the sight of Catherine of Aragon (and who would blame him ;)). The other thing to keep in mind is that witches were an active concern of the Stuarts, so the inclusion of the verse inserted by Pippin is prescient, and would have widely entered the public consciousness of the time because the message in the KJB was spread by Ministers, the populace being mostly illeterate at that time. Nikkalmati I am not sure how that passage cited by Pippin is a mistranslation or what Bart would cite as a better one (necromancer?) The OT has several passages which condemn witchcraft, so the sentiment at the time was widespread in Israel and Judah. I am not sure how much the persecution of witches by King Saul has to do with our canon, but I believe the Christian persecution, which was carried on for centuries by all denominations, has something to do with our story. I know Hagrid attributes the Statute of Secrecy to keeping Muggles from turning to wizards to solve all their problems and Binns assures his classes that real witches were not executed, but it must have been troublesome for most witches to be accused and tried and I believe there was some confiscation of property involved? :>) In any case, some Muggles must have died. The period of 1692 was just about the time witch hunting was tapering off although it continued at least in some places until the 1750's. One could claim the Statue of Secrecy and the separation of witches and wizards from Muggles ended the hunts. I understand why JKR downplays this aspect in children's books, but the hysteria created by a witch hunt is no joke. BTW the Papacy was not in favor of the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular (if you couldn't read Latin, you should not be reading them) and the King James version was on the Index of Forbidden Books until the 1960's. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue May 15 05:17:44 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 05:17:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168743 Celia: > I am extremely curious about the nature of the potion in the cave, > especially since I became an adherent to Pippin's theory that Snape > was the person who made the potion originally, and all that might > imply. > What if the potion itself is imprinted with the memories or > feelings of its creator? Therefore, the words spoken by Dumbledore > might be memories, feelings, or experiences placed into it by Snape > as he made the potion. So if this is Snape's memory, > what is it of? > > Possibly the memory that DD is reliving is Snape's internal > dialogue as he realizes he has condemned the Potters by revealing > the prophesy to LV. (Notice I said internal, as I cannot imagine > Snape ever pleading in this way out loud.) > Whatever is going on with the potion, I think the wording of DD's > screams is so strangely and specifically about a particular > incident that we will find out more about it in DH. Jen: I didn't get a chance to read Pippin's theory the first time around and it offers an explanation for several unanswered questions. That seems critical at this stage of the game! I agree DD's words will prove to fit a specific incident and had some thoughts about other possibilites. I was struck by the phrasing Dumbledore used and the way he obeyed Harry very compliantly while drinking the potion. The entire sequence came across as very child-like to me. After someone proposed a theory that young Riddle was practicing a rudimentary form of possession on the kids in the cave, I wondered if it might be their memories in the potion? The words *could* make sense as a child's memory of the events if Riddle was forcing the kids to do something awful, like killing or torturing animals. That's the sort of event Voldemort would commemorate in the cave for his own twisted reasons. The problem is, what answers would it provide for the story? Unless R.A.B. happens to be one of those kids and is a familiar character living under an alias in the current day (and also happens to be magical ), that idea fits better in HBP than DH. I used to really like this idea until realizing Regulus is a better fit as R.A.B. when it comes to concluding the story. My second thought was whether the potion caused Dumbledore to relive his worst memories and his worst happened during childhood. We have no explanation for what motivated his lifetime quest to end the respective reigns of the two great Dark Wizards. JKR's characters tend to be motivated by very personal moments and while Dumbledore's passion for making the WW a better place is great in theory, how did he grow to undertake such a goal and more important, will the idea serve the story? I'm thinking about Grindelwald here and wondering whether one or both of Dumbledore's parents were tortured and killed by Grindelwald. It would fill the bill for getting the Grindelwald story in there and Dumbledore's family, both things JKR mentioned will be explored in the last book (or in the case of Grindelwald it was more of a 'no comment' situation). Also, since GW seems the likely suspect for the person Riddle knew who had one Horcrux, there could be a revelation about how Dumbledore destroyed the Horcrux and/or defeated Grindelwald without killing him *if* that was the case. Such information could help Harry in his own quest. The latter could be connected to the potion memory if there's some element of Dumbledore overcoming a need for revenge in order to defeat GW. Plus there are some more minor points the theory could address, like Dumbledore's personal interest in Harry and part of the reason he was motivated to determine Harry's future. It could also explain why Dumbledore implied understanding of Harry's loss in OOTP. I'm sure a guy his age has lost many people in his life but there might be something deeper to DD saying, "You care so much you feel as though you will bleed to death with the pain of it...You have now lost your mother, your father, and the closest thing to a parent you have ever known. Of course you care." (Chap. 37) His detachment there is almost unnerving if he doesn't know how Harry feels. Another thought- -did losing his own parents contribute to his compassion for Hagrid and the offer to stay on at Hogwarts? Maybe Dumbledore was like Riddle and Harry in feeling like Hogwarts was his real home and saw Hagrid as having the same attachment. Just throwing these in the mix. :) Jen From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 15 05:30:05 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 05:30:05 -0000 Subject: Another time line (was: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168744 > zgirnius: > There is a typo of some sort here, Dana. 3.31 minutes? Do you mean > about 30? The why do you later suggest full dark is at 10:50 in > Edinburgh? I will assume this is what you meant, as you go with it > for the rest of the post. Dana: No, the twilight takes 3.31 minutes. The twilight is the moment sun goes down and the night starts. And this phenomenon takes 3.31 minutes to complete. > zgirnius: > If 10:50 is your proposed arrival time AND the moment of full dark, > then you looked up the wrong places for end of twilight. You say > this is end of twilight, AND when Harry arrives. Hence, you should > be looking when the end of twilight happens in London, England. As > it is some 300 miles south of Edinburgh, I suspect it happens > earlier in London than in any of the three cities of Scotland you > mention. In fact, a check of the source you cited shows a time > between 9:10 pm and 9:25 pm for sunset in London, depending on > whether we look at early or late June. Which gives 10:10-10:25 for > full dark assuming 1 hour. (As you seem to in Edinburgh). Harry > leaves school at 9:50 and arrives in London about thirty minutes > later, doing considerably better than the plane service connecting > those two cities for Muggles. I find it hard to believe this is the > time lapse Rowling intended, and conclude this exercise is probably > doomed because she simply did not look this stuff up. Certainly, my > subjective impression of the length of the trip was not 30 minutes, > and that is what I trust more, as describing people's feelings > seems more her forte than astronomy/timelines/maths. Harry loses > all track of how long and how far they travel in that time. Dana: No, I did not want to propose a arrival time of 10.50 but one between the moment of the twilight and 12.00 am. If Harry would not have been able to witness the twilight if he was already in London by that time because the sun had already set before Harry leaves Hogwarts. And when you look at the city that are half way then the timing of the twilight is just 20 minutes sooner, compared to Scotland. We also have an impression from PS/SS that it takes a pretty long time to travel to London, when we see the owl bringing DD his message and the trio going through the trapped door and when DD finaly shows up to safe Harry. But this doesn't matter because for Snape, it still is dark at 11.00 and if we shift the arrival of the Order 20 minutes back it is still past 1.00 pm. But you are right I should have split the time that I think Harry arrived and him wondering the DoM, to make it more clear what I meant. Even if the time of Harry's arrival is unknown, we still have the timing of the battle ending and that is again in Scotland. The time in London and the time in Scotland are the same. Meaning there is no time difference and we see that this is when dawn approaches which makes it before 4.30. If we calculate that it takes DD an hour to show up then Harry leaves at 3.30. We did not see the Order fighting the DE's 3 to 4 hours. So even if Harry arrived slightly earlier it only means he wandered the MoM and fought the DEs by himself longer. This still means that the Order arrived past 1.00 pm and if the apperate in and left right after receiving Snape's message, as DD implies (twice), then Snape pretty much warned the Order around 1.00 pm. Which means that he still waited 2 full hours after it turned dark from where he is at and this is still about 6 hours after Harry warned him. It also doesn't change the fact that it is 4 hours between the time Harry warned him and 11.00 when it is fully dark and makes it implosible that within that time frame, he did not run into Draco. Of course that is not what DD tells us. He tells us that when Harry did not return from his trip with Umbridge, Snape grew worried Harry might still think LV got Sirius. There is also another problem with the idea that Snape learned from Draco or other students that Harry was missing. Draco could not have seen Umbridge going into the forest because Ron stated he saw and Draco and his friends were on the ground. He could only have seen the 4 other kids go into the forest and if Snape got the information from Draco, then he knew that now not only Harry was there with Umbridge but also 4 wand carrying kids. Which made it all the more likely that if they all met that they would take out Umbridge and she would be no longer keeping Harry busy. There is of course also the problem that we do not see Draco turning up in the forest and I have to wonder why he would not go and try to take his revenge and follow them in, if he knew where they had gone to. Snape could not have been warned by anybody else and then know where Harry went but of course if he was warned by other for Harry not showing up to go to bed, then it changes nothing about the fact Snape lost track of Harry for more then 4 hours. Dana. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 06:54:48 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 06:54:48 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168745 I've been thinking about the latest DH related story, in which Rowling is pleading with those that have knowledge of the plot not to reveal it, lest that revelation "diminish (the readers') pleasure in the book". Avoiding spoilers may be hard--from what I hear the audiobook is coming out the very same day as the hardback. Doubtless it will take weeks for that to be recorded and got to "press". That's a whole other level of people who are going to know what happens. But I say: so what? My philosophy about spoilers is that they can only "ruin" things if the novel/movie is otherwise relatively uninteresting. If the facts of the plot are the main thing that matters to the audience. That's not the case with Rowling's work. The next generation of Potter readers are probably going to go into the first novel with knowledge of how the series will end. My daughter (who's four) will probably know when she starts Sorcerer's Stone whether or not Harry dies. The books and movies are so popular, she'll likely know that Sirius is a good guy at the beginning of reading PoA, and she'll know from the first mention of him that he's doomed as well. Will that diminish her pleasure? I hope not. I guess in a way I feel like Rowling is not giving her own work the credit it's due by suggesting that. The "surprise" of what happens is only going to be the tiniest aspect of my daughter's enjoyment. I guess I just don't understand the hoopla over not "spoiling" things. I could read an elaborate description of the plot and the book would not be spoiled for me at all. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Tue May 15 08:13:42 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 04:13:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Scabbers and LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168746 houyhnhnm: Off on a tangent related to the above only as something that is not spelled out in the books but which must have significance if one really thinks about it: Scabbers was a party to just about every private conversation between Ron and Harry from the time they met on the Hogwarts Express until his faked death at the hands of Crookshanks. How much of that information did he pass on to LV and is any of it relevant to the mysteries waiting to be resolved in DH? Sandy: This thought has always bothered me as well. It is only common sense to believe that Voldemort is going to want Peter to tell him everything he knows about Harry, knowing that Peter, as Scabbers, has just spent the better part of three years in close contact with Harry. And if Voldy wants to know Peter is going to tell. The key word is relevant. I don't know the books by heart like so many of the list members do, so I just can't remember if Harry and Ron discussed anything that was relevant to Voldy in front of Scabbers. I would also think that Peter, through Harry and Ron, could have some juicy tidbits to tell about Snape too. I have always found it to be very disturbing that Scabbers spent so much time with Harry when he turned out to be Peter, a spy and the one responsible for betraying the Potters. Sandy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue May 15 08:18:17 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:18:17 -0000 Subject: Misapprehensions on the Ancients? (Was Re:Witches, Warlocks, Wizards, and JKR) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168747 > > > Pippin: > > > "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" --whatever that > > > meant in biblical times, it was certainly used later as > > > a rationale for persecuting witches. > >Goddlefrood (further snipped): > > We must bear in mind the times during which the King James > > Bible came about. > > It was shortly after a dynasty change in England and King > > James basically wanted to resatore relations with the Pope, > > such relations having been strained for close to a century > > before due to Henry the eighth being fed up of the sight of > > Catherine of Aragon (and who would blame him ;)). > > The other thing to keep in mind is that witches were an > > active concern of the Stuarts, so the inclusion of the > > verse inserted by Pippin is prescient > Nikkalmati: > I am not sure how that passage cited by Pippin is a > mistranslation or what Bart would cite as a better one > (necromancer?) The OT has several passages which condemn > witchcraft, so the sentiment at the time was widespread in > Israel and Judah. > BTW the Papacy was not in favor of the translation of the > Scriptures into the vernacular (if you couldn't read Latin, > you should not be reading them) and the King James version > was on the Index of Forbidden Books until the 1960's. Goddlefrood again :-<: Neither was the papacy in favour of Spanish monarchs promulgating bulls. The KJV appeared on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (ILP), but the sentiment behind the translation of the Bible into the English vernacular of the time was very much as I suggest in my earlier piece (with which Steve / bboyminn agreed), the relevant extract from ILP is "Biblia omnia vulgari idiomate, Germanico, Gallico, Hyfpanico, Italico, Anglico, fiue Fl?dri". The ILP as a whole was scrapped in 1966, and few if any books were ever removed from it once placed on it. http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/ILP-1559.htm#Bibles The link to the ILP from a Hawaiian site there :-). So the English language translations in general were on the list, which only means that King James, in sponsoring the Bible to be translated was not forwarding his stated aims ;-). Exodus 22.18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." King James Version (KJV). The argument presented relative to the passage originally cited by Pippin, criticised by Bart and explained by self is somewhat misleading, IMO. The point is that translations have been used by established churches and by nation states at times to spread a message that they wanted spreading, usually to illiterate or semi-literate populaces. These translations are not the same as a more literal translation of the text, IOW. Many more modern translations have dispensed with these types of mistranslations due to the increase in literacy, which is a fairly recent phenomenon (perhaps a century, it's certainly little more than a century since the general population of even the more advanced nation was illiterate or at best semi-literate). This suggests also that due to the advances in scholarship it has been considered that witch hunts did not occur in biblical times. The original Aramaic or Hebrew texts (even though many translations are based on the Latin or Greek), had been misrepresented, IMO. My own thought on what is the closest translation from the ancient texts to words in modern usage of what a good number of biblical characters were hunting is "people possessed by devils or demons". Cumbersome perhaps, but more literal. The thing is we really don't know whether an ancient's understanding of what is a witch and the modern usage would coincide. E. H. Carr's "What is History?" is once more commended. All rather dry, but there it is. The period immediately before and after Wizarding seclusion is interesting, there were witch hunts in many places, some most probably due to no less a source than the KJV and its spread amongst the populace by ministers. That is why Pippin's comment in a far earlier post is relevant. The Salem Witch Trials occurred in the very year of the passing of the International Statute. Hagrid did indeed have a rather hazy understanding of the period, but then I suspect he may have slept through many of Professor Binns's lectures, as many of the characters in canon now do, or profess to do. Neither offence is meant nor conceit, but the counter needs to be stated for the benefit of the list as a whole. Goddlefrood, looking forward to further comments from the Firenze / Minerva shippers, which have not been forthcoming so far, sad to say. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue May 15 08:25:34 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:25:34 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168748 Ken: > No, she doesn't show it and I guess that is the problem for those of > you who hate the "new" Ginny. She doesn't show it *because Harry > doesn't notice it*. It is there, very subtly, all along. I think that > Ginny is *both* starstruck and genuinely attracted to Harry from the > beginning. Ginny is acting her age in the beginning, the starstruck > quality drops away, realistically so, but the attraction remains even > when she distracts herself with other boys. *We* don't see that last > bit because *Harry* doesn't notice. Harry doesn't seem to really > notice girls at all until page 388 of GOF (US pb ed); when he needs to > get a date for the Yule Ball. Ginny explains the evolution of her > feelings for Harry in HBP. Some of you don't accept that but I find it > far less jarring than Hermione's revelation of the time turner in PoA. > In both cases there are plenty of clues. The time turner clues were > heavy handed because we had no way to tell what they meant. The Ginny > clues are much more subtle. Hickengruendler: I can't say I found the revelation regarding the Time-Turner particularly jarring, because I thought earlier, that if Hermione is in two places at the same time, she either must have found a way to magically duplicate herself or she must time-travel. And the later just seemed much more likely to me. A mystery was given to us in the beginning of the book ("Why is Hermione in several classes at the same time?") and the answer was given in the end as well. That said, I would argue, that it should be secondary, whether one finds the time-travel reveal secondary, at least in regards to Ginny. The Time- Turning in PoA was a plot device/surprise, which can be sprung on his with a few hints, but Ginny is a character, who should undergo a semily logical development. And I don't think she did. IMO, JKR wrote pretty much two different characters (three, if you count nasty Ginny in HBP yet as another different character from Ginny in OotP), who happened to share the same name. I know the argument with the Harry filter and the crush etc., but it simply doesn't convince me, because Harry filter or not, I, as a reader see hardly any similarities between Ginny in the first four books and Ginny in book 5 and 6 (and seven, I assume). Actually, I think the real reason is, that Jo had some ideas, how Harry's ideal girl should be and was giving Ginny fron OotP onwards this very charasteristics. "Harry's ideal girl" she called it, and that's what Ginny starting with OotP IMO really is, a summary of abilities that happen to fulfill Harry's needs, but really not a character on her own with a relatic history and development. And with reagrds to the Harry/Ginny ship, I have a question. While I can see (even though I dislike her as a character), how Ginny is good for Harry, I would like to know, in which way Canon suggests, that Harry is good for Ginny. If Ginny is more than just a summary of characteristics, we should know what she needs in her boyfriend and how much Harry fulfills these needs. This is not meant sarcastic but an honestly meant question, I would like to be proven wrong and that people could explain me, which kind of personality Ginny really has and why Harry actually is compatbile with her. In many ways, I thought the big kiss scene in Gryffindor Tower is symbolical for these pairing, since in this scene the narrator tells us about the reaction of about every person who is there, except, you know, Ginny. Are we meant to see it as a matter of fact at this point, that she was still in love with Harry, because of the Crush back in book 2? Hickengruendler, who always predicted Harry/Ginny and points to his HBP prediction post as a proof, but did not expect to hate it that much From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Tue May 15 08:45:26 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 04:45:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Moral Compasses (was:Re: Snape as Neville's teacher...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168749 wynnleaf: When Hagrid gave Dudley the pig's tail, Harry (and the reader) knew that Dudley was a bully. But Hagrid really didn't know anything about Dudley and had only been exposed to Vernon's rudeness. Yet he hexed Dudley and it's presented through Harry's point of view as great. Sandy: You can't excuse Hagrid for this because he didn't know Dudley was a bully, and even if he had known, Dudley was not bullying Harry at the time. Hagrid was totally out of line taking his anger at Vernon out on Dudley. However, I *can* excuse Harry for thinking it's great. Harry has spent 10 years being bullied by Dudley and his only defense has been that he can outrun Dudley. Unfortunately, he was not always in the position to be able to run. From Harry's point of view this was Dudley getting a taste of his own medicine. Quite frankly, even as an adult, I thought it was great too. It doesn't mean I excuse Hagrid, but I did enjoy the scene *for* Harry. Now Dudley has had a taste of what it's like for someone bigger and stronger to pick on him for no reason. Even if the payback came from the wrong source, he got it, and I found that satisfying, at least for the moment, While on this subject, I have to wonder how the Dursleys explained away the pig's tail when they took Dudley to have it removed. This is definitely one of the places in the books where I have had to suspend my disbelief. Sandy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 15 08:50:47 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:50:47 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168750 leslie41: > I've been thinking about the latest DH related story, in which > Rowling is pleading with those that have knowledge of the plot not > to reveal it, lest that revelation "diminish (the readers') pleasure > in the book". Dana: Well to some extent I agree with you, because I myself only started reading the books this last December (Yes I know, under which rock have I been living?) and I had seen the movies before the books. I had read some things about the books on-line after the books were long published. Before I read them and what actually made me decide to read them. There is so much in the books that you would never know by just reading on-line or watch to movies. However after I finished OotP and knowing, from reading on-line, that some things would not be explained in HBP, I did not want to read HBP at first. I did because I already got the book in my possession but I was really dreading it (reading it, not the story line of HBP), because I only wanted to know one specific thing that frustrated me endlessly at the end of OotP and HBP would not give the answers to these questions. (I still only want to read DH for the same reason) I do understand that if it came out definitely, that for instance, Harry would die in DH, that this could seriously damage the interests of fans to read the last book. Speculation he might die is not the same as knowing. For people reading the books after DH has been published will read the books with a different image of the books then fans now waiting to see how the series will end and wanting to get there questions answered. JMHO Dana From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue May 15 09:02:53 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:02:53 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168751 Goddlefrood: One problem the thread starter has is that we are now in the situation where the 7th book has not yet come out. This reader would not care to have any surprises in store ruined by any spoilers whatsoever. Those that consider such things of any entertainment value should, IMNSVHO, be hung from a dungeon wall in chains, and Argus Filch would surely agree with that sentiment. It's also something of which Hermione would not be fond, as we can divine from this passage (HBP, Bloomsbury Edition, p. 182: 'I s'pose you think I cheated?' he finished, aggravated by her expression. 'Well, it wasn't exactly your own work, was it?' she said stiffly. Quite right too, IMO. To paraphrase Severus: 'There will be no foolish rumours or spurious assertions at this board' That would include whether such sources are impeccable or otherwise. As JKR put it, far better than me, in her most recent update to her diary: "I want the readers who have, in many instances, grown up with Harry, to embark on the last adventure they will share with him without knowing where they are going." A sentiment with which I could not agree more, one feels that an official position should be forthcoming soon. Goddlefrood, who may have to hack heads more than 43 times if any spoilers come his way ;-) From MadameSSnape at aol.com Tue May 15 09:04:26 2007 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 05:04:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Witches, Warlocks, Wizards, and JKR Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168752 In a message dated 5/15/2007 1:09:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, puduhepa98 at aol.com writes: BTW the Papacy was not in favor of the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular (if you couldn't read Latin, you should not be reading them) and the King James version was on the Index of Forbidden Books until the 1960's. ========================= Sherrie here: Many of the priests in Britain (and probably elsewhere) couldn't read Latin - or anything else. They'd learn their offices by rote (some not very well) and gabble through them - which didn't much matter, since the people hadn't a clue what they were saying anyway. As for that infamous Exodus verse in the KJV, the word translated there as "witch" is in other places translated as "murderer" or "poisoner". And James VI & I was both somewhat paranoid of witches and considered himself something of an expert on them (having published a treatise on the topic some years before). Sherrie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horadesiesta at yahoo.co.uk Tue May 15 09:40:48 2007 From: horadesiesta at yahoo.co.uk (horadesiesta) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:48 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168753 Jen wrote: > Harry could have chosen hatred and revenge when he learned how his > parents were murdered or how he got stuck with the Dursleys. He > could have given into boiling rage over Sirius' death when Voldemort > possessed him and fed the link between them instead of expelling LV. Clara adds: I think that if you put Harry in front of the Mirror of Erised at the end of book 6, it would show him killing Snape. So Harry maybe only now hates enough to perform an Unforgivable Curse, and book 7 will show us if he actually chooses to do so, and on who. Choosing to spare someone?s (Snape?s?) life only takes on a special significance if Harry has the power to take it away. Clara From jnferr at gmail.com Tue May 15 11:39:53 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 06:39:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705150439o51895875hd2b369eb6b6c82cf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168754 On 5/15/07, leslie41 wrote: > > I've been thinking about the latest DH related story, in which > Rowling is pleading with those that have knowledge of the plot not to > reveal it, lest that revelation "diminish (the readers') pleasure in > the book". > > Avoiding spoilers may be hard--from what I hear the audiobook is > coming out the very same day as the hardback. Doubtless it will take > weeks for that to be recorded and got to "press". That's a whole > other level of people who are going to know what happens. > > But I say: so what? My philosophy about spoilers is that they can > only "ruin" things if the novel/movie is otherwise relatively > uninteresting. If the facts of the plot are the main thing that > matters to the audience. That's not the case with Rowling's work. > > The next generation of Potter readers are probably going to go into > the first novel with knowledge of how the series will end. My > daughter (who's four) will probably know when she starts Sorcerer's > Stone whether or not Harry dies. The books and movies are so > popular, she'll likely know that Sirius is a good guy at the > beginning of reading PoA, and she'll know from the first mention of > him that he's doomed as well. montims: I like reading mystery books, and when I was younger I would always read the last few pages to see who survived. I stopped doing that when I realised it was more fun to follow the author's misdirection, and be surprised at the end. If the book was good, I would then reread it with the knowledge of the murderer and victims in mind, and this reading would be richer in some ways, flat in others. When watching an exciting film or play, I don't want to know the end... I watched "The usual suspects" on dvd with a friend who kept asking me if I wanted to know who the main character was - I didn't. I wanted the film to play out as the writer had intended. Yes, future readers will know what happens at the end as they read the beginning. Which makes it all the more special for us - the only readers of the Harry Potter series who will NOT know what happens at the end. I should like to keep it that way. It has been a long journey, lasting years, and I don't want the carpet pulled from under me at the last few steps... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Tue May 15 11:59:42 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 07:59:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM/Slughorn's favoritism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705150459r5cf49446s4830ffe784d3ac1b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168755 > Nikkalmati > > I see it as a myth that Slughorn believes the pureblood claptrap. The point > of comparison here is Muggles vs. Wizards, not Purebloods vs. Muggleborn > wizards. Muggles rarely have magical talent of any kind. Most wizard born > children have some magical talent. Magic is not evenly distributed throughout > the human race. It is surprising to find a Muggleborn [[note: nice bit of misdirection, I almost thought you were actually talking about muggleborns rather than misusing the word to refer to "any child born to muggle parents, muggle or wizard" -Random832]] with any magical talent. > It is doubly surprising that one has outstanding talent. (BTW Appaloosas > can't jump worth a darn, in most cases) Random832: JKR has said you either have magic or you don't. Absolutely no support is present in the books for the idea that muggleborns (i.e. witches/wizards born to muggle parents) having less talent in general than purebloods. And slughorn goes even further along the "blood matters" line by suggesting that Harry inherited his potions talent from Lily. All that's present in terms of actual heritable genes is a binary "can or cannot use magic" switch, not levels of anything that are generally lower among muggleborns than purebloods, etc. --Random832 From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Tue May 15 12:24:02 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:02 -0000 Subject: Madame Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168756 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juleyjubes" wrote: > > Does anyone know what Madame Hooch does in between teaching first years > how to fly for their first flying lesson and overseeing (refereeing?) > the quidditch games? > > It seems to me she doesn't have a very busy job! > > juleyjubes > Dondee: Madame Hooch could be working at the Dept. of Magical Games and Sports in the MoM when she is not needed at Hogwarts. She could be another ministry insider for the Order. Just a thought. Cheers, Dondee From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 12:41:37 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:41:37 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168757 > >>Marion: > > > > However, the bone I have to pick with the 'heroes' of the > > Potterverse is not that they are morally imperfect, rude and > > self-absorbed little brats, but that they *stay* morally > > imperfect rude and self-absorbed brats. They only grow > > bigger, not better. > > Good children's books have *never* given us morally > > perfect children as the heroes of the story. Well, not in > > the past hundred years of so. Not that I can remember > > anyway. But they did give us morally imperfect children > > who *learned* from their experiences. That was usually > > one of the points made in the story. > >>Pippin: > One of the things I like about the books is that despite > Dumbledore's little sermons at the end, they're not like After- > school Specials. People do not Learn Their Lesson and live happily > ever after. > Betsy Hp: Well, they can't can they? I mean, if you're only in book 2 there can't be a "happily ever after" because there are 5 more books to go. However, there are *five* more books to go. So are we seriously supposed to have these children stuck in their same old, same old for five more books? I think what Marion was talking about, and this is definitely why the series has soured for me at the moment, is that there should be a happy medium between "after school special" and "the adventure continues". Otherwise the children start to look a bit stupid and/or stunted in some manner. > >>Pippin: > Sor far, Hermione is always self-righteous, Ron struggles with > feelings of inferiority, and Harry rushes to judgement. > Betsy Hp: And I think it would have been fine for those big issues to keep manifesting *if* they manifested in different ways. Which, in some ways, JKR does do. Let's take Ron as an example. Ron's sense of inferiority leads him to feel jealous anger against Harry in GoF. But he is forced to confront and deal with those feelings and a lesson is learned. Ron will still deal with inferiority, but not manifested in that particular way. So, in OotP Ron isn't unfairly angry at Harry, he's a screw up on the Quidditch pitch. But then Ron has his moment of clarity, becomes the Quidditch player he always was inside, and saves the big game. Huzzah, Ron. Only not. Because the very next year, Ron has the *exact* same problem. Why? JKR forced the reader to go through pretty much the exact same Quidditch adventure as the last book, only this one wasn't as good. It struck me as sloppy writing, loss of control on JKR's part. Why not let Gryffindor *lose* the big game last year if Ron needed to keep the same problem into next year? Or why not allow Ron to be a good Quidditch player and only have his feelings of sexual inferiority to deal with in HBP? Instead of feeling like this is a path of natural growth on Ron's part, it comes across as forced to me. Every time I read about Ron flubbing up in practice I would think with great frustration of the OotP game. It was like that scene never happened; no one ever even referred to it, IIRC. Which is frankly out of character for Ron, and makes team captain Harry look like a bit of an idiot. Was that JKR's goal? I doubt it. So I can only guess that she was a bit thrown off by Ron's growth in OotP and had to force him into a stilted holding pattern until the "big payoff" in DH. Badly done on her part, IMO. And a definite weakness in the series. Betsy Hp From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 15 13:34:58 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:34:58 -0000 Subject: The Lucius Malfoy/Delores Umbridge connection (Was: Another time line ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168758 Carol responds: > I'm a bit confused. Do you think that umbridge is a Death eater and > that she went after certain people (Hagrid, for example) because > they were Order members or because of their connections with > Harry? As I understand it, she went after Hagrid in part because > of his connection with Dumbledore (same reason she sent the > Dementors after Harry), but also she was a power-hungry tyrant who > really wanted to sack somebody. As for McGonagall, she got in the > way (Umbridge's view) when Umbridge was trying to arrest Hagrid. > I'm not sure that Voldemort even knew about McGonagall's being in > the hospital. Dana: No, Umbridge is not a DE but I think her power hunger can be played like a violin and I believe Lucius did that. Umbridge has no direct contact with LV or knows anything about his plans for Harry. Umbridge is however fighting both Harry and DD all year and tried to expel Harry but then DD intervened. This means that Umbridge can be played to remove Harry's life-lines which happens to be the same people that could mess up LV's plan, if Harry could go to them for help. And Lucius either directly to Umbridge or through Fudge could hint at her who Harry is friendly with at Hogwarts and to who he goes to if he is in need and if she wants him to get expelled then removing them would make it a sure thing that no one would fight his expulsion. Therefore playing Umbridge drum the right way would have benefited LV's plan and Umbridge would only have needed some encouragement. Why would Umbridge that already suspected Harry to be in contact with Sirius Black not mention his name as someone Harry wanted to talk to. Arthur brought him to his hearing and is his friend's dad but no mention of him either. There where more people Harry could have tried to contact but she specifically mentions these three and then when Snape shows up and doesn't help her like she wants him to, she specifically says she is disappointed in him while Lucius speaks so highly of him. It would not have been very difficult for LV to find out that McGonagall would be in the hospital, it is not like it is a closed institution, also Auror's would have informed Fudge and Fudge is so very chatty with Lucius. No, problem to find out the status on McGonagall's health status at all, besides they had no problem knowing Bode was recovering and why them send them those nice flowers. And as Sirius already told us in the beginning of the book, LV would have his spies within the MoM, like the Order has too. It doesn't all depend on Lucius. We also have seen Sckakelbolt give misinformation about Sirius and his whereabouts, it is not that difficult to have your spies supply people with information you want the MoM to act on if it is in your benefit. But to be honest I think Umbridge highlighting her connection with Lucius herself says enough to me. JMHO Dana From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 15 13:45:14 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:45:14 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? Message-ID: <3281495.1179236714413.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168759 From: Nirjhar Jain >I guess you are right in that sense. What I was alluding was that it >was obvious (at least to me) that Harry and Hermione are the male & >female leads of Potterama. So, I thought that they would be paired up. >I guess it would be a cliche to pair them up and Jo is not falling >for that. Bart: But it's not I SPY, or Sherlock Holmes. It's the classic Id, Ego, Superego combination, with the hero as the Ego. And in those combinations, it's common for the Id and Superego to form the stronger friendship, within their continual arguing. Ron, of course, is the Id and Hermione is the Superego in this. In Star Trek, we had Kirk as the ego, Spock as the Superego, and McCoy as the Id. In Lost In Space, Will waw the ego, the robot was the Superego, and Dr. Smith was the Id. Now, if it were a group of FOUR, then Harry and Hermoine would belong together... Oh dear, that brings up a thought. Could Peter have betrayed the Potters because he was JEALOUS? Not of James getting Lily, but of Lily getting JAMES? (Note that there is no need to make it sexual, within the context of the books, at least). Bart From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue May 15 13:43:20 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:43:20 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <00e801c7968b$fba4a380$6601a8c0@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168760 > > Magpie: > Actually, I notice plenty of things Harry doesn't notice. And Harry does > notice Ginny perfectly well before her personality change. It's not like > she's invisible. Ken: Right, the Harry filter isn't absolute. The Narrator does clue us in on some things that Harry misses. I only meant to say that compared to the sledgehammer obvious way the things Harry does notice are driven home to the reader Ginny's growth is quite subtle. To me it is impossible to miss even so but I get the sense that a lot of readers here feel that the "new" Ginny was sprung on them unawares. I don't see that at all. > Magpie: > > I think I get the joke or the point. It's supposed to be funny how the girl > is all starstruck and then when she blossoms Harry has to chase her when she > used to be chasing him and she was shy so Harry didn't see her not-shy > personality and wow, this is what she was all the time etc. Ken: I guess I can see that it is ironic. I'm not sure that Ginny is entirely what she was all along though. The thing is that this is completely normal and expected. People grow in exactly this way as they mature. I don't need to "see" the process of Ginny maturing on the pages of the novels because this kind of change in someone her age is natural. It is still ironic that the chasee has to become the chaser but it is a very common situation in both art and life. Many real young men realize one day that their best friend's goofy little hanger-on sister has become Something Else Entirely. Typically this can happen as quickly as it happens on the pages of the Harry Potter series. That is due in part because the change in the young woman can happen that quickly. But it is also because it involves a perceptual shift in the young man. He is locked into thinking of her one way and this perception continues past the time when it is valid. One day his perception catches up to reality and this can indeed happen in an instant. I think that there is some degree of this in the Potter novel's treatment of Ginny and that *is* the Harry filter in action. I just don't have any problem with the way Ginny is developed or the way in which the relationship between her and Harry is developed. It never seems jarring, forced, or artificial to me. If it has any flaw it is that it is a little obvious and trite in fact. I can easily forgive that because it is hard to write any plot element for which a 55 year old reader *can't* cite dozens of previous examples. Ken, who can also, in the context of the Potterverse, forgive the occasional use of the Bat-Bogey Hex From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 15 14:04:43 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:04:43 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168761 > Betsy Hp: > > So, in OotP Ron isn't unfairly angry at Harry, he's a screw up on the > Quidditch pitch. But then Ron has his moment of clarity, becomes the > Quidditch player he always was inside, and saves the big game. > Huzzah, Ron. > > Only not. Because the very next year, Ron has the *exact* same > problem. Pippin: Except it's not the *exact* same problem, because Harry wasn't around for the big game in OOP. Ignoring jeers from the Slytherins is one thing, ignoring the fear that he might flub up in front of Harry is another. Remember how much trouble he had with his game before Fred and George left? Harry knows it's all in Ron's head, but hearing it from Harry would only make it worse, so he shows him instead. Pippin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue May 15 14:22:59 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:22:59 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168762 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" > wrote: > > > No, she doesn't show it and I guess that is the problem for those of > > you who hate the "new" Ginny. She doesn't show it *because Harry > > doesn't notice it*. > > I've heard this point from a number of people and I hate that > explanation. It isn't some clever literary trick, it's just bad > writing. When you are writing a multi-volume story you need to lay > the foundation for different aspects of the story, you can't just > spring them on the reader fully formed and expect them to buy it. Ken: For me the foundation was laid. Ginny isn't doing anything that I would not expect a girl of her age to do, save magic of course. In that respect she is a fire and forget weapon. If I wrote a novel or story that started with the firing of a cruise missile and then covered the six hours of its flight time in great detail without mentioning the missile again would you feel cheated when in the final pages it exploded on its target? No, of course not. Ginny's character isn't as obvious as all that but the clues are there. From the very first time we see her it is obvious that she could be significant in Harry's life because, frankly, many men and boys are shy enough around women that they do often fall for the ones that notice them first. > phoenixgod2000: > > >It is there, very subtly, all along. > > Really, where was the subtle hints that she liked Quiddich and was a > good rider? if they were there, why did we need Hermione, the > exposition Fairy to tell us she stole brooms out of the shed (yeah, > 'cause that's realistic) to learn how to ride? ... > There is not a single indication before book five Ginny is even the > slightest bit sports inclined. She's horrified by the violence of the > game at the Quiddich world cup and fell asleep during the group talk > about the game afterwards. > > Ken: Is every aspect of any character's life foreshadowed? Did we have any hint that Harry would be a natural broom rider? Is it just remotely possible that a girl that grew up with several Quidditch mad brothers might have picked up some of that? You're being unreasonable here. This is not Ginny's story, it is Harry's. Ginny's character is not developed in the detailed way that Harry's is but it doesn't need to be to be plausible. I found Hermione's explanation completely satisfying. I'm sorry but stealing brooms to learn how to ride is realistic. She goes to the Quidditch World Cup doesn't she? I'd say that qualifies as more than the slightest bit interested. I find the violence of that match a bit shocking myself. I'd rather play an hour of touch football than listen to sportscasters yammer on about the Super Bore for an hour. I find Ginny to be similar to myself and since I believe in me I can believe her as a character. > phoenixgod2000: > > Not true. I got Harry's crush on Cho from back in the third book. > Ken: Harry notices Cho long before he notices girls in general. > phoenixgod2000: > I think Ginny comes across incredibly poorly in books five and six. > The reason is she dumps Dean is just plain ugly and the way she and > Harry liplock in front of him is very cruel. > > She's mean to Fleur for no reason and her supposed jokes at the girl's > expense were anything but actually amusing. > > She is portrayed as a defender Luna, but calls her loony behind her back. > > She isn't feisty, she's just plain rude and bullying. > > Harry's feelings for her were characterized by the highly romantic > chest monster > > I read a theory that said Harry was under the influence of a love > potion in the HBP and I can almost buy it. Harry and Cho were such a > masterful train wreck and there are so many other great couples in the > story that I can't believe that JKR would so drop the ball on the > romance of the title character. I don't think romance is going to be > one of the cornerstones of the story but I don't think that gives it > license to be shoddy either. > > Ginny is literally the least interesting choice she could have made > for Harry's LI--which I could have accept had it been written well. > But it just isn't. > > Phoenixgod2000, who hates Ginny with the fire of a million exploding > suns (bonus points if you get the reference) > Ken: By the time this list is done we will have demonized every character in the novel. No, wait, we've done that already! So, why do we like these stories? Sure, I think that in some ways Ginny is the conventional choice. I think Luna would be a more interesting choice. Ginny is a worthy choice for Harry in my opinion and I find her development in the books to be quite plausible. Sorry, I won't get bonus points because I've heard/read your reference to the white hot intensity of a million suns a million times in a million versions. I'd be hard pressed to recall which one was the original any more. Ken From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 15 14:26:12 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:26:12 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Witches, Warlocks, Wizards, and JKR Message-ID: <9221221.1179239173046.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168763 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com >I am not sure how that passage cited by Pippin is a mistranslation or what >Bart would cite as a better one (necromancer?) The OT has several passages >which condemn witchcraft, so the sentiment at the time was widespread in Israel >and Judah. I am not sure how much the persecution of witches by King Saul >has to do with our canon, but I believe the Christian persecution, which was >carried on for centuries by all denominations, has something to do with our >story. I know Hagrid attributes the Statute of Secrecy to keeping Muggles >from turning to wizards to solve all their problems and Binns assures his >classes that real witches were not executed, but it must have been troublesome for >most witches to be accused and tried and I believe there was some >confiscation of property involved? :>) In any case, some Muggles must have died. The >period of 1692 was just about the time witch hunting was tapering off >although it continued at least in some places until the 1750's. One could claim the >Statue of Secrecy and the separation of witches and wizards from Muggles >ended the hunts. I understand why JKR downplays this aspect in children's >books, but the hysteria created by a witch hunt is no joke. OK, trying to keep this as on-topic as possible: In JKR's world, magic is just another technology. Many Christians who praise her work recognize this, and recognize the Christian philosophy throughout the books. The books, like many others, concentrate on the two sometimes conflicting philosophies on which Western Civilization is based: Judeo-Christian vs. Greco-Roman. The major conflict comes when one's obligations conflict with one's morals. In the Judeo-Christian philosophy, morals come first. In the Greco-Roman philosophy obligations come first. And, in Harry Potter, the lessons are clearly in the Judeo-Christian direction: Do what's morally correct, and if the rules say otherwise, break the rules and face the consequences. In intelligent Christian objections (intelligent being defined as based on knowledge rather than ignorance), the problem with the Harry Potter books is not that they are Witches and Wizards (although "witch" is an unfortunate term) but that the books imply that salvation is possible without Jesus (I didn't say I AGREED with the criticism; only that they have their factual information straight). This is opposed to the group who don't bother reading the books; they see that "witch" is mentioned, and therefore the books must be a tool of Satan (as the representative of the deomonic enemy of God, rather than the representative of materialism devoid of spirituality). Unfortunately, as ignorance exceeds intelligence, the latter criticism far outnumbers the former criticism. And a lot of it comes from people who believe, at best, that the King James Bible is more authorative than the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin originals, and, at worst, believe that the King James Bible IS the original. This is not helped by modern translators who (and I have had this confirmed, albeit with a promise not to mention their names, by several modern translators) that it is considered to be "bad form" to take care in translating sections of the Bible dealing with magic, because that implies that one actually BELIEVES in magic. In this philosophy, a witch is one who gives their soul to Satan in return for temporal power (note the implied materialism devoid of spirituality, however). BTW, strictly as an aside, the infamous verse, which uses some rather strange phrasing even in Hebrew, based on context and similar phrasing used elsewhere, is best translated as either, "Do not hire someone to perform magic to harm others", or, "Do not allow someone who uses magic to harm others in your community", although the noun is clearly in the female gender. And note that, even if the harmful part is taken away, the people in the WW live separate from their neighbors, even when they physically live in the neighborhoods. What I see as a danger with the Harry Potter novels is the development of a fandom (notably among the adolescent audience) who clearly DOES NOT GET THE POINT. I am talking about those who see themselves as the wizards and witches, and call non-fans of the book "Muggles". But one of the major points of the books, as far as I can see, is that their superior power does not imply moral superiority; indeed, in many ways, the WW culture is morally INFERIOR to the Muggle culture around them, in that their bigotry is still entrenched in law, rather than thought of as an undesireable trait. Dumbledore accepts it sadly, Hermione is taking a Panzaistic attitude paradoxically pushing her into a Quixotic campaign (she would have done much better if she accepted House Elves for what they were, and pushed for better treatment rather than freedom). Bart From shmantzel at yahoo.com Tue May 15 14:29:14 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 07:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <711679.58520.qm@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168764 Leslie41: Will that diminish her pleasure? I hope not. I guess in a way I feel like Rowling is not giving her own work the credit it's due by suggesting that. The "surprise" of what happens is only going to be the tiniest aspect of my daughter's enjoyment. I guess I just don't understand the hoopla over not "spoiling" things. I could read an elaborate description of the plot and the book would not be spoiled for me at all. Dantzel replies: I feel like the best part about a book like this is that you can only experience reading it without prior knowledge once. If Harry dies or if the Giant Squid is actually Mr Weasley's Animagus or whatever else happens in DH, I can only get the pleasure of reading it without knowing what comes next once. After that, it will be a different reading experience because I will have that prior knowledge. But the idea of reading something and truly being taken into the unknown is an exciting thought for me. There are only so many books that are worthy of that excitement. And I may have to bring a mace to Barnes and Noble when DH comes out in case I see someone flipping to the back of the book. I will be VERY angry if it is ruined for me. Dantzel - feeling quite adamant about the no-spoiler policy. --------------------------------- Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue May 15 14:35:07 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:35:07 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: <000f01c79670$03375550$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168765 "Marion Ros" wrote: > Has he [Harry], for instance, learned > that he could be wrong about people > (Quirrell, Moody, Scabbers, Sirius Everyone was wrong about them, even Dumbledore. And based on what we know up to now it seems that Harry was the ONLY one who was right about Snape, and from day one. At the end of book 6 ALL the characters think Harry was right and Snape was a villain, it remains to be seen if they will still think that at the end of book 7. > Does he, in fact, *realise* that he is > often mistaken about people, situations etc? Is Harry error free, no of course not, but he makes far fewer errors that any other character, including Dumbledore. Harry only made 2 very serious errors in 6 books. The second worst was in book 5 when he ran off half cocked to the ministry; but in all fairness to Harry most would have been fooled by Voldemort's cunning trick. By far the worst mistake Harry ever made was in book 3 when he stopped Sirius and Lupin from killing Peter. But as I said Harry usually gets it right. In HBP Dumbledore was very surprised that Death Eaters had gotten in, but Harry had warned him that something like that would happen when they were away finding the (fake) Horcrux; Harry even pinpointed where the danger was, the Room Of Requirement, and who was behind it, Draco. So Harry told Dumbledore when the danger would happen, where it would come from and who was behind it; but when it did happen just as Harry said it would Dumbledore was surprised. And if Harry, without Dumbledore's knowledge, hadn't armed the DA with lucky potion and ordered them to guard the castle while they were away things would have been much worse. > Does Harry ever get advice from friends > or allies who know more about a subject > or the WW in general Yes but more often than not the advice is bad and so Harry wisely ignores it. > Mr Weasley advising that the Marauders Map > could be dangerous I don't recall Mr. Weasley saying that about the map, I don't think he even knew the map existed, but if he did say that then he was wrong. > Prof. McGonegal telling him to stay out of > the Philosophers Stone business and to let > the adults take care of things Yet more bad advice. > Harry was a judgemental, self-absorded, > rude eleven-year-old Please provide an example from book 1 to back that up. > Harry is a judgemental, self-absorded, > rude sixteen-year-old. All I can say is that Harry was braver, kinder, more generous, and more polite than I was at 11, or 16, or now. Eggplant From miamibarb at comcast.net Tue May 15 14:37:50 2007 From: miamibarb at comcast.net (ivogun) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:37:50 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168766 Don't underestimate Ron. Ron's smart, but afraid to show it. He's a bit of an underachiever. His intelligence comes out in his wit, in his statements which are almost prophetic, in the chess game, and in his grasp of reality. His problem is that he is traumatized by the achievements of his elder brothers. He wants to succeed or surpass what his elder brothers. In COS, his deepest wish to be head boy and Quidditch captain, but he's afraid that will do neither. Ron definitely belongs in the smart crowd. I think that like his father (who was ignored by Slughorn) that he is going to be a late bloomer. Both Harry and Hermione need Ron as a friend. With the Dursley's, Harry had always been a loner in school and was always the kid who was different from everyone else. It looked like he would continue to be a loner and different until he met Ron. Harry's friendship with Ron is what gave Harry normal school experience. Hermione, on the other hand, was trying too hard at first and alienating others. Deep down Hermione was afraid that she didn't belong in Hogwarts. It is Ron who shows her that you don't have to take everything quite so seriously and that some things are more important then success in school. In the scene with the Troll in COS, Hermione chooses friendship over being teacher's pet. She needs Ron's wit and humor to balance her tendency to be annoying. Hermione pushes Ron to study and work. She helps him settle down at school. I don't think Harry needs Hermione as much as Ron. Harry needs someone like Ginny who is very popular and active...someone who will pull Harry out of his tendency to be a loner. Hermione has too much of the same tendency to be a loner herself. At least this is how I read JKR's intentions. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 15 14:39:57 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:39:57 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168767 Phoenixgod: > Really, where was the subtle hints that she liked Quiddich and was a > good rider? if they were there, why did we need Hermione, the > exposition Fairy to tell us she stole brooms out of the shed (yeah, > 'cause that's realistic) to learn how to ride? > There is not a single indication before book five Ginny is even the > slightest bit sports inclined. She's horrified by the violence of the > game at the Quiddich world cup and fell asleep during the group talk > about the game afterwards. Pippin: Horrified? But it's horrified fascination not horrified repulsion. She's hanging off her seat to watch, not hiding her eyes. And people do fall asleep because they're tired, sometimes. You can read it either way. But in any case, it's not like Harry fell for Ginny because he found out she was good at Quidditch. So it's not manipulative that way. It does seem a bit egregious on JKR's part if the only reason she didn't want to let us to know that Ginny was into Quidditch is that it'd make H/G a little too obvious. Why bother when plenty of us could see it coming anyway? But what if it's not about making Ginny obviously attractive? Harry is going to need a good reason for trusting her with his secrets (if he does), and while we knew that she was stealthy and secretive in CoS, we didn't know whether it was all her or just Riddle's influence. Now we do. Pippin who agrees with Phoenixgod about the chest monster, and figures Jo wrote herself between a rock and a hard place when she promised her audience things wouldn't get too gritty and then sent her young man off to war. From loopylooleanne at yahoo.co.uk Tue May 15 14:30:30 2007 From: loopylooleanne at yahoo.co.uk (loopylooleanne) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:30:30 -0000 Subject: Harry can still contact dumbledore ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168768 In Dumbledore's office there are portraits of deceased ex-headmasters that often communicate with people in the office. They often leave their portraits in the office to visit their other portraits (for example Sirius' relative that was once a headmaster visited his other portrait see if he was still there when he heard that Sirius was dead, to make sure Dumbledore and Harry were telling the truth). Since Dumbledore may be dead he should become a talking portrait, but as he had a unnatural death (Avada Kedavra curse) does this mean he cannot communicate with people? But at the end of HPHPB he has a portrait in his former office. As Dumbledore has spoken to the portraits and they have spoken back, does that mean he can speak to Harry?? loopylooeanne From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue May 15 14:53:44 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:53:44 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168769 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > I've been thinking about the latest DH related story, in which > Rowling is pleading with those that have knowledge of the plot not to > reveal it, lest that revelation "diminish (the readers') pleasure in > the book". > Ken: As I have just said so many here have an intense need to demonize the characters, a few like me prefer to demonize the author! I think she is a bit of a control freak. She identifies with Hermione who is one too. She is very miserly with the resolution of plot lines, leaving them almost all to DH. She may honestly feel that prior knowledge spoils books for readers because it does for her but I think it goes deeper than that. Spoilers spoil nothing for me. If a work is worth reading I will read it several times and the last time will be as satisfying as the first. I suppose that attitude is partly due to my nature and comes in part from the fact that I read a lot of history. Generally you know the outcome of the latter long before you start reading! I don't enjoy being tricked by an author, I do enjoy figuring out the tricks in advance. Like you I believe she sells herself short as an author. I can find plenty to criticize but every time I reread Harry Potter (as I am doing now like most of you, I expect) I am impressed anew by how delightfully she writes on balance. It simply doesn't matter that I already know the conclusions. Ken From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue May 15 14:53:18 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:53:18 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168770 Leslie: > I've been thinking about the latest DH related story, in which > Rowling is pleading with those that have knowledge of the plot not to > reveal it, lest that revelation "diminish (the readers') pleasure in > the book". > I guess I just don't understand the hoopla over not "spoiling" > things. I could read an elaborate description of the plot and the > book would not be spoiled for me at all. Ceridwen: I'm not as big on spoilers spoiling things for me, since I like the twists and such that go on between Beginning and End. I phoned my elder daughter and threatened her, on pain of babysitting her younger sibs, to tell me who died in HBP. That's all I wanted to know, though. I didn't want to know when, or how, just who died. She would have had to still be babysitting to have paid for slipping that one in! Notice, that was me asking someone I know well, and asking of my own free will. There are people who want to know all the dirt, and people who want to be surprised. Posting spoilers on the internet removes the choice from most people, in my opinion, because the page will give a little too much information for some, and wa-a-a-a-ay too much information for others. It isn't fair to a reader to spring it on them, removing their choice of whether to look or not. And, it may be a violation of copyright as well (I'm not a lawyer, but one always has to be conscious of those things!). All that said, I did check around, and there is a fanfic that is being erroneously linked as the actual text of Deathly Hallows. Not by the fic author, by the way. Apparently it's of sufficient length, and of such a similar style to Rowling's writing, that some people believe it's the Real Deal. And, there are also "spoilers" based on this fic being posted to various message boards. So, even if someone posted spoilers (not here, of course!), there's no guarantee that the spoilers are actually from Deathly Hallows, or from the fanfic being masqueraded as Deathly Hallows. Ceridwen, who is against spoilers on General Principle as well as on other grounds. From shmantzel at yahoo.com Tue May 15 14:58:49 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 07:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <365729.6604.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168771 horridporrid03 wrote: Ron's sense of inferiority leads him to feel jealous anger against Harry in GoF. But he is forced to confront and deal with those feelings and a lesson is learned. Ron will still deal with inferiority, but not manifested in that particular way. Instead of feeling like this is a path of natural growth on Ron's part, it comes across as forced to me. Every time I read about Ron flubbing up in practice I would think with great frustration of the OotP game. It was like that scene never happened; no one ever even referred to it, IIRC. Which is frankly out of character for Ron, and makes team captain Harry look like a bit of an idiot. Was that JKR's goal? I doubt it. So I can only guess that she was a bit thrown off by Ron's growth in OotP and had to force him into a stilted holding pattern until the "big payoff" in DH. Badly done on her part, IMO. And a definite weakness in the series. Dantzel replies: I think that JKR is pointing out something very important, actually. How often do we learn a lesson the first time, and keep it learned? Whether as a dancer, musician, athlete, or student at school, I learned the same lesson many times because I simply didn't hold onto it. That's not me saying that I'm stupid, it's me saying that I'm *human*. I learned how to do a set of turns in dance one day, only to feel like I couldn't do it the next day, and mess up completely. You could say to me, "But what's the problem? You were splendid yesterday!" But self-doubt doesn't listen to logic. It's the same thing when you watch a friend in a relationship that is NOT working and they are getting together, breaking up, getting back together, etc. You see it, and she KIND of sees it, but not in a way that she is going to learn her lesson and dump the idiot for good. Feelings don't always listen to logic. When I read a repeating flaw in a character, it makes them more realistic to me because people aren't perfect. When people 'learn their lesson' the first time and they never make it again, it's fake. (There are the superhero types, but they are the sort of characters that are always insightful, always just, always strong, and it's just the Kryptonite that brings them down). If an author is writing a story where the characters AND the plot develop, however, then I appreciate the agonizing moments where you look down at the page and want to shake it so that maybe you can get the character's act together for them, much as I feel at the moment with a friend of mine who isn't learning her lesson the first time. :) So yay for a Ron who messes up and doubts himself! Dantzel :) --------------------------------- Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Tue May 15 15:34:56 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:34:56 -0000 Subject: Slughorn's favoritism/Ginny's developement (was Why did JKR not explore H/Hr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168772 > >Magpie: See, this is what I referred to in my other post. I'm truly > surprised to see Slughorn defended this way given the way he's introduced. The man > says flat-out that it's surprising that a Muggle-born is so good when we know > it is canon that there's no difference in magical talent between Wizards > based on blood purity. That's a bigoted myth. It's not just Hermione and Lily > that counter it either--where have we seen any evidence of difference in talent > if the person is Muggleborn? > > Nikkalmati > > I see it as a myth that Slughorn believes the pureblood claptrap. Magpie: How is it a myth when Slughorn himself says he believes it in his first scene? He thought Lily had to be a Pureblood because she was so talented. It's just "funny that it sometimes works out" that a Muggleborn is best in the class. It's not funny, because there's no difference between Muggleborns and Purebloods in terms of talent. Nikkalmati: The point > of comparison here is Muggles vs. Wizards, not Purebloods vs. Muggleborn > wizards. Muggles rarely have magical talent of any kind. Most wizard born > children have some magical talent. Magic is not evenly distributed throughout > the human race. It is surprising to find a Muggleborn with any magical talent. > It is doubly surprising that one has outstanding talent. (BTW Appaloosas > can't jump worth a darn, in most cases) Magpie: No, the point of comparison is between Muggleborns and Purebloods, as Slughorn and the DEs clearly say. Slughorn says: "Your mother was Muggle-born, of course. Couldn't believe it when I found out. Thought she must have been pure-blood, she was so good." Slughorn isn't talking about Muggles, he's talking about Muggleborn Witches and Wizards who, according to the theory of Pureblood superiority, should be inferior magicians, making it surprising that talented Lily was a Muggleborn. Only Slughorn is wrong. It is not surprising to find a Muggleborn witch or wizard with talent, nor is it doubly surprising to find one with exceptional talent. They're no more or less likely to have talent than a pure-blood or a half-blood. Ken: Right, the Harry filter isn't absolute. The Narrator does clue us in on some things that Harry misses. I only meant to say that compared to the sledgehammer obvious way the things Harry does notice are driven home to the reader Ginny's growth is quite subtle. To me it is impossible to miss even so but I get the sense that a lot of readers here feel that the "new" Ginny was sprung on them unawares. I don't see that at all. Magpie: I think it's not so much subtle but intentionally hidden--and Ginny's growth isn't subtle, it's completely sudden. JKR doesn't write her until OotP--an idea I think is validated in the text by needing all these characters to explain things. Ginny isn't even supposed to be changing and growing--barely any characters really do in this universe. She's supposed to have been this way all along and somehow always acted like a different person. Like if in the next book Neville suddenly turned out to have the personality of Sirius or Ernie Macmillan and he'd always been like that because Harry didn't pay attention to him. Ken: I guess I can see that it is ironic. I'm not sure that Ginny is entirely what she was all along though. Magpie: I believe according to JKR, yes she is. That's why everybody's catching Harry up in OotP. The only process she's going through is deciding to be herself now and not act like she's got a crush on Harry. Though she still feels the same way about him as always. This is "herself" that she was hidden before, behind a false personality. Ken: That is due in part because the change in the young woman can happen that quickly. But it is also because it involves a perceptual shift in the young man. He is locked into thinking of her one way and this perception continues past the time when it is valid. Magpie: HP characters really don't change in this way. But regardless, there is no perceptual shift in Ginny. The narrator is the same as always, and Harry has always reported things that Ginny has done and said. My understanding of Ginny is based on my own perceptions and what I see her say and do. Harry and I are in the same boat in terms of looking at Ginny and seeing what's actually there. It's not like Ginny's always being the way she is in the last two books and Harry just used to find it annoying and now finds it hot. Harry recognizes the difference in front of him. What the Harry filter does is add judgments on what he's literally seeing. It wouldn't change Ginny's behavior. Ken: >From the very first time we see her it is obvious that she could be significant in Harry's life because, frankly, many men and boys are shy enough around women that they do often fall for the ones that notice them first. Magpie: But that's got nothing to do with her personality. It seems like a lot of what you're saying here is generic: girls develop this way, girls that age do this, Ginny could be significant to him. I never doubted she could be as significant as anybody else, but I don't think she's Generic Girl in either of her incarnations. Like all of JKR's characters, she has a quickly and memorably sketched personality--only in her case she's got 2. (So to me it's more like Harry didn't fall for the one who noticed him first--he fell for the one designed for him.) > phoenixgod2000: > > >It is there, very subtly, all along. > > Really, where was the subtle hints that she liked Quiddich and was a > good rider? if they were there, why did we need Hermione, the > exposition Fairy to tell us she stole brooms out of the shed (yeah, > 'cause that's realistic) to learn how to ride? ... > There is not a single indication before book five Ginny is even the > slightest bit sports inclined. She's horrified by the violence of the > game at the Quiddich world cup and fell asleep during the group talk > about the game afterwards. > > Ken: Is every aspect of any character's life foreshadowed? Did we have any hint that Harry would be a natural broom rider? Is it just remotely possible that a girl that grew up with several Quidditch mad brothers might have picked up some of that? You're being unreasonable here. This is not Ginny's story, it is Harry's. Ginny's character is not developed in the detailed way that Harry's is but it doesn't need to be to be plausible. I found Hermione's explanation completely satisfying. I'm sorry but stealing brooms to learn how to ride is realistic.She goes to the Quidditch World Cup doesn't she? I'd say that qualifies as more than the slightest bit interested. I find the violence of that match a bit shocking myself. Magpie: S/he's not being unreasonable at all, imo. This doesn't require it to be Ginny's story or detailed or have things "foreshadowed." Ginny is, according to the last two books, a certain person, in the way JKR shows her characters. The way she chooses to characterize Ginny at the QWC is a perfect example of artificially leaving out something that a book later is going to be a foundation of her personality. Sure in real life Harry might not know a girl he knows is as interested in Quidditch as she is (though frankly it's still pushing it given the circumstances), but this isn't real life, it's JKR who draws characters very clearly very quickly and very consistently. I believe she knows perfectly well she's cheating. She hid Ginny's true attitude and forcefulness and dynamic with her brothers to make it a surprise rather than always showing Ginny the same way she was in the last two books with Harry just not finding her interesting. There's not a hint of the first version in the second version, and not a hint of the second in the first. Harry's misjudged plenty of people in his time, but this is the only time he's gotten a personality this strangely wrong. As I said, I can accept what JKR seems to have admitted that she was doing; I can't go farther than that. Especially when my own reading was so completely predictive. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 15 15:53:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:53:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM/Slughorn's favoritism Message-ID: <6723094.1179244437775.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168773 Random832: >JKR has said you either have magic or you don't. Absolutely no support >is present in the books for the idea that muggleborns (i.e. >witches/wizards born to muggle parents) having less talent in general >than purebloods. And slughorn goes even further along the "blood >matters" line by suggesting that Harry inherited his potions talent >from Lily. Here's a problem, however. Muggleborns are not even exposed to magic until they enter school. And, with the Underage Magic rules, that creates an additional problem (for example, note that the Weasley kids play Quidditch at home in spite of the ban). What I am saying is that, in terms of power, Muggleborns may be the same, but in terms of learning opportunities, especially in the early years when learning is far easier, they are handicapped. Let me put it another way. Let's say you have two people, both genetically suited to be great athletes. One lives in a home where everybody plays sports, eats healthy food, and exercises. The other is strapped in a high chair, fed a diet of Moka Cola and Winkies (to avoid using trademarks), with the television always playing, until he or she's 11. Which one is, almost certainly, going to be the better athlete? Bart From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 14:59:08 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 07:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Lucius Malfoy/Delores Umbridge connection (Was: Another time line ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <981964.66910.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168774 You have to have to admit that for time, Lucius Malfoy has been pulling a lot of strings inside the Ministry by either buying his way in as he did in GOF or through sheer fear and intimidation. Something does tell me that Lucius was responsible for Fudge being minister by financial and public support. But also Fudge feels his position is being threatened (or was Lucius whispering in his ear) after Cedric's death and the cries of Voldemort's return during an event that was great publicity for Fudge and the Ministry, despite his country losing that year in the Quidditch World Cup. As for Delores, power interests her to the point where she would do anythng to keep her power. I don't think she was a Slytherian but more of a Hufflepuff. Her faith is in the MoM and she sees rules and regualtions as unbendable and like Fudge, she craves the public spotlight once she was in it. dragonkeeper From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 17:12:52 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:12:52 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn vs Pureblood (was:Re: Slughorn's favoritism) In-Reply-To: <6723094.1179244437775.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168775 > >>Random832: > > JKR has said you either have magic or you don't. Absolutely no > > support is present in the books for the idea that muggleborns > > (i.e. witches/wizards born to muggle parents) having less talent > > in general than purebloods. And slughorn goes even further along > > the "blood matters" line by suggesting that Harry inherited his > > potions talent from Lily. > >>Bart: > Here's a problem, however. Muggleborns are not even exposed to > magic until they enter school. > Betsy Hp: But JKR covers this issue in PS/SS. Ron tries to do magic and can't (turning Scabbers yellow) and Hermione tries to do magic and can (all those spells she tried out that worked for her). And I believe someone (Hagrid?) says that all students start out on equal footing as far as magical experience. I'm not sure how *realistic* this is. It does make sense that Ron should know *some* spells, since he's around people who use them all the time. But as per JKR, he doesn't. Which I think JKR sets up specifically *because* she's trying to set up a world where there's no actual difference between Muggle-borns and Pure-bloods. Betsy Hp From jnferr at gmail.com Tue May 15 17:51:03 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:51:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: <000f01c79670$03375550$63fe54d5@Marion> References: <000f01c79670$03375550$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <8ee758b40705151051u13d60e4dk403797a7025c2c46@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168776 Marion wrote: > So often I hear from readers the excuse that they don't want their > 'heroes' to be perfect, that they like to see the characters 'warts and > all', that they would think 'morally perfect heroes to be unrealistic', and > they are absolutely right about that. > However, the bone I have to pick with the 'heroes' of the Potterverse is > not that they are morally imperfect, rude and self-absorbed little brats, > but that they *stay* morally imperfect rude and self-absorbed brats. They > only grow bigger, not better. > Good children's books have *never* given us morally perfect children as > the heroes of the story. Well, not in the past hundred years of so. Not that > I can remember anyway. But they did give us morally imperfect children who > *learned* from their experiences. That was usually one of the points made in > the story. > >huge snip< > But back to the previous alinea. > Has Harry ever changed in all those years in attitude? Has he grown as a > person? > Personally - and this is my beef with the series - I can't see *any* > change. Harry was a judgemental, self-absorded, rude eleven-year-old and six > year later Harry is a judgemental, self-absorded, rude sixteen-year-old. > I'm still waiting for Harry to *learn*. > I'm hoping Harry will finally, *finally* realise that he *needs* to > change, to learn, in Book 7. montims: See, I didn't change and grow up until I turned 30 and went to live in Italy. I was the same obnoxious, selfopinionated person I was growing up, although I didn't know it. Until I met my husband when I was nearly 40, and he showed me some real hard truths about myself, I still hadn't become a "well rounded" character. I find Harry and his friends remarkably mature for 16 year olds actually... But just to go back to British children's fiction, I am thinking of Just William, and Billy Bunter (also set in a boarding school) - I don't recall them ever changing or maturing... Many of Enid Blyton's schoolchildren were bossy and opinionated. Not many of them changed, to the best of my recollection... I agree with Gary in another post that the protagonists are more real to me BECAUSE they are flawed, and lose their temper, and act recklessly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 19:06:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 19:06:11 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168777 Ken wrote: > > Spoilers spoil nothing for me. If a work is worth reading I will read it several times and the last time will be as satisfying as the first. I suppose that attitude is partly due to my nature and comes in part from the fact that I read a lot of history. Generally you know the outcome of the latter long before you start reading! > > I don't enjoy being tricked by an author, I do enjoy figuring out the tricks in advance. > > Like you I believe she sells herself short as an author. I can find > plenty to criticize but every time I reread Harry Potter (as I am > doing now like most of you, I expect) I am impressed anew by how > delightfully she writes on balance. It simply doesn't matter that I > already know the conclusions. > > Ken > Carol responds: Nevertheless, for some readers, possibly the majority, spoilers do diminish the pleasure, and for that reason, it's a discourtesy to provide them. (Think about first-time viewers of "Return of the Jedi" who heard people coming out of the theater saying that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. Oops. There goes the climax of the film.) Nothing will ever duplicate my first reading of LOTR when I was fifteen. I immediately reread it, understanding many things that I'd missed or misunderstood the first time around, but what I felt encountering the sheer beauty and terror and pathos of the Mount Doom scene for the first time could never be replicated. And if anyone had told me what was going to happen, that scene would never have had the same impact. For me, a good book is like a Christmas present. Even as a longtime adult, I like to be surprised. I enjoy the anticipation and the unwrapping as much as (and sometimes more than) the gift itself. When my sister and I were little girls, she always peeked at the Christmas presents, including mine(!), carefully peeling back the tape and lifting a corner of the wrapping to see what was underneath. For me, peeking at the presents would have spoiled Christmas. I didn't even want to know what *her* presents were, let alone mine. I don't know what I would have done if she had ever told me what I was getting, but fortunately for both of us, she respected my wishes and let me be surprised. I *absolutely* *do* **not** want to know in advance who dies in DH, much less any revelations involving Snape. I understand that some people don't care about being surprised, but those of us who enjoy the suspense, who will be on pins and needles to see not only what happens to whom but how it happens, deserve to have our desires respected. Fortunately for me and those like me, there's a waiting period before anyone can post about DH and a specific policy regarding spoilers. I'm with JKR on this. It's a discourtesy not only to other readers but to her to disregard her wishes by publicizing what happens in the books before others have had a chance to read them. Anyone who wants spoilers can find them somewhere on the Internet. Me, I don't want them and will be exceedingly unhappy with anyone who fails to respect my wishes in that regard. Carol, who wants to find out for herself what happens and experience the thrill of reading the last HP book with only her own hopes and guesses to guide her From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue May 15 16:13:51 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:13:51 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168778 >Eggplant > All I can say is that Harry was braver, kinder, more generous, and > more polite than I was at 11, or 16, or now. wynnleaf, I clipped out most of your post. You gave some valid comments as to why you felt some of what were outlined as Harry's flaws were not actual flaws, or where you felt Harry actually had strengths in those areas. Your comment above reflects some of what I said in my last post on this thread where I commented that part of the problem is that Harry has not become a "better person" through the series, but instead is presented from day 1 as a "better person" than those he is compared with. No, he's not presented as perfect, but he is presented as less prejudiced, more loving, more open-minded, etc. Whether or not you think these things are true about Harry (I don't) really isn't the point. Nor is it the point that at age 11 Harry was "braver, kinder, more generous, and more polite" than *anyone*. The question really is whether, as the protagonist, Harry is any *more* of these things -- or any more of anything else that shows internal positive change -- than he was in the first book. I don't see Harry as growing through and beyond any of his misconceptions, character weaknesses, etc. I'm not saying he should have become perfect, so arguments for why characters shouldn't be perfect are quite correct, but don't affect the point, imo. The problem is that characters *should* grow. And I don't see Harry as truly growing in terms of positive character traits. Pippin's comments are the only ones that I saw mention some areas in which Harry may have actually grown. Pippin < Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168779 leslie: > My philosophy about spoilers is that they can > only "ruin" things if the novel/movie is otherwise relatively > uninteresting. If the facts of the plot are the main thing that > matters to the audience. That's not the case with Rowling's work. > > > I guess I just don't understand the hoopla over not "spoiling" > things. I could read an elaborate description of the plot and the > book would not be spoiled for me at all. honeypi: I agree entirely. In fact, I regret having started the series before the last book has been published. I haven't enjoyed being part of such a captive audience and I don't really like speculating on what will or won't happen for years at a time. (I know lots of people who get pleasure from this, which is great, it's just not for me). I'm more interested in what does happen and how well the plot unfolds. It wouldn't trouble me in the least to have the book "spoiled". I'm sure I will know the basics of what happens before I read it and this suits me just fine. On the other hand, it's horribly rude to ruin it for those who prefer the surprise; rather like screaming out who dunnit in a movie theater half way through the film. It's also a real shame when people leak "classified" information if they've agreed not to do so. Those that provide spoilers are revealing something about their own character aren't they? Thank goodness July approaches quickly. I have made a personal vow that this will be the last time I begin reading a series before it is complete. ****Note for all members from the list elves***** Please remember the main list is for canon discussion. If you're interested in discussing how you will read DH, past reading experiences with the series or other comments not spcifically talking about the works and words of JKR, please visit and post at OTChatter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ Thanks! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 15 20:06:13 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:06:13 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168780 --- "leslie41" wrote: > > I've been thinking about the latest DH related story, > in which Rowling is pleading with those that have > knowledge of the plot not to reveal it, lest that > revelation "diminish (the readers') pleasure in > the book". > > ... > > But I say: so what? ... > > The next generation of Potter readers are probably > going to go into the first novel with knowledge of > how the series will end.... > > Will that diminish her pleasure? I hope not. ... bboyminn: No, it won't diminish their pleasure, but it will change their experience. We live in a epoch of history, in a moment in time that has never existed and will never exist again. We get to be the first to discover the mysteries of Harry Potter; late a night in the weary darkness, secrets will be reveal to us. Secrets known only to a very select and exclusive few. I don't want to be cheated out of the revelation, I don't want to be cheated out of that experience of discovery. Of course, the minute I'm done, I'm going to be desperate to talk about it with other readers. However, knowing the books was just released, if you go to any Harry Potter discussion group and enter into discussions of the story, then you have to accept that spoilers ARE going to be revealed. The next problem is the media (of various kinds) broadcasting the /secrets/ to the world. I think they should show a bit of restraint before giving away any critical secrets like Harry dying, or oddly Voldemort /not/ dying, or some beloved character turning out to be a spy. Further the HUGE question, though not the hugest, is the true nature of Snape. It would be unwise for the media to release his fate too early. The trouble is, the media (again of all kinds, air, print, internet) are going to want to be the first to report this information. Media is general is not known for the exercise of restraint, nor common sense for that matter. As to future generation, post revelation of the secrets, I suspect many of them will get into the books without necessarily knowing the ending. Yes, the ending will generally be know, but that doesn't mean every wide-eye 10 year old will know the resolutions of all the mysteries. They can still read it with new eyes, just as we, the readers at this time and place in history, can read it with new eyes. I think JKR is right to guard her secrets closely. In the history of publishing, no books like the Harry Potter series have ever existed. No books in which countless millions around the world are eager and desperate to know the secrets. Normally when a very popular book is published, if the general population is interested at all, it is merely a passing interest. These books can be published and it will probably be months before they make the rounds of the talk-show circuits, and the secrets are revealed. And likely the general media interest and likelihood of the media revealing would be very low even for a very popular book. The time line of publishing to mass readership is much longer and far less critical with far fewer people who are interested in the books and the mysteries contained there in. So, yes, it does matter a great deal whether unthinking people ruin the ending for me. I have many many years invested in this series, I think I deserve to discover that 'got ya' moment for myself. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Tue May 15 20:08:33 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:08:33 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168781 leslie41 wrote: > I guess I just don't understand the hoopla over not "spoiling" > things. I could read an elaborate description of the plot and the > book would not be spoiled for me at all. before HP, I would have agreed that spoilers don't really "ruin" anything, I remember reading The Hobbit when I was little and skipping to the last page, just to make sure Bilbo would make it after all, before I could go on reading. I suppose HP is different in that the twists are part of the fun of reading, it's a bit more of a mystery novel than pure fantasy. The shock of Dumbledore's death was very real and strong because I didn't know whether, when or how it would happen. I had great fun trying to guess who would go in book 5, until a boy I was babysitting at the time shouted, completely unprovoked; "Sirius Dies!!!" ohhhh how I glowered at him... Incidentally, my boyfriend works in a shop that sells HP when it comes out, he brought home an early copy of HPB from the back room when it arrived (about two weeks prior to release). He read it in a day, and was thus threatened in as many ways as I could imagine NOT to tell me ANYTHING. We were out at a restaurant that week and he whispered what happened to the hostess...the look on her face...I kept my fingers in my ears all the way home, just to be sure. From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Tue May 15 20:25:12 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:25:12 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168782 Shaunette wrote: > before HP, I would have agreed that spoilers don't really "ruin" > anything, I remember reading The Hobbit when I was little and > skipping to the last page, just to make sure Bilbo would make it > after all, before I could go on reading. > > I suppose HP is different in that the twists are part of the fun of > reading, it's a bit more of a mystery novel than pure fantasy. The > shock of Dumbledore's death was very real and strong because I > didn't know whether, when or how it would happen. > > I had great fun trying to guess who would go in book 5, until a boy > I was babysitting at the time shouted, completely > unprovoked; "Sirius Dies!!!" ohhhh how I glowered at him... > > Incidentally, my boyfriend works in a shop that sells HP when it > comes out, he brought home an early copy of HPB from the back room > when it arrived (about two weeks prior to release). He read it in a > day, and was thus threatened in as many ways as I could imagine NOT > to tell me ANYTHING. We were out at a restaurant that week and he > whispered what happened to the hostess...the look on her face...I > kept my fingers in my ears all the way home, just to be sure. ACK! forgot to sign my name! that was me, Shaunette. Sorry again, List Elves! -Shaunette From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue May 15 20:43:36 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:43:36 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168783 "wynnleaf" wrote: > part of the problem is that Harry > has not become a "better person" > through the series I very strongly disagree, I think the book 6 Harry is a better person than the book 1 Harry. It's true that Harry is not more moral in book 6 than he was in book 1, he was very moral then he's very moral now; so if you limit yourself to that one dimension then yes, Harry has not grown. But you seem to be assuming that morality is the only virtue there is, it is not. Intelligence is also a virtue, and so is power. We have already seen evidence that Harry is one hell of a lot wiser than he was in book 1, and I think in book 7 Voldemort and Snape will both find he has a hell of a lot more magical horsepower than he had in book 1. Virtues all. Eggplant From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 20:48:15 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:48:15 -0000 Subject: Another time line (was: LV's reasons for showing at the DoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168784 Dana: > Anyway although I know Neri already posted a timeline, I thought I > amuse myself and make another one. I haven't checked with his to see > if they match with what Neri wrote earlier but for me it is still > cristal clear that something is not right about Snape's actions and > here it is. Montavilla47: Great timeline, Dana. I once wrote a POV for Snape on this night, I had to do much the same thing. I'm going make a few notes as we go... PLEASE NOTE that this is all my own speculation and NOT fact or textev. It's simply what MIGHT have happened. Dana's Timeline: > 5.50 am ? 6.10 am Harry is caught, Umbridge sends someone to get > Snape. > > 6.10 am ? 6.45 am Snape arrives and when he is about the leave > Harry tries to warn him. Montavilla47: This just about what I figured for the timing when Snape arrives. At this point I had him investigate the situation at 12 Grimauld Place, figuring that it would take him at least half an hour. Incidently, Dumbledore doesn't say that Snape *spoke* to Sirius, only that he determined that Sirius was at home. In my story, Snape doesn't speak to Sirius. Timeline: > 6.45 am ? 7.00 am Hermione comes up with a plan to stop Umbridge > crucio Harry. > > 7.00 am ? 7.15 am Harry, Umbridge and Hermion reach the forest, > when they walk past the great Hall. Harry notices dinner is still in > progress. > 7.10 am ? 7.25 am Ron, Luna, Ginny and Neville escape from Draco > and his gang and go after Harry. Montavilla47: In my story, Snape arrived at Umbridge's office to find it empty. He notices movement in the forest (Ron, Luna, Neville and Ginny following the others), but doesn't connect it to anything in particular. > 7.15 am ? 9.00 am Harry, Hermione and Umbridge face the centaur's > and Gwarp. Montavilla47: You're having them walk through the forest for about two hours then. During this time, I had Snape searching the castle for Harry, thinking that Umbridge must have stashed the students in some unusual place. After some time, I had him meet up with Draco et al., learning about the trip into the forest. At this point, my story diverged from the one Dumbledore tells, because I had Snape go into the forest after them-- as it seemed implausible that he wouldn't. As Dumbledore tells it, Snape would have been contacting the Order at this point. But, if so, he must have been a genius to conclude that they were on their way to the Ministry, because it's a huge leap to make--even if he knows that Voldemort sent a vision, because it was a total fluke that the Sextet used the thestrals. So, I chose to have Snape follow the Sextet. Since Hermione walked straight through the forest, it wouold have taken Snape at least as long as they took to track them to the spot from which they flew away. In my story, Snape finds the spot of the fight, puzzles over the clues for a few minutes, then notices the thestrals. At this point, he puts it together and realizes the students are on their way to the Ministry. Now, if Snape doesn't follow them--then he would have to be side- tracked by talk about "a weapon." The closest thing to that would be Grawp, which means a two-hour walk to Grawp's tree and a two-hour walk back. Meaning he might expect to see them coming out of the forest at 11:00-ish. But I still can't see any way that Snape wouldn't have followed them. After all, it's not *only* Voldemort he'd need to worry about-- whether he's DDM or not. The forest is full of dangers--not the least of which is Umbridge herself. > 9.00 am ? 9.55 am Harry and his friends leave the Forest just when > the sun is about to set. In Scotland in June the sunsets on between > 9.50 and 9.57 am between 1996 and 2004. Jo was living in Scotland at > the time she was writing OotP. On this website one can see the sunset > and sunrise for Edinburgh. There are three places in Scotland that > can be selected; Glasgow and Aberdeen are the other two and they have > the same sunset and rise times. > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.htmln=304&month=6&year > =2004&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1 Montavilla47: Following your timeline, Snape would have entered the office at about 7:30, searched the castle for 30-60 minutes, and started into the forest at 8:00-8:30. That means he would have arrived at area of the fight at about 10:00-10:30. If he had any trouble tracking them in the deepening twilight, then he might have arrived at 11:00. At this point, he might have sent a Patronus. We don't know how long it would take it to travel from Northern Scotland to London. We don't know if a Patronus *can* travel that far. I chose to have use a different method, which is the fireplace in Umbridge's office--the only one in the castle which isn't being monitored. It would probably take him less time to get back than it did to follow the Sextet. But it's still a long way, so figure an hour at least. That means he contacted the Order at 12:00. > 9.55 am ? 10.50 am Harry is still flying to London, on page 675 it > is mentioned that twilight sets, it is the time when the sunset ends > and night begins it takes 3.31 minutes for this to happen and for the > 3 places mentioned above this takes place between 22.50 and 22.55 > (10.50 - 10.55 am) > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.htmlmonth=6&year=2004& > obj=sun&afl=-13&day=1&n=304 > 10.50 am ? 12.00 am Harry arrives at the MoM and wanders around > it the DoM > > 12.00 am ? 1.30 pm Harry and his friends fight the DEs Montavilla47: Now, if Snape contacted the Order at 12:00--although I think it could easily have been later, they could instantly Apparate to the Ministry, right? So, we're still missing an hour and a half? Looks bad for Snape. But something I didn't even think of until recently is that the Order doesn't actually know much more about the layout of the DoM than Harry does. That's why they need those blueprints Bill is rolling up. It's the Department of Mysteries. You don't go down there unless you work there. So, the Order is going to stumbling around the area just as Harry was. It's a big place and they don't know where Harry is. It could have taken them that long to get through the other rooms--they might have had skirmishes with other Death Eaters along the way. There are at least a dozen of them--and perhaps more guarding the perimeter. It's not a matter of the Order members getting the message from Snape and making a beeline for Harry. They were hurrying, but it still took them awhile. > 1.30 pm ? 3.30 pm The Order arrives. I am giving 2 hours > from the moment the Order arrives until Harry is sent to DD office. Montavilla47: Now, this is where I find issue with the timeline. It's not your fault, I think it's JKR fudging things. The action in the book only seems to take an hour at most. The Order arrives, there's a short battle. Sirius dies. Harry runs after Bellatrix, there's another short duel. The Ministers arrive and Dumbledore sends Harry to his office. That doesn't seem enough to fill two hours. > 3.30 pm ? 4.30 pm Harry waits for DD in DD's office the sun > has not yet risen because Harry notices dawn is approaching and we > hear DD tell Fudge he will give him 30 minutes of his time and DD has > taken everybody to the hospital wing, had a chat with Snape and when > he is arriving the sun is still rising and the sunrises in Scotland > between 4.25 and 4.35 > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.htmln=304&month=6&year > =2004&obj=sun&afl=-13&day=1 Montavilla47: This is very interesting, because I had the most problem with the time line right here. (Like you, I checked the sunrise and sunset times. I also checked the moon phases, but that's by- the-by.) What bugged me was that half hour thing that Dumbledore says, because it looks like he's coming from the Ministry, but I finally decided that, no, he was coming from somewhere else. The way it reads in the book, Harry doesn't seem to be waiting that long for Dumbledore for arrive, but you're right. He does wait for a long time. And the dawn is breaking at the end of their chat (which, incidently, means that the students start eating breakfast at 4:30 in the morning. Sheesh. Harry routinely goes to bed after Midnight. No wonder wizards can't figure out logic problems.) So, working it out from Snape's POV, and leaving him reasonable amounts of time to be puzzled, follow false leads, and travel, I find it very plausible that he didn't contact the Order until about the time that Harry arrived in London. And I'm not sure we are fair to scrutinize that timeline too closely. How plausible it is for Sirius to be tortured for eight hours and live? Yet, Harry still thinks he can save his godfather--keeps his adreniline going for eight hours before they even reach the Ministry. The other thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you obsess over it for a couple years is why they go to the Ministry instead of 12 Grimauld Place. That's there the help would be. Or back to Snape now that Umbridge is out of the way. Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 21:11:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:11:06 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168785 wynnleaf wrote: > part of the problem is that Harry has not become a "better person" through the series, but instead is presented from day 1 as a "better person" than those he is compared with. No, he's not presented as perfect, but he is presented as less prejudiced, more loving, more open-minded, etc. Whether or not you think these things are true about Harry (I don't) really isn't the point. Nor is it the point that at age 11 Harry was "braver, kinder, more generous, and more polite" than *anyone*. The question really is whether, as the protagonist, Harry is any *more* of these things -- or any more of anything else that shows internal positive change -- than he was in the first book. > > I don't see Harry as growing through and beyond any of his misconceptions, character weaknesses, etc. I'm not saying he should have become perfect, so arguments for why characters shouldn't be perfect are quite correct, but don't affect the point, imo. The problem is that characters *should* grow. And I don't see Harry as truly growing in terms of positive character traits. > Yes, Harry has learned about facing Voldemort, but I didn't see that he had to go through any changes within himself in order to do it. I don't really see that Harry has grown much so far. He has realized some things about himself that were always there, but he has yet to go through an *internal* struggle with any of his flaws or weaknesses in which he has truly come out changed. Carol responds: I think I understand what you're saying. To put it into lit crit termionolgy, Harry has always been a "round" (complex) character, in contrast to "flat" (one-dimensional) characters like Uncle Vernon and Bellatrix Lestrange. And to some degree, he's a "dynamic" (changing) character, in contrast to a "static" (unchanging) character like Filch or Voldemort. But the changes are not really character development since he's just learning more about the WW and his parents' backstory and how to perform certain kinds of magic, as well as variations on adolescent anger and moodiness on the one hand and hormones on the other. But what *isn't* happening, from your perspective, is recognition of his faults or any attempts to overcome them. To the extent that the HP books are a seven-volume Bildungsroman (coming-of-age story), we *should* expect Harry to come to maturity in DH. It's no accident that JKR has made seventeen, Harry's age in the final book, the age at which wizards become adults. But to fulfill the reader's expectations, Harry will have to do more than celebrate his seventeenth birthday. The Twins are now past seventeen, but aside from leaving school and establishing their own business, they haven't really grown up. They're older but no wiser, so far as I can see. Harry, as the protagonist of a Bildungsroman, has certainly lost his innocence to the extent that he understands that his wonderful new world is far from being a Utopia. He's also been stripped of his illusions regarding adults as all-wise and all-powerful. So far, so good. But he also needs to undergo some sort of spiritual or moral crisis that will lead to self-examination and an understanding of who he really is, faults and all. I personally hope that the crisis will involve Snape and forgiveness, the realization that revenge is not the answer. At any rate, he needs to arrive at some sort of wisdom and self-awareness which I agree he hasn't yet reached. Harry is still Harry and that isn't going to change. It doesn't help, IMO, that Dumbledore encourages Harry's Harryishness, for want of a better word. When Harry saves someone who wasn't even his own hostage (and whom Dumbledore certainly wasn't going to allow to drown), Dumbledore rewards him with points for "moral fiber" instead of letting him come in third. Consequently, Harry's "saving people thing" is firmly in place when Voldemort plants the false vision in his head. Harry has yet to learn to think things through, or to listen to those who do (Hermione, in this case). Will that trait change? I don't know. I don't think so since he has to save the whole WW from Voldemort. But what about compassion and understanding of other people? Harry doesn't have a clue that other people, especially Cho, need to know what happened to Cedric Diggory. He doesn't understand what's happening when Molly and Fleur accept each other's love for Bill as valid, each in its own way. He is, however, starting to appreciate Neville and Luna as people who, despite being eccentric or forgetful, are not only capable of making a valuable contribution but worthy of compassion for their own losses, which Harry now realizes are as real and painful as his own. I was very happy to read in HBP that he felt "a great rush of affection for both of them" at Dumbledore's funeral Am. ed. 641-42). And he grins twice at the funeral, once looking back fondly at Dumbledore ("Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak") and once when Grawp pats Hagrid on the head (644, 643). To me, these are hopeful signs that, for Harry, coming of age will mean more than turning seventeen and becoming legally a man. I hope that, as the hero of a Bildungsroman, he will develop true maturity: insight into other people's hearts and minds, compassion for their sorrows, forgiveness of their mistakes and shortcomings, awareness of his own flaws. I don't expect him to become perfect. Harry will always act before he thinks, always procrastinate, always trust his own judgment over other people's. He will never be an intellectual. He'll probably always care too much about Quidditch. :-p I don't know about rule-breaking and lying; with luck, he'll outgrow those once he permanently leaves Hogwarts. (I expect him to return for his seventh year when he's eighteen and has defeated Voldemort, but maybe that's wishful thinking.) Anyway, I'm not sure whether my views exactly parallel wynnleaf's, but, like her, I expect to see Harry actually grow and develop, as opposed to just developing magical skills and learning about the WW and Voldemort in the final book. Carol, who has similar hopes for Hermione, Ron, and Neville, all of whom also need to finish growing up and learn to know themselves From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue May 15 21:10:27 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:10:27 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168786 > wynnleaf > Yes, personally I think JKR is going to have Harry learn a lot more > in DH (I have faith in her!). But I don't really see that Harry has > grown much so far. He has realized some things about himself that > were always there, but he has yet to go through an *internal* > struggle with any of his flaws or weaknesses in which he has truly > come out changed. > Hickengruendler: Do you think it is realistic for a 16 year old teenager to have these kind of internal struggle at least to this extrem degree? I know what the counterargument is, namely that this series (excluding maybe the epilogue) is likely over when Harry isn't even 18, and that since this his story, he needs to have it by his 18th birthday. But still, wouldn't it been equally satisfying to see a Harry who has changed and grown step by step over the course of years and is likely to continue these changes again? And he did change and learn and gained a new perspective on the people surrounding him in every book. For example in PoA he went from wanting to kill Sirius personally to actually saving the life of the real betrayer. In OotP he used his leadership qualities really for the first time. And in all of the books, he gained a better understanding about people around him. You don't have to be a slimy, nasty and evil looking person to be a villain, normal looking persons like that harmless guy Quirrell can be just as dangerous. The demented looking escaped prisoner is actually demented looking not because he was born that way, but because of a really sad life story, and he is also innocent. Don't judge a book by it's cover. He also significantly changed his opinion about Neville and Luna. His behaviour in this reagrd did significantly change from OotP to HBP, and this is because of what happened at the end of OotP. Harry learned in this regard. He learned that his father did not have to be a perfect saint to be a heroe. He learned how to deal with his fame, and not to be simply uncritical of government. He saw his biggest school enemy crying and being terrified, and he saw a seeming fraud like Trelawney actually having some genuine power. His first opinion about Lupin (when Lupin was sleeping in the Hogwarts express), was actually a negative one, until he saw him in action. Harry's horizont broadened in every book, maybe not in the most obvious way, but it did. And I think the biggest shocker for him will come in HBP regarding Snape's innocence, but we'll have to wait and see, of course. (*Waves cheerfully to the Snape is evil camp*, you'll see how wrong you are soon enough ;-) ). And I think, despite of what flaws Dumbledore might have, this is also the true essence behind "Dumbledore's Man through and through". It is Dumbledore's forgiveness and tolerance, that is is important about this character, and while Harry is still far away from being anywhere close to Dumbledore, he also has around 135 years less life experience. I do see him on the right way generally, despite of some rash and unfair behaviour, which is only understandable given his age (and I don't mean regarding to Snape, in this case). The same is basically true for Hermione as well. While I have seen readers (like Betsy here) actually critisizing her for example for her "horse" comment regarding Firenze, they actually in most cases seem to ignore, that Hermione does pay a prize for this at the end of the very book, when the centaurs are angry, that she probably thought them to be just a bunch of "pretty talking horses". I don't think at all that this was a coincidence by JKR. Also, her behaviour in the hospital scene towards to Luna, showed that she had learned some lesson in regards to Luna, at the very least regarding tact, but she also genuinely seems to start appreciating her. And while people may rightfully critisizing her behaviour towards Ron in HBP (though frankly, I don't think Ron treated her much better), she actually was much nicer and calmer to him after he got poisoned. Carol already wrote in an earlier post how un-Hermionelike she was, while waiting at Ron's beside. This scenes are IMO clearly some character development for Hermione. We don't have insight into her thoughts, therefore don't read about any inner turmoil, but I do see a change in her behaviour and I assume JKR did this on her purpose, particularly becaus eof how Hermione was written during these incidents and how shocked she sometimes is. There still are some disappointing moments, like Ron basically going through the same storyline twice, or the IMO way too offhanded way, in which the Marietta incident is handled. I don't think all of them come back for the protagonists to deal with them, though some did, like the Montague prank, because JKR likes to mix genres, and she gives her comedic villain comic-like come-uppances like Dahl did. I do find this somewhat unlucky for her overall theme and those parts generally belong to my least favourite in the books (particularly, when a really harmless character like Zacharias Smith is getting it), but they don't IMO undermine the general broadening of the mind these kids went through from the very beginning. Hickengruendler From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 21:24:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:24:51 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168787 > Hickengruendler: > > Do you think it is realistic for a 16 year old teenager to have these > kind of internal struggle at least to this extrem degree? I know what > the counterargument is, namely that this series (excluding maybe the > epilogue) is likely over when Harry isn't even 18, and that since > this his story, he needs to have it by his 18th birthday. But still, > wouldn't it been equally satisfying to see a Harry who has changed > and grown step by step over the course of years and is likely to > continue these changes again? > > And he did change and learn and gained a new perspective on the > people surrounding him in every book. And I think the biggest shocker for him will come in HBP > regarding Snape's innocence, but we'll have to wait and see, of > course. (*Waves cheerfully to the Snape is evil camp*, you'll see how > wrong you are soon enough ;-) ). Alla: Uhu, sure we are :) I loved , loved, loved your examples of Harry's changing and learning about himself, etc. The funny thing is that I think Harry not changing his POV about Snape is the only significant change he did not occur and really in my view so far why would he? But even from this "evil Snape camper wisher" or more correctly any Snape other than Saint Severus ( oh how I hate this variety), you will get no argument that Harry will change his POV as to Snape. Only in my view it would not be Harry recognising how really very cool and noble and brave Snape is, but Harry recognising that Snape needs to be pitied, forgiven, etc, etc. JMO, Alla From cdayr at yahoo.com Tue May 15 21:33:57 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:33:57 -0000 Subject: Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD (was: Dumbledore's Past?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168788 > Celia before: > > I am extremely curious about the nature of the potion in the cave, > > especially since I became an adherent to Pippin's theory that Snape > > was the person who made the potion originally, and all that might > > imply. > > Jen: I didn't get a chance to read Pippin's theory the first time > around and it offers an explanation for several unanswered > questions. That seems critical at this stage of the game! I agree > DD's words will prove to fit a specific incident and had some > thoughts about other possibilites. After someone > proposed a theory that young Riddle was practicing a rudimentary form > of possession on the kids in the cave, I wondered if it might be their memories in the potion? > The problem is, what answers would it provide for the story? Celia now: I really like all of your theories on this Jen, and I agree that the voice DD uses sounds young and child-like. It's an intriguing proposition that maybe young Tom tortured the two kids in such a way that it imprinted on the cave itself, and those memories get activated with the potion. I have my own wacko idea for what happened with the green goo, which I will describe below, but I find I end up with the same issue you state above- how does this apply to the larger story enough that JKR would bother?? But then again, theorizing for the sake of theorizing is its own fun, right? Jen: Unless > R.A.B. happens to be one of those kids and is a familiar character > living under an alias in the current day (and also happens to be > magical ), that idea fits better in HBP than DH. I used to really > like this idea until realizing Regulus is a better fit as R.A.B. when it comes to concluding the story. Celia: Like many of us, I am just sure that somehow the potion, the cave, the locket, and Regulus are all tied together somehow. I hadn't thought about Reggie being one of the kids, but it seems unlikely to me due to his having a family and probably not being a resident at Tom's orphanage for any amount of time. I've been pondering the Reggie/potion/death/Snape connection for some time, trying to sort out the cave, and here is my theory, with full acknowledgement that this is really a hodge-podge of many other people's theories. Forgive my blatent hypothesizing- not a ton of direct canon to site, just general theorizing. So, let's travel back in time... Jen: > My second thought was whether the potion caused Dumbledore to relive > his worst memories and his worst happened during childhood. We have > no explanation for what motivated his lifetime quest to end the > respective reigns of the two great Dark Wizards. JKR's characters > tend to be motivated by very personal moments and while Dumbledore's > passion for making the WW a better place is great in theory, how did > he grow to undertake such a goal and more important, will the idea > serve the story? I'm thinking about Grindelwald here and wondering > whether one or both of Dumbledore's parents were tortured and killed > by Grindelwald. > > It would fill the bill for getting the Grindelwald story in there and > Dumbledore's family, both things JKR mentioned will be explored in > the last book (or in the case of Grindelwald it was more of a 'no > comment' situation). Also, since GW seems the likely suspect for the > person Riddle knew who had one Horcrux, there could be a revelation > about how Dumbledore destroyed the Horcrux and/or defeated > Grindelwald without killing him *if* that was the case. Such > information could help Harry in his own quest. The latter could be > connected to the potion memory if there's some element of Dumbledore ? overcoming a need for revenge in order to defeat GW. Celia: Ooo, I like this idea, and I would be fascinated to learn more about DD's parents. I look forward to meeting Aberforth so much, perhaps he is the person with all of the information we need to prove that DD's screams in the cave are his memories of his parents' death at GWs hands. Not to harp on my own obsessive idea, but the whole Regulus and Snape scenario I presented above could still work even if Snape's potion makes DD re-live his parents' deaths. It could all work together! Yay! In fact, I think I like it better than the potion being Snape's own memories or regrets, because it might supply some real answers for the main plotline of The Horcrux Hunt. The question I have about this theory then is based on what he says as he drinks the potion, I wonder why young Dumbledore blames himself for his parents' deaths? What a sad idea. Hmmm of lovely quoted DD to back up your idea -Celia, happy to unload that whole Regulus thing from her head after pondering it for so long From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue May 15 21:58:19 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:58:19 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168789 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Huzzah, Ron. > > Only not. Because the very next year, Ron has the *exact* same > > problem. > >>Pippin: > Except it's not the *exact* same problem, because Harry wasn't > around for the big game in OOP. Ignoring jeers from the Slytherins > is one thing, ignoring the fear that he might flub up in front of > Harry is another. > Betsy Hp: Except as far as Ron's concerned it *is* the exact same problem because as far as Ron knew, Harry was there watching his every move. "You didn't watch?" he said faintly, looking from one to the other. "You didn't see me make any of those saves?" [OotP scholastic hardback p.704] > >>Pippin: > Harry knows it's all in Ron's head, but hearing it from Harry would > only make it worse, so he shows him instead. Betsy Hp: Yeah, but Ron had already figured it out in OotP and didn't need Harry to show him anything. "Well, I mean, I'd already let in that one of Davies's, so I wasn't feeling confident, but I dunno, [...] I thought -- *you can do this! *" [ibid pp 703-704] Ron had had his epiphany; he'd flown without his feather and he'd recognized that fact. I cannot see any good reason for JKR to put us through a half-assed redux other than her needing some filler because Ron grew up a bit too fast for her taste. > >>Dantzel: > > When I read a repeating flaw in a character, it makes them more > realistic to me because people aren't perfect. > Betsy Hp: But this isn't a "realistic" story in that we're not dealing with fully fleshed totally real characters. There's a level of the fantastic here. And it's not a story about Ron's growth as a quidditch athlete. So JKR repeats a side story with almost the exact same story points as one she's *just* told. It comes across to me more as sloppy than anything else. I'm not thinking, ah yes, very realistic, very true to life. I'm thinking "we've covered this already let's get a move on!". > >>montims: > See, I didn't change and grow up until I turned 30 and went to live > in Italy. I was the same obnoxious, selfopinionated person I was > growing up, although I didn't know it. > Betsy Hp: But you're a real live person. These are story-book characters. We're reading about a time in their lives that the author has *chosen* to share with us. And for me, their stunted growth, their inability to face and overcome their flaws (and some of their flaws I find pretty repugnant) is *frustrating*. I mean, I'm reading to be entertained, so yes, I *want* to see change. If I were reading the story of your life (based on your brief description) I'd probably want to read about your time in Italy or when you met your husband, *not* the times you spent not changing. Does that make sense? I mean, Hermione may be a controlling, self-absorbed person until a sudden life-change occurs when she's fifty years old. Well then *that's* what I want to read about, that moment of *change*. > >>montims: > > I find Harry and his friends remarkably mature for 16 year olds > actually... Betsy Hp: Really? Ron is still shivering in the shadow of his brothers (and super!sparkly!Ginny), as certain of his own inadequacy as he was on the train to Hogwarts. Hermione is as certain that only she knows how the world should run thank you very much. Harry is as certain that his snap judgements of people (good or evil) are accurate and that vengence is his. There is a sense that a change is coming. Harry has his Draco doubts, Ron is making noises about challenging the twins, and Hermione is... um... okay, I try not to think too hard about Hermione, it just gets depressing. But I think Marion's point was that change is a *long time coming*. I agree and think JKR had to sort of spin things out a bit in the last book because she's saving it all up for DH. But will it be enough? And will it happen in enough time to save her characters? Betsy Hp From bowie_alicat at yahoo.com Tue May 15 21:17:36 2007 From: bowie_alicat at yahoo.com (bowie_alicat) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:17:36 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168790 Ah spoilers - some times I like 'em, other times they can be detrimental. I always read the spoilers for favorite tv shows - but I read too many when Pirates of the Carribean 2 came out, so I didn't enjoy the movie as much as if I had NO idea of what to expect. I hope to read DH as s-l-o-w-l-y as possible and savor the experience as long as I can - and hopefully avoid ALL spoilers! As a general rule of courtesy, no spoilers should be provided unless asked for, IMHO. ali From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 16 00:44:17 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:44:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggleborn vs Pureblood In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464A53E1.7010609@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168791 horridporrid03 wrote: Betsy Hp: > But JKR covers this issue in PS/SS. Ron tries to do magic and can't > (turning Scabbers yellow) and Hermione tries to do magic and can (all > those spells she tried out that worked for her). And I believe > someone (Hagrid?) says that all students start out on equal footing > as far as magical experience. Hermione has also read way ahead in her schoolbooks, and has more of the theory down than Ron. Notice, however, how she holds in a certain amount of contempt anything that isn't in the book; is it because her lack of experience keeps her from understanding it (although, by the 6th book, she FINALLY accepts that Fred & George are skilled and inventive). I recall a science fiction story about a society where people are given their advanced education by having the skills and knowledge implanted into their brains. One young man discovers that the machines won't work on him, and he's sent to a special school where students learn the old fashioned way, from books. He eventually discovers that it is the students from this school who are the innovators; it is the capacity for innovation and understanding and application of theory that gets students put into this school. Hermione is excellent at learning that which is already known, but she's not an innovator, and is suspicious of it. That is both her strength and weakness; she learns quickly, and accurately, but only that which is taught or available in books. And, for the reasons I put forward before, I do think that Muggleborns who excel at magical studies are the exception, not the rule. Bart From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Wed May 16 00:56:07 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:56:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Twelve uses of dragon's blood In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470705151756y3bb44023n3c44b7d3866cf980@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168792 In a message dated 5/9/2007 5:02:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: there's also a plant called dragon's blood which has had medical uses since the time of the ancient Greeks. ================== Sherrie here: It's also used to make magickal inks and incense. Spells written in dragon's blood ink are supposed to have enhanced power. You can get dragon's blood at nearly any magickal supply store, most of which also sell the ink. If I weren't so lazy, I'd dig out my Cunningham's and list ALL the uses of dragon's blood. Not sure how many there are offhand, but it's more than one. It does NOT, however, make a very good oven cleaner... Sherrie "What's got YOUR wand in a knot?" - Hermione Granger, HARRY POTTER & THE GOBLET OF FIRE ============================= Jeremiah: Well, the Wiccan/Pagan use of "Dragon's Blood" and the fictitious workd if HP are probably not the same thing. I'm assuming JKR is speaking of actual blood from a dragon since Hargid used the dragon meat for his eye in OotP and there's talk of dragon liver and other stuff. So, I assume the plant that is called "dragon(s) blood" and RKR's dragon's blood aren't the same. And we still have to find out what the 12 uses are since Hermione was to have studied them 1st of 2nd year. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mishbob88 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 00:32:09 2007 From: mishbob88 at yahoo.com (Michelle Wilkinson) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 00:32:09 -0000 Subject: Harry can still contact dumbledore ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168793 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "loopylooleanne" wrote: > > In Dumbledore's office there are portraits of deceased ex-headmasters > that often communicate with people in the office. They often leave > their portraits in the office to visit their other portraits (for > example Sirius' relative that was once a headmaster visited his other > portrait see if he was still there when he heard that Sirius was > dead, to make sure Dumbledore and Harry were telling the truth). > Since Dumbledore may be dead he should become a talking portrait, but > as he had a unnatural death (Avada Kedavra curse) does this mean he > cannot communicate with people? But at the end of HPHPB he has a > portrait in his former office. As Dumbledore has spoken to the > portraits and they have spoken back, does that mean he can speak to > Harry?? Michelle: I see no reason why Dumbledore can't communicate via his Headmaster portrait. It would be pointless to have his portrait in the office if he won't be able to communicate thru it. Maybe the reason he is "sleeping" in his frame is he has not been laid to rest yet? I don't recall them going back to the headmaster's office for the rest of the book after Harry leaves before the Minister of Magic arrives. I'm sure he'll be awake in HPDH. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Wed May 16 01:08:05 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 18:08:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470705151808l38bc29ch8e2e10feab2d7754@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168794 Rowling has said that one of Harry's classmates will become a teacher. Instead of it being during the bulk of DH, I think Neville will be the Herbology teacher once he's older. I base this on making sense, not neessarily on any evidence. rduran1216 ----------------- Jeremiah: I had assumed it was one of the trio. I think that's how I'd heard it. Anyway, being a "Harry's going to die" (sorry to all of you who are sensitive about that...) I do think he'd be the perfect DADA teacher if Harry lives. However, Hermione would be an amazing replacement for McGonagall when she grows up. Ron, well, it is quite possible that he could teach DADA if Harry dies. I have think he's going to see a lot of the fighting and would do well in that subject. Nevill would make a great herbology teacher, Draco would make a great "Whie, Complain, Point My finger and Mock People" teacher if such a class existed (Sorry to those who "heart" Malfoy. I like his character, too... he's just annoying to me but in an enjoyable way.) Penelopy Clearwater could teach "Snotty Girls and How to Bag a Power-Hungry Prefect." Justin Finch-Flechly could do a semiinar on "Arrogance: It's not bad if it's a Style Choice." Maybe Luna Lovegood will take over for Trelawney? Any way... just my thought. (the first part was serius.. the second... well , you figure it out.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jim at trueartistgroup.com Wed May 16 00:55:29 2007 From: jim at trueartistgroup.com (Jim Zangara) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:55:29 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggleborn vs Pureblood References: <464A53E1.7010609@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <008401c79754$e6aa5c80$2d2c530a@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168795 Bart Lidofsky wrote: >she learns quickly, and >accurately, but only that which is taught or available in books. Only in books that are ministry approved. If it isn't ministry approved she isn't interested. Jim [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From BrwNeil at aol.com Wed May 16 01:13:32 2007 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:13:32 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry can still contact dumbledore ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168796 In a message dated 5/15/2007 9:02:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mishbob88 at yahoo.com writes: I see no reason why Dumbledore can't communicate via his Headmaster portrait. It would be pointless to have his portrait in the office if he won't be able to communicate thru it. Maybe the reason he is "sleeping" in his frame is he has not been laid to rest yet? I don't recall them going back to the headmaster's office for the rest of the book after Harry leaves before the Minister of Magic arrives. I'm sure he'll be awake in HPDH. I agree and the question of whether Dumbledore was asking Snape to kill him should be answered. If the portrait can talk and no one asks that question immediately shame on JKR for playing with us and with Harry. Actually if we go even 1/3 of the book without knowing the answer to that question I'll be upset. It would certainly be the first thing I would ask Dumbledore. Neil ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed May 16 01:40:01 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 01:40:01 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn vs Pureblood In-Reply-To: <008401c79754$e6aa5c80$2d2c530a@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168797 Jim: > Only in books that are ministry approved. If it isn't ministry approved she isn't interested. > Jim zgirnius: That's hardly fair to Hermione. It is one of the reasons she gives in her attempts to pull Harry away from the HBP's Potions recipes and hexes, true, but I don't believe it is her true motivation. She dislikes and is suspicious of the book for reasons including jealousy, I imagine, and also concern for Harry. In CoS she is quite happy to wangle her way into the Restricted Section to read "Most Potente Potions", full of 'horrible' potions, in order to get the recipe for Polyjuice Potion recommended by Professor Snape in his class. In OotP she is thoroughly disgusted with the book and teaching methods in DADA, both oh so Ministry approved, and organizes an illegal study group to learn DADA more effectively (from a student, in this case). From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 16 02:29:18 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 02:29:18 -0000 Subject: Harry can still contact dumbledore ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168798 > >loopylooleanne: > > In Dumbledore's office there are portraits of deceased ex- headmasters > > that often communicate with people in the office. > > Since Dumbledore may be dead he should become a talking portrait, > > but does that mean he can speak to > > Harry?? > > > Michelle: > I see no reason why Dumbledore can't communicate via his Headmaster > portrait. It would be pointless to have his portrait in the office > if he won't be able to communicate thru it. I'm sure he'll be > awake in HPDH. > JW: First, It is inaccurate to say DD "might" be dead, if that implies he still might be alive. To paraphrase JKR herself, in answering questions from the audience at a charity event in NYC last summer: DD is dead. Get past the denial stage of grieving. And he will not do a Gandalf. However, I assume the real question is: should we expect DD to communicate with HP during the course of DH? The answer for me is, YES. I would be shocked if there is no communication from DD despite his death and lack of resurrection. I predict there could be as many as three methods to accomplish this: 1. The portrait, although the amount of hard information offered by portraits is quite limited. 2. Via the pensieve - not as a dialogue, but as a presentation of bottled memories DD stored for such a purpose. 3. Time travel - DD had a very strange watch. Many fans are convinced it was a time control device. If so, then while alive he could have travelled forward in time to a future point that takes place after his death. For example, he might show up at Bill & Fleur's wedding, or at GH shortly afterward. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed May 16 02:38:49 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:38:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggleborn vs Pureblood References: <464A53E1.7010609@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <004201c79763$57338860$6601a8c0@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168799 > Betsy Hp: >> But JKR covers this issue in PS/SS. Ron tries to do magic and can't >> (turning Scabbers yellow) and Hermione tries to do magic and can (all >> those spells she tried out that worked for her). And I believe >> someone (Hagrid?) says that all students start out on equal footing >> as far as magical experience.] Bart: > > Hermione has also read way ahead in her schoolbooks, and has more of > the theory down than Ron. Notice, however, how she holds in a certain > amount of contempt anything that isn't in the book; is it because her > lack of experience keeps her from understanding it (although, by the 6th > book, she FINALLY accepts that Fred & George are skilled and inventive). > And, for the reasons I put forward before, I do think that Muggleborns > who excel at magical studies are the exception, not the rule. Magpie: This is the opinion that Draco reports, presumably repeating his father, to Harry in his first scene, but JKR raises this question in canon and assures us that no, there is no difference. Not by showing us Hermione, but through her Muggle-raised protagonist. Harry finds he is not behind the other students at all and tells us so. Hermione is further ahead than others because she's studied, but everyone else is at the same level. All the students get their magic at the same time and start school at the same level. The idea that Muggleborns who excel at magical studies are the exception is what Slughorn is claiming, and is perhaps more disturbingly something he uses in deciding how he treats students, but it isn't true and canon states this outright. -m From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 16 02:39:46 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 02:39:46 -0000 Subject: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: <948bbb470705151808l38bc29ch8e2e10feab2d7754@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168800 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jeremiah LaFleur" wrote: > > Rowling has said that one of Harry's classmates will become a teacher. > Instead of it being during the bulk of DH, I think Neville will be the > Herbology teacher once he's older. I base this on making sense, not > neessarily on any evidence. > > rduran1216 > ----------------- > > Jeremiah: > I had assumed it was one of the trio. I think that's how I'd heard it. > > Anyway, being a "Harry's going to die" , Hermione would be an amazing replacement for > McGonagall when she grows up. Ron, well, it is quite possible that he could > teach DADA if Harry dies. I have think he's going to see a lot of the > fighting and would do well in that subject. > JW: My vote goes to Neville. In an interview, JKR stated that Ron will NOT become a teacher. If you think HP is doomed, and RW is eliminated by JKR, than the only trio member left as a possibility is Hermione. From laurel.coates at gmail.com Wed May 16 03:01:17 2007 From: laurel.coates at gmail.com (Laurel Coates) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:01:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry can still contact dumbledore ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3cd952930705152001q2af73d43p661debf5a79c13f3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168801 JW: I predict there could be as many as three methods to accomplish this [communication with living folks]: 1. The portrait, although the amount of hard information offered by portraits is quite limited. 2. Via the pensieve - not as a dialogue, but as a presentation of bottled memories DD stored for such a purpose. 3. Time travel - DD had a very strange watch. Many fans are convinced it was a time control device. If so, then while alive he could have travelled forward in time to a future point that takes place after his death. For example, he might show up at Bill & Fleur's wedding, or at GH shortly afterward. Laurel: I don't think that watch is a time traveler. Didn't Ron get a similar one for his 17th birthday? It seems unlikely that something that valuable, and probably restricted, would be available so easily. I do hope we get an answer of what that watch actually does, though. I think it is more like a weather/star/time forecaster rather than just a plain timepiece. Laurel, popping out from lurkdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 16 03:32:30 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 23:32:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggleborn vs Pureblood In-Reply-To: <004201c79763$57338860$6601a8c0@Spot> References: <464A53E1.7010609@sprynet.com> <004201c79763$57338860$6601a8c0@Spot> Message-ID: <464A7B4E.1020001@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168802 Magpie wrote: > The idea that Muggleborns who excel at magical studies are the exception is > what Slughorn is claiming, and is perhaps more disturbingly something he > uses in deciding how he treats students, but it isn't true and canon states > this outright. You can't judge individuals by statistics. The last person who claimed you could drowned in a lake with an average depth of 2 feet. One problem is that many people are so afraid that individuals might be judged by statistics that they deny the statistics. Magic, in the books, is shown to be mostly a matter of book study and physical skill. There is a natural talent, such as understanding of magical theory. However, if JKR is saying that those kids who grew up with magic around them do not do statistically better than those who have never been exposed to magic before their 11th birthday, then I am afraid she's wrong. And it's environment, not pureblood; if you switched a muggleborn wizard and a pureblood wizard at birth, then the pureblood will be at the disadvantage. Bart From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 16 03:57:19 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 03:57:19 -0000 Subject: Harry can still contact dumbledore ? In-Reply-To: <3cd952930705152001q2af73d43p661debf5a79c13f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168803 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Laurel Coates" wrote: > > JW: > > > I predict there could be as many > as three methods to accomplish this [communication with living folks]: > > 1. The portrait, although the amount of hard information offered by > portraits is quite limited. > > 2. Via the pensieve - not as a dialogue, but as a presentation of > bottled memories DD stored for such a purpose. > > 3. Time travel - DD had a very strange watch. Many fans are > convinced it was a time control device. If so, then while alive he > could have travelled forward in time to a future point that takes > place after his death. For example, he might show up at Bill & > Fleur's wedding, or at GH shortly afterward. > > Laurel: > > I don't think that watch is a time traveler. Didn't Ron get a similar one > for his 17th birthday? It seems unlikely that something that valuable, and > probably restricted, would be available so easily. I do hope we get an > answer of what that watch actually does, though. I think it is more like a > weather/star/time forecaster rather than just a plain timepiece. > > Laurel, popping out from lurkdom JW: Maybe, maybe not... only time will tell, so to speak. I recall the gift to Ron. Who was the giver? And how does it work? With its bizarre configuration, does it even tell time? And think of it - soooo unique, yet now there are two of them? Go back to DD's last scenes in the cave and on the tower. Any mention of his watch? Such an unusual instrument, such a detailed description, but no explanations... yet. I recall a very unusual gift HP once received, without much explanation - turned out to be very useful, and it turned out to be from DD... In any case, we DO KNOW that DD is an experienced time-traveler, from the instructions he gave Hermione in the hospital ward near the end of PoA... "three turns should do it." From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 16 04:00:08 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:00:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705152100k10c6d912v6b1619974516ba29@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168804 Honey pi: (referring to Ginny) She's an absolute nightmare in HBP Lynda: Where?! I did not get that feeling at all. Romilda Vane, yes. Hermione (thinking of the canary incident with Ron) could fit that category for specific behaviors, but Ginny? Certainly, she has problems with Fleur, but most femailes seem too so that doesn't really count...Guess I just don't understand this prejudice against Ginny because I realized early on what was going to happen storyline-wise. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Wed May 16 04:23:23 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 00:23:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggleborn vs Pureblood References: <464A53E1.7010609@sprynet.com> <004201c79763$57338860$6601a8c0@Spot> <464A7B4E.1020001@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <00ad01c79771$f203c360$6601a8c0@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168805 > Magpie wrote: >> The idea that Muggleborns who excel at magical studies are the exception >> is >> what Slughorn is claiming, and is perhaps more disturbingly something he >> uses in deciding how he treats students, but it isn't true and canon >> states >> this outright. Bart: > > You can't judge individuals by statistics. The last person who claimed > you could drowned in a lake with an average depth of 2 feet. One problem > is that many people are so afraid that individuals might be judged by > statistics that they deny the statistics. Magpie: Who's talking about statistics? I'm talking about the Harry Potter series of books (the author of which I can't imagine basing anything on statistics!) where I read this in chapter 8: "Harry was very relieved to find out that he wasn't miles behind everyone else. Lots of people had come from Muggle families and, like him, hadn't had any idea that they were witches and wizards. There was so much to learn that even people like Ron didn't have much of a head start." People like Ron--magically raised people--don't have much of a head start. And I've never seen any reason to think a Muggle-upbringing effected anybody's experience in class. Bart: > Magic, in the books, is shown to be mostly a matter of book study and > physical skill. There is a natural talent, such as understanding of > magical theory. However, if JKR is saying that those kids who grew up > with magic around them do not do statistically better than those who > have never been exposed to magic before their 11th birthday, then I am > afraid she's wrong. Magpie: She's wrong because that's not the way magic really works? I think she's telling you how her world works and saying that being raised magical isn't that much of a head start. I can see the logic in your claims that just being in a magical environment is an advantage but canon seems to not only deny it's enough to be significant, but make it sort of a prominent plotpoint that it's something bigots say, whether by claiming "they just don't know our ways" or that there's a problem in their blood. Of our three main characters Hermione's able to come to school ahead of everyone else despite being raised in the wrong environment (which isn't that odd--it's just pointing a wand and talking) and Harry, who's been raised in the same environment and doesn't apply himself as much to his studies, can also easily compete with other students. Bart: > > And it's environment, not pureblood; if you switched a muggleborn > wizard and a pureblood wizard at birth, then the pureblood will be at > the disadvantage. Magpie: But where does the text suggest that this environment causes Muggle-borns to not excel at magical studies? Is there anywhere in the books that actually describe the experience of being at the school that in any way shows a difference in how students Muggle-raised for the first 11 years handle classes? Because I'm not seeing Rowling writing a difference at all--to the point where I can't really imagine how it's supposed to work. Your examples of Hermione being dependent on the books and not appreciating the Twins seems to me as much tied to Hermione's and the Twins' personalities as Hermione being raised by Muggles. Hermione created the coins based on the DE marks, right? As I said, you can certainly argue that this is the way it should work out logically. Plenty of people in fandom have argued that some of the attitudes the text seems to say are simply wrong and bad have a logical base. But since this is a book and there is not real world to look at, I think the words the author uses to describe the situation in the books trump most other things in saying how it works. -m From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 16 04:26:59 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:26:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] hagrid's emotions over his pets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705152126i5b6e2f16g52aa2d3886953dc0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168806 Sherry: I am accompanied through my life by a wonderful black lab guide dog. I also now work in Admissions for the organization from where I received all my guide dogs. At least a couple times a month, I'm in tears over something that happened to a dog, or from a conversation with a person who desperately wants a guide dog but is not ready and who has given up hope on life because of becoming blind. But the biggest tears are over the dogs--dogs who get sick, who are neglected or treated badly, or just dogs who are little more than mobility tools to their blind handlers, not really beloved companions. Even before starting this particular job, I would cry over any story of cruelty or pain to an animal or children, even as I rarely cry over pain or hurt to myself. Though I am nearly 50, I cannot read books that have scenes of animal or child cruelty. Does this mean I am not handling things in a mature way or that I blubber like a child? I don't think so, and of course, I don't think anyone here would think so. I'm just sensitive and compassionate about the animals and kids in the world. So, yeah, as an adult, I do like Hagrid. I feel for him. He is simple and childlike in many ways. I always thought it was because society had never taught him to hide his emotions or to "act like an adult". There are many flaws to Hagrid's character, but the fact that he cries over his pets and needs the help of children is hardly one of them in my opinion. He's actually refreshing in the PotterVerse. And, I actually think there is something more to Hagrid, something important that he knows or will do in the last book. like Dumbledore, I would trust Hagrid with my life, and there are few in the WW of whom I would say that, if I met them in real life. Lynda: I work with severely handicapped/Developmentally Disabled kids. At my work I deal with emotional as well as physical dysfunction on a pretty normal basis. An Asperger child who cannot put onto paper what he has just (after twenty minutes of help) told me verbally. An autistic child who is resistant to joining the class for lunch for some reason known only to him/herself. A high functioning child with no emotional control who has to "go with Teacher for a walk" to keep the rest of the class from being disrupted (this, btw all occurred on one day, in one classroom before one in the afternoon), so I see a lot of emotional upheaval pretty much on a daily basis and I kind of understand Hagrid. No one ever bothered to teach him the social niceties. "We don't cry in public. It embarrasses others", etc., and I kind of like him. Like the kids I work with, he doesn't know any different and he could not learn, so its not his fault.--and, btw, I cry when my pets get hurt or sick. I had to give up my last cat when we moved to the apartment I live in now, and it just about killed me. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 16 04:46:22 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:46:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705152146x7c4503ddvd8475171322bc8c9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168807 laperchette: Rowling said that her favourite twist in a book is the shipping-twist in Emma. Lynda: Umm...what shipping twist in Emma? I'm not being obtuse or anything here and yes, I am familiar with the book. Austen is one of my favorite authors, but I saw all of the ships in Emma coming down just as they played out in the book and so am unaware of any twists. Its one of the reasons Emma is far from my favorite book by Austen. Everything was too...plodding and plotted. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 16 05:07:09 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:07:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705152207s75595c52i2a2305b37f395975@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168808 PhoenixGod: There is not a single indication before book five Ginny is even the > slightest bit sports inclined. She's horrified by the violence of the > game at the Quiddich world cup and fell asleep during the group talk > about the game afterwards. Lynda: Neither are their any indications that she is not sports inclined. Harry, the filter through which people are for the most part noticed is far more concerned with the happenings at the QWC than in his best friend's pre-adolescent sister at that point. And, Harry, at that point in his life is just barely starting to notice girls at that point and has his eye on Cho. Back to the sports inclination--two years ago a friend of mine invited me over for the Superbowl, if I was so inclined. (I don't usually watch football at all). I agreed and we had a great time. She took it upon herself to explain the game to me and after the first down, I finished explaining the game to her. She was astonished. She thought I don't watch football because I never learned about the sport when the fact is that I don't watch football because my father was a college draft pick back in the forties and was drafted by the Army instead of going to college. As a result, because he always felt cheated I got to watch every single football game that was broadcast on TV until I reached the age of eighteen and went away to college. I am also the one with the purple belt in karate and the one who walks no less than two miles a day (usually). I don't look sports inclined, you see (I'm more than a little chubby) so people don't think of me as being interested in sports when the fact is, I'd much rather participate at whatever level I'm at than watch. Watching doesn't hold any interest for me for a variety reasons, some of them mentioned above. Maybe Ginny is the same way. And she was young at the QWC... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed May 16 05:52:07 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 05:52:07 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705152207s75595c52i2a2305b37f395975@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168809 > Lynda: > Neither are their any indications that she is not sports inclined. I would say the fact that Hermione is forced to explain to everyone--including Ginny's only family members that she was out stealing brooms to practice flying is an indication that no one knew that she had sporty inclinations. There are several points that bother me with this explanation (or retcon as I look at it) 1. Hermione had to explain it because there was no evidence in the book, even for her family members and not just Harry's filter. 2. Learning how to play a team sport solo is pretty much impossible. Even for a prodigy. there is a great TV show in the US called Kyle XY. its about a kid who is pretty much perfect in every way both physically and mentally, except for the fact he has no memory. In one of the episodes, Kyle joins the basketball team because he is so gifted he can score pretty much at will. But because he had no understanding of team dynamics he wasn't a dominating figure on the team. He just couldn't be. For Ginny to be so awesomely wonderful with such a minimal amount of practice is just plain silly. 3. Even if Ginny could get so wonderful with only a little bit of practice, I still can't buy it. Ginny was six when she supposedly started taking brooms. So her mother, overprotective Ogress mother bear Molly 'fricken' Weasley never, ever noticed that her daughter was sneaking out at night? she didn't have any magical guards and wards on the broom shed for just that very purpose? That lovely magical clock never showed flying stupidly over the roof of the burrow when she got up in the middle of the night to get some hot coco one night? And the twins, always on the watch for pranks didn't notice that their brooms weren't where they left them? So even were I to swallow Ginny's propensity for Quiddich and flying, the explanation given and ridiculous explanations that are just too unbelievable. Combine that with her annoying other habits and you have a recipe for a ship hating guy. >I'd much rather participate at > whatever level I'm at than watch. Watching doesn't hold any interest for me Right there with you on that. Rather play than watch. Except for Baseball. Neither is all that much fun :) Maybe Ginny is the same > way. And she was young at the QWC... Not that young. Only a year younger than her badass self in OotP. Still a lot of changes in only a year. phoenixgod2000 From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 16 08:22:58 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:22:58 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Minerva / Firenze Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168810 My first ever post on shipping, although I had discernedHermione and Ron well before it became a reality in the books Could the above pairing be possible? The Centaur who rejected his kind teaming up with the mild mannered, but srtrict and fair Headmistress of Hogwarts. Minerva could take care of the practical matters while Firenze continued his star gazing. The patterns discerned in the stars by Firenze would indubitably be of use to the Order and Minerva could pass them on from their love-stable, using, naturally enough, her new found Patronus form of a Houyhnhnm (capable of speech for ease of communication). If Firenze can take Harry on his back then why not Minerva? They could gallop through the parkland at Hogwarts, always avoiding the Forbidden Forest of course in case of a lynch mob of Centaurs not well disposed to a little cross breeding. Not only that, but it may ultimately lead to acceptance and allow Magorian to finally show his true feelings for Sybil, a fellow and highly respected leader of seers and stargazers. The Ministry wil realise that its policy in respect of keeping species separate is a poor one and the wizarding world will in the future contain many Hippoworms, Flobbergriffs, Man Ended Skrewts and Blast Drakes, amongst many others. I think to myself, what a wonderful world :-), but then these books are all about romance and spreading joy to the world, aren't they? Goddlefrood From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed May 16 08:38:46 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:38:46 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn vs Pureblood In-Reply-To: <464A7B4E.1020001@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168811 Bart: > However, if JKR is saying that those kids who grew up > with magic around them do not do statistically better than those who > have never been exposed to magic before their 11th birthday, then I am > afraid she's wrong. > > And it's environment, not pureblood; if you switched a muggleborn > wizard and a pureblood wizard at birth, then the pureblood will be at > the disadvantage. Hickengruendler: Have you made any statistics regarding this point? ;-) Sorry, but it is JKR's world, and if she says that they are on the same level, than they are. And even though I can see the point, that due to lack of experiences for the Muggleborns they were unlikely to start from the same level in real life, this is how it is portrayed in the books. Let's ignore Hermione for a moment. Harry is raised like a Muggleborn. His parents are a witch and a wizard, but he didn't know this and was raised by Muggles, therefore he had no prior knowledge of magic or spells. We also know, that in contrast to Hermione, he did not read ahead, once he learned the secret. And yet we never see him worse than Ron in school, who has lived among wizards all his life. The books make clear that they are about on the same level, except Defense against the Dark Arts, where Harry is stronger. Their upbringing did not make any difference, not even in the first schoolyear. Similarly, pureblood Neville is among the worst students in Harry's class at least in the beginning (though there are othe rfactors playing a part in this, as we later learn), Half-Blood Seamus blew up the feather in a Charms lesson, while we didn't see the muggle-raised Dean Thomas having any real problems. Hickengruendler From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed May 16 08:43:37 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:43:37 -0000 Subject: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: <948bbb470705151808l38bc29ch8e2e10feab2d7754@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168812 > > Jeremiah: > I had assumed it was one of the trio. I think that's how I'd heard it. Hickengruendler: Highly unlikely. Here's the link the interview again. http://www.accio- quote.org/articles/1999/1099- connectiontransc2.htm#p24 As you can see, she definitely ruled out Harry and Ron in this interview. She also ruled out the most likely candidate (*hint, hint, hint*), which back prior to the release of GoF, when this interview was made, only could have meant Hermione. In fact, all the *Neville will become a teacher* theories only started *because* of this interview. Therefore the Trio is pretty much ruled out. Harry and Ron definitely and Hermione to about 85%. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed May 16 10:01:10 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 06:01:10 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more int... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168813 Dantzel wrote: And I may have to bring a mace to Barnes and Noble when DH comes out in case I see someone flipping to the back of the book. I will be VERY angry if it is ruined for me. Sandy responds: You don't live in Cincinnati, do you, because that is exactly what I will be doing. I will be reading the last chapter of DH as I am waiting in line to pay for it, just like I did with HBP. That is my choice and I don't see how, if you were in line with me, it could ruin it for you. I don't read out loud. I very much respect those who do not want spoilers. They don't bother me, though. I just can't stand the suspense and can't, and won't, wait a moment longer than I have to to know if Harry survives. However, I will not believe Harry's fate until I read it with my own two eyes, or at least with the one that isn't blind. Sandy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed May 16 10:20:37 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:20:37 -0000 Subject: What Harry thinks he knows. Was: Harry can still contact dumbledore ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168814 Michelle wrote: > > I see no reason why Dumbledore can't communicate via his Headmaster > portrait. It would be pointless to have his portrait in the office if he won't be > able to communicate thru it. Maybe the reason he is "sleeping" in his frame is > he has not been laid to rest yet? I don't recall them going back to the > headmaster's office for the rest of the book after Harry leaves before the Minister > of Magic arrives. I'm sure he'll be awake in HPDH. Neil wrote: > I agree and the question of whether Dumbledore was asking Snape to kill him > should be answered. If the portrait can talk and no one asks that question > immediately shame on JKR for playing with us and with Harry. Actually if we > go even 1/3 of the book without knowing the answer to that question I'll be > upset. It would certainly be the first thing I would ask Dumbledore. > > > Neil Anne Squires now: I agree that the question of whether DD was asking Snape to kill him should be answered. However, I tend to disagree that this question will or even should be answered in the first third of DH. For me, and I suspect for many others, the question of whether Snape is DDM!Snape, OFH!Snape, or ESE!Snape is THE major question that needs to be answered in DH. Yes, there are numerous other questions and plot lines that need to be addressed. However, this question, for me, is THE largest of all the questions. I am hoping, and even expecting, to read a book that first leads in one direction and then in another in regards to this question. I anticipate numerous red herrings along the way to distract me, to challenge me as a reader. Remember JKR has stated that books six and seven should be read as two parts to one large novel. (paraphrasing somewhat here) Snape AKing DD is, without a doubt, the climax of our two part story. The rest of our story will likely lead us on a journey to find out what happened on that tower. IMHO, the revelation of what exactly happened on that tower should come toward the end, rather than the beginning, of DH. This is the largest and most interesting question that needs to be answered. I hope JKR leaves it to the end. If she answers this question too early on, for me the rest of the novel would not be nearly as interesting, I suspect. Also, Harry thinks he knows exactly what happened on that tower. From his POV there is no need to ask DD's portrait, DD's ghost, or any other manifestation of DD that he might encounter about what happened. From his POV it would make as much sense to ask say Sirius or Cedric, if he had the chance, how they died or about the circumstances surrounding their deaths. Harry wouldn't ask Cedric or Sirius how they died. Nor would it occur to him to ask either one of them who killed them. Nor would he ask why they were killed. Harry is not about to ask DD any of these questions either. This is NOT a mystery for Harry. It is a mystery for us, the readers. But, for Harry this is not even a remote consideration. It is a non issue from his pov. To me, the irony that the largest question of all is not even on our hero's radar is simply delicious. Harry is living this; he doesn't know he is the title character in a series of novels. He thinks he knows what he knows. And he knows without a doubt that Snape killed DD. He knows without a doubt that Snape is ESE. For the third time (fourth if you count his mother) Harry is a witness to murder. He doesn't think there are any questions this time, just as there weren't any questions the other times. Why would he think there is a reason to question what he heard and saw. He was there. He doesn't think about the "plot" the way we readers analyze everything. For him, this isn't even a "plot" that follows certain conventions. For him it's his life. Just my opinion. Anne Squires From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 13:02:25 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:02:25 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?. In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705152100k10c6d912v6b1619974516ba29@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168815 > >>Honey pi: > > (referring to Ginny) She's an absolute nightmare in HBP > >>Lynda: > Where?! I did not get that feeling at all. Romilda Vane, yes. > Hermione (thinking of the canary incident with Ron) could fit that > category for specific behaviors, but Ginny? Certainly, she has > problems with Fleur, but most femailes seem too so that doesn't > really count...Guess I just don't understand this prejudice against > Ginny because I realized early on what was going to happen > storyline-wise. Betsy Hp: No, that can't be it. Because I too figured Ginny + Harry was pretty much a given storywise. And I *totally* agree that Ginny is a nightmare and one of JKR's most bungled characters. So I don't think that particular point of view can be explained away as sour grapes over the Harry+Ginny!SHIP. In fact, when I first read HBP (and please understand, I read it really, really fast ) I actually *liked* Harry and Ginny together. I also must admit... ::takes a deep breath:: My name is Betsy Hp, and I like the "hard, blazing look". There! I said it! I also tend to have a fondness for spunky heroines. I love Elizabeth Bennet from Pride and Prejudice and Mary from The Secret Garden. Starbuck (from the current Battlestar Galactica series) is so incredibly awesome in my opinion. But Ginny doesn't cut it. Because she's not really spunky, she's just mean. And honestly, it's not really about Fleur for me. As the only Weasley sister, and the baby to boot, I can totally understand why Ginny would have issue with any woman marrying one of her brothers. I don't *approve* of Ginny's behavior, but I can understand and therefore sympathize a little with it. [An aside: I do worry a bit that JKR, who seems to have issues with pretty girls that enjoy being pretty, wants her readers to think Ginny is cool for mocking Fleur. But I could well be wrong. I hope.] Ginny is horrible to Ron, she's outrageously violent to Zach Smith (if the WW worked under RW rules, Ginny's little broom stunt would have cost Gryffindor the game, IMO), and she's really not happy unless she's cutting someone down. Ginny is a bully, a bad sportsman, a terrible team player, and a very angry little girl. Which is entirely different from being spunky. Now, if JKR *means* for Ginny to be suffering under some sort of issue that has her on such a hair-trigger temper-wise, if JKR means for Ginny to face and deal with whatever issue that is, it could possibly save the character for me. What I fear is that JKR thinks this particular Ginny is perfectly fine just the way she is. Hmm, now I wonder which would be worse? Keeping this Ginny, or getting a Ginny III (or IV, depending on how you view OotP!Ginny and HBP!Ginny)? I mean on the one hand, not very good character writing on JKR's part. But on the other hand, she's already screwed it up so maybe it'll be okay if the final Ginny is a bit more palatable? Just a thought for the day. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 16 14:05:58 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:05:58 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168816 Alla: > Only in my view it would not be Harry recognising how really very > cool and noble and brave Snape is, but Harry recognising that Snape > needs to be pitied, forgiven, etc, etc. > Pippin: But why can't it be both? Look at Harry, he's cool, noble and brave, *and* he needs to be pitied and forgiven. While a great number of things that Snape might be pitied and forgiven for have contributed disproportionately to Harry's distress, the good that DDM!Snape has done is spread around. But that means it would be all the more noble of Harry to recognize it. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 16 14:24:34 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:24:34 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?. Message-ID: <8864986.1179325474915.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168817 From: Lynda Cordova >Where?! I did not get that feeling at all. Romilda Vane, yes. Hermione >(thinking of the canary incident with Ron) could fit that category for >specific behaviors, but Ginny? Certainly, she has problems with Fleur, but >most femailes seem too so that doesn't really count... Well, they may be disgusted by the attention she attracts from some males (although it is not explained why her pull on some males is weaker than others), but she is also portrayed, at least from the Weasley point of view, as something of a snob. Certainly, she needs to learn something of common politeness; her comments about that singer on the radio shows either an obliviousness to the feelings of others, or a deliberate insult to the Weasley's in general and Molly in particular. She is clearly fond of 'arry, and loves Beel, but she appears to have contempt for the rest of the extended Weasley clan. Regardless of who started it, it is NOT a one-sided battle. Bart From goodasitgets at insightbb.com Wed May 16 14:08:20 2007 From: goodasitgets at insightbb.com (Goodasitgets) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:08:20 -0500 Subject: Student who becomes a teacher In-Reply-To: <948bbb470705151808l38bc29ch8e2e10feab2d7754@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005801c797c3$ad2c3180$da088a4a@DF1BV731> No: HPFGUIDX 168818 Student who becomes a teacher rduran1216: Rowling has said that one of Harry's classmates will become a teacher. Instead of it being during the bulk of DH, I think Neville will be the Herbology teacher once he's older. I base this on making sense, not neessarily on any evidence. rduran1216 ----------------- Jeremiah: I had assumed it was one of the trio. I think that's how I'd heard it. Anyway, being a "Harry's going to die" (sorry to all of you who are sensitive about that...) I do think he'd be the perfect DADA teacher if Harry lives. However, Hermione would be an amazing replacement for McGonagall when she grows up. Ron, well, it is quite possible that he could teach DADA if Harry dies. I have think he's going to see a lot of the fighting and would do well in that subject. Goodasitgets: I believe that if Harry lives, being DADA would be a much smaller adult profession and future than I would expect for him. It is after all his own desire to become an Auror. And hey, why not just for fun a professional Quidditch Seeker as well! I think if Harry lives...and I won't even allow myself to think about if the final battle ends Harry along with VM...I see Harry as destined to great things beyond what I have even been able to imagine for him as an Auror. DADA seems just such an anticlimactic outcome for someone who has lived through so much, and has repeatedly saved the wizarding world from VM. Neville certainly has the aptitude to become the Herbology Professor, but I just wonder if because Neville's Gran has always belittled Neville's abilities compared to his parents but was notably proud of Neville being with Harry and the others the night at the Ministry...Neville has learned a great deal form Harry and has lacked more in confidence all along I think more than ability. I would not be terribly surprised if Neville could even become the Defense Against the Dark Arts Prof. He learned form the best (Harry) after all. Goodasitgets From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 16 15:13:59 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:13:59 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggleborn vs Pureblood Message-ID: <4085737.1179328439078.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168819 From: Magpie Bart: >> >> You can't judge individuals by statistics. The last person who claimed >> you could drowned in a lake with an average depth of 2 feet. One problem >> is that many people are so afraid that individuals might be judged by >> statistics that they deny the statistics. Magpie: >Who's talking about statistics? I'm talking about the Harry Potter series of >books (the author of which I can't imagine basing anything on statistics!) Bart: George Orwell described a phenomenon called "doublethink"; the ability to have two mutually contradictory ideas in one's head, and treat them both as absolutely true. Doublethink becomes possible if you blind yourself to the inherent contradiction. I was pointing out that JKR has fallen victim to doublethink in her novels, and includes an inherently self-contradictory idea. I was also pointing out that this form of doublethink is common in our own society, which comes in two forms: A) a belief that because one group is statistically more likely to have a characteristic than other groups, that one can accurately ascribe that characteristic to an individual, solely because that individual is a member of that group, and B) a belief that because it's wrong to ascribe a characteristic to an individual because they come from a specific group, then the statistical tendency to have that characteristic must be false. Both are wrong. To give a simple example, statistically speaking, men have more upper body strength than women, but you can't take a random woman and a random man off the street, and predict with certainty that the man is stronger than the woman. But that does not make the statistic incorrect, either. Recently, the president of Harvard University was forced out of his position for suggesting that the fact that there are fewer women in the sciences than men appeared to have more basis to it than simple bigotry, and that determining the cause was something worthy of study. JKR is using bigotry against muggleborns as a substitute for other bigotry, but she then sets up a system where a one-to-one correspondence does not work, so she forces in a one-to-one correspondence. Magpie, quoting: >"Harry was very relieved to find out that he wasn't miles behind everyone >else. Lots of people had come from Muggle families and, like him, hadn't >had any idea that they were witches and wizards. There was so much to learn >that even people like Ron didn't have much of a head start." Bart: And that is where she forces it in. She gives three basic aspects to casting magic: 1) Knowledge 2) Physical technique 3) Natural ability. Now, had she shown #3 to be much more important than #1 and #2, then there would have been no inherent contradiction. But she does not. Magpie: >As I said, you can certainly argue that this is the way it should work out >logically. Plenty of people in fandom have argued that some of the attitudes >the text seems to say are simply wrong and bad have a logical base. But >since this is a book and there is not real world to look at, I think the >words the author uses to describe the situation in the books trump most >other things in saying how it works. Bart However, if you write a novel set in an alteration of the real world, then the reasons for the differences should be explained, or given as a mystery. Doing neither is just bad writing. Human abilities don't just suddenly appear. We start out with basic reflexes. Neurological feedback loops form, allowing us to develop skills from the reflexes, then skills from the skills. Block those intermediate skills from forming, and the person will have a lot more trouble forming the secondary skills (it is no coicidence that cultures in which infants are not able to crawl on the ground tend not to develop written languages). JKR COULD have come up with some sort of explanation, the equalizer between muggleborns and purebloods. Just to give an example, muggleborns go to muggle schools, while it is implied (although never stated) that WW kids are homeschooled (they certainly appear to know how to read, write, and do enough arithmetic to handle money). Perhaps the muggleborn children's experience in learning from books and in a classroom environment is the equalizer (although it would still imply a difference, although it would be in kind rather than in degree). But if that were true, then WW families would take steps to give their kids the same advantages, in one way or another. And let's not forget the other direction. Somehow, muggleborn are every bit as good as WW-born kids. But what about squibs? Do squibs fit easily into the muggle world? If not (and the implication is that they do not), then this is showing another form of discrimination; that, somehow muggles are superior to the people in the WW; certainly more intelligent and adaptable. My main point is that, in trying to inject analogies of real-world bigotry into her novels, JKR's own prejudice is showing. Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 16 15:49:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:49:02 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168820 > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > Huzzah, Ron. > > > Only not. Because the very next year, Ron has the *exact* same > > > problem. > > > >>Pippin: > > Except it's not the *exact* same problem, because Harry wasn't > > around for the big game in OOP. Ignoring jeers from the Slytherins > > is one thing, ignoring the fear that he might flub up in front of > > Harry is another. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Except as far as Ron's concerned it *is* the exact same problem > because as far as Ron knew, Harry was there watching his every move. > > "You didn't watch?" he said faintly, looking from one to the > other. "You didn't see me make any of those saves?" [OotP scholastic > hardback p.704] Pippin: Um, no. Disgraced Harry, watching from the sidelines because he's been banned for life isn't a patch on QuidditchCaptain!Harry, who is responsible for evaluating Ron's performance and could throw him off the team if he's not good enough. Moreover, it's not Ron's story, it's Harry's, and I think it's really Harry's growth that's important here. This is the first time that Harry showed patience and understanding when a friend let him down. I think it's important that the reader gets a bit frustrated with Ron's lack of progress, because it points up the fact that Harry didn't. Harry didn't get so angry that he gave up on Ron, and that's very different from the way he treated Hermione in PoA or Ron in GoF, or even Dumbledore in OOP. > Betsy Hp: > But this isn't a "realistic" story in that we're not dealing with > fully fleshed totally real characters. There's a level of the > fantastic here. Pippin: There's a tension in the story itself between Harry seeing his role models as wish-fulfillment figures who can do the impossible and make it look easy (James, Dumbledore) and the not yet articulated realization that if their attainments were truly the result of perfection, they would be forever beyond Harry's reach. JKR's ultimate aim, I would venture, is not to transform her characters. It's to transform *us*, or at least to make us see that transformation is not beyond *our* reach. I doubt it matters to her how much we dislike the characters as they are in Book Six as long as we don't get so alienated that we don't read Book Seven. In fact the darker it looks for our heroes now the better. They have to be in more moral danger now than they've ever been, or whatever moral danger they do face would be anti-climactic. And she's said they're all going to be tested. Betsy HP: > And for me, their stunted growth, their inability to face and > overcome their flaws (and some of their flaws I find pretty > repugnant) is *frustrating*. I mean, I'm reading to be entertained, > so yes, I *want* to see change. Pippin: Eh, they're teenagers, they're supposed to be repugnant -- it's nature's way of getting you to push 'em out of the nest :) (IMO) But I think she knows exactly what she's doing in letting her characters get so mean to each other. She's just following her ideas to their logical conclusions. If nobody is noble by birth, then no one is born knowing how to wield power responsibly. The characters have to learn that. JKR seems to show bullying as a phase that some kids go through as they're learning about power, just as they often go through superficial and potentially damaging relationships as they learn about love. Hopefully they grow out of it before they do any permanent damage to themselves or one another, and please, please, before they have children of their own, but the suspense in the story comes from all the horrible examples of those who did not. The adult bullies, IMO, are people who didn't grow out of it, or who skipped that stage as kids only to fall into it as adults, like Crouch Sr. She also shows us *why* they're like that. They seem evil, but they're not bullies *because* they're evil, they're bullies because they're damaged or fearful or ignorant or lazy or some combination of the four. Those characteristics are, of course, the shadow side of the four Houses: noble Slytherin, brave Gryffindor, learned Ravenclaw and hard-working Hufflepuff. Maybe in Book Seven both Gryffindor and Slytherin will re-imagine themselves. IMO, Gryffindors need to realize that they're more than "not Slytherin" and Slytherin also needs to become a house of acceptance rather than denial: to accept that to hunger for power is not a sign of nobility but rather of damage, and so to turn their quest from the false ideal of purity to the true ideal of wholeness. The snake is also the symbol of healing. Pippin From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 15:49:46 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:49:46 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > But even from this "evil Snape camper wisher" or more correctly any > Snape other than Saint Severus ( oh how I hate this variety), you > will get no argument that Harry will change his POV as to Snape. > > Only in my view it would not be Harry recognising how really very > cool and noble and brave Snape is, but Harry recognising that Snape > needs to be pitied, forgiven, etc, etc. > > JMO, > > Alla > Well, I don't know about ANY Snape other than Saint Severus, but I get your drift, :-). Which brings up a very important point, what is meant by ESE!Snape or Evil!Snape. Those terms are, I think, properly used in the context in which they arose, which is that of Snape's relationship to Dumbledore. That is, ESE!Snape properly means a Snape who betrayed Dumbledore, is working for Voldy, always has been, etc. However, very often the term Evil Snape gets applied to a Snape that is somewhat different. That is, it is a applied to a Snape who may actually be working for DD (or not, as the case may be), but nevertheless has a lot to atone for in his treatment of Harry and Neville, etc. The one situation has very little to do with the other, I think. Therefore it is perfectly possible that Snape will be revealed to be working for DD all along and there will be an explanation for the tower and all of that. But that still does not get at the other part of the story. Many people seem to think that an explanation for the Tower washes Snape clean, should redeem him in Harry's eyes, should excuse him from all punishment, etc. I don't think it does, and if JKR goes that way, I'd say she's done something extremely reprehensible. Lupinlore, who sadly thinks JKR will likely do something extremely reprehensible, but it won't be the saddest thing that will happen that week. In any case, we will, as has been said, know soon enough. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 16 16:06:40 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:06:40 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Minerva / Firenze In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168822 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > Could the above pairing be possible? > > The Centaur who rejected his kind teaming up with the mild > mannered, but srtrict and fair Headmistress of Hogwarts. > > Goddlefrood JW: The headmistress of Hogwarts is indeed strict and fair. And also married. To a human. I think you have a better shot at a relationship between Pomona Sprout and a mandrake. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed May 16 16:05:56 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:05:56 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Current thread on spoilers/ canon vs. OT Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168823 Hey Everyone, This has been a fun and interesting thread but it's time to bring it back to canon. If you would like to continue discussing how spoilers affect you, please take it over to OTC: http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/HPFGU-OTChatter Here's a guideline to follow in case you have questions about canon vs. OT when discussing the upcoming release: * If your post discusses what will happen -- the characters, the plot or any other information about the books themselves, 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 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, 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. If anyone has any questions, please contact the elves at: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Thanks! The List Elves The pre-DH spoiler policy was posted on April 21st: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167822 If you want to discuss the policy, please link to the Feedback group (you will need to join if you haven't already): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 16 16:14:34 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:14:34 -0000 Subject: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more int... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168824 > Dantzel wrote: > > And I may have to bring a mace to Barnes and Noble when DH comes out in case > I see someone flipping to the back of the book. I will be VERY angry if it > is ruined for me. > > > > Sandy responds: I will be reading the last chapter of DH as I am waiting in line to > pay for it, just like I did with HBP. I don't read out loud. > Sandy JW: Sandy, I hope you don't move your lips when you read. Otherwise, you might get coldcocked by a lipreader. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 16 16:17:49 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:17:49 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Muggleborn vs Pureblood Message-ID: <25678284.1179332269976.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168825 From: hickengruendler Hickengruendler: > >Have you made any statistics regarding this point? ;-) > >Sorry, but it is JKR's world, and if she says that they are on the same >level, than they are. And even though I can see the point, that due to >lack of experiences for the Muggleborns they were unlikely to start >from the same level in real life, this is how it is portrayed in the >books. Bart: To illustrate my point, here is a sample (fake) passage. "Aunt Petunia went to the store. She walked out the front way, spread her wings, and flew there. 'I'd better not buy more than a couple of kilo's of groceries.' she thought. 'Unlike those awful wizards, we non-magic people can't carry that much when we fly.'" Hey, if JKR says that normal humans have wings and fly, well, it's her book. Bart From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 16:07:09 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:07:09 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168826 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > But why can't it be both? Look at Harry, he's cool, noble and brave, > *and* he needs to be pitied and forgiven. Hmmm. Pitied and forgiven for what? I'm not terribly sure I follow the reasoning. Perhaps Harry needs to forgive himself due to various things, but from whom else does he need forgiveness? Draco? I think that's rather like the horse thief forgiving the posse. Marietta? Ditto, and that's more of a Hermione issue, anyway. Cho? Snort, chuckle, laugh. The Dursleys? Double snort, chuckle, laugh. Snape? ROTFLMAO! While a great > number of things that Snape might be pitied and forgiven > for have contributed disproportionately to Harry's distress, > the good that DDM!Snape has done is spread around. But that > means it would be all the more noble of Harry to recognize it. > Or, perhaps, it might be insipid and preaching to the point of nausea, not to mention constituting approval of abusive behavior. Now, I think there are ways that such a storyline might be handled. But a "you were DDM! and all is forgiven no apologies necessary because I now understand that nice is not the same as good?" Well, then, I think, it would be time to feed the book into the old woodchipper and good riddance to it. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 16:27:37 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:27:37 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168827 Lupinlore: > Well, I don't know about ANY Snape other than Saint Severus, but I > get your drift, :-). Which brings up a very important point, what is > meant by ESE!Snape or Evil!Snape. > > Those terms are, I think, properly used in the context in which they > arose, which is that of Snape's relationship to Dumbledore. That is, > ESE!Snape properly means a Snape who betrayed Dumbledore, is working > for Voldy, always has been, etc. > > However, very often the term Evil Snape gets applied to a Snape that > is somewhat different. That is, it is a applied to a Snape who may > actually be working for DD (or not, as the case may be), but > nevertheless has a lot to atone for in his treatment of Harry and > Neville, etc. The one situation has very little to do with the > other, I think. . Alla: Sure, you right. I should have specified. Snape will be evil for me regardless in what camp he will be revealed at the end. Evil as in as mean, spiteful, hateful man, who deems it possible to have a grudge against Harry, and treat Neville the way he does. But I suppose if he is revealed as DD!M, some blending of the terms is inevitable even for me. I guess if Snape is revealed as DD!M, I would call him - not completely evil, maybe? Not more than that, for sure. I guess then I would share SSSusan's terminology paraphrased here - I would then say that Snape has **some nobility** in him, enough to work for DD, maybe? Meaning that I will never ever regard his actions against Harry as anything **other** than evil actions, but it will also be revealed that he did some good actions? For common good, I mean? As to me being able to swallow any Severus other than Saint Severus, well, it is true, really. As so many do, I hope that Snape I see is the right one, hehe, but I guess it all comes down to me having more faith in JKR's writing abilities than you seem to have :) Look, I brought this example several times - I was sooooo angry with Dumbledore after the end of OOP. My only reaction was - how dare you? And I also was thinking that if Dumbledore dies in HBP, there is no way it will touch me, at all. Well, I was wrong, wrong, wrong. I was crying when DD died. JKR sold it to me very well. So, what I am saying is I think that it is possible that JKR will sell me any variety of Snape and I will be happy enough, you know? I mean I am wishing for ESE Snape or LID Snape more than others, but maybe I will be happy with Jen's Snape ( Grey Sna[e of her variety), I know I love Siguin Snape as well, heheh. But Saint Severus has to die, oh my goodness, please die. It is just no matter how well I think JKR can write, in my mind Snape committed too much evil towards these boys that JKR can completely validate him and let him come out smelling like a rose, even if he killed DD on DD orders, you know? It is actually funny, because when I was trying to get myself in the mindset of believing that Snape killed DD on his orders, one good thing that came out of it is that I realised that yeah, I won't be too dissapointed. I mean, it indeed means for me the death of Albus Dumbledore character as I see him, but I can see Snape doing that and be in character. > > Pippin: > > But why can't it be both? Look at Harry, he's cool, noble and brave, > > *and* he needs to be pitied and forgiven. Alla: Why can't it be both? Sure it can be. I just do not want it to be both and do not think it will be both, but it is certainly a possibility. As to comparison with Harry, see beyond. On that I completely agree with LL. Lupinlore: > Hmmm. Pitied and forgiven for what? I'm not terribly sure I follow > the reasoning. Perhaps Harry needs to forgive himself due to various > things, but from whom else does he need forgiveness? Draco? I think > that's rather like the horse thief forgiving the posse. Marietta? > Ditto, and that's more of a Hermione issue, anyway. Cho? Snort, > chuckle, laugh. The Dursleys? Double snort, chuckle, laugh. Snape? > ROTFLMAO! Alla: Yes, Snape needs to forgive Harry. I mean, really how dare he was born to the couple he sold to Voldemort? How dare he looks like "his filfy father" indeed? Seriously I do agree with you. I see nobody at this point in the books from Harry needs forgiveness, except himself, literally. > Pippin: > Um, no. Disgraced Harry, watching from the sidelines because > he's been banned for life isn't a patch on QuidditchCaptain!Harry, > who is responsible for evaluating Ron's performance and could > throw him off the team if he's not good enough. > > Moreover, it's not Ron's story, it's Harry's, and I think it's really > Harry's growth that's important here. This is the first time that > Harry showed patience and understanding when a friend let him > down. I think it's important that the reader gets a bit frustrated > with Ron's lack of progress, because it points up the fact that > Harry didn't. Harry didn't get so angry that he gave up on Ron, > and that's very different from the way he treated Hermione in > PoA or Ron in GoF, or even Dumbledore in OOP. Alla: Okay, now **this** I totally buy. Congratulations Pippin, you convinced me why Ron needed to have Quidditch troubles again in HBP and I **was** seriously frustrated with it. Bravo :) From belviso at attglobal.net Wed May 16 16:35:20 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:35:20 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn vs Pureblood In-Reply-To: <4085737.1179328439078.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168828 > Magpie, quoting: > >"Harry was very relieved to find out that he wasn't miles behind everyone > >else. Lots of people had come from Muggle families and, like him, hadn't > >had any idea that they were witches and wizards. There was so much to learn > >that even people like Ron didn't have much of a head start." > > Bart: > And that is where she forces it in. She gives three basic aspects to casting magic: > 1) Knowledge > 2) Physical technique > 3) Natural ability. > > Now, had she shown #3 to be much more important than #1 and #2, then there would have been no inherent contradiction. But she does not. Magpie: I think she says that #1 and #2 are not tied to being raised Magical or the first 11 years of your life to the extent that someone who doesn't have that is statistically less likely to excel in magical studies. You say that the point is that it being wrong to judge individuals based on the statistic doesn't make the statistic false, but JKR, who creates the world, seems to be saying the statistic isn't true either. And also, more importantly, trying to demonstrate it at every level. To go back to the analogy you made earlier, you said: "Let me put it another way. Let's say you have two people, both genetically suited to be great athletes. One lives in a home where everybody plays sports, eats healthy food, and exercises. The other is strapped in a high chair, fed a diet of Moka Cola and Winkies (to avoid using trademarks), with the television always playing, until he or she's 11." But in this situation you're saying you've got two people who were genetically suited to be great athletes, but while one lived in a healthy lifestyle that therefore kept his body in better shape, the other had a lifestyle that caused the body to deteriorate. That puts the second person at a disadvantage. Muggleborns get their magic at the same time as kids in the Magical world, at which time they begin learning spells along with kids in the magical world. Some magically-raised kids may start learning about some magic sooner because they've got the knowledge around, but the knowledge is just as open to Muggle-borns after the age of 11, and not all magical kids do that. While being raised in a healthy way to begin with may make you more likely to continue to have healthy habits later in life, Muggle-borns seem more like people simply transplanted to another country at a fairly early age. The habits that would, imo, most likely influence where they are in school would, imo, have more to do with study habits and learning in general than with seeing other people do magic, which they themselves would not have been able to do at that time either. Is a person who never rode in a car until they were 11 destined to statistically have more of a chance of being a bad driver when they begin learning at 16 than a person who sat in cars from 1-11? As I said I can certainly see the logic of what you're saying, but since canon states upfront that you're wrong, and shows no signs of what you're claiming must happen, what relevance does it have to the story? If you're just saying you don't buy the book's premise that's something else--personally when I think of Muggle-borns the weirdest thing missing for me is that they don't bond together in any way or in any way show up as a recognizable group in the school the way that, for instance, the kids from the other schools do in GoF. It's interesting for me to ask why this doesn't happen or comment on maybe it not being so realistic, but I don't see how to apply it to what's actually going on. In this case what you call doublethink seems more like a difference in understanding of exactly what the experience of starting Hogwarts is like for first years. You assume that being raised in the Muggleworld has left them with flabbier magical muscles and an inability to really instinctually get it; Rowling seems to approach it more like a regular school. Muggle-borns have the same magical capacity, they have the same brain, they begin learning and doing at the same time. They don't have a difference in knowledge or physical technique. There are too many factors here that you can't really speak with authority on because we don't really understand it. > Bart > However, if you write a novel set in an alteration of the real world, then the reasons for the differences should be explained, or given as a mystery. Doing neither is just bad writing. > > Human abilities don't just suddenly appear. We start out with basic reflexes. Neurological feedback loops form, allowing us to develop skills from the reflexes, then skills from the skills. Block those intermediate skills from forming, and the person will have a lot more trouble forming the secondary skills (it is no coicidence that cultures in which infants are not able to crawl on the ground tend not to develop written languages). Magpie: But Rowling's kids seem to share the same neurological feedback loops. Magical kids grow up knowing that one day they will learn magic; Muggleborn kids don't. But neither kid does any magic until they reach the age when their magic appears. The first flexing of the muscles comes out automatically and doesn't even necessarily require instruction. That's when the neurological loops form. There may be certain things that Magical children did earlier, but there does not seem to be a crawling stage when it comes to spellwork. Bart: > And let's not forget the other direction. Somehow, muggleborn are every bit as good as WW-born kids. But what about squibs? Do squibs fit easily into the muggle world? If not (and the implication is that they do not), then this is showing another form of discrimination; that, somehow muggles are superior to the people in the WW; certainly more intelligent and adaptable. Magpie: Muggle-born Wizards are taken into instruction when their magic is ready to be exercised while Squibs seem stuck in the WW--though we do have at least one example of one who seems to do fine as a Muggle regardless. I imagine if Squibs had the same situation they might very well be equal to Muggles, perhaps like a person raised in just a rather old-fashioned environment for the first 11 years of their life, since they wouldn't have been doing magic regardless. Bart: > > My main point is that, in trying to inject analogies of real-world bigotry into her novels, JKR's own prejudice is showing. Magpie: I'm fine with that idea. My main point is just that in the scene with Slughorn, Slughorn who's being prejudiced by the rules of canon- -and I think by real world views as well, since as you say, even if statistically Muggle-borns were less likely to excel, that doesn't mean an individual who excels should not be Muggle-born. It seems like you're just saying that it's unrealistic for Muggle-borns to not really be statistically inferior Wizards. It doesn't seem like you had an issue to Harry's reaction to his conversation with Slughorn. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 16 16:35:10 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:35:10 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do spoilers really Message-ID: <11965351.1179333310505.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168829 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com >And I may have to bring a mace to Barnes and Noble when DH comes out in case >I see someone flipping to the back of the book. I will be VERY angry if it >is ruined for me. If my long-shot theory of the meaning of Deathly Hallows (calls from beyond the Veil) is correct, the first message I'm going to put here when it reopens (after appropriate spoiler warnings) will be, "I got it first! I got it first!" I'm taking adavntage of Amazon's deal (in your hands on first sales day or it's free). Bart From shmantzel at yahoo.com Wed May 16 16:52:18 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more int... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <62344.38699.qm@web56508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168830 > Dantzel wrote: > > And I may have to bring a mace to Barnes and Noble when DH comes out in case > I see someone flipping to the back of the book. I will be VERY angry if it > is ruined for me. > > > > Sandy responds: I will be reading the last chapter of DH as I am waiting in line to > pay for it, just like I did with HBP. I don't read out loud. > Sandy JW: Sandy, I hope you don't move your lips when you read. Otherwise, you might get coldcocked by a lipreader. Dantzel: Haha if you don't ruin it for me you are 100% safe. ;) And I'm in Idaho too. I think the longer I am on this list, the more bored I am by the arguments as to why Hermione sucks and why the Giant Squid's tentacles are offensive. (Please don't be offended by that) I'd rather hear theories. So bring on more theories! (Not spoilers) . --------------------------------- Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 16:57:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:57:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's and Ron's watches (Was: Harry can still contact Dumbledore ?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168831 JW wrote: > Maybe, maybe not... only time will tell, so to speak. Carol: LOL. > JW: > I recall the gift to Ron. Who was the giver? And how does it work? With its bizarre configuration, does it even tell time? And think of it - soooo unique, yet now there are two of them? Go back to DD's last scenes in the cave and on the tower. Any mention of his watch? Such an unusual instrument, such a detailed description, but no explanations... yet. I recall a very unusual gift HP once received, without much explanation - turned out to be very useful, and it turned out to be from DD... > > In any case, we DO KNOW that DD is an experienced time-traveler, from the instructions he gave Hermione in the hospital ward near the end of PoA... "three turns should do it." Carol responds: First, Ron's watch and Dumbledore's may be similar, but they're not the same watch. Ron's is presumably a wristwatch (why do wizards wear wristwatches? They're so--Muggle) and DD's, naturally, is a pocketwatch: "Dumbledore . . . took a golden watch from his pocket and examined it. nIt was a very odd watch. It had twelve hands but no numbers; instead, little planets were moving around the edge" (SS Am. ed. 12). DD uses it to tell time, apparently; he consults it, says "Hagrid's late," and puts it back in his pocket. Whether it has other powers is unclear, but it reminds me of Mrs. Weasley's clock, which has a hand for each member of the family, more than of a Time Turner. (Twelve planets? Maybe wizards count Pluto and the moon as planets and presciently knew about Eris, but that's still only eleven. The sun as a planet???) In contrast, Ron's watch, which is given to him by his parents for his seventeenth birthday, is "a heavy gold watch with odd symbols around the edge and tiny moving stars instead of hands" (HBP Am. ed. 390). Evidently, he knows how to tell time with it and doesn't think it's all that unusual though he likes it. All he says, is "See what Mum and Dad gave me? Blimey! i think I'll come of age next year too" (390). Harry, of course, is too obsessed with finding Draco on the map to give a thought to the watch so we're forced to look beyond the Harry filter and draw our own conclusions. Since JKR likes to sneak in references to objects that will be significant, or at least useful, later, there's a good chance that we'll see Ron's watch again. And, yet, we also hear--once--about DD's scar that's shaped like the London Underground and it never appears again, so maybe it's just a passing reference to show that the Weasleys considered Ron's birthday significant enough to buy him a gold watch. (Maybe he'll give his old one to Harry, who ruined his in the Second Task. Or does Harry have a new old one by now, meaning a "new" cast-off of Dudley's?) At any rate, it seems unlikely (to me) that Ron's parents would give him a time-traveling watch even if they could afford one. As for DD's remark indicating that he's time-traveled, all it really indicates is that he's familiar with the use of a Time Turner. One turn equals one hour. Not that difficult unless you try to use a Time-Turner calibrated in hours to go back a decade, or a Time-Turner calibrated in years (if such a thing exists) to go back to a date that isn't precisely the same date as the current date but in a different year. There's got to be a better way, and maybe the watches are that method, but we haven't yet seen any indication that they are. It's possible that DD has Time-Traveled, of course. Maybe that's what he's been doing during all his absences from Hogwarts. Then, again, if he returned at precisely the same time he left, no one would know his was gone. But could he have gone back in time to retrieve the memories from Hokey, Bob Ogden, Morfin, et al.? I don't think that's what happened, though, because he tried to use Morfin's memory to prove that Morfin was innocent, which suggests that he did so just before Morfin's death, at a time when DD was considerably younger and auburn-haired. A silver-bearded Dumbledore would have been regarded with great suspicion. At any rate, I'm inclined to think that DD not only suspected Tom Riddle of various murders at the time they were committed, he even suspected him of having multiple Horcruxes long before the diary confirmed his theory. So did DD time-travel to obtain the memories? I don't think so. Has he time-traveled for other reasons? Hard to say. Could he have been an invisible witness to his own death? Was that what he was doing when he sent Harry away to fetch the Invisibility Cloak that he'd already told Harry to keep with him at all times? I'd like to see him show up as a time-traveler to talk to Harry about Snape, to explain everything about the twoer scene and the argument in the forest that Harry and the readers need to know, and I can't think of a better way to do it. So I guess I'm hoping that DD had his watch with him on the day he died and chose *not* to use it to escape his own death on the tower. After all, he was in no shape to go on living without Snape's help. Carol, certain only that Ron's watch is not Dumbledore's From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 17:33:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:33:09 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn vs Pureblood In-Reply-To: <00ad01c79771$f203c360$6601a8c0@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168832 Magpie wrote: > Who's talking about statistics? I'm talking about the Harry Potter series of books (the author of which I can't imagine basing anything on statistics!) where I read this in chapter 8: > > "Harry was very relieved to find out that he wasn't miles behind everyone else. Lots of people had come from Muggle families and, like him, hadn't had any idea that they were witches and wizards. There was so much to learn that even people like Ron didn't have much of a head start." > > People like Ron--magically raised people--don't have much of a head start. And I've never seen any reason to think a Muggle-upbringing effected anybody's experience in class. I can see the logic in your claims that just being in a magical environment is an advantage but canon seems to not only deny it's enough to be significant, but make it sort of a prominent plotpoint that it's something bigots say, whether by claiming "they just don't know our ways" or that there's a problem in their blood. Of our three main characters Hermione's able to come to school ahead of everyone else despite being raised in the wrong environment (which isn't that odd--it's just pointing a wand and talking) and Harry, who's been raised in the same environment and doesn't apply himself as much to his studies, can also easily compete with other students. Bart: > > > > And it's environment, not pureblood; if you switched a muggleborn wizard and a pureblood wizard at birth, then the pureblood will be at the disadvantage. > Magpie: > But where does the text suggest that this environment causes Muggle-borns to not excel at magical studies? Is there anywhere in the books that actually describe the experience of being at the school that in any way shows a difference in how students Muggle-raised for the first 11 years handle classes? Because I'm not seeing Rowling writing a difference at all--to the point where I can't really imagine how it's supposed to work. Carol responds: I can see both sides in this discussion. I think that Magpie's position is the one we're supposed to take--that blood doesn't matter and prejudice against Muggleborns (which, I agree, Slughorn does show to a mild degree) is based on ignorance because magical ability (both talent and power) isn't dependent on the presence or absence of Muggle blood (or genes, if you prefer). Yet Hagrid expects Harry to be talented and powerful because his parents were, so it's not only Slytherin pureblood elitists who hold this view. And we do see that certain students start out with an advantage. Draco, for example, seems to know what a Bezoar is and already knows how to fly. (Harry's innate talent gives him a advantage that Hermione and even the pureblood Neville, whose grandmother has never permitted him to ride a broom, don't have. Logically, Harry would have to learn to fly, but JKR doesn't want her story to go that way.) As for magic being "just pointing a wand and talking," I disagree. If that's all there were to it, all of the kids would instantly succeed in performing any spell once they mastered the pronunciation and wrist movement. Part of it seems to be attitude--confidence and determination, both of which Hermione has and Ron, Harry, Neville et al. don't in SS/PS. Part seems to be awareness of theory and knowledge of a large number of spells (Hermione again). And then we have a student we don't actually see, eleven-year-old Severus Snape, coming to school knowing more "curses" (in the sense of hexes and jinxes) than most seventh years, surely only possible in someone with at least one magical parent who has had access to a wand before he received his Hogwarts letter. (Whose wand did he use, I wonder?) And we have the Weasley Twins, ostensibly performing, or attempting to perform, an Unbreakable Vow at age five. Surely, they didn't know what they were doing and could not have succeeded, but they did manage to get hold of a wand. If Fred (the meaner of the two, IMO) could accidentally turn Ron's teddy bear into a spider at age three, think what those two could do with a borrowed wand. They would hear spells performed around them all the time and would practice them in secret, just as Ginny practiced flying in secret, any time a family member left a wand lying unguarded. It seems unrealistic to me that Ron doesn't know any real spells, but he isn't as sneaky as the Twins and has only Charlie's old wand, presumably given to him when he got his Hogwarts letter, so he hasn't had much time to practice. Between his lack of interest in his schoolbooks, his having someone else's wand (perhaps already used when Charlie got it, considering that the unicorn hair is sticking out the top), and no self-confidence, he can't be considered a typical pureblood in terms of his initial performance in, say, Charms or Transfiguration. I agree with JW that, logically, purebloods and half-bloods would have an advantage over Muggleborns in terms of their overall knowledge of magic, even in families that enforced the no-underage magic rule, simply because they'd be familiar from birth with the names of spells, the accompanying wand movements, and, in some cases, with potion-making and flying, neither of which is apparently monitored by the MoM (as long as you're not seen flying by Muggles, that is). So, in terms of blood determining magical potential, the prejudice is shown to be nonsense from the beginning. But in terms of environment and Purebloods coming to Hogwarts as woefully ignorant of magic as non-Hermione Muggleborns, I agree with JW that the books are unrealistic. (Not that we expect realism in a fantasy, but we have a right to expect logic and internal consistency.) Carol, trying to strike a balance between the two views and seeing both sides From penhaligon at gmail.com Wed May 16 17:43:31 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:43:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: [SHIP] Minerva / Firenze In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <86EBBD2B8D9246F888904B568C49FAC6@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 168833 > JW: > The headmistress of Hogwarts is indeed strict and fair. And also > married. To a human. Panhandle: I'd be interested to know how we know that for a fact. Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 16 17:57:27 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:57:27 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's and Ron's watches (Was: Harry can still contact Dumbledore ?) Message-ID: <15745693.1179338247816.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168834 From: justcarol67 >Sent: May 16, 2007 12:57 PM >"Dumbledore . . . took a golden watch from his pocket and examined it. >nIt was a very odd watch. It had twelve hands but no numbers; instead, >little planets were moving around the edge" (SS Am. ed. 12). DD uses >it to tell time, apparently; he consults it, says "Hagrid's late," and >puts it back in his pocket. Whether it has other powers is unclear, >but it reminds me of Mrs. Weasley's clock, which has a hand for each >member of the family, more than of a Time Turner. (Twelve planets? >Maybe wizards count Pluto and the moon as planets and presciently knew >about Eris, but that's still only eleven. The sun as a planet???) Since there is a long tradition of astrological practice in Great Britain, it is not unreasonable to assume that JKR has more knowledge of astrology than the average American (who, at most, knows some "sun sign" astrology). The ancients saw that the stars were pretty much fixed in their positions in the sky. But there were several objects that, from the point of view of the Earth, appeared to move agaisnt the background of stars. These were called "planets", and included the Sun and the Moon. They also divided the sky into 12 equal sections, and called them the "signs", after a prominent constellation that appeared in each one. In Western Astrology (and therefore the one with which JKR is probably most familiar), the constellations were only labels; Aries started at the moment of the spring equinox (in other words, when the Sun was directly over the Equator); the rest of the signs went from there. Each sign was "ruled" by a planet. The fact that there were only 7 planets was a sore point. When Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were discovered, astrologers added them in, but that was still only 12. Ceres, Vesta, Chiron, and Black Moon Lilith are all candidates for the last couple of planets, although Eris is a major candidate, as well. One can guess in the WW, there are better telescopes than the Muggles have, and therefore they have discovered a few new planets. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 16 18:20:12 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:20:12 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Minerva / Firenze In-Reply-To: <86EBBD2B8D9246F888904B568C49FAC6@Home> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168835 > > JW: > > The headmistress of Hogwarts is indeed strict and fair. And also > > married. To a human. > > Panhandle: > I'd be interested to know how we know that for a fact. > > Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon JW: Yes, I suppose you would. Not a fact, but I discern various and sundry hints, not all of which are in the books. I put an 80% probability on it, which is among the highest I assign in my predictions/guesses. Who knows, I could be fooled - it hsppened once before, and on a prediction I put at over 90%. But don't be shocked if MM's husband shows up in DH. Time will tell. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 18:54:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:54:34 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168836 Lupinlore wrote: > Hmmm. Pitied and forgiven for what? Perhaps Harry needs to forgive himself due to various things, but from whom else does he need forgiveness? Snape? ROTFLMAO! Carol responds: Harry violated Snape's trust and privacy by entering the Pensieve. While you may think that Snape's words and actions are more harmful than that particular bit of irresponsibility, I'm afraid that not everyone shares your view. Nor is that the only instance. Harry has never showed the least bit of gratitude to Snape for saving his life in SS/PS, for example. Just think. If Snape hadn't taught Harry about Bezoars, Ron would be dead. If Snape hadn't taught Harry Expelliarmus, Harry would be dead. If Snape hadn't sent the Order to the MoM, six teenagers would be dead. Snape saves Harry from a Crucio in HBP. For some of us, those actions, and Snape's attempts to keep Harry out of trouble (away from the third-floor corridor in SS/PS, out of Hogsmeade in PoA), not to mention courageous actions such as revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge and returning to Voldemort on DD's orders in GoF, outweigh his sarcasm and point-docking and his very understandable detestation of James Potter. For you, they don't. But either way, it's opinion, not fact. I certainly won't laugh if the forgiveness is mutual in DH. It's essential, IMO, for Harry to forgive Snape, regardless of Snape's motives and loyalties. (I think we can rule out an ESE!Snape who's always been loyal to Voldemort.) It's not essential for Snape to forgive Harry, but DDM!Snape certainly needs to realize that Harry, like it or not, is the only Chosen One he's got, and he'd better help him if he wants Voldemort to win. And maybe, just maybe, he can learn that Harry isn't James. I'd like that, whether you would or not, and it would be no laughing matter. It might even be a poignant moment, worth reading over and over. > Lupinlore: > Or, perhaps, it might be insipid and preaching to the point of nausea, not to mention constituting approval of abusive behavior. Carol: That is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's not fact. Those of us who like Snape and don't consider his sarcasm and point-docking abusive or who view it as outweighed by his many attempts to save or protect Harry and friends are not condoning child abuse. I don't think anyone on this list approves of Umbridge's genuinely abusive detentions, for example. Nor would JKR's having Snape's loyalties and lifesaving outweigh his sarcasm and hatred of James (I also dislike James, sorry!) be an indication that she approves of child abuse. You're free to read it that way, but if I'm not mistaken, you're among the few people on the list who see it that way. Not even the adamantly anti-Snapers, to my knowledge, see JKR in this way. Lupinlore: Now, I think there are ways that such a storyline might be handled. But a "you were DDM! and all is forgiven no apologies necessary because I now understand that nice is not the same as good?" Well, then, I think, it would be time to feed the book into the old woodchipper and good riddance to it. Carol: Oh, I think it will be much more poignant than that, preceded by a lot of anger and shared misunderstanding (cf. Harry's attitude toward Sirius Black in PoA). And some of the information seems likely to come from another source, as seventeen-year-old, revenge-driven Harry isn't likely to listen to Snape without first having heard something to make him rethink his perception of events on the tower. But like it or not, forgiveness and mercy and redemption are Christian themes, and JKR is a Christian. I, for one, will be very disappointed if Harry lets something so petty as an undeserved zero in Potions stand in the way of his forgiveness of Snape. And I hope that Snape will not let Harry's rule-breaking and disrespect and "mediocrity" and descent from James prevent him from helping Harry defeat Voldemort. They'll never like each other, but surely they can arrive at an understanding. I only hope it doesn't take Snape's death to accomplish that. Please bear in mind that what you consider reprehensible and what others consider reprehensible is not necessarily identical or even similar. I certainly look forward to something like the ending that would land your books in the wood chipper. Carol, hoping that Lupinlore has stocked up on whatever fuel a wood chipper requires as I expect he's going to need it From belviso at attglobal.net Wed May 16 19:41:06 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 19:41:06 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168837 BetsyHP: > Only not. Because the very next year, Ron has the *exact* same > problem. Why? JKR forced the reader to go through pretty much the > exact same Quidditch adventure as the last book, only this one wasn't > as good. It struck me as sloppy writing, loss of control on JKR's > part. Why not let Gryffindor *lose* the big game last year if Ron > needed to keep the same problem into next year? Or why not allow Ron > to be a good Quidditch player and only have his feelings of sexual > inferiority to deal with in HBP? Magpie: Yes, even with the explanations, I feel like we're talking about white vs. off-white here in Ron's stories. > Betsy Hp: > I think what Marion was talking about, and this is definitely why the > series has soured for me at the moment, is that there should be a > happy medium between "after school special" and "the adventure > continues". Otherwise the children start to look a bit stupid and/or > stunted in some manner. Magpie: I don't know if I'm going to be able to put this into words but...I think sometimes the issue isn't that the kids don't change or learn, but that for some reason the books don't manage to inspire the kind of thought about this stuff that they should. And I don't know if that's necessarily the author's intention. Take for instance something I keep harping on in the other thread, with bigotry. Bigotry, if a fictional type, is important enough to the author that she made it the defining belief of the bad guys. Yet this hasn't led, that I can see, to a series that leads the characters or the readers to be more sensitized to bigotry. On the contrary. I can't think of all that many discussions about why the bad guys are bigoted etc., what it means in the world and all that. They're just bad because they're bigoted and that's disgusting and they must be destroyed. But then, neither do moments of possible bigotry get talked about on the good side much. Sometimes the bad guys are sort of a handy rug to sweep the whole subject under. I'm not here accusing everybody of not talking about what they should be talking about here, or of being insensitive to bigotry themselves or anything like that. I'm just saying that in my experience the books for some reason don't seem to inspire a lot of exploration of moral virtues, but rather a black and white view, often based on the characters. I don't see a lot is discussions as concepts of some of the things the books seem to lay out as bad. So the premise that LV is about bigotry *doesn't* lead to the idea that victory isn't just about wiping out the DEs but to the good side examining their own prejudices. Or the premise that LV is cruel and violent doesn't lead to the idea that the good side is necessarily going to examine their own possible cruelty and violence. It doesn't seem like a red flag when any character acts cruelly or bigoted. Does that make sense? What I'm saying, I guess, is that although the book seems to be about good vs. evil it doesn't really seem to always encourage the close examination of evil in the bad guys or the good guys or ourselves. That's the only way I think it would really be resonant anyway, you know? It's not just about Harry saying, "Last year I trusted Moody and he turned out to be a DE, so I'm going to withold judgment on what I really saw with Snape." -m From juli17 at aol.com Wed May 16 19:54:13 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 19:54:13 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168838 > > Lupinlore: > Now, I think there are ways that such a storyline might be handled. > But a "you were DDM! and all is forgiven no apologies necessary > because I now understand that nice is not the same as good?" Well, > then, I think, it would be time to feed the book into the old > woodchipper and good riddance to it. > Julie: The problem with this stance (it is unacceptable for Harry to forgive Snape unless Snape apologizes or is appropriately punished for his specific crimes, if I'm reading correctly) is that forgiving someone is a *separate* issue from the forgiven's remorse or punishment. Certainly they can occur together, but it is not required, because forgiveness is actually more about the forgiver than the forgiven. This is the Christian concept of forgiveness (as well as that of other religions and world views), and JKR is influenced by her Christian upbringing and values. So it is important FOR HARRY that he forgive Snape, whether or not Snape ever apologizes for his treatment of Harry as a student or is ever punished in a clear and specific manner for said treatment. That forgiveness cleanses Harry of his unproductive anger and hatred, which aren't hurting Snape in any way at the moment, but are eating away at HARRY. The books are all about Harry and his well-being after all, not Snape ;-) As for punishment, it can be specific to fit the crime (as you desire) or it can be viewed in a more general manner. I.e., if Snape turns out to be DDM and has sacrificed much of his life and his future (should he die) to the cause of defeating Voldemort and protecting Harry until such time as he can accomplish that defeat, some fans (including me) would see that as sufficient atonement for his crimes, both large and small. (I do see Snape's "crimes" as a teacher as quite small, and not in any way criminal abuse, and you see them as much larger I know, so perhaps that perception also feeds into the varying degrees of punishment we desire.) Atonement can also be an apology, one of action rather than of words. Words can be cheap after all. (Though I admit for someone like Snape, action is probably far easier for him than words!) Julie From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Wed May 16 19:54:53 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 19:54:53 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168839 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > Harry violated Snape's trust and privacy by entering the Pensieve. > While you may think that Snape's words and actions are more harmful > than that particular bit of irresponsibility, I'm afraid that not > everyone shares your view. Quick_Silver: But should Harry really apologize for his little dive into Snape's memories? I mean leaving aside the plot and character reasons for that chapter Harry learns and sees some very important lessons from those memories. It casts doubt on his idolization of his father and Sirius for the first time and shows that Snape wasn't lying when he said that James was arrogant. It hinted that there may have been something between Snape and Lily and further highlighted Lupin's weakness and the depravity of Peter. Harry loses a great deal by terminating his lessons with Snape but if one of the keys to beating Voldemort is overcoming his emotions about Snape then it may be worth the pain and loss. In many ways I view that scene like Harry finding out that Snape was the spy that heard the prophecy Dumbledore and Snape were right to keep the information from Harry but I think in the long run it's better for Harry and Harry's relationship with Snape if Harry knows. I think that Harry should take responsibility for the Pensieve dive but apologize? How can you be sorry about doing something that helped you reconcile with Snape to begin with? Quick_Silver From fiziwig at yahoo.com Wed May 16 19:16:48 2007 From: fiziwig at yahoo.com (Gary) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 19:16:48 -0000 Subject: What did Dumbledore have up his sleeve? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168840 This is such an obvious theory that I was sure somebody must have brought it up before, however, while searching various key words in the 160,000 plus message history turned up various facts that bear on the theory, I found no post that put the pieces together in this way. Simply put, we were shown DD's withered (dead?) hand, but how extensive was the damage? How far up his sleeve did it extend? And more importantly, was the damage still spreading? If the spread of the damage could be slowed but not stopped entirely, DD would be facing a terminal prognosis; an irrevocable death sentence. Given that possibility then DD's death wasn't so much "murder" as "assisted suicide" or "euthanasia". Perhaps, knowing that, no matter what, he must soon die, he wanted his death to serve some higher purpose, namely cementing Snape's position with LV, making Snape that much more valuable to the Order. Given the choice of watching DD die a slow and painful death or "putting him out of his misery", the choice for Snape, although undoubtedly difficult, might have been an ultimate act of mercy performed for a respected friend. For this "higher purpose" to be served, the most important element would be that LV himself not know that DD's prognosis was terminal, and thus that nobody but Snape be privy to that fact. That we (or Harry) were not shown this prognosis would, therefore, be necessary. --gary From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 16 20:33:05 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:33:05 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Minerva / Firenze In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168841 > JW: > The headmistress of Hogwarts is indeed strict and fair. And > also married. To a human. > I think you have a better shot at a relationship between Pomona > Sprout and a mandrake. Goddlefrood: As pointed out and later admitted by yourself Minerva is not known to be married. Pomona and a Mandrake is hardly likely as the Blast Ended Skrewts got there first. I have now started wondering, however, if the Minerva / Firenze ship might not be almost as valid as the Harry / Hermione one :-? Thank you for giving some food for thought :-|, hay was it? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 20:48:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:48:09 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168842 Carol earlier: > > Harry violated Snape's trust and privacy by entering the Pensieve. > > While you may think that Snape's words and actions are more harmful than that particular bit of irresponsibility, I'm afraid that not everyone shares your view. > > > Quick_Silver: > But should Harry really apologize for his little dive into Snape's > memories? > > I mean leaving aside the plot and character reasons for that chapter > Harry learns and sees some very important lessons from those > memories. It casts doubt on his idolization of his father and Sirius > for the first time and shows that Snape wasn't lying when he said > that James was arrogant. It hinted that there may have been something between Snape and Lily and further highlighted Lupin's weakness and the depravity of Peter. > > In many ways I view that scene like Harry finding out that Snape was > the spy that heard the prophecy Dumbledore and Snape were right to > keep the information from Harry but I think in the long run it's > better for Harry and Harry's relationship with Snape if Harry knows. > > I think that Harry should take responsibility for the Pensieve dive > but apologize? How can you be sorry about doing something that helped you reconcile with Snape to begin with? Carol responds: That's not what I meant, exactly. Lupinlore was implying that Harry had never done anything that Snape needed to forgive, and I was citing that incident as an example. IMO, Harry was wrong to invade Snape's privacy, whether or not good came out of wrongdoing (as it often does in the books, unintended consequences being a recurring motif). Unintended consequences don't make an action right or wrong, any more than Wormtails' escape makes it wrong for Harry to have prevented his murder. I agree that, in the long run, it was good *for Harry* to enter the Pensieve and to see his father as Snape sees him. That doesn't make the experience any less painful for Snape, or make Harry's intrusion enter a memory specifically removed from Snape's head any less a violation of Snape's privacy.) I wasn't suggesting that Harry apologize to Snape. It's too late for that, in any case. I'm just saying that Snape has almost as much to forgive Harry for--looking only at the teacher/student relationship and not at Snape's DE past or the eavesdropping or the killing of Dumbledore) as Harry has to forgive Snape for. And all of the sarcasm and point-docking pales, IMO, in comparison with the many times that Snape has risked his life for Dumbledore or protected Harry from harm or death. BTW, I don't know why my fingers keep mixing up Dumbledore and Voldemort when they type. Obviously, when I wrote, "DDM!Snape certainly needs to realize that Harry, like it or not, is the only Chosen One he's got, and he'd better help him if he wants Voldemort to win," I meant something like "if he wants Dumbledore's side to win" or "if he wants Voldemort to be defeated." Needless to say, DDM!Snape doesn't want Voldemort to win. Anyway, I agree with Julie that Harry must forgive Snape for *Harry's* sake and because a desire for revenge is antithetical to the Love magic required to defeat Voldemort. I also think that Snape will contribute in some way to that defeat, so Snape and Harry have to come to some sort of mutual understanding (with Harry, at least, forgiving Snape and understanding how hard he's tried to undo his past mistakes relating to the Prophecy) if Harry is to accept Snape's help. Remember the satisfaction Snape seemed to feel in OoP when Harry realized that "finding out what the Dark Lord is telling his Death Eaters" is Snape's job (or part of it)? I think that's all Snape wants from Harry--recognition of his (Snape's) role in fighting the Dark Lord and willingness to accept his help. And Snape has to accept Harry, "mediocre" and rule-breaking and disrespectful as he may be, as the Chosen One, the WW's only hope. Snape can help Harry if Harry will let him, but he can't defeat Voldemort himself. ("Yes, Snape. That's my job.") Carol, who was also pointing out exactly how much Harry owes to Snape (Bezoars, Expelliarmus, his very life) and hoping that Harry will realize all that before it's too late From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 16 20:45:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What did Dumbledore have up his sleeve? Message-ID: <26549769.1179348347691.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168843 From: Gary >Simply put, we were shown DD's withered (dead?) hand, but how >extensive was the damage? How far up his sleeve did it extend? And >more importantly, was the damage still spreading? If the spread of the >damage could be slowed but not stopped entirely, DD would be facing a >terminal prognosis; an irrevocable death sentence. Given that >possibility then DD's death wasn't so much "murder" as "assisted >suicide" or "euthanasia". Perhaps, knowing that, no matter what, he >must soon die, he wanted his death to serve some higher purpose, >namely cementing Snape's position with LV, making Snape that much more >valuable to the Order. Given the choice of watching DD die a slow and >painful death or "putting him out of his misery", the choice for >Snape, although undoubtedly difficult, might have been an ultimate act >of mercy performed for a respected friend. Bart: It has been mentioned. Look for the phrase "already dead". It is the key to a lot of DDM!Snape theories; that the reason why it was OK for Snape to kill Dumbledore was because Dumbledore was already on the verge of death, and that Snape was just "pulling the plug". And, as long as it's been mentioned, let me point out that, if Dumbledore is the most powerful wizard in the world, and Voldy is #2, then, at least the way Snape has been depicted, he is at least in the running for #3. However, he has an additional advantage: he's not attached to Harry. He's kind of the equivalent to the powerful henchman of the bad guy in James Bond films who shows up to give Bond a last battle after the major baddie has been defeated; it may even be HARDER for Harry to defeat Snape than it will be to defeat Voldemort. And Harry vs. Snape may actually overshadow Harry vs. Voldemort. UNLESS... ...Snape is in fact still with the OOP, under very deep cover. He is not in a position to be the hero, but he IS in a position to be a surprise ally; perhaps sacrificing himself to give Harry the one opportunity to kill Voldy, assuming that Harry can take advantage of it. Between Harry must defeat Snape as well as Voldy, and Snape managing to give Harry that extra bit of an edge he needs, at great personal sacrifice, the latter is MUCH more dramatic. Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 20:53:15 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:53:15 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168844 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Because the very next year, Ron has the *exact* same problem. > >>Pippin: > > Except it's not the *exact* same problem... > >>Betsy Hp: > > Except as far as Ron's concerned it *is* the exact same > > problem... > >>Pippin: > Um, no. Disgraced Harry, watching from the sidelines because > he's been banned for life isn't a patch on QuidditchCaptain!Harry, > who is responsible for evaluating Ron's performance and could > throw him off the team if he's not good enough. Betsy Hp: Um, yes. (Sorry, couldn't resist keeping to pattern. ) Do you have any canon that shows this is how Ron was feeling? Because IMO, I'd think having your quidditch mad friend, frustrated on the side lines and watching your every move, a bit more intimidating than having your best bud captain you. Especially since as far as Ron's concerned he won his spot on the team fair and square in HBP (as compared to OotP). > >>Pippin: > Moreover, it's not Ron's story, it's Harry's, and I think it's > really Harry's growth that's important here. This is the first time > that Harry showed patience and understanding when a friend let him > down. Betsy Hp: I get that it's Harry's story. I just think JKR sacrificed Ron's story, made a sloppy writing choice, in order to make telling Harry's story a bit easier on her. > >>Pippin: > I think it's important that the reader gets a bit frustrated > with Ron's lack of progress, because it points up the fact that > Harry didn't. > Betsy Hp: Only I wasn't frustrated with Ron. I was (and am) frustrated with JKR. > >>Pippin: > There's a tension in the story itself between Harry seeing > his role models as wish-fulfillment figures who can do the > impossible and make it look easy (James, Dumbledore) > and the not yet articulated realization that if their > attainments were truly the result of perfection, they would > be forever beyond Harry's reach. Betsy Hp: I agree that Harry has a tendency to think people are either born good or born bad. And since he's very good at excusing those he likes if given half the chance, it's a tendency that's not often shaken. I do expect that to change, yes. > >>Pippin: > JKR's ultimate aim, I would venture, is not to transform > her characters. It's to transform *us*, or at least to make > us see that transformation is not beyond *our* reach. > Betsy Hp: I, wait, what? *I* don't tend to think people are born either good or bad. *I* don't live in the shadow of my family. *I* have never branded a schoolmate's face because she crossed me. So what exactly am I supposed to be transforming into? And who the heck does JKR think she is that she feels she can tell me how to fix my life? I don't see no halo on her. > >>Pippin: > I doubt it matters to her how much we dislike the characters > as they are in Book Six as long as we don't get so alienated > that we don't read Book Seven. > Betsy Hp: I snipped the rest of your post, but I do agree with it. Our good guys all have their shadows that they need to grow beyond. I guess, my frustration and worry comes about because I'm not confident that JKR is juggling the various issues she's raising all that well. (Hopefully DH will show that I've worried for nothing.) > >>Magpie: > I don't know if I'm going to be able to put this into words but...I > think sometimes the issue isn't that the kids don't change or learn, > but that for some reason the books don't manage to inspire the kind > of thought about this stuff that they should. And I don't know if > that's necessarily the author's intention. Betsy Hp: Yes, yes, yes! I think this is *exactly* the problem I'm having! It's so very hard to tell if JKR really means for some of the questionable stuff as per me to actually *be* questionable. > >>Magpie: > > I don't see a lot is discussions as concepts of some of the things > the books seem to lay out as bad. > > What I'm saying, I guess, is that although the book seems to be > about good vs. evil it doesn't really seem to always encourage the > close examination of evil in the bad guys or the good guys or > ourselves. > Betsy Hp: Exactly! For example, Hagrid attacking Dudley because Vernon pissed him off. It's never discussed within the books. Harry isn't at all uncomfortable about it, Hagrid isn't all that embarrassed by it. When Lucius attacks Ginny because he's angry at Arthur, there's no in- page link made back to Hagrid's behavior. So would a child even see Hagrid's behavior as linked to Lucius's? Is it something I caught personally, but that JKR herself never noticed? Or with Fake!Moody torturing Draco. It's never revisited. None of the Trio take a moment after the big reveal to think that maybe that particular scene should have been a clue and maybe they let their personal feelings for Draco taint their interpertation of Fake! Moody's behavior. So was JKR actually okay with it? Should the reader be okay with it? I mean, we have had big discussions about the above (and more ) on this list, and even folks I disagree with are engaging the issues. So what I see as pretty big ethical issues are being wrestled with. But we're adults. Slightly obsessive adults for that matter. Would a kid just reading these books on a rainy day even notice these issues? Or would the questionable behavior on the part of the "good guys" just slide in under their radar? I can say that at this point this is not a series I'd specifically recommend for children. For the horribly icky reason that I'm not sure they're all that moral. (I know! I feel like I'm channeling Umbridge here. Not a great feeling. ) I mean, I'm not going to *discourage* someone from buying these books for their kids, but I am pretty uncomfortable with the message JKR may ultimately be putting forth, purposefully or not. And I honestly hate that. Because she's obviously a good writer, with an ability to strike a chord in children. I am just not all that cool with the resulting resonance. Betsy Hp (really, really hoping DH proves her a fussy old worry-wart) From juli17 at aol.com Wed May 16 20:40:46 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:40:46 -0400 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: <1179345750.1684.7343.m44@yahoogroups.com> References: <1179345750.1684.7343.m44@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C966119D622C81-1EF4-6D26@FWM-D44.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168845 > Carol responds: > Harry violated Snape's trust and privacy by entering the Pensieve. > While you may think that Snape's words and actions are more harmful > than that particular bit of irresponsibility, I'm afraid that not > everyone shares your view. Quick_Silver: But should Harry really apologize for his little dive into Snape's memories? I mean leaving aside the plot and character reasons for that chapter Harry learns and sees some very important lessons from those memories. It casts doubt on his idolization of his father and Sirius for the first time and shows that Snape wasn't lying when he said that James was arrogant. It hinted that there may have been something between Snape and Lily and further highlighted Lupin's weakness and the depravity of Peter. Harry loses a great deal by terminating his lessons with Snape but if one of the keys to beating Voldemort is overcoming his emotions about Snape then it may be worth the pain and loss. In many ways I view that scene like Harry finding out that Snape was the spy that heard the prophecy?Dumbledore and Snape were right to keep the information from Harry but I think in the long run it's better for Harry and Harry's relationship with Snape if Harry knows. I think that Harry should take responsibility for the Pensieve dive but apologize? How can you be sorry about doing something that helped you reconcile with Snape to begin with? Julie: I don't expect nor would want to see a series of direct apologies between Snape and Harry for specific actions. "I apologize for being so mean to you in class, Potter." "And I apologize for snooping in your Pensieve memories, Snape." "And I apologize for making snide remarks about your father, Potter." "And I apologize for lying about the--" You get the picture. It would be ridiculous! What I figure may happen is not mutual apologies but mutual acknowledgements. For instance, "Apparently you're not an exact carbon copy of your father, Potter. There is much of your mother in you." Or, "I suppose Dumbledore was right to trust you, Snape." In other words, reluctant acknowledgement that they now see and accept the truth about each other. That they aren't Harry the carbon copy of James and Snape the evil DE murderer that each was determined to see through their preconceptions and biases. Julie, still believing actions speak louder than words when it comes to apologizing/atoning (though either requires sincerity of course). ________________________________________________________________________ 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 kamilaa at gmail.com Wed May 16 21:38:09 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:38:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: References: <435292.81011.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168846 If you are looking for evidence that JKR didn't want H/Hr for her story, I suggest that you don't seek it within the first five books of canon. It isn't there, in my opinion...in fact, I'd say she was exploring H/Hr up through OoTP (particularly in Book 5)...which is partly why I was so disappointed with HBP and it's forced rehabilitation/re-packaging of Ginny as a suitable match for Harry. Of course, there's JKR's interviews to fall back upon, but it's one thing to say H/Hr is "delusional," and quite another to convincingly show my opinions to be "delusional" within the sustained narrative. Actually, though I don't care much if anything about the relationships in the books, this is a good example of how different readers see very different things. I saw Harry and Ginny from book one. I never even had a fleeting thought that JKR could be going toward a Harry Hermione ship. Books four and five really sealed that for me, especially book five. The Harry and Hermione dynamic always felt more like sister and brother to me, never the least bit more than that and good friends. Hermione is too much of a nag, and Harry resents it at times, and just blows it off at others, or ignores her. She's too darned interfering for him too,, as in the Firebolt incident in book three. As for Ginny's supposed transformation, I never saw a sudden change in her. I guessed about her personality in her first scene in book one and everything else throughout all the books only confirmed it to me. It's fascinating, how we all read the same books and how we each so strongly get different things out of it. It is, isn't it? I always saw the R/Hr and H/G dynamic, and never saw a whisper of H/Hr in the books (although occasionally it slipped into the media who dares not speak its name, and therefore does not count)- and I'd like to think I read as throughly as anyone else. As well, I too never really saw a major transformation, or personality transplant, in Ginny, rather I just saw a fairly pushy young girl all along (who had a stupid crush on Harry, almost as stupid as the one Hermione had at the same age on Lockhart), one who Ron tried to push at Harry fairly early on (his breakup with Cho comes to mind, when Ron told him he might want to look at more stable girls, complete with a look that Harry noticed, but didn't process the way Ron probably intended). And I don't remember ever thinking that R/Hr would not be the couple de jour; it seems to me that they were always quite obviously the way the story would go. For a bit I thought they'd be it, the only real romance in the books, that Harry would only date occasionally, or possibly not at all, given the disaster that was Cho, but then twigged to Ginny being the girl Jo had in mind for him - not that Harry noticed at the time. So, yeah, it is interesting how different people can read the same text and get totally different things from it. -- Kamil --> who actually prefers H/Hr (and Draco/Ginny or G/Hr) in her fanfic, but who totally recognizes that canon will never ever go there, and is quite good with that. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 16 22:01:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 22:01:59 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn vs Pureblood In-Reply-To: <4085737.1179328439078.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168847 > > Bart > However, if you write a novel set in an alteration of the real world, then the reasons for the differences should be explained, or given as a mystery. Doing neither is just bad writing. > > Human abilities don't just suddenly appear. We start out with basic reflexes. Neurological feedback loops form, allowing us to develop skills from the reflexes, then skills from the skills. > JKR COULD have come up with some sort of explanation, the equalizer between muggleborns and purebloods. Pippin: But she does or at least she shows it. Everybody gets their first wand when they turn eleven, and up to that time they're not capable of controlled magic even if they get their hands on a wand earlier. Those few prodigies who are the exceptions seem to be largely self-taught anyway, since magical parents are strongly discouraged from allowing their children to experiment. Pippin From lealess at yahoo.com Wed May 16 22:43:06 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 22:43:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168848 Going a bit off-topic here to recommend an essay proposing that Snape and Dumbledore switched bodies before the cave adventure. I can't really add much to what the author of the essay says. It's here: http://community.livejournal.com/unplottables/48514.html I know this theory has been brought up before, but the way the author goes through it is quite convincing. Besides the remarks in the cave and Dumbledore's often-uncharacteristic sharpness, the theory explains many things: the fact that Dumbledore knew Snape was asleep in his office; the intense look between Snape and Dumbledore, and Snape's subsequent quick action; the fury of Snape at being called a coward. It also has the "mistaken identity" element, as well as a re-use of possession of another's body, as Voldemort did on at least one occasion, and maybe two if there was more to Quirrell than just sitting on the DADA teacher's head. Anyway, I hope a recommendation without much elaboration is OK. lealess From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 16 23:07:52 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 23:07:52 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168849 > > > Pippin: > > > But why can't it be both? Look at Harry, he's cool, noble and > brave, *and* he needs to be pitied and forgiven. > > > Alla: > > Why can't it be both? Sure it can be. I just do not want it to be > both and do not think it will be both, but it is certainly a > possibility. As to comparison with Harry, see beyond. On that I > completely agree with LL. > I see nobody at this point in the > books from Harry needs forgiveness, except himself, literally. Pippin: Then he'll need forgiveness for being perfect :) But being pure of heart hasn't always stopped Harry from being lazy, willfully ignorant or in denial. His friends have had to forgive him for those things numerous times and I suppose they'll be called on to do it again. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 16 23:31:02 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 23:31:02 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168850 > > > > Pippin: > > > > But why can't it be both? Look at Harry, he's cool, noble and > > brave, *and* he needs to be pitied and forgiven. > > > > > > Alla: > > > > Why can't it be both? Sure it can be. I just do not want it to be > > both and do not think it will be both, but it is certainly a > > possibility. As to comparison with Harry, see beyond. On that I > > completely agree with LL. > > > I see nobody at this point in the > > books from Harry needs forgiveness, except himself, literally. > > Pippin: > Then he'll need forgiveness for being perfect :) > > But being pure of heart hasn't always stopped Harry from being lazy, > willfully ignorant or in denial. His friends have had to forgive him for > those things numerous times and I suppose they'll be called on to do > it again. > Alla: Okay then. Seriously though, I thought we were talking about **big** stuff, something like Harry **may** consider forgiven Snape for. Do I think that there is anything even close in Harry's life now that he needs to be forgiven for from anybody? Nope, sorry, not even close. IMO obviously. But if you were talking about Harry's everyday interactions with his friends, sure, he was rude to them quite a few times. Just as they were rude and inconsiderate to him quite a few times in my opinion. Famous GOF fight - I thought Ron was the biggest jerk to Harry, Harry forgave him on the spot. Just as in OOP I am sure Ron and Hermione forgave Harry for running his mouth at him. This is what friends do, IMO, forgive each other. Your original analogy was though that just as Snape needs to be forgiven, Harry does, was it not? So, I still do not buy it, despite Harry being rude to his friends in his everyday interactions several times. Oh, and Harry perfect? I guess I have to say it again. He is not perfect IMO, I am very much with JKR on this one - didn't she say something like that he is trying to do right thing, but it does not always work out? So, I see Harry having quite a few flaws, while being rather decent kid all together, but do I think that his flaws arise anywhere near to Snape's flaws? Not, not for me, not even close, because I see Snape right now as child abuser, traitor and murderer. I sincerely doubt that Harry will ever be any such thing, even if he kills Voldemort in his sleep, which I doubt he will. JMO, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu May 17 00:16:19 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 00:16:19 -0000 Subject: Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD (was: Dumbledore's Past?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168851 Celia: > I have my own wacko idea for what happened with the green goo, > which I will describe below, but I find I end up with the same > issue you state above- how does this apply to the larger story > enough that JKR would bother?? But then again, theorizing for the > sake of theorizing is its own fun, right? Jen: I agree since it's our last chance for the big theories. :) > Celia: > Like many of us, I am just sure that somehow the potion, the cave, > the locket, and Regulus are all tied together somehow. I hadn't > thought about Reggie being one of the kids, but it seems unlikely > to me due to his having a family and probably not being a resident > at Tom's orphanage for any amount of time. Jen: Just for the sake of clarity and not because I think the theory will happen, the idea was RAB was one of the kids in the cave, Amy Benson specifically, and she went on to use a differnt name when adopted and realized she was magical (someone Harry knows now). Problems abound though, most notably she would need to be a female of a certain age and McGonagall would be the most likely for an 'aha' moment. The idea McG. was hiding something from Dumbledore doesn't work all that well, for me anyway. Celia: > So, let's travel back in time... Knowing he will likely die, Reggie goes to the cave, drinks the > potion, steals the horcrux, and, feeling himself fading, writes the > RAB note. BUT, as a last chance he dashes off to the one potions > expert in his life- his pal Severus. Snape realizes what has > poisoned him and knows he cannot save Reggie from his deadly > potion. But, being savvy and self-interested Snape, he realizes he > can use Reggie's death to his own advantage. He AKs the > dying "traitor" Regulus (we know he was killed by someone, but not > LV), thus sealing his reputation as an extremely fanatical and > loyal DE (sound familiar?) able to regain LVs trust even in > unlikely circumstances. Jen: Man, Snape is getting to use AKs left and right now! He can't save Regulus because it's too late or he hasn't invented an antidote yet? Maybe this incident caused him to consider the need for an antidote on the outside chance he, Snape, ever had to drink the green goo. Leading to why Dumbledore knows he can ask for Snape after he drinks the potion. Celia: > Internally shaken by what he has to do, the young Snape is now > primed to turn spy for DD- he has murdered his friend, and the > regret over that action may be a part of DD's trust in him. Jen: I suppose Snape could have more than one regret. Although killing his friend, even if dying, seems like it would be a greater remorse than discovering LV was targeting the Potters, you know? Even if Snape loved Lily she wasn't actually his friend or wife or close to him in any way when she is targeted. A bit of an obsession there, maybe. ;) Or his remorse is for some other reason than Lily. Celia: > And, as I said in a previous post, Snape's Unbreakable Vow might > have helped lead DD to the potion-after all, in my opinion the UV > is actively working to have Snape kill DD at that point, so it > forces Snape's hand with the potion- he kills DD without even > meaning to. Plus I like the parallel stories for Snape- first > Reggie, then DD, same scenario, same result. Jen: Oh, the parting of the ways here. I'd like to think the Unbreakable Vow is some type of dark magic that forces the hand of the vowee since those ropes of fire are a wonderful imagery for the idea. When it comes down to it though, I have to think the choice theme wins out and Snape is bound only by dying if he breaks the Vow. Celia: > As I said before, this concept owes a lot to other posters, > particularly Pippin and Carol and many who I cannot name- bad me. > And it makes me happy to think about. However, it has That Problem > does this move the main plot forward enough to be viable? Or, more > likely, is this just part of my wish fulfillment for a 7,000 page > novel entitled "The Marauder Years: All the Backstory You Ever > Wanted." Jen: I want that book! The theory moves the story along in the sense a tie between Snape and Regulus might provide something info Harry doesn't know yet about the real locket. There's an event foreshadowing (or foreshadowing in backstory?!) the tower. It may also explain how/why Snape invented an antidote and that's what caused Dumbledore to think he can drink the potion and still live if he makes it back to Severus in time. Celia: > The question I have about this theory then is based on what he > says as he drinks the potion, I wonder why young Dumbledore blames > himself for his parents' deaths? What a sad idea. Hmmm Jen: Yeah, that doesn't fit so well, does it? Unless there's some direct tie-in of DD being forced to do something to his own parents. Ugh. In reading the words again I was struck by the sequence: At first Dumbledore seems to be talking to Harry about the potion, "I don't want...don't make me...let me go." Even "make it stop" could be directed at Harry making him drink. Then there's a transition here, "It's all my fault, all my fault...please make it stop, I know I did wrong, oh, please make it stop and I'll never, never again..." Next the words stop making sense in reference to the potion and definitely seem to be referring to a different event in which one person is watching other persons being hurt: "Don't hurt them, don't hurt them, please, please it's my fault, hurt me instead..." Finally the person in question, at least I think this refers to a person and an actual event, makes an offer: "...not that, not that, I'll do anything...." and then last is "KILL ME" and maybe there is a killing. I'm not sure this works for me as Snape's internal dialogue after all. It's the part about 'not that, not that, I'll do anything' because that reads like an actual offer to me. A person wouldn't say that inside his head unless praying and prayer to some higher being isn't part of Potterverse. It doesn't work for it to be Lily's memory, another thought I had, because James is already dead so there's no 'them' for, 'don't hurt them'. I'm pretty sure it's an event we don't know about yet, making me think again it's one of DD's own memories. Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 00:28:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 00:28:36 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168852 Alla: > Famous GOF fight - I thought Ron was the biggest jerk to Harry, > Harry forgave him on the spot. Alla: Oooooo, hate to waste a post, but I sure do not want to get "No, Harry did not forgive him right away" responses. Meant to write that Harry forgave him on the spot when Ron came to apologize. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu May 17 01:56:02 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 01:56:02 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168853 > phoenixgod2000 > > 1. Hermione had to explain it because there was no evidence in the > book, even for her family members and not just Harry's filter. > Ken: And what does this prove? It proves that Ginny is sneakier than anyone suspects. > phoenixgod2000 > > 2. Learning how to play a team sport solo is pretty much impossible. > Even for a prodigy. ... For Ginny to be so awesomely wonderful with > such a minimal amount of practice is just plain silly. > Ken: How much teamwork does it take to play seeker? Virtually none. The seeker is pretty much a free agent. Harry almost loses that big match against Slytherin when he decides to do some blocking for the team and allows Draco to get a free shot at the snitch. The seeker does his/her job best by ignoring the team and concentrating on the other seeker and the snitch. > phoenixgod2000 > > 3. Even if Ginny could get so wonderful with only a little bit of > practice, I still can't buy it. Ginny was six when she supposedly > started taking brooms. So her mother, overprotective Ogress mother > bear Molly 'fricken' Weasley never, ever ... > Ken: You seem to have the impression that Molly is all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful. There are a lot of things going on under her nose all the time, she can't be any of those things. With George and Fred as mentors and as constant lightning rods to draw most of Molly's attention I can well believe that little Ginny could be the stealthiest of the lot. The wonder is that Molly has *any* attention to devote to her youngest four after she finishes gushing over the oldest three. You just don't seem to want to believe Ginny can play Quidditch. You as the reader are the final judge of that but it seems to me that you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Harry had never heard of Quidditch at all and thought witches flying on brooms were just folk tales until a few months before his first go on a broom. His very first go on that broom was enough to convince his head of house who is reputed to be a knowledgeable Quidditch fan that he had the talent. A very minimal practice session with the team captain was enough to confirm this. Harry goes 0-60 in one second, Ginny who has lived in the WW culture her entire life does it in a more plausible 4 seconds. Ginny's prowess is far more likely, far more believable, than Harry's. Ken From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 01:59:20 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 01:59:20 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: <8C966119D622C81-1EF4-6D26@FWM-D44.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168854 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > What I figure may happen is not mutual apologies but mutual > acknowledgements. For instance, "Apparently you're not an exact > carbon copy of your father, Potter. There is much of your mother > in you." Or, "I suppose Dumbledore was right to trust you, Snape." > In other words, reluctant acknowledgement that they now see and > accept the truth about each other. That they aren't Harry the > carbon copy of James and Snape the evil DE murderer that each > was determined to see through their preconceptions and biases. > What I think may be more realistic is Harry recognizing Snape's worth but Snape refusing to recognize Harry's. Harry is a far more emotionally evolved person than Snape is. Snape is still nursing old grudges and old hurts from twenty years previous, committed by men who are now dead. I don't think he's capable of evolving past that, at least with regard to Harry. I don't think Snape will be "punished" by Rowling or anyone else because I think it's far more effective to show that the worst punishment for Severus Snape is remaining Severus Snape. From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu May 17 02:37:58 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 22:37:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD (was: Dumbledore's Past?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0705161937w4ef97b9atebbc7b42169b4c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168855 Celia now: I have my own wacko idea for what happened with the green goo, which I will describe below, but I find I end up with the same issue you state above- how does this apply to the larger story enough that JKR would bother?? But then again, theorizing for the sake of theorizing is its own fun, right? Debbie: Oh, yes, wild theorising. The list can never have enough theorists. Celia: We're at Hogwart's, and lonely student Severus Snape, left behind by his older "gang" who have all left school, befriends young Regulus Black. (there was lovely thread about this idea several months back. After school, perhaps DE Snape is even the person to recruit Reggie into the DEs. This enhances the animosity between Sirius and Severus nicely.) Debbie: I'm with you, except that I doubt Sirius would have known this detail. He might have suspected Snape, but I doubt he knew the details. By that time, Sirius was surely camping out with the Potters. Celia: Time passes...Potions-expert Snape, as a DE, prepares the green potion for LV, not knowing what it will be used for. Meanwhile, DE Reggie is getting cold feet and learns about the locket horcrux (again, greater minds than mine have proposed wonderful scenarios for this to happen, most involving Bella). He wants to get out and eliminate LVs horcrux at the same time. Knowing he will likely die, Reggie goes to the cave, drinks the potion, steals the horcrux, and, feeling himself fading, writes the RAB note. Debbie: My first question is, whether Regulus really wanted to get out. (I confess, I don't trust anything Sirius says; he's too biased.) Regulus had a much better chance of thwarting Voldemort from the inside, even if he doubted he would get away with it for long. I'll bet the whole "cold feet" bit was a cover story because Regulus had already done some other damage Voldy didn't want anyone to know about. I also question whether Voldemort put the locket in the cave himself. I tend to think that Bella put the locket in the cave with Kreacher's assistance and that Reggie switched lockets before it was placed in the cave. Celia: BUT, as a last chance he dashes off to the one potions expert in his life- his pal Severus. Snape realizes what has poisoned him and knows he cannot save Reggie from his deadly potion. But, being savvy and self- interested Snape, he realizes he can use Reggie's death to his own advantage. He AKs the dying "traitor" Regulus (we know he was killed by someone, but not LV), thus sealing his reputation as an extremely fanatical and loyal DE (sound familiar?) able to regain LVs trust even in unlikely circumstances. Debbie: Here's the part I really have trouble with. Poor Snape, making a career out of assisted suicide. For Snape to have already AK'd a poisoned man would take away the dramatic force of Snape's choice up on the Tower. And the combination of the threat on DD's life and the UV created extenuating circumstances that would not have been present if Snape had taken care of Regulus. It doesn't make sense for Snape to have done this, at least under those circumstances. Now, if Voldemort had ordered him to kill young Reggie, that might be a different story. Celia: Added cool aspects of this theory for the Cave and Tower scenes: DD would know from Snape about the green potion, (but not necessarily where the cave is, why Regulus drank the potion, or about the horcrux) so he knows what he is getting into when he drinks it. Debbie: I'm quite enamored of the idea that Snape created the green potion, and while he may not know about the cave, it would explain why Dumbledore knew the potion would render him incapable of taking the horcrux. Celia: The question I have about this theory then is? based on what he says as he drinks the potion, I wonder why young Dumbledore blames himself for his parents' deaths? What a sad idea. Hmmm? Debbie: Ah, I think I have a simple answer to this one. What if DD was a youth when this happened? Harry, like many other youth, frequently blames himself for events that are out of his control. If DD is reliving his own memories, look what they say about him. Not only does he willingly accept blame, but he offers to sacrifice himself to save others ("Don't hurt them, don't hurt them, please, please, it's my fault, hurt me instead . . ."). So maybe we could tweak this theory. It wasn't Grindelwald at all who did in the parental Dumbledores; it was a previous incarnation of evil who killed them, leaving young Albus an orphan and his brother so scarred he never could read again. I really should come up with a clever theory of my own, now. Hmm, I've got it! What say you that Aberforth is also a double agent? Canon support to follow . . . . Debbie not sure this makes sense [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu May 17 04:15:21 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 21:15:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?. In-Reply-To: <8864986.1179325474915.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <8864986.1179325474915.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2795713f0705162115g3bd6ecd8kd5de29fdce76cd92@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168856 Betsy Hp: Ginny is horrible to Ron, she's outrageously violent to Zach Smith (if the WW worked under RW rules, Ginny's little broom stunt would have cost Gryffindor the game, IMO), and she's really not happy unless she's cutting someone down. Ginny is a bully, a bad sportsman, a terrible team player, and a very angry little girl. Which is entirely different from being spunky. Now, if JKR *means* for Ginny to be suffering under some sort of issue that has her on such a hair-trigger temper-wise, if JKR means for Ginny to face and deal with whatever issue that is, it could possibly save the character for me. What I fear is that JKR thinks this particular Ginny is perfectly fine just the way she is. Lynda: I've decided that I see such extremes of behavior (adolescents who act a lot like Ginny yet can be perfectly reasonable people at other times) that I tend to see some of Ginny's behavior as just that--childish behavior that as Rowling matures the character she will grow out of. I do realize that her behavior is extreme and unacceptable (so is Hermione's at times in fact and while we're on the subject the two boys who were involved in that infamous fight in the bathroom that landed one of them in detention for the rest of the year), but keep in mind that I both work with kids who display extreme manifestations of behavior that is not ordinarily acceptable--and I'm not necessarily referring to the SH kids, but sometimes some of the regular ed kids who decide that because the kids I work with are special ed, they can encourage them to behave badly or make fun of them. And I wonder if kids with developing magical abilities might not tend to abuse them at times. After all, they are kids, not adults and wisdom comes with maturity. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu May 17 05:26:26 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 05:26:26 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168857 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > I don't think Snape will be "punished" by Rowling or anyone else > because I think it's far more effective to show that the worst > punishment for Severus Snape is remaining Severus Snape. I think that won't be satisfying for a lot of readers. While forgiveness is all well and good in the real world, forgiving someone who doesn't acknowledge it or respond to it by someone who has justifiable reasons to hate the other person won't be satisfying for at least me. And I'm not talking about the teaching or the meanness or the ordinary point taking. Snape, lest anyone forget about it, was the spy that told Voldemort the prophecy. In a very real way, he got Harry's parents killed. He may not have pulled the trigger, but he was the informant. He was part of the process that left Harry an orphan at the tender mercies of the Dursleys. Harry would be justified in never forgiving Snape ever. Hell, in my book he would be justified in killing Snape with his bare hands (but I'm a bloodthirsty type). In the list of ways they have wronged each other, Snape's scale is so overbalanced its just plain ridiculous. A lot of people seem to forget that. Hell, in my least favorite Dumbledore scene in HBP he forgets that. I don't think I ever found Dumbledore more unlikable than when he just shoves Harry's very real angry and frustration under the rug. Phoenixgod2000 From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu May 17 05:50:06 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 05:50:06 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168858 > Ken: > > And what does this prove? It proves that Ginny is sneakier than > anyone suspects. In HBP, Draco proved that he was sneaky. Guess what, we still got to see him being sneaky. We saw none of that with Ginny. It was all just exposition, explaining away what we never saw. That's bad writing. > Ken: > > How much teamwork does it take to play seeker? Virtually none. The > seeker is pretty much a free agent. Harry almost loses that big > match against Slytherin when he decides to do some blocking for the > team and allows Draco to get a free shot at the snitch. The seeker > does his/her job best by ignoring the team and concentrating > on the other seeker and the snitch. She was also a pretty dominating Chaser and that does require teamwork. > Ken: > > You seem to have the impression that Molly is all knowing, all seeing, > and all powerful. There are a lot of things going on under her nose > all the time, she can't be any of those things. I don't expect that Molly is perfect, but I do expect that she would lock away the brooms each night magically just so her wild child twins wouldn't get into them. That should also stop a six year old girl. The wonder is that Molly has *any* attention to devote > to her youngest four after she finishes gushing over the oldest > three. The older three should be away at Hogwarts most of the time, leaving her nothing but time for Ginny, Ron, and the Twins. > You just don't seem to want to believe Ginny can play Quidditch. I don't care that Ginny can play Quiddich. I care that the LI for a character I like is written lamely. > His very first go on that broom was enough to convince his head of > house who is reputed to be a knowledgeable Quidditch fan that he > had the talent. A very minimal practice session with the team captain > was enough to confirm this. Harry is a prodigy when it comes to flying. He is also the hero of the story. It's okay when he does cool stuff every once in the while during the story. Ginny was a nonentity for most of the series only to burst onto the scene with amazing skills she trained in secretly off screen who snatches the snitch out from under Cho Chang, an experienced seeker and wins the cup for the team. The next year she is playing a different position, is the life and soul of the team and scores practically at will. Please. > Harry goes 0-60 in one second, Ginny > who has lived in the WW culture her entire life does it in a more > plausible 4 seconds. Ginny's prowess is far more likely, far more > believable, than Harry's. Lots of wizards grow up in the wizarding world and can't fly a broom. There was never any indication of unusual skill on her behalf. She never plays in Weasley pickup games, expresses interest in the sport or anything else. I didn't hate Ginny until the fifth book. I actually read a lot of H/G fan fic and enjoyed it. But I just can't swallow her so called Character development in OOTP and it only got worse in HBP. Sorry. phoenixgod2000 From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu May 17 06:56:51 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 06:56:51 -0000 Subject: Religion & Law in HP (Was Re:Witches, Warlocks, Wizards, and JKR) In-Reply-To: <9221221.1179239173046.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168859 > Bart (With snipping): > In JKR's world, magic is just another technology. Many > Christians who praise her work recognize this, and > recognize the Christian philosophy throughout the books. Goddlefrood: Fair enough, but it's not just by Christians that the books have been criticised, although it may feel that way at times. The books do have a strong underlying Christian morality, IMO, I took a look recently at one phrase in particular and came up with what follows. "Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure" So says Luna Lovegood in Chapter named after her, OotP, p. 169 Bloomsbury Hardback Edition. Being inordinately suspicious by nature and seeing that the entire saying was italicised, I decided to try and find out where this came from. It is JKR's own twist on something else that is not dissimilar IMO, this: "How deep the Father's love for us How vast beyond all measure That He would give His only Son To make a wretch His treasure" >From the hymn "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" by Stuart Townend. The above is the first verse and is available online here: http://www.worshiparchive.com/worship_chord_sheet.asp?t=song&id=77 A strong message, IMO, and it also ties into the, perhaps inappropriate, use of "the chosen one" as a description of Harry's current status in the WW. Although it may not be inappropriate at all, in that it's use in the New Testament (Luke 23:35) is a rather mocking one against those using it. If you find this an odd statement, consider the stated verse: 'The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One."' >From the New International Version. My interpretation of which is that it is making a mockery of non-believers in Christ's miracles, and perhaps consequentially a swipe at the WW as being similar to the crowds of ignoramuses and mockers gathered at the crucifixion. Conversely it also suggests that those who do believe in Harry as the one to dispose of Voldemort are the more moral members of the WW. That, IMO, is a valid interpretation and any are welcome to disagree with it. > Bart: > In intelligent Christian objections (intelligent being > defined as based on knowledge rather than ignorance) Goddlefrood: The ambiguity of the word ignorance is that it can mean both lack of knowledge and ignoring the facts, I'd be interested to know which one was meant as the context is not clear. It does seem to be the former usage, but I'd appreciate a clarification. > Bart: > ... indeed, in many ways, the WW culture is morally INFERIOR > to the Muggle culture around them, in that their bigotry is > still entrenched in law, rather than thought of as an > undesireable trait. Goddlefrood: Muggles too have some odd laws, as I could attest. There are even some rather bizarre laws that still exist today, which no one is ever likely to need. In the WW there is little clarity over what is and what isn't entrenched in law. The bulk of the legal isues in canon to date would suggest only that bigotry against beasts (as classified by the Ministry, sometimes on the request of the "beasts" concerned) and Muggles does exist, but that on some matters the WW has progressed. One thing the MoM at least does have, and whether it is effectual or otherwise is a different matter, is a liaison office of some kind for the more intelligent creatures in canon, such as the House Elves, Goblins and Centaurs. Possibly others too, but that's from memory. Goddlefrood. From lauren1 at catliness.com Thu May 17 07:08:46 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 00:08:46 -0700 Subject: Snape Message-ID: <090b01c79861$5f4251e0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 168860 Hi, I am new to the list. I have read all of the HP books thus far but I didn't like how some things happened in HBP. It seems like for several books, we were told to trust Snape and then he turns around and kills Dumbledore??? Or was it really someone else drinking polyjuice potion or something? Thanks Lauren From dejjfan368 at aol.com Thu May 17 10:23:57 2007 From: dejjfan368 at aol.com (ebennet68) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:23:57 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705152146x7c4503ddvd8475171322bc8c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168861 > laperchette: > Rowling said that her favourite twist in a book is the > shipping-twist in Emma. > Lynda: > Umm...what shipping twist in Emma? Sarah AO: I was wondering about this too. I've read Emma several times. Maybe everything seems so plotted now is that I can see all of the hints and know what they refer to because I'm so familiar with it. I think the average reader will not pick up on the secret engagement between Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. You certainly would be able to pick something up but wouldn't know absolutely everything. I'd like to think that if JK likes this particular twist, then maybe two characters have been married/secretly engaged the whole time without anyone picking up on it. Any candidates for this one? Sarah AO From jnferr at gmail.com Thu May 17 12:36:12 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:36:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0705152146x7c4503ddvd8475171322bc8c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40705170536m502f4ca2h238ad12037bcf10e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168862 > > > laperchette: > > > Rowling said that her favourite twist in a book is the > > shipping-twist in Emma. > > > Lynda: > > > Umm...what shipping twist in Emma? > > Sarah AO: > > I was wondering about this too. I've read Emma several times. > Maybe everything seems so plotted now is that I can see all of > the hints and know what they refer to because I'm so familiar > with it. I think the average reader will not pick up on the > secret engagement between Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. > You certainly would be able to pick something up but wouldn't > know absolutely everything. I'd like to think that if JK likes > this particular twist, then maybe two characters have been > married/secretly engaged the whole time without anyone picking > up on it. Any candidates for this one? montims: In fact, that IS the twist: "I re-read Austen's novels in rotation - I've just started *Mansfield Park*again. I could have chosen any number of passages from each of her novels, but I finally settled on *Emma*, which is the most skilfully managed mystery I've ever read and has the merit of having a heroine who annoys me because she is in some ways so like me. I must have read it at least 20 times, always wondering how I could have missed the glaringly obvious fact that Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax were engaged all along. But I did miss it, and I've yet to meet a person who didn't, and I have never set up a surprise ending in a Harry Potter book without knowing I can never, and will never, do it anywhere near as well as Austen did in *Emma*." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0500-heraldsun-rowling.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Thu May 17 13:09:58 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:09:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion & Law in HP (Was Re:Witches, Warlocks, Wizards, and JKR In-Reply-To: References: <9221221.1179239173046.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705170609x53e41b91jfd9bf395c950eddc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168863 On 5/17/07, Goddlefrood wrote: > "Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure" ... > "How deep the Father's love for us > How vast beyond all measure > That He would give His only Son > To make a wretch His treasure" While that may be a reference, consider that there aren't that many other rhymes for "measure" and/or "treasure", and the two have hardly any other words in common. It's, at best, a bit of a reach. --Random832 From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 17 14:45:41 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:45:41 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168864 > Alla: > > Okay then. Seriously though, I thought we were talking about **big** > stuff, something like Harry **may** consider forgiven Snape for. > > Do I think that there is anything even close in Harry's life now > that he needs to be forgiven for from anybody? > Your original analogy was though that just as Snape needs to be > forgiven, Harry does, was it not? > > So, I see Harry having quite a few flaws, while being rather decent > kid all together, but do I think that his flaws arise anywhere near > to Snape's flaws? > > > Not, not for me, not even close, because I see Snape right now as > child abuser, traitor and murderer. I sincerely doubt that Harry > will ever be any such thing, even if he kills Voldemort in his > sleep, which I doubt he will. Pippin: But that's ESE!Snape, and nobody is suggesting that ESE!Snape could be Harry's moral equal without some serious repentance, though I suppose he could be Harry's moral equal if that happened. "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow." But I'm talking about DDM!Snape of course. Snape carrying the prophecy to Voldemort is big stuff but I have an idea that it's been balanced out by Harry's false accusation of murder. I can just see Harry pursuing Snape for half of DH, and then, just about the time Harry realizes that Snape must be innocent, the Ministry will re-authorize the use of the Unforgivables against suspects. If Harry tells them Snape is innocent, Snape will be killed by Voldemort. But if he doesn't, Snape will be killed by Aurors -- and if Harry does save Snape, Snape will hate him worse than ever, just like he hated James... Ooh, I could hardly wait to see how that comes out! But then we come to the parting of the ways, because for me, the classroom insults *are* small stuff and Rowling treats it that way, IMO. Snape being a meanie is *nothing* compared to the Slytherins, some of whom were seventh years and adults, all jeering at Ron for a whole year and calling him the WW equivalent of poor white trash. Rowling's solution was not to hex the Slytherins or get them to beg forgiveness but to let Ron learn that his nerves didn't come from Slytherin jeering, they came from his own fears telling him that he was pathetic and he'd never be good enough. Harry needs to learn that same lesson, IMO: his potions failures didn't come from Snape sneering at him, they came from Harry comparing himself to others and thinking, "I'm not as good as you." The HBP's book was Harry's phony Felix potion. Though the recipes were superior, the actual mechanics of potionmaking, stir this, then add that, were just the same as in Snape's class, and that's the stuff Harry used to screw up on. Pippin From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu May 17 15:04:37 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:04:37 -0000 Subject: On Harry and Snape forgiveness, was: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168865 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > While > forgiveness is all well and good in the real world, forgiving someone > who doesn't acknowledge it or respond to it by someone who has > justifiable reasons to hate the other person won't be satisfying for > at least me. > > And I'm not talking about the teaching or the meanness or the ordinary > point taking. Snape, lest anyone forget about it, was the spy that > told Voldemort the prophecy. In a very real way, he got Harry's > parents killed. He may not have pulled the trigger, but he was the > informant. He was part of the process that left Harry an orphan at the > tender mercies of the Dursleys. > > Harry would be justified in never forgiving Snape ever. Hell, in my > book he would be justified in killing Snape with his bare hands (but > I'm a bloodthirsty type). wynnleaf On the one hand, I agree that Harry has a lot more reasons to hate Snape than just sarcasm, insults, and point taking. Snape did take the partial prophecy to Voldemort which, even if Snape didn't realize that would bring about the Potter's death, did indeed lead to Voldemort's killing them. At the end of HBP, Harry also quite legitimately thinks that Snape murdered Dumbledore in cold blood. So, until such time as he learns otherwise, this is also a reason for Harry to hate Snape. If Harry later learns that Snape's actions were justified, then this particular reason for hating Snape is removed (imo). phoenixgod2000 In the list of ways they have wronged each > other, Snape's scale is so overbalanced its just plain ridiculous. > > A lot of people seem to forget that. Hell, in my least favorite > Dumbledore scene in HBP he forgets that. I don't think I ever found > Dumbledore more unlikable than when he just shoves Harry's very real > angry and frustration under the rug. > wynnleaf Those that are concerned that it is forgotten that Snape's carrying the prophecy to Voldemort led ultimately to Voldemort killing the Potters, appear to forget that Snape's sending the warning to the Order ultimately led to saving the lives of Harry and his friends. Further, we have other examples of Snape saving Harry's life, protecting Harry, risking his life to bring about the defeat of Voldemort (the Potter's killer). Sure, one could argue that we may discover in DH that Snape never tried to protect Harry, didn't really save his life in PS/SS, wasn't really helping to save Harry in OOTP, wasn't really risking his life to bring down Voldemort, and so on. But if JKR shows us that in fact Snape *was* loyal to Dumbledore and the Order, then all those instances of saving Harry, protecting Harry, and risking his life to bring down Voldemort have to count for something, especially when what those things are counting *against* is Snape (if Dumbledore is correct) *inadvertently* bringing about the Potter's deaths through telling Voldemort the prophecy. After all, one could just as easily say -- if Snape's part in the Potter's deaths was unintentional as Dumbledore thought -- that Harry was just as much to blame for Sirius' death and the injuries of his friends and Order members by leading all of them into danger in the Ministry of Magic at the end of OOTP. Yes, Snape has done things which give Harry cause to hate him. But if Snape turns out to be loyal to Dumbledore, then he's also done a great deal for which Harry ought to learn at least some degree of appreciation. And to date, Harry has not been willing to acknowledge that. Even before he learned that Snape had anything to do with his parent's deaths, he still could not acknowledge or have the slightest appreciation for Snape's actions which had saved his life or the lives of his friends. If Snape is indeed loyal, then those actions *did* save Harry's and his friend's lives, and Harry has to learn to acknowledge that and weigh all of Snape's actions in the balance. Harry may find that when he weighs everything, Snape's unintentionally causing the Potter's deaths may truly be counterbalanced or even outweighed by Snape's intentional risking of his own life time and again to protect and save Harry and his friends and to destroy the murderer of Harry's parents. wynnleaf From honeypi28 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 15:03:46 2007 From: honeypi28 at yahoo.com (honeypi28) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:03:46 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705170536m502f4ca2h238ad12037bcf10e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168866 > montims: > In fact, that IS the twist: > "I re-read Austen's novels in rotation - I've just started *Mansfield > Park*again. I could have chosen any number of passages from each of > her novels, > but I finally settled on *Emma*, which is the most skilfully managed mystery > I've ever read and has the merit of having a heroine who annoys me because > she is in some ways so like me. I must have read it at least 20 times, > always wondering how I could have missed the glaringly obvious fact that > Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax were engaged all along. But I did miss it, > and I've yet to meet a person who didn't, and I have never set up a surprise > ending in a Harry Potter book without knowing I can never, and will never, > do it anywhere near as well as Austen did in *Emma*." > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0500-heraldsun-rowling.html honeypi: This is a very interesting quote in terms of shipping, because the primary ships of both Emma and Mansfield Park are between couples who seem to have fairly well established brother/sister-type relationships. This suggests JKR doesn't dislike the notion that an enduring romantic ship might have it's best roots in a friendship so solid the couple might be considered siblings. It seems a large portion of readers regard Harry and Hermione in this light, so I wouldn't be too shocked if H/Hr does happen if I were them. Of course, Harry Potter isn't a romance novel, and the big plot twist(s) are not likely to be shipping related. The thing about Austen's Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax plot twist that made it so successful is there was just enough in canon, so that when the truth was revealed it was easy for Emma to connect the dots. Emma was being deliberately mislead by Churchill, and Jane was cooperating in the deception. I would expect an Emma-like twist to the HP series would involve a long time deception by people close to Harry. I dislike Ginny - so I'll pick on her and say it could be that we have the emergence of Super! Ginny because she's made a deal with the devil (LV) so to speak and her powers have been enhanced as part of the bargain. She's be given beauty, popularity, superior athleticism, and the boy of her dreams. But what has she given in return? [queue menacing music]. Ginny hating aside, whatever the twist(s) is, I hope it's huge. Honeypi, who's new hero is phoenixgod2000 - greats posts! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 15:20:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:20:39 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and Harry and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168867 > > Alla: > > Not, not for me, not even close, because I see Snape right now as > > child abuser, traitor and murderer. I sincerely doubt that Harry > > will ever be any such thing, even if he kills Voldemort in his > > sleep, which I doubt he will. > > > Pippin: > But that's ESE!Snape, and nobody is suggesting that ESE!Snape > could be Harry's moral equal without some serious repentance, > though I suppose he could be Harry's moral equal if that happened. > "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow." Alla: Not necessarily - even if Snape is revealed as not traitor and not murderer ( hopefully not), he will still forever remain child abuser for me, so I am talking about that Snape as well. Pippin: > But I'm talking about DDM!Snape of course. Alla: I understand, but see above. I hope that JKR will not make Snape innocent of DD!M murder with fake AK or something like that, but even if she will, there is nothing which can save him from "abuser" label in my eyes. Pippin: > Snape carrying the prophecy to Voldemort is big stuff but > I have an idea that it's been balanced out by Harry's false > accusation of murder. Alla: Wow. No, for me it is so not will be balanced. Potters are dead, care to take a bet that if Snape will die it will not be because of anything Harry says or dies? :) Pippin: I can just see Harry pursuing Snape > for half of DH, and then, just about the time Harry realizes > that Snape must be innocent, the Ministry will re-authorize > the use of the Unforgivables against suspects. If Harry > tells them Snape is innocent, Snape will be killed by > Voldemort. But if he doesn't, Snape will be killed by Aurors -- > and if Harry does save Snape, Snape will hate him worse > than ever, just like he hated James... Ooh, I could hardly > wait to see how that comes out! Alla: Okay, personally I hope nothing like that will ever comes out. Pippin: > But then we come to the parting of the ways, because for > me, the classroom insults *are* small stuff and Rowling > treats it that way, IMO. Snape being a meanie is *nothing* > compared to the Slytherins, some of whom were seventh > years and adults, all jeering at Ron for a whole year and > calling him the WW equivalent of poor white trash. > > Rowling's solution was not to hex the Slytherins or get them > to beg forgiveness but to let Ron learn that his nerves didn't > come from Slytherin jeering, they came from his own > fears telling him that he was pathetic and he'd never > be good enough. Alla: We are totally parting the ways, because no matter how bad was Slytherins insults to Ron, what Snape did is the abuse of power to someone who has no such power. IMO of course. Pippin: > Harry needs to learn that same lesson, IMO: his potions > failures didn't come from Snape sneering at him, they came > from Harry comparing himself to others and thinking, "I'm not > as good as you." The HBP's book was Harry's phony Felix > potion. Though the recipes were superior, the actual > mechanics of potionmaking, stir this, then add that, > were just the same as in Snape's class, and that's > the stuff Harry used to screw up on. Alla: And still Harry specifically notes in OOP that he performed better when Snape was not in the room. It is my opinion that Snape contributed hugely to his potion failures, but we shall see how this will play out of course. You can be right, but I am keeping my fingers crossed that your theory will not be proven in book 7. I will write my apology to Snape letter if it will, I promise again ;) But for some reason I am feeling rather confident now that no matter what the reasons for murder were, Snape fired very lethal, very**real** AK on very alive DD. I am always happy to eat a crow though. Phoenixgod: > And I'm not talking about the teaching or the meanness or the ordinary > point taking. Snape, lest anyone forget about it, was the spy that > told Voldemort the prophecy. In a very real way, he got Harry's > parents killed. He may not have pulled the trigger, but he was the > informant. He was part of the process that left Harry an orphan at the > tender mercies of the Dursleys. Alla: I do think that part of the reason I would never understand the idea that Snape is feeling guilt over Potters death is certainly my personal ideas of how person feeling guilt acts. I could not imagine myself having contributed to the life of misery for the child to act that way towards him. I can imagine myself being sooooo humble near that child. No, not necessarily being extra nice to him, but certainly going out of my way to not contribute to his misery. I would feel that I have no right to be angry at this child for anything, if I feel true remorse that is. I would feel that I have no right to hurt that child anymore, that I hurt him in such a huge way, that I should atone for that. What Snape does to him in the classroom, it is so incompatible for me how guilty person would act. Phoenixgod: > Harry would be justified in never forgiving Snape ever. Hell, in my > book he would be justified in killing Snape with his bare hands (but > I'm a bloodthirsty type). In the list of ways they have wronged each > other, Snape's scale is so overbalanced its just plain ridiculous. Alla: As I said, I believe that JKR can sell me almost any Snape, but certainly my wish is to see him suffer - dead, sure, I will do a happy dance, but not from Harry's hand. He is not worth it in my view :) I think fate will take care of Snape if he has to die. Phoenixgod: > A lot of people seem to forget that. Hell, in my least favorite > Dumbledore scene in HBP he forgets that. I don't think I ever found > Dumbledore more unlikable than when he just shoves Harry's very real > angry and frustration under the rug. Alla: Yes, in HBP it was my only Dumbledore "how dare you" moment. wynnleaf: > Yes, Snape has done things which give Harry cause to hate him. But > if Snape turns out to be loyal to Dumbledore, then he's also done a > great deal for which Harry ought to learn at least some degree of > appreciation. And to date, Harry has not been willing to > acknowledge that. Even before he learned that Snape had anything to > do with his parent's deaths, he still could not acknowledge or have > the slightest appreciation for Snape's actions which had saved his > life or the lives of his friends. Alla: Well, if actions speak louder than words, I believe that Harry in his own way had acknowledged that Snape is a trusted order member willing to share with him that Padfoot was supposedly captured. I mean, if Snape running his mouth at Harry counts less than him saving his life in PS/SS for example, sure the fact that Harry was trusting Snape counts as some sort of acknowledgment, no? I think that Harry was trusting Snape despite not liking him before Sirius' death and the fact that Harry was doing it, shows to me again how much more mature Harry is in his teens than Snape is in his thirties. I mean, sure Harry did not thank Snape for PS/SS, I cannot blame it after the way DD framed Snape reasons for doing so, but those are just words, right, apology I mean? I am replying to thread in general, not to your post, but I totally think that if words are cheap ( NOT my idea, I do not really buy it), it should go both ways. If people are Okay with Snape talking dirty at Harry as long as he saves his life, then I think that Harry trusting Snape with saving his godfather, knowing how much they hate each other should account for "a lot" IMO, Alla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 15:22:53 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:22:53 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168868 > Alla: > > > Famous GOF fight - I thought Ron was the biggest jerk to Harry, > > Harry forgave him on the spot. > > Alla: > > Oooooo, hate to waste a post, but I sure do not want to get "No, Harry > did not forgive him right away" responses. > > Meant to write that Harry forgave him on the spot when Ron came to > apologize. > Montavilla47: Sorry, Alla. I don't think it's a big deal. It certainly doesn't make Harry a bad kid or anything. But his forgiveness of Ron isn't immediate after Ron comes to apologize, either. There's a moment when he actually seems angrier than ever, because he thinks Ron is pretending that they were never on the outs to begin with. Here's the passage: Harry didn't want to sit still: He was too full of adrenaline. He got to his feet, wanting to see what was going on outside, but before he'd reached the mouth of the tent, two people had come darting inside--Hermione, followed closely by Ron. "Harry, you were brilliant!" Hermione said squeakily. There were fingernail marks on her face where she had been clutching it in fear. "You were amazing! You really were!" But Harry was looking at Ron, who was very white and staring at Harry as though he were a ghost. "Harry," he said, very seriously, "whoever put your name in that goblet--I--I reckon they're trying to do you in!" It was as though the last few weeks had never happened--as though Harry were meeting Ron for the first time, right after he'd been made champion. "Caught on, have you?" said Harry coldly. "Took you long enough." Hermione stood nervously between them, looking from one to the other. Ron opened his mouth uncertainly. Harry knew Ron was about to apologize and suddenly he found he didn't need to hear it. "It's okay," he said, before Ron could get the words out. "Forget it." GoF, US ed. p. 358. It's pretty clear that Ron has changed his attitude from the moment he gets in the tent. He's white as a ghost. But it takes Harry another moment to let go of *his* anger and take Ron back. Again, this isn't anything horrible on Harry's part. It's sort of a natural reaction. But he could just have easily taken Ron back just from seeing that white face--since it's obvious that Ron's most important concern right then is not pride, or anger, but his friend's well- being. Funny, now I'm seeing a parallel between this moment and the whole Percy story. As soon as he realizes that he's wrong, Ron's ready to forget the fight so much that it's like it never existed for him. But Harry can't let go of it immediately--and he almost misses that opportunity to make up because he wants Ron to apologize. Likewise, it's Percy's inability to apologize that's keeping the family apart. Montavilla47 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 15:43:09 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:43:09 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron WAS:Re: On the perfection of moral In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168869 > Montavilla47: > Sorry, Alla. I don't think it's a big deal. It certainly doesn't make > Harry a bad kid or anything. But his forgiveness of Ron isn't > immediate after Ron comes to apologize, either. There's a > moment when he actually seems angrier than ever, because > he thinks Ron is pretending that they were never on the outs to > begin with. > > Here's the passage: >> > GoF, US ed. p. 358. > > It's pretty clear that Ron has changed his attitude from the moment he gets in the tent. > He's white as a ghost. But it takes Harry another moment to let go of *his* anger and take > Ron back. > > Again, this isn't anything horrible on Harry's part. It's sort of a natural reaction. But he > could just have easily taken Ron back just from seeing that white face--since it's obvious > that Ron's most important concern right then is not pride, or anger, but his friend's well- > being. > > Funny, now I'm seeing a parallel between this moment and the whole Percy story. As soon > as he realizes that he's wrong, Ron's ready to forget the fight so much that it's like it never > existed for him. But Harry can't let go of it immediately--and he almost misses that > opportunity to make up because he wants Ron to apologize. Alla: Eh, we just have to agree to disagree on that one. Ron IMO behaved like a jerk for several weeks. Sure, he realised eventually that he was wrong. IMO he should not have doubted Harry in the first place and believe him. I am not making a bigger deal out of this fight than it was, really. I love Ron, but I most certainly think that **moment** that it took Harry to take his anger back is nothing in comparison to what Ron put Harry through during those weeks. Harry **needed** him and Ron was not there for him. That was wrong in my view. Again, I think of it as fight between friends, but certainly not Ron's finest moment in my view, just like Harry had those in OOP. So I do think that Harry immediately forgave Ron, because moment IMo does not count and you do not have to convince me that it does not make Harry a bad kid. I think he was the wronged party in this fight, period. Ron IMO should have trusted him and stand by him just as Ron stood by him through OOP. Found my old post with these quotes, hehe. ""Oh right," said Ron. "I thought you might've told me if it was the cloak. . . because it would've covered both of us, wouldn't it? But you found another way, did you?" "Listen," said Harry, "I didn't put my name in that goblet. Someone else must've done it." Ron raised his eyebrows. "What would they do that for?" "I dunno," said Harry. He felt it would sound very melodramatic to say, "To kill me." Ron's eyebrows rose so high that they were in danger of disappearing into his hair. "It's okay, you know, you can tell me the truth," he said. "If you don't want everyone else to know, fine, but I don't know why you're bothering to lie, you didn't get into trouble for it, did you? That friend of the Fat Lady's, that Violet, she's already told us all Dumbledore's letting you enter. A thousand Galleons prize money, eh? And you don't have to do end-of-year tests either. . ." "I didn't put my name in that goblet!" said Harry, starting to feel angry. "Yeah, okay," said Ron, in exactly the same sceptical tone as Cedric. "Only you said this morning you'd have done it last night, and no one would've seen you.. . . I'm not stupid, you know." "You're doing a really good impression of it," Harry snapped. "Yeah?" said Ron, and there was no trace of a grin, forced or otherwise, on his face now. "You want to get to bed, Harry. I expect you'll need to be up early tomorrow for a photo-call or something." He wrenched the hangings shut around his four-poster, leaving Harry standing there by the door, staring at the dark red velvet curtains, now hiding one of the few people he had been sure would believe him." -ch.17, am.edition Alla: It is like DUH Ron, you never heard of people trying to kill Harry before. I know people wrote amazing essays on this one, introducing Ron who feels betrayed. I am with Hermione on this one - I think Ron was jealous indeed. Which sure does not make him a bad kid, but makes Harry anger very understandable to me ""Oh Harry, isn't it obvious?" Hermione said despairingly. "He's jealous!" "Jealous?" Harry said incredulously. "Jealous of what? He wants to make a prat of himself in front of the whole school, does he?" "Look," said Hermione patiently, "it's always you who gets all the attention, you know it is. I know it's not your fault," she added quickly, seeing Harry open his mouth furiously. "I know you don't ask for it.. . but - well - you know, Ron's got all those brothers to compete against at home, and you're his best friend, and you're really famous - he's always shunted to one side whenever people see you, and he puts up with it, and he never mentions it, but I suppose this is just one time too many. . . "Great," said Harry bitterly. "Really great. Tell him from me I'll swap any time he wants. " Tell him from me he's welcome to it.... People gawping at my forehead everywhere I go. . ." "I'm not teiling him anything," Hermione said shortly. "Tell him yourself. It's the only way to sort this out." "I'm not running around after him trying to make him grow up!" Harry said, so loudly that several owls in a nearby tree took flight in alarm. "Maybe he'll believe I'm not enjoying myself once I've got my neck broken or -" - GoF, ch.18 Alla: So, if you ask me, I think Harry forgave Ron **really** fast. JMO. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 15:54:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:54:27 -0000 Subject: Smeltings' sticks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168870 Dudley and his fellow Smeltings students wear uniforms that seem to be a parody of British public school uniforms (maroon tailcoats, orange knickerbockers, and boaters), but they also carry "knobbly sticks used for hitting each other when the teachers weren't looking" (SS Am. ed. 32). Clearly, it's a boys' school and Uncle Vernon hopes that it will make a "man" (i.e., an even bigger bully) out of Dudley. Does anyone (preferably British list members) think that JKR is poking fun at British public schools, especially boys' schools, here? What do the Smeltings' sticks suggest or correspond to? Thanks in advance for your input on this question. Carol, who, being female and American, never attended any remotely similar institution From laurel.coates at gmail.com Thu May 17 15:32:07 2007 From: laurel.coates at gmail.com (Laurel Coates) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 08:32:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Harry and Snape forgiveness, was: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3cd952930705170832y5148b724uef089d341eccefb8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168871 On 5/17/07, wynnleaf wrote: wynnleaf: On the one hand, I agree that Harry has a lot more reasons to hate Snape than just sarcasm, insults, and point taking. Snape did take the partial prophecy to Voldemort which, even if Snape didn't realize that would bring about the Potter's death, did indeed lead to Voldemort's killing them. At the end of HBP, Harry also quite legitimately thinks that Snape murdered Dumbledore in cold blood. So, until such time as he learns otherwise, this is also a reason for Harry to hate Snape. If Harry later learns that Snape's actions were justified, then this particular reason for hating Snape is removed (imo). Laurel: One certainly could compare Snape to Judas. Judas betrayed Jesus, thus ensuring, eventually, the Word to be spread to generations of people. It was Snape's betrayal that caused the deaths of the Potters and Harry's injury, but it also set the prophecy in play, thereby sealing Voldemort's doom. I think that was what Dumbledore was trying to explain to Harry in his office after they finally saw Slughorn's true memory. HBP, page 510, Scholastic: "If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled, would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think every prophecy in the hall of prophecy has been fulfilled?" .... "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!" So I think Snape's role in revealing the prophecy should eventually be forgiven; it was his role that eventually will cause the downfall of Voldemort. Laurel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Thu May 17 16:37:44 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:37:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The trouble with Quidditch Message-ID: <20604803.1179419864484.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168872 All the talk about Ginny playing Quidditch has reminded me of something I figured out years ago: To put it briefly, the game, if it were playable in the "real world", would not be anything like the game depicted in the novels. OK, I will start off by saying that, at one time, I worked in the (board) game industry (I had an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of the computer game industry, but I saw the Crash of 82/83 coming, and had no way of knowing at the time that the company that wanted to hire me would be one of the few survivors: Sierra). I've never been the primary designer of a commercially released game; what I have done mostly was work for hire. Mostly, what I did was mathematical analysis, looking for flaws in games. In any case, when the CoS came out, and it was clear that Harry Potter was a hit, I decided to try my hand at creating a Harry Potter game. As collectible card games were pretty hot (I had actually designed a collectible card game, but the licensor went out of business during the playtesting), I tried to figure out what would make a could theme for a Harry Potter collectible card game. And I came up with Quidditch. It was a two-player game, each player represnting a House, each team allowed to have up to 2 players from another House join in. Each team member card had its own strengths and weaknesses, but, in general, Gryffindors were strong on offense but weak on defense, Hufflepuffs were strong on defense but weak on offense, Ravenclaw was superior on team maneuvers, and Slytherin could do tricky moves and had a better chance of getting away with cheating (the Wronski Feint would have been a Slyterin move, for example). But there was one problem with the game, and it showed a basic problem with Quidditch, as well. I re-read the descriptions, checking to see if I was wrong, but I was not. There was a basic flaw in the game, which screwed up the playability; in the group which I belonged to, it was called a "Paradise Planet" after a game which had the same flaw, which, luckily, was easily eliminated. It is a single factor in a game that is so overwhelming that it takes over the game. In Quidditch, it is the Seeker. There is a probably true story told about the making of the Lord of the Rings movie. The armies were computerized, but they created an artificial intelligence system where the individual soldiers, although largely the same, would have small differences from each other, which would alter their reaction on the battlefield, and make it more realistic. They put it together, and tried out the Battle of the Five Armies using it. The result: All the fighters, upon reacting to what they were facing, turned around and ran away. In order for the book to work, for all intents and purposes, the warriors had to be insanely brave. The basic problem in Quidditch is that there are just too damned many points for catching the Golden Snitch. It is admitted that the team that catches the Golden Snitch is almost never the loser. A logical strategy would be to ignore the Chasers, and have the Beaters go against the opponent's Seeker. As long as it's not a VERY lopsided game, the team that caught the Snitch first would win, and therefore the proper strategic place to put your efforts is making sure the other team does NOT catch the Snitch, and hope that your Chasers and Keeper won't get TOO far behind. I know that some of it comes from Cricket strategy (where, under certain circumstances, a team can increase its chances of winning by purposefully playing badly), but, using computerized brute force techniques, I calculated that catching the Snitch should be about 50 points, not 150, to keep the Seeker strategically important but make the Chasers and Keepers sufficiently important that they cannot be ignored. My best guess: JKR wanted to make the Seeker the most important player on the team, and didn't bother to do the math to see that he was the ONLY important player on the team. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 16:37:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:37:59 -0000 Subject: On Harry and Snape forgiveness, was: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: <3cd952930705170832y5148b724uef089d341eccefb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Laurel Coates" wrote: of the whole post basically> > So I think Snape's role in revealing the prophecy should eventually be > forgiven; it was his role that eventually will cause the downfall of > Voldemort. Alla: The question to me is of course by whom it should be forgiven? Bad actions have unintended consequences, for sure. Does it make them any less bad actions? Not to me, really. I sincerely doubt that when Snape was selling prophecy couple to Voldemort, he had in mind Voldemort's future downfall. I can be wrong of course. So, I am sure WW feeling pretty good because Potters deaths bought them a decade of peace and as somebody said "the agony of one boy" may save them forever. But do I think WW is in any position to forgive Snape, in fact anybody besides Harry? No, I do not. And really, Snape actions in effect **made** Harry a chosen one, no? Life that Harry I am pretty sure would have swapped with anybody IMO. It costs him his parents, it cost him Sirius ( meaning him being taken to Azkaban), it made him endure sufferings at Dursleys. I have a pretty good guess that Harry will eventually forgive Snape, but not because of good consequences his actions cost IMO, but because Harry will decide that Snape feels remorse. But really, I think what Snape did is SO horrible that Harry will indeed be justifying never ever forgiving him and if Snape had any sense of decensy and want of Harry forgiveness, he should be begging that forgiveness on his knees. Yes, I know - he is too "proud" for this, he would never beg for anything. Snape will not be Snape if he would beg, LOL. But IMO if he is too proud to beg for that, he should not expect to get this forgiveness from Harry. I put proud in quotations, because I think that proud is really wrong word to use here. I think Snape not wanting to ask for Harry forgiveness would be arrogance at best, if he is loyal to Dumbledore and the persistence of true evil, if he is not loyal. I would have some respect for him if I hear a true remorse from Snape mouth. And, yes, I know JKR would make Harry forgive Snape at the end, I know that, LOL. I just hope that I will get something indicating that it was not wasted at least. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 16:54:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:54:18 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron (WAS:Re: On the perfection of moral) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168874 Alla wrote: > > Harry **needed** him and Ron was not there for him. That was wrong > in my view. > > Found my old post with these quotes, hehe. > > ""Oh right," said Ron. "I thought you might've told me if it was the cloak. . . because it would've covered both of us, wouldn't it? But you found another way, did you?" > "Listen," said Harry, "I didn't put my name in that goblet. Someone else must've done it." > Ron raised his eyebrows. "What would they do that for?" > *"I dunno," said Harry. He felt it would sound very melodramatic to say, "To kill me."* > Ron's eyebrows rose so high that they were in danger of disappearing into his hair. "It's okay, you know, *you can tell me the truth*," he said. "If you don't want everyone else to know, fine, but *I don't know why you're bothering to lie,* you didn't get into trouble for it, did you? That friend of the Fat Lady's, that Violet, she's already told us all Dumbledore's letting you enter. A thousand Galleons prize money, eh? And you don't have to do end-of-year tests either. . ." > "I didn't put my name in that goblet!" said Harry, starting to feel angry. > "Yeah, okay," said Ron, in exactly the same sceptical tone as Cedric. "Only you said this morning you'd have done it last night, and no one would've seen you.. . . I'm not stupid, you know." > "You're doing a really good impression of it," Harry snapped. > "Yeah?" said Ron, and there was no trace of a grin, forced or otherwise, on his face now. "You want to get to bed, Harry. I expect you'll need to be up early tomorrow for a photo-call or something." > He wrenched the hangings shut around his four-poster, leaving Harry standing there by the door, staring at the dark red velvet curtains, now hiding one of the few people he had been sure would believe him." Alla: > It is like DUH Ron, you never heard of people trying to kill Harry before. > > I know people wrote amazing essays on this one, introducing Ron who feels betrayed. > > I am with Hermione on this one - I think Ron was jealous indeed. Carol responds: But, but, but Harry *doesn't* tell Ron that someone is trying to kill him. That, to me, is the point. Again and again, starting with deciding not to tell Dumbledore that he hears a voice hissing "Kill, kill, kill!" in CoS, Harry hesitates to tell someone something important, in this case "[because] it would sound very melodramatic." Imagine the difference in this conversation if Harry had actually said "To kill me" instead of "I dunno," and followed up with Fake!Moody's theory (actually, his modus operandi, but Harry doesn't know that). Maybe Ron *is* jealous (see below), but he also thinks that Harry is lying to him since Harry has previously said that if he put his name in the Goblet, he'd have done so with no one watching (GoF Am. ed. 259). Ron gives his reasons for thinking that Harry is lying and why Harry would want to put his name in (the prize money, which would be an incentive for *him*--he doesn't realize that it would n't be for Harry--and no end-of-year tests). Harry gives him *no* reasons to believe that he's telling the truth. He simply insists that he didn't put his name in the goblet and then gets angry at Ron for not believing him, implying that Ron is stupid to think as he does (even though Cedric thinks exactly the same thing). BTW, I don't think Ron is jealous of Harry's being a TWT champion per se. I think he'd be happy for Harry if he thought that Harry had put his name in fair and square, or at least let him in on the secret of tricking the goblet. He's jealous, or rather, hurt and resentful, of being excluded. He thinks that Harry has found a way to get past the age line without telling him and giving him a chance, too. Please show me a point at which Harry presents convincing evidence that Ron ought to believe him, and I'll agree that it's all Ron's fault. As it is, I see it as an unfortunate misunderstanding resulting from Harry's failure to trust Ron with (Fake!)Moody's comment about a powerful Dark witch or wizard Confunding the Goblet of Fire as much as from Ron's failure to take Harry at his word without evidence. It's not as if Harry actually *said* that someone was trying to kill him and Ron called him a liar. That's not what happened. I don't know about you, but I think that if I were a fourteen-year-old boy in Ron's position, I'd have been hurt and angry, too. My best friend finds a way to put his name in the Goblet of Fire without letting me in on the secret and won't even tell me how he did after the fact. Just comes up with some dodgy excuse that "someone else must've done it [put his name in the goblet]." Yeah, right, Harry! Ron would think. Who'd have done that and why? (It's true, of course, but Ron is no Legilimens. How is he supposed to believe Harry when Harry is withholding the evidence that would corroborate his story?) And note that Ron does come downstairs to check on Harry when Harry talks to Sirius Black in the fire and is chased away. Harry never gives him a chance to apologize because he thinks that Ron has come downstairs to taunt him (355). (Harry later treats Seamus in exactly the same way in OoP.) Thank goodness for Ron's white face after the First Task. Not even Harry could misinterpret that. Carol, wishing that Hermione had kept her mouth shut rather than trying to be helpful in this instance and that Harry would learn to speak up instead of withholding important information from people he can trust From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 17:05:27 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:05:27 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron (WAS:Re: On the perfection of moral) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168875 > Carol responds: > But, but, but Harry *doesn't* tell Ron that someone is trying to kill > him. That, to me, is the point. Again and again, starting with > deciding not to tell Dumbledore that he hears a voice hissing "Kill, > kill, kill!" in CoS, Harry hesitates to tell someone something > important, in this case "[because] it would sound very melodramatic." > Imagine the difference in this conversation if Harry had actually said > "To kill me" instead of "I dunno," and followed up with Fake! Moody's > theory (actually, his modus operandi, but Harry doesn't know that). Alla: And to me it is so **not** the point. I think that Ron should have trusted Harry when Harry tells him he did not do it, period. If Ron can only trust Harry when Harry would mention that somebody is going to kill him, that's not the level of trust I think should exist between two friends. Come to think of it, on the top of my head, I do not remember Harry **ever** lying to Ron during these four years. I am sure such examples exist, but I do not remember them, so at least I do not think there are too many. Carol: > Ron gives his reasons for thinking that Harry is lying and why Harry > would want to put his name in (the prize money, which would be an > incentive for *him*--he doesn't realize that it would n't be for > Harry--and no end-of-year tests). Harry gives him *no* reasons to > believe that he's telling the truth. He simply insists that he didn't > put his name in the goblet and then gets angry at Ron for not > believing him, implying that Ron is stupid to think as he does (even > though Cedric thinks exactly the same thing). Alla: They are not people who just met, they are best friends, basically brothers. I think Ron should have higher level of trust in Harry than what he showed. Yes, just because Harry said so IMO. Again, this to me was the fight between friends, I certainly do not think that it foreshadows Ron's betraying Harry or anything like that. But no, I do not think that Ron should have trusted Harry only if Harry gave him convincing reasons. I did not do it should have been **more** than enough IMO. Alla. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu May 17 17:23:43 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 13:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion & Law in HP (Was Re:Witches, Warlocks, Wizards, and JKR) Message-ID: <28005923.1179422623324.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168876 From: Goddlefrood Bart: > >> In intelligent Christian objections (intelligent being >> defined as based on knowledge rather than ignorance) > Goddlefrood: > >The ambiguity of the word ignorance is that it can mean both >lack of knowledge and ignoring the facts, I'd be interested >to know which one was meant as the context is not clear. It >does seem to be the former usage, but I'd appreciate a >clarification. I mean in the sense of lack of knowledge, although this lack of knowledge is often on purpose. I am referring to taking things out of context, using coincidence in language, not even reading the books being criticized, or the books on which the criticism is based (i.e. the Bible). An example of an argument based on ignorance: taking the mistranslated phrase, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.", interpreting it as meaning that witches should be killed while calling it a "literal meaning", defining the term "witch" as a Satan worshipper (even though there is NOTHING about that in the Bible), and, because the books use "witch" as the feminine of "wizard", claim that the books are all about devil worship, and will send all the readers to hell. Many of us, especially those who were in the computer and game industries, remember when a game publishing company was raided by the Secret Service, at least in part for publishing a manual for breaking into computers. Ignoring the fact that it was, and still is, perfectly legal to make such a publication, the "instructions for breaking into computers" essentially consisted of rolling some dice, and see if you score more than a certain amount. If you do, you break in. IT WAS A GAME. Similarly, many critics of the books claim that children are being given instructions on how to practice sorcery, that it glorifies human and animal sacrifice, that it teaches children that it's OK to send curses at your enemies, are, at best, twisting what's in the book. There's a DVD out, "HARRY POTTER: WITCHCRAFT REPACKAGED Making Evil Look Innocent". The author of the DVD describes the Harry Potter using the following: "Harry's books are about a young 11-year-old generational wizard, Harry Potter, who attends the prestigious 1000-year-old occult boarding school, Hogwart's School of witchcraft and Wizardry. All his teachers are practicing occultists, and tutor their students in the dark arts of sorcery and divination: fortune telling, astrology, potion mixing, spell weaving and curse casting. Harry's world says that drinking dead animal blood gives power, a satanic human sacrifice and Harry's powerful blood brings new life, demon possession is not spiritually dangerous, and that passing through fire, contacting the dead, and conversing with ghosts, others in the spirit world, and more, is normal and acceptable." People who read that, and don't read the books, will assume that it is an accurate description; not realizing that the books are, if anything, far more innocuous, even from a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian point of view, than, say, Grimm's Fairy Tales. The aforementioned author, Caryl Matrisciana, describes THE WIZARD OF OZ as innocuous compared to HARRY POTTER, when, in fact, they both are pretty much the same thing: putting fairy tales into a modern idiom. Finally, I'd like to say that I am quite familiar with, and not hostile to, fundamentalist and evangelical Chrsitian philosophies, am friends with a number of born-again Christians (who generally stop trying to witness to me when they realize that I know the script as well as they do), including a writer of books for young Christians. I have noted that, by and large, the movements have gone beyond the Jack Chick stage, and realize that it is better to push their philosophy by telling the truth about their opponents than lying. In an argument, I will often say, "Well, you disagree with me, but at least it's for the right reasons." When I say that, it means that it is my belief that my opponent has an understanding of the factual parts of the argument, and the disagreement is based on interpretations of the facts. I have no problem with religious criticism of the Harry Potter books, except when the criticism is based on half-truths and lies. Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 17 17:26:05 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:26:05 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168877 > > >>Pippin: > > Um, no. Disgraced Harry, watching from the sidelines because > > he's been banned for life isn't a patch on QuidditchCaptain!Harry, > > who is responsible for evaluating Ron's performance and could > > throw him off the team if he's not good enough. > > Betsy Hp: > Um, yes. (Sorry, couldn't resist keeping to pattern. ) > > Do you have any canon that shows this is how Ron was feeling? Pippin: Um...no ::blushes:: Reading over carefully, it seems that what put Ron off his game was his fellow Gryffindors, not Harry. They thought that Harry put too many of his own year on the team and they were muttering... "the pressure was increasing to provide a win in the upcoming match against Slytherin." -- HBP 14 Ron must have been okay during their Quidditch practice over the summer, because Harry thinks he's gotten over it until he sees how green Ron looks at the tryouts. Ron does manage to make his saves. We don't see Harry's first practices with the team but Harry thinks that they're making good progress. Then Harry has to replace the injured Katie with Dean Thomas. That's when the murmurs start and *then* Ron's game begins to suffer. It grows steadily worse, and *nothing* Harry says makes any difference. So yeah, it's not Harry's confidence Ron is worried about, it's the confidence of his fellow Gryffindors. But it doesn't come out of nowhere. And it's not something Ron had faced before, because he wasn't included when Harry, Neville and Hermione lost all those points in Book One. I don't think this is just filler, because I think JKR has to get Harry to the point where he can forgive an enemy, and we're not going to believe that if he can't even show some patience and understanding to his friends. It had to be something that Ron's done before so that we can be sure that Harry is not showing blind faith in his friend as the Gryffindors think (and Ron seems to fear.) > > >>Pippin: > > JKR's ultimate aim, I would venture, is not to transform > > her characters. It's to transform *us*, or at least to make > > us see that transformation is not beyond *our* reach. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I, wait, what? *I* don't tend to think people are born either good > or bad. *I* don't live in the shadow of my family. *I* have never > branded a schoolmate's face because she crossed me. So what exactly > am I supposed to be transforming into? And who the heck does JKR > think she is that she feels she can tell me how to fix my life? I > don't see no halo on her. Pippin: She thinks she's writing "very moral books" so I think she expects they will have some effect for the better. Anyway isn't the message of all art "You must change your life" ? She's not writing these books to make money, and she's not doing it because she had this Tolkienic inner world that she had to make real in some way. I figure she wants to tell us something, but I could be wrong. > Betsy Hp: > Yes, yes, yes! I think this is *exactly* the problem I'm having! > It's so very hard to tell if JKR really means for some of the > questionable stuff as per me to actually *be* questionable. Pippin: I think we can tell it's questionable when a character questions it. We have Arthur questioning what the Twins did to the Dursleys and Hermione questioning what was done to Montague. Cho questions what happened to Marietta. It's true that sometimes the characters do things that aren't questioned. Hermione takes the law into her own hands more and more, and she's questioned more and more as she does it, just as Harry's lies aren't questioned at first but land him in bigger and bigger trouble, until he's doing detentions every week. Hagrid is not proud of what he did to Dudley "Shouldn'ta lost me temper" and asks that Harry not tell anyone at Hogwarts what he did. Sirius is eventually not proud of the way he treated Snape. They don't beat themselves up about it, but they don't do it again either. And then there's Lupin, who beats himself up but doesn't change. It doesn't seem to be a happy pattern, whatever JKR means to do with it. Betsy Hp: > I can say that at this point this is not a series I'd specifically > recommend for children. For the horribly icky reason that I'm not > sure they're all that moral. Pippin: The morals are pointed by Dumbledore, Arthur, McGonagall and Sirius -- all bona fide good guys, people whom Harry respects, whose own shortcomings are pointed out in the text. Harry is explicitly aware that Sirius doesn't practice what he preaches, for example. Kids are pretty good at recognizing hypocrisy. I don't think JKR believes she needs to point it out every time it happens, just in case somebody missed it. Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu May 17 17:31:38 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:31:38 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168878 "justcarol67 > Harry violated Snape's trust and privacy by entering the Pensieve. Snape's trust? I was not aware that Snape trusted anyone, least of all Harry. And if Harry violated Snape's privacy it was only after Snape violated Harry's first, and rubbed his nose in it ("Who's dog was it?" Snape said just to make sure Harry knew he'd seen that humiliating incident). And in retrospect, after we've finished book 6 it's even more obvious that Harry did the right thing. In war the last thing in the world that you want is a fair fight, you probe your enemy for weakness to give yourself an unfair advantage because that saves lives. If Snape feels that encounter with James diminished him then Harry may find that fact useful in future dealings with Snape. As for Harry apologizing to Snape in book 5, if he had image what a prate he'd feel like for doing so after the events of book 6. Yes I know, Snape lovers will say he's not really the enemy, we will know if that is true or not on July 21; but as of now you must admit that if he isn't the enemy he's doing an EXCELLENT imitation of one. Eggplant From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu May 17 17:29:51 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:29:51 -0000 Subject: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168879 > phoenixgod2000 > > I don't expect that Molly is perfect, but I do expect that she would > lock away the brooms each night magically just so her wild child twins > wouldn't get into them. That should also stop a six year old girl. > Ken: If you feel that this is what she should have done perhaps you are right. There is no evidence to suggest that she did do however. The boys had no trouble stealing the flying car. Molly did not seem to even know that the car could fly but if the brooms were locked up that car has to be too because where would the boys turn when they couldn't get to the brooms? I don't think that Ginny would have had any trouble borrowing a broom. Molly might not even have cared if she found out as long as Ginny caused no trouble. > phoenixgod2000 > > Harry is a prodigy when it comes to flying. Ken: Sorry but Ginny is a Quidditch prodigy. It's not like it doesn't run in the family. By the time she was a chaser she had the opportunity to train with the team. Women are more naturally team players than men, in my experience and hoping I don't take too much heat for saying so. Of all the many things I could think of to question about how Quidditch is portrayed, Ginny's skill at the game would come way down my list from Harry's which isn't all that high to begin with. These novels seem to have several prodigies, there is no rule that says only one to a story. Ken From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 17:34:13 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:34:13 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168880 > >>Montavilla47: > > Funny, now I'm seeing a parallel between this moment and the whole > Percy story. > > Likewise, it's Percy's inability to apologize that's keeping the > family apart. Betsy Hp: Okay, so I'm ignoring the rest of your post to zero in on this one aspect. And sadly, it's not really that I think you're wrong plot- wise. I think it a high probability that as per JKR Percy is the one in the wrong here. But, IMO, Arthur is the one who should be apologizing. His son comes home with news of a promotion. A promotion that occurs after his son has been the main focus of the MoM witch hunt (hmm, I think I'll say I intended that pun ) and Arthur has the audacity to suggest Percy didn't *earn* that promotion? To suggest that it's all a wicked plot for the MoM to spy on the Weasley family? Too right Percy felt offended! Did Arthur ever do anything to help Percy out at the MoM? Did Arthur offer any support when Percy was being grilled about Crouch? Not as far as canon shows. And *of course* Percy left his home and family. He's just been told he only has his job because the MoM are using him as a patsy to bring his family down. The only way to prove his father wrong is to make that accusation impossible. So yeah, unless Percy's apology is along the lines of, "Sorry Dad that you're so damn paranoid and possibly even jealous you couldn't be happy for me and instead had to make ugly accusations," I hope he doesn't make one. But, I'm doubting JKR feels the same way. Betsy Hp (still hoping for spy!Percy in the end) From mros at xs4all.nl Thu May 17 17:34:33 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:34:33 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the perfection of moral virtues (long) References: Message-ID: <001901c798a9$a1e7b380$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 168881 Phoenixgod; >>>And I'm not talking about the teaching or the meanness or the ordinary point taking. Snape, lest anyone forget about it, was the spy that told Voldemort the prophecy. In a very real way, he got Harry's parents killed. He may not have pulled the trigger, but he was the informant. He was part of the process that left Harry an orphan at the tender mercies of the Dursleys.<<< Marion: Gosh. Snape as the Root Of All Evil. Now *that's* original... And then it turns out in DH that Snape was already working for DD when that prophecy was made, and that DD, being selfappointed warchief against Voldemort, ordered his spy to 'leak' the first half of the prophecy to Voldemort. Voldemort was very close to *winning*, after all. What better way to stop a megalomanic-who-is-afraid-of-death by dangling a prophecy about his demise in front of his nose? DD would know (knowing Tom Riddle intimately) that this would be irresistable. Voldemort would concentrate less on taking over the WW and go after this perceived threat. It would give the Order of the Phoenix more time, time that they desperately needed. It was simply a matter of 'give Voldemort enough rope and he'll hang himself'. Dumbles didn't know at that time of course that two of his own (Lily and Alice) would turn out to be pregnant and due in late July. Didn't DD say something about making mistakes and being more sorry about things than he could tell? Of course, it was not such a stupid move. It worked. As a tactical move it was actually close to brilliant. Voldemort focused all his formidable resources in finding this prophecised child, the Order got precious breathing space and could regroup. Prophecies are after all just that: prophecies. They usually don't come out. Unless one *makes* them come out.. DD even tells Harry this , that prophecies don't come out unless people are told about them and start to arrange their life as to make them come out. HBP, page 510, Scholastic: "If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled, would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think every prophecy in the hall of prophecy has been fulfilled?" But still, it was a good tactical move, and it worked, and it only took a minimal amount of lives. To bad for Harry that it was his mum and dad, but it could just as easily have been Ron's mum and dad or anybody elses. And besides, why the hell didn't Lily and James make DD their secret keeper? Why didn't they make *eachother* their secret keeper? Why this 'we only trust our own dear friends Sirius and Peter' attitude? Did DD tell the Potters that he let the prophecy leak and that they would get into hiding, and did this sour relationships enough for the Potters to become dangerously isolated from those who could protect them? Let's not forget their own responsibility in their demise. What idiot would rely on Sirius Black and Peter Pettigrew to be their secret keeper when they could've gotten DD? Look at what happened at the MoM! Sirius impulsively hares off to 'battle the baddies' and he gets swatted like a fly. Would he have had a chance against FullPower!Voldemort? Of course not. And wouldn't it have been *obvious* that James Potter's Best Friend was So, what would this mean for Hating!Harry, if he would to find out in DH that it was *Dumbledore* who was responsible for leaking that prophecy, in order to distract Voldemort from taking over the WW? I'm not asking you to believe this, as I'm not asking you to believe in DDM!Snape, but just try to imagine it. If it turns out at the end of DH that Snape was ESE! after all, and that he willingly and gloatingly (wringing his hands in glee and twirling his moustache) leaked the prophecy with the express purpose of destroying those pesky Potters ("and I would have succeeded too, if it wasn't for those darned kids!" - whoops, wrong fandom! ::bg::) then I will bow to you and your superior insight, but try to imagine this scenario, please. It's not such a farfetched one, after all. The Order of the Phoenix was created with the express reason to counter Voldemort, after all and not to sit on their collective bum to wait for Harry Potter to be born and save them all. It stands to reason that DD had a plan (probably several) to undermine Voldemort. DD is not stupid, after all. He would recognise a golden opportunity like that prophecy when it fell into his lap. The point I'm trying to make is this: would Harry, if he found out that Snape was not responsible for the Potter's death (strictly speaking it's of course Voldemort who is responsible for the Potter's death, Peter who betrayed them and the Potters themselves and Sirius who behaved quite foolishly, but since you prefer to blame the messenger boy I'm going along and am making DD the one who wants Voldemort to have partial knowledge of the prophecy), if Harry was to find this out, and if it turned out that everything Snape did was on DD orders, pact and parcel of his role as a spy against Voldemort, *would this make any difference to Harry's hating*? My thought is it would not. I swear, sometimes, whilst reading those books, I believe I've stumbled into a world where everything is turned upside down and distorted like mirrors in a carnival. We constantly are told things, but we are *shown* things that are the exact opposite. The 'Snape hates Harry because James' thing is one of them (and one of these days I'm going to write a separate post about this) We are *told* that Snape hates Harry (and I've no doubt that Snape actively loathes the brat after six years of backtalk, suspicion, hating looks and snotnosed rulebreaking) but what we've been *shown* is a eleven-year-old boy who instantly hates his teacher and who, for six years, is determined to continue to hate him. Book after book we see Harry holding on to and feeding his hatred of Snape. Book after book we see him trying to find excuses why it would be a good thing to hate Snape. Oh, Snape must be after the Philosopher's Stone! Oh, Snape must be in cahoots with Malfoy to open the Chamber of Secrets! Oh, Snape wants Sirius and Lupin dead because he'd get a medal! Oh, Auror Moody distrusts him, I must be right about Snape! Oh, Snape can't be trusted, he's probably in cahoots with Voldemort! Oh, he's got a Dark Mark, he *is* in cahoots with Voldemort! Oh, he's a spy, but we still can't trust him because he's probably still working for Voldemort! Oh, he wants to teach me Occlumency because it will make me vulnerable to Voldemort! Oh, Snape doesn't like Sirius so he's to blame when Bellatrix kills Sirius when Sirius impusively runs off to save me when I impulsively ran off right into a trap because I didn't trust Snape so it's Snape who is to blame for Sirius death! *Hurrah!!* I've found out that Snape leaked the prophecy, so now I can safely go on hating Snape for being responsible for my parents death (just as he was responsible for Sirius death - didn't have anything to do with me or Sirius or Bellatrix at *all*), since now I've found a legitimate reason for doing so! (phew! and only after six years of hating him without a good reason for doing so! Even broken clocks are right twice a day and not once every six years) No, Snape being a strict and sarcastic teacher is not reason enough for this level of hatred. I'm telling you, it's not *healthy* to be so full of hatred. It's positively Voldermortish to be so full of hatred... (but more about this in a later post - this one is getting too long anyway) I think (I *hope*) that in book 7 the crisis will come when Harry finds out, somewhere at the end of the books, just before vanquishing Voldemort, that his hatred, the hatred which he carefully nursed and nurtured for seven long years, is simply based on a small boy's prejudice ("there's not a wizard gone bad not from Slytherin"), his inability to trust people (especially adults) and his inability to interpret other people's behaviour, translating every bit of criticism as a direct attack. Harry has, in fact, the emotional maturity of a three year old. If Harry wants to face Voldemort (who snacks on emotionally insecure teenagers between meals) and if he wants to have any chance of surviving this encounter, let alone vanquishing Voldemort, then Harry, imo, has to *grow up* already and get over his hatred. This is what I meant in my last post, really. For six years our hero has been allowed to stay the same, to nurture the same prejudices, to make the same mistakes, to hang on to his deep, bitter hatred of his teacher. If book seven is a 'coming-of-age story' (since Harry will officially have come of age in DH), then Harry really, really, *really* needs to grow up. If not, then the message of the books would be that a eleven-year-old essantially knows all that he ever needs to know. That there is nothing he could possibly learn from life. And that though, my friends, is simply to depressing to entertain. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu May 17 17:41:02 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:41:02 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <20604803.1179419864484.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > In order for the book to work, for all intents and purposes, the warriors had to be insanely brave. > > The basic problem in Quidditch is that there are just too damned many points for catching the Golden Snitch. > Ken: The performance of real men on the battlefield is something that is not easily programmed into computers. Soldiers need to set their sanity aside to do the things that they need to do. And they will do it. Tolkien fought in a war that was as bad as the one he describes in LOTR. You can trust him when it comes to battlefield scenes, he looked the elephant in the eye. I agree exactly about Quidditch scoring. I honestly had the exact same thought independently this morning in the shower. Krum's decision to catch the snitch when Bulgaria was only 160 points down makes no sense under the scoring rules. Maybe it wasn't likely they would gain back enough ground to win with the snitch but it was sure worth waiting a while to be sure of that. > Bart: > > My best guess: JKR wanted to make the Seeker the most important player on the team, and didn't bother to do the math to see that he was the ONLY important player on the team. > Ken: Uh, you're kidding, right? Rowling do math???? Ken From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu May 17 17:43:26 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:43:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past? - Switching Bodies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168883 --- "lealess" wrote: > > Going a bit off-topic here to recommend an essay > proposing that Snape and Dumbledore switched bodies > before the cave adventure. ... bboyminn: Let me summaries, Snape and Dumbledore switched bodies. Which means that on the tower when Snape killed Dumbledore, it was really Dumbledore killing Snape? Right? My first thought is, where in the series has it been established that people can switch bodies. That seems like something pretty big to drop on us without a single clue to its existence. Though I admit that we are vaguely aware of a Transfiguration 'Switching' Spell, but have no indication it means 'switching' in the sense presented here. Second, to what end? What was the purpose? Why would Snape and Dumbledore even conceive of such an idea? Dumbledore is not exactly a dunderhead, he is probably the greatest living wizard on earth. I can see no real practical reason for them to switch. The 'Switch' does serve the theory, but how does the theory serve the story? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, only that I don't agree. Still...alway love a good theory. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 17:53:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:53:40 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron (WAS:Re: On the perfection of moral) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168884 Carol earlier: > > But, but, but Harry *doesn't* tell Ron that someone is trying to kill him. That, to me, is the point. Again and again, starting with deciding not to tell Dumbledore that he hears a voice hissing "Kill, kill, kill!" in CoS, Harry hesitates to tell someone something important, in this case "[because] it would sound very melodramatic." > > Imagine the difference in this conversation if Harry had actually said "To kill me" instead of "I dunno," and followed up with Fake!Moody's theory (actually, his modus operandi, but Harry doesn't know that). > > Alla: > > And to me it is so **not** the point. I think that Ron should have trusted Harry when Harry tells him he did not do it, period. If Ron can only trust Harry when Harry would mention that somebody is going to kill him, that's not the level of trust I think should exist between two friends. > > Come to think of it, on the top of my head, I do not remember Harry **ever** lying to Ron during these four years. I am sure such examples exist, but I do not remember them, so at least I do not think there are too many. > Carol earlier: > > > Ron gives his reasons for thinking that Harry is lying and why Harry would want to put his name in . Harry gives him *no* reasons to believe that he's telling the truth. He simply insists that he didn't put his name in the goblet and then gets angry at Ron for not believing him, implying that Ron is stupid to think as he does (even though Cedric thinks exactly the same thing). > > Alla: > > They are not people who just met, they are best friends, basically brothers. I think Ron should have higher level of trust in Harry than what he showed. > > Yes, just because Harry said so IMO. > > Again, this to me was the fight between friends, I certainly do not think that it foreshadows Ron's betraying Harry or anything like that. > > But no, I do not think that Ron should have trusted Harry only if Harry gave him convincing reasons. > > I did not do it should have been **more** than enough IMO. Carol responds: But do you agree that if Harry had told Ron the full truth, repeating Fake!Moody's words, that Ron would have believed him? Fake!Moody says: "Maybe someone's hoping Potter *is* going to die for it. Imagining things, am I? Seeing things, eh? It was a skilled witch or wizard who put the boy's name in that goblet." Madame Maxime asks what evidence Moody has for his theory, and Fake!Moody says, "Because they hoodwinked a very powerful magical object! It would have needed an exceptionally strong Confundus Charm to bamboozled that goblet into forgetting that only three champions compete in the tournament . . . I'm guessing that thye submitted Potter's name under a fourth school, to make sure he was the only one in his category" (GoF Am. ed. 279). IMO, had Harry told Ron what "Moody" said, Ron would have been behind him 100 percent. But he didn't trust Ron with the truth; he was afraid of sounding melodramatic. I still think Ron's reaction, if not admirable, is perfectly understandable (even for a best friend who's like a brother since brothers who love each other fight in RL and in fiction) and would have been avoided altogether if Harry hadn't been worried about sounding melodramatic. As you said yourself, Ron *knows* that people are out to kill Harry, and he would have believed the story, but Harry didn't give him that chance. As for Harry lying to Ron, I can think of at least one example off the top of my head--Harry lies about a dream he had (Ron missing a save in Quidditch) just to be spiteful, but IIRC, that doesn't happen until OoP. (I don't have the quote handy because I don't remember exactly where in the book it is--something related to Divination, I think.) My point is that Ron is hurt because he knows that Harry would have put his name in the goblet if it weren't for the Age Line--Harry is as excited as anyone else and dreams of glory (though Ron doesn't know *that*). He even tells Ron that he would have put his name in with no one looking in case the goblet spit it out. Harry has always included Ron in his adventures before, so Ron is understandably hurt about being seemingly excluded this time. If Harry had told him the truth about why he thinks someone else put his name in the goblet, Ron would certainly have believed him. As it is, *from Ron's perspective*, "Someone else must've done it" sounds like a feeble cover story. Yes, Ron should have believed Harry. But Harry should have trusted Ron enough to tell him what "Moody" said, in which case they would have worked together. He told Hermione, after all. He ought to have told Ron as well. Friendship works both ways. BTW, I don't know about you, but I keep seeing Harry suppressing information over and over in the books--with DD in CoS, with Lupin in PoA, with Ron in GoF, with Sirius Black early in OoP and with the DA later in the same book. (He also deliberately refuses to tell DD about Umbridge's poison pen, but I understand why he does so.) Maybe you don't find it frustrating, but I do--even though close calls, near misses, suppressed information and all that are necessary to the plot and add to the suspense, I sometimes want to shake Harry and say, "Just tell him (or her)!" (Even when he asks Mr. Weasley to search the Malfoys' house again, he forgets to mention what I imagine will be a very important detail, the secret chamber under the drawing room. Think, Harry! Think!) Anyway, I'm not *blaming* Harry for the quarrel with Ron in GoF. I'm saying that it's an unfortunate mutual misunderstanding. Both of them need to trust each other. Ron learned his lesson. I'm not sure that Harry has fully learned his. He has only summarized the Prophecy, for example, not related it word for word to Ron and Hermione, and he has to be talked into letting them come with him to search for Horcruxes. And he does seem to think that anyone and everyone should believe him "because I said so," especially at the DA meeting. Sorry, Harry, but that's not the way life works, even in the WW. Even with your best friends. (And believing Harry led to disaster at the MoM, remember? Had Harry listened to Hermione and realized how improbable it was for Voldemort to be torturing sirius Black in the MoM, Black would still be alive.) Prophecy Boy and Chosen One or not, Harry is not always right, and "Because I said so" is not a sufficient reason to believe anyone. Ron, his best friend who has loyally stood by him and risked his life in the chess game and by entering the CoS (not his fault that the wall fell in) and blocked his path, deserves to be told the truth. Carol, still clearly seeing Ron's side and wishing Harry could have put himself in Ron's place From jnferr at gmail.com Thu May 17 18:17:00 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 13:17:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: References: <20604803.1179419864484.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <8ee758b40705171117t2883c92dqf935e0d02af8854@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168885 > > Ken: I agree exactly about Quidditch scoring. I honestly had the exact same > thought independently this morning in the shower. Krum's decision to > catch the snitch when Bulgaria was only 160 points down makes no sense > under the scoring rules. Maybe it wasn't likely they would gain back > enough ground to win with the snitch but it was sure worth waiting a > while to be sure of that. > > > Bart: > > > > My best guess: JKR wanted to make the Seeker the most important > player on the team, and didn't bother to do the math to see that he > was the ONLY important player on the team. montims: I am not a games player, and certainly not a mathematician, but isn't this balanced out by the difficulty of catching the snitch? I believe some games have gone on for weeks... Harry is a very good seeker, but we have also seen seekers who don't concentrate or just plain don't see the snitch near them. I am sure that snitches for school quidditch games are slower and more easily caught, but in the World Cup, where the pace was much faster, we saw a phenomenal seeker in Krum. Still, if he hadn't caught the snitch when he did, Ireland would probably have gone on stacking up the points, and it wouldn't have mattered who caught the snitch in the end... I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't seem like too much of a flaw to me... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu May 17 18:40:46 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 18:40:46 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues (long) In-Reply-To: <001901c798a9$a1e7b380$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168886 > Marion: > Gosh. Snape as the Root Of All Evil. Now *that's* original... Well, he isn't responsible for Original Sin, but I'm not convinced he wasn't in the Garden :) > And then it turns out in DH that Snape was already working for DD when that prophecy was made, and that DD, being selfappointed warchief against Voldemort, ordered his spy to 'leak' the first half of the prophecy to Voldemort. But if Snape was DDM and already a spy which equals him being an excellent Occlmens, why wouldn't Dumbledore have given Snape a fake Prophecy to deliver, hell, why wait till a real one was made? Why not send Voldemort into a tailspin with some improbable prophecy that would have him singing dumbledore's tune? hy in Merlin's name would you give half of a real prophecy to your enemy when you could give him a fake one? > Of course, it was not such a stupid move. It worked. As a tactical move it was actually close to brilliant. Not really. It worked because the writer said it works. It's writers fiat. The same reason why Harry wins Quiddich matches he screws up and scary death eaters have the killing aim of geriatic Storm Troopers. There is no logic as to why such a desperate, poorly thought out plan manages to work. The military, combat side of the Voldemort War is one of the weakest parts of the books. Frankly no one on either side is all that competent. Years ago, I started a thread about DD as a general and I still think he measures up to be incompetent at strategy. > And besides, why the hell didn't Lily and James make DD their secret keeper? well, if we are being theoretical, maybe for the same reason DD doesn't make Harry a prefect in OOTP, namely, because he has enough on his mind. He is busy losing a war after all. >Why didn't they make *eachother* their secret keeper? maybe the secret keeper has to stay away from the secret and they didn't want to be seperated. > Let's not forget their own responsibility in their demise. Blame the victim, nice ;) > So, what would this mean for Hating!Harry, if he would to find out in DH that it was *Dumbledore* who was responsible for leaking that prophecy, in order to distract Voldemort from taking over the WW? > I'm not asking you to believe this, as I'm not asking you to believe in DDM!Snape, but just try to imagine it. I can imagine it. I imagine I would hate it. >The Order of the Phoenix was created with the express reason to counter Voldemort, after all and not to sit on their collective bum to wait for Harry Potter to be born and save them all. It stands to reason that DD had a plan (probably several) to undermine Voldemort. DD is not stupid, after all. He would recognise a golden opportunity like that prophecy when it fell into his lap. I outlined a plan above that would do the same thing, only more effectively and you don't even need a real prophecy to put it into play. You just need a world where Prophecy can exist. Actually giving away part of the real prophecy is the worst thing to do. > The point I'm trying to make is this: would Harry, if he found out that Snape was not responsible for the Potter's death (strictly speaking it's of course Voldemort who is responsible for the Potter's death, Peter who betrayed them and the Potters themselves and Sirius who behaved quite foolishly, but since you prefer to blame the messenger boy I'm going along and am making DD the one who wants Voldemort to have partial knowledge of the prophecy), if Harry was to find this out, and if it turned out that everything Snape did was on DD orders, pact and parcel of his role as a spy against Voldemort, *would this make any difference to Harry's hating*? In the story, probably. To me, not so much. It would ever so slightly raise Snape's status and send Dumbledore's plumeting straight to hell. > Harry has, in fact, the emotional maturity of a three year old. I guess we just see things differently. :) > If not, then the message of the books would be that a eleven-year- old essantially knows all that he ever needs to know. That there is nothing he could possibly learn from life. And that though, my friends, is simply to depressing to entertain. So the message should be that he should just be a good little monkey and politely go where the manipulators who know better than he does tells him to go? that all those people who he'd saved when the adults couldn't or wouldn't should be dead because Harry needs to learn his place? That sounds worse than me. If anything, Harry needs to learn to stand up to more people. He let Dumbledore off far too lightly in HBP and Snape... there aren't enough hours in the day for me to explain what Harry should do to Snape. phoenixgod2000 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu May 17 19:09:49 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:09:49 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <20604803.1179419864484.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168887 --- Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > All the talk about Ginny playing Quidditch has reminded > me of something I figured out years ago: > > ... > > But there was one problem with the game, and it showed > a basic problem with Quidditch, as well. I ... It is a > single factor in a game that is so overwhelming that it > takes over the game. In Quidditch, it is the Seeker. > > ... > > The basic problem in Quidditch is that there are just > too damned many points for catching the Golden Snitch. > It is admitted that the team that catches the Golden > Snitch is almost never the loser. A logical strategy > would be to ignore the Chasers, and have the Beaters > go against the opponent's Seeker. ... > > My best guess: JKR wanted to make the Seeker the most > important player on the team, and didn't bother to do > the math to see that he was the ONLY important player > on the team. > > Bart > bboyminn: A very good point, but not one that has not been addressed in the wizard world. If you think back to the beginning of Quidditch when the Snitch was introduced, we find that exactly as you predicted, scoring was ignored and everyone concentrated on the Snitch. As the story goes (from memory) some wizard thought the game was a little dull, and decided to add a little bird with a 150 galleon bounty to the game. Naturally, everyone forgot about the game, and concentrated on catching the Snitch, on the typically human assumption that a bird (and 150 galleons) in the hand is better that any amount of points in the bush (or on the scoreboard). So, the rules were changed. Cash was no longer a reward, to keep things focused on the game, points were substituted for cash. Further, only the Seeker could catch the Snitch. Which meant the rest of the team forgot about chasing the Snitch and went back to the regular team jobs. Further, if all the emphasis is placed on stopping the other Seeker, and not on scoring points, it is very possible for the other team to score sufficient points to make catching the Snitch irrelevant. So, that aspect of the game can't truly be ignored. It is the job of the rest of the team to keep scoring under control (making your own and preventing the other team) while the Seeker seeks out the Snitch. Again, if scoring in not controlled then catching the Snitch doesn't matter. But I do agree that 150 points is excessive. Still the 150 points is based on something that happened in history. By the time they worked out that it was excessive, it was already entrenched in the game. Some things stand on tradition more than logic. Further, wizards aren't the most logical of people. I think magic corrupts the thought processes of the masses, very much the way modern technology does for muggles. Why engage in deep analysis when you can just wave a wand and accomplish what you want? For muggles, any half-wit can drive a car, but can they fix one, build one, or more importantly create one? I think not. Any muggle can use a computer, but can they fix one, build one, or more importantly create one? I think not. As wizards rely on magic, and muggles rely on technology, we actually make ourselves more helpless. Remember the early creators of automobiles and planes, build their machines from scratch; they even cast the engines in sheds in their back yards. In the wizard world, certainly there are the deep thinking geniuses who create new magic, but the more we rely on geniuses to create the world around us, the more helpless we become as individuals to manage that technology. Most of us, as is true of wizards, are helpless when the technology around us breaks down. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From jnferr at gmail.com Thu May 17 19:04:02 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:04:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705171204t322ca764ke8ebb4d4c553c273@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168888 > > > >>Pippin: > > I doubt it matters to her how much we dislike the characters > > as they are in Book Six as long as we don't get so alienated > > that we don't read Book Seven. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I snipped the rest of your post, but I do agree with it. Our good > guys all have their shadows that they need to grow beyond. I guess, > my frustration and worry comes about because I'm not confident that > JKR is juggling the various issues she's raising all that well. > (Hopefully DH will show that I've worried for nothing.) montims: You know, it's because we've all had too much time to analyse and reread and analyse again that we are in this predicament... Future new readers will just work their way through all 7 books, or not, much as someone would read the Narnia books or LOTR today, reading each once only to begin with, before reaching the denouement or putting the series aside. They will miss the minutiae that we encounter through constant reading and guesswork, and just take in the overall story and character transmitted by the author. I'm sure... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From colwilrin at yahoo.com Thu May 17 18:44:36 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 18:44:36 -0000 Subject: What did Dumbledore have up his sleeve? In-Reply-To: <26549769.1179348347691.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168889 Bart Wrote: "It has been mentioned. Look for the phrase "already dead". It is the key to a lot of DDM!Snape theories; that the reason why it was OK for Snape to kill Dumbledore was because Dumbledore was already on the verge of death, and that Snape was just "pulling the plug"." Colwilrin: My initial thought when the hand was mentioned in HBP was that it was just the tip of the iceberg. Then, while rereading POA, I started noticing how the Dementors hands were described and the mental image it gave me. This is the exact same mental image that I got when JKR described DD's hand. So, this theory started coming to me...what if the magic that DD encountered didn't just injure his hand. What if it was slowly turning him into a dementor! I don't recall JKR telling us how dementors originate...they could be former wizards. So, Snape would not only be helping a dying man not suffer...but preventing DD from becoming a dementor. This would not just be compassionate, but actually noble, as it would prevent DD from becoming an evil soul sucker. This would support DD's sudden haste in having Harry know about the Horcruxes and Voldemort's history. He would have known he was changing into a demeantor, and that his time was limited to convey the knowledge to Harry. DD's sudden interest in bringing Harry up to speed in HBP was something I felt was connected to DD knowing he was going to die soon. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu May 17 19:52:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch Message-ID: <18202776.1179431570127.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168890 From: Janette >I am not a games player, and certainly not a mathematician, but isn't this >balanced out by the difficulty of catching the snitch? I believe some games >have gone on for weeks... > >Harry is a very good seeker, but we have also seen seekers who don't >concentrate or just plain don't see the snitch near them. > >I am sure that snitches for school quidditch games are slower and more >easily caught, but in the World Cup, where the pace was much faster, we saw >a phenomenal seeker in Krum. Bart: Having posted a couple of LONG posts today, I'm trying to keep the rest of my posting down, but there is nothing in canon to imply that the school has an easier to catch snitch, that the game has been played for hundreds of years, so there will be more statistical anomolies than if the game was relatively recent (such as games lasting for weeks). As far as the different snitches, there is nothing in canon, and, based on Harry's observations of the World Match, one would have thought that he'd have noted something like that. As far as bad seekers go, well, seeing that, for all intents and purposes, your most important player is the seeker, wtih the beaters a distant second, if a team has a bad seeker, then they have no team. I also thought that 6 Quidditch games a year was a kind of low number, but not to the level of illogical. From jnferr at gmail.com Thu May 17 19:49:12 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:49:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Smeltings' sticks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705171249q6919ad03j9e09c69d8abb8282@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168891 carol wrote: > Dudley and his fellow Smeltings students wear uniforms that seem to be > a parody of British public school uniforms (maroon tailcoats, orange > knickerbockers, and boaters), but they also carry "knobbly sticks used > for hitting each other when the teachers weren't looking" (SS Am. ed. > 32). Clearly, it's a boys' school and Uncle Vernon hopes that it will > make a "man" (i.e., an even bigger bully) out of Dudley. > > Does anyone (preferably British list members) think that JKR is poking > fun at British public schools, especially boys' schools, here? What do > the Smeltings' sticks suggest or correspond to? > > Thanks in advance for your input on this question. > > Carol, who, being female and American, never attended any remotely > similar institution montims: the stick reads to me like a Shillelagh, but is a parody I think of school uniforms, such as at Eton: The school is famous for the traditions it maintains, including a uniform of black tailcoat (or morning coat ) and waistcoat , false-collarand pinstriped trousers. All students wear a white tie that is effectively a strip of cloth folded over into the collar. There are some variations in the school dress worn by boys in authority, see School Prefectsand King's scholars sections.The long-standing tradition that the present uniform was first worn as mourning for the death of George IIIis unfounded, as "Eton dress" has undergone significant changes since its standardisation in the 19th century. Originally (along with a top-hat and walking-cane) merely Etonian dress for formal occasions, it is still worn today for classes, which are referred to as "schools". Members of the teaching staff (known as *Beaks*) are also required to wear a form of school dress when teaching. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College) But it also reads as Dickensian to me, like much else of the HP series... I think it's not so much a parody as a caricature... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu May 17 20:14:34 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:14:34 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168892 > Betsy Hp: > Okay, so I'm ignoring the rest of your post to zero in on this one > aspect. And sadly, it's not really that I think you're wrong plot- > wise. I think it a high probability that as per JKR Percy is the one > in the wrong here. > > But, IMO, Arthur is the one who should be apologizing. His son comes > home with news of a promotion. A promotion that occurs after his son > has been the main focus of the MoM witch hunt (hmm, I think I'll say > I intended that pun ) and Arthur has the audacity to suggest > Percy didn't *earn* that promotion? To suggest that it's all a > wicked plot for the MoM to spy on the Weasley family? Too right > Percy felt offended! Did Arthur ever do anything to help Percy out > at the MoM? Did Arthur offer any support when Percy was being > grilled about Crouch? Not as far as canon shows. > > And *of course* Percy left his home and family. He's just been told > he only has his job because the MoM are using him as a patsy to bring > his family down. The only way to prove his father wrong is to make > that accusation impossible. > > So yeah, unless Percy's apology is along the lines of, "Sorry Dad > that you're so damn paranoid and possibly even jealous you couldn't > be happy for me and instead had to make ugly accusations," I hope he > doesn't make one. But, I'm doubting JKR feels the same way. > > Betsy Hp (still hoping for spy!Percy in the end) > Hickengruendler: I agree with you up to a certain point. I know, that during my first reading of this scene I definitely felt sorry for Percy and wondered what happened to Arthur's usually pretty diplomatic self. But (ignoring the spy possibility for a moment, which while rereading the books I found more unlikely since I once did, mostly because Percy to me seems like the most honest person in the entire books. I can't see him being a spy for anybody, sinc ethis varrants a level of sneakiness and an ability to act, which I don't see in Percy at all), what about his later behaviour? I know that you don't like Molly much, but what happened between Arthur and Percy was not her fault and she tried to keep contact with her son. Whatever her flaws are, she does not deserve to have a door slammed in her face by Percy. Same is true for not visiting Arthur after the snake bite, though I see the possibility of him hearing from the bite inly after Arthur's life wasn't in danger anymore. Hickengruendler, who likes Percy and can somewhat understand him leaving the other Weasleys, but still thinks that his later actions varrant some apology as well From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 20:18:20 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:18:20 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron WAS:Re: On the perfection of moral In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168893 Alla: So, if you ask me, I think Harry forgave Ron **really** fast. JMO. Montavilla47: I understand what you are saying and I agree with you to a certain extent. But I feel like both Ron and Harry were being jerks for several weeks. Ron was the first one to be a jerk. But their breach lasted a lot longer than it would have if Harry had absorbed what Hermione said about Ron being jealous and dealt with that, instead of staying angry about it. Ron could have swallowed his pride and begged forgiveness weeks before the first task. But if he honestly thought that Harry had put his name in the goblet, why should he? He was still worried enough about Harry that he went looking for him when Harry was missing from bed. In return, Harry chucked a badge at him. I'm not sure you get much jerkier than throwing a sharp metal object at someone's head. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 20:34:48 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:34:48 -0000 Subject: Percy vs Arthur (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168894 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But, IMO, Arthur is the one who should be apologizing. > > > >>Hickengruendler: > I agree with you up to a certain point. > > I know that you don't like Molly much, but what happened between > Arthur and Percy was not her fault and she tried to keep contact > with her son. > Betsy Hp: Okay, putting a choke hold on my usual tendency to blame *everything* on Molly , I can agree that Percy didn't really have reason to blame his mother for his father's actions. However, Arthur accused Percy of being a spy on the family. The *only* way for Percy to prove he's not a spy is to have nothing to do with the family. And that includes (might *especially* include, actually) his mom, who'd know what everyone was up to and could possibly fill evil MoMspy! Percy in. I can see Percy apologizing to Molly for his part in her suffering. But I'd hate for it to appear that Molly's suffering was all Percy's fault since I think Arthur holds the lion's share of the blame. > >>Hickengruendler: > > Same is true for not visiting Arthur after the snake bite, though I > see the possibility of him hearing from the bite inly after > Arthur's life wasn't in danger anymore. > Betsy Hp: As you say, Percy has been forced (by his father) to cut himself off from the family, how would he even hear about Arthur's snake bite in a timely manner? And why would he think his appearance would do anything other than agitate an already greviously injured man? But yes, I agree that it does take two to tango, so Percy isn't a *competely* innocent lamb here. But neither is he the Weasley demon. Betsy Hp (agreeing that there wasn't much in the last book to suggest spy!Percy, unfortunately) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 20:48:48 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:48:48 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168895 > >>Pippin: > > Reading over carefully, it seems that what put Ron > off his game was his fellow Gryffindors, not Harry. > They thought that Harry put too many of his > own year on the team and they were muttering... > > I don't think this is just filler, because I think JKR has to get > Harry to the point where he can forgive an enemy, and we're > not going to believe that if he can't even show some patience > and understanding to his friends. It had to be something that > Ron's done before so that we can be sure that Harry is not > showing blind faith in his friend as the Gryffindors think > (and Ron seems to fear.) Betsy Hp: I still think of it as filler in that it's sloppy. The idea that the Gryffindor's are suspicious of the number of team members from Harry's own year seems like "make worry" on JKR's part. Yes, Harry has two people and that's including himself, from his year on the team. *This* is enough to cause predictions of doom and gloom from his fellow housemates? I do understand what you say JKR was trying to do or show with this side story. I just think she kind of faked it, forcing Ron into an issue the readers had *just* seen him outgrow. The mechanics of her story are showing through, IOWs. > >>Pippin: > The morals are pointed by Dumbledore, Arthur, McGonagall and > Sirius -- all bona fide good guys, people whom Harry respects, > whose own shortcomings are pointed out in the text. Harry is > explicitly aware that Sirius doesn't practice what he preaches, for > example. Kids are pretty good at recognizing hypocrisy. I don't > think JKR believes she needs to point it out every time it happens, > just in case somebody missed it. Betsy Hp: But my worry is that it's *JKR* who's missing it. Betsy Hp From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu May 17 21:14:18 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 21:14:18 -0000 Subject: Number of classmates in Quidditch Team: (Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168896 > Betsy Hp: > I still think of it as filler in that it's sloppy. The idea that the > Gryffindor's are suspicious of the number of team members from > Harry's own year seems like "make worry" on JKR's part. Yes, Harry > has two people and that's including himself, from his year on the > team. *This* is enough to cause predictions of doom and gloom from > his fellow housemates? > Hickengruendler: You are right with this. In the year when Angelina was captain, four of her class were in the team (Alicia, the Twins, and Angelina herself). One year leater, only Harry and two of his classmates where on the team. And Dean was only substitute and only played because Katie and later Harry couldn't play. So I agree that the explanation within the text seems somewhat forced. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu May 17 21:30:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 21:30:25 -0000 Subject: Religion & Law in HP and Smelting Sticks In-Reply-To: <28005923.1179422623324.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168897 > Bart: > > > >> In intelligent Christian objections (intelligent being > >> defined as based on knowledge rather than ignorance) > > > Goddlefrood: > > > >The ambiguity of the word ignorance is that it can mean both > >lack of knowledge and ignoring the facts, I'd be interested > >to know which one was meant as the context is not clear. It > >does seem to be the former usage, but I'd appreciate a > >clarification. > Bart: > I mean in the sense of lack of knowledge, although this lack > of knowledge is often on purpose. I am referring to taking > things out of context, using coincidence in language, not > even reading the books being criticized, or the books on > which the criticism is based (i.e. the Bible). Goddlefrood: So, then, wilful ignorance as well as not being knowledgeable, thanks for the clarification. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Bart and have noted that many an argument relative to the detriment that would, in the argument of those attacking the HP books, be incurred by the younger reader or listener is based on no real grasp of the facts. Personally I doubt if these people have actually a deep understanding of the Bible, in any form. What I think is that too literal an interpretation of just about anything can lead to problems, except of course contracts ;-). Mind you, even then it can lead to problems :-? If anyone has any view of the underlying Christian doctrine, which is, after all, based more on the New Testament than the Old Testament, that differs from mine, which I would summarise as: be tolerant to others and respect different views, even if you do not believe in those views; or, even more simply: live and let live, then I would be interested to receive them. I certainly do not think that the books are in any way subversive, neither are they trying to undermine society in any way. They are enjoyable, amusing and a grand diversion from weightier issues, but ultimately they will not change the world, IMO. > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168870 > Carol enquired about Public School traditions and whether they were thought parodic. Goddlefrood: Let me say first I was expelled from some very fine schools in my time ;-) I have first hand experience of several quite eminent Public Schools in England, having actually been to them and enjoyed the lunacy that goes on in them, at least at times. JKR's portrayal of the Smeltings Stick and uniform does show some parody of the system. It seems to me, though, that it is more based on what used to happen, rather than what does now happen in such institutions. My thoughts on reading about Smeltings were that it was based largely on matters contained in "Tom Brown's Schooldays: by Thomas Hughes, that was published first in the mid-nineteenth century. Flashman was the famous bully from that book and George MacDonald Fraser has written a series of books that continue until now about Flashman and his adventures after school. So, yes, it is a parody. Some of the traditions continue at some of these institutions and the Public School slang is a vast and developing one. The tuck shop was a favoured haunt of this Old Salopian when there, but the Tucks was not such fun (it was a school running race and compulsory). Penals were little fun either, but from them I developed my early writing style (a penal is a fully written out page of lined A4 paper). Detentions and tardy book were two matters that concerned me largely too, I held the school record for the tardy book, and possibly still do as I was hardly ever not signing it (a punishment for skipping breakfast). Eton and the other place are, of course, even more traditional still than was my school, so any more expert inmates from either of those two would have more bizarre tales to tell you than I could, although some might make one's hair curl ;-) Goddlefrood From jnferr at gmail.com Thu May 17 21:23:03 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:23:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <18202776.1179431570127.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <18202776.1179431570127.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <8ee758b40705171423n260c9831ve8b318de1a87d2d2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168898 > > Bart: > Having posted a couple of LONG posts today, I'm trying to keep the rest of > my posting down, but there is nothing in canon to imply that the school has > an easier to catch snitch, that the game has been played for hundreds of > years, so there will be more statistical anomolies than if the game was > relatively recent (such as games lasting for weeks). montims: and not wanting to flog a dead horse, but I believe Quidditch Through The Ages IS canon, isn't it? That is the history of Quidditch, which originated in the 1000s, and cribbing shamelessly from Lexicon ( http://www.hp-lexicon.org/quidditch/quidditch.html) - *Scoring:* On the face of it, Quidditch scoring is unfair. In fact, it's so unfair that you can barely call it a sport. Since catching the Snitch gains one side the equivalent of fifteen goals and ends the game so the other team can't counter it, Quidditch is essentially a match between the two Seekers and nothing else. So what makes it so popular? Do witches and wizards just watch it for the violence and fancy broom tricks? Not at all. Quidditch is always played in a series. Unless you're playing a pickup game in the apple orchard, every Quidditch match is part of a larger series of matches, and accumulated points are what count toward ultimate victory. The Quidditch Cup at Hogwarts goes to the team with the most total points, not the one who has won the most matches. The standings we see in the *Daily Prophet* for the British League (DP) list the teams in order of how many points they have in total, from Tutshill with 750 down to the lowly Cannons with only 230. Nowhere in the standings does it note how many matches each team won. Although we don't see evidence of it, there must be a similar system for the World Cup, which would imply that Bulgaria and Ireland were the top scorers in the world that year. Would it have been possible, then, for Bulgaria to have won the World Cup with Krum's capture of the Snitch, even though Ireland won the match? Apparently so. As for games lasting weeks, I don't have the book to hand right now, but good old lexicon again says that in 1884, a Golden Snitch is said to have escaped capture for six months during a game on Bodmin Moor; the game was called and the Snitch is now said to be living wild on the moor, and I'm sure there are other mentions of games going on for days or weeks until the snitch is caught. I'm sure someone else can confirm or deny this... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tulaksam at yahoo.com Thu May 17 21:07:58 2007 From: tulaksam at yahoo.com (Ryan Smith) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:07:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ginny's awesomeness (was Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon?) Message-ID: <52548.95815.qm@web35401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168899 Phoenixgod said: >Harry is a prodigy when it comes to flying. He is also the hero of the story. It's okay when he does cool stuff every once in the while during the story. Ginny was a nonentity for most of the series only to burst onto the scene with amazing skills she trained in secretly off screen who snatches the snitch out from under Cho Chang, an experienced seeker and wins the cup for the team. >The next year she is playing a different position, is the life and soul of the team and scores practically at will. Please. Miss Ryan comes out of lurking long enough to say the following: I personally am willing to except that there are a lot of things that happen in the WW that we'll never find out, simply because they don't interest Harry. Honestly, Harry had no interest in Ginny until the summer before year 6, when he learns that she is more than just his best friend's sister. She -is- the life and soul of -his- team. We have to remember that the story is -Harry's- told from his viewpoint...and the boy gets a lot of things wrong the first go around. Just because in Harry's story, he fails to notice Ginny's mad Quidditch skills, doesn't mean that in -Ginny's- story, we won't find her agonizing how to become a better player to impress a certain boy that she likes...just my two knuts. This battle is symbolic, too, because who knows if he would have kissed her if Cho Chang had found the snitch? It's the metaphoric battle for Harry's heart. From juli17 at aol.com Thu May 17 21:41:19 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 21:41:19 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron (WAS:Re: On the perfection of moral) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168900 Carol: > > Anyway, I'm not *blaming* Harry for the quarrel with Ron in GoF. I'm > saying that it's an unfortunate mutual misunderstanding. Both of them > need to trust each other. Ron learned his lesson. I'm not sure that > Harry has fully learned his. He has only summarized the Prophecy, for > example, not related it word for word to Ron and Hermione, and he has > to be talked into letting them come with him to search for Horcruxes. > And he does seem to think that anyone and everyone should believe him > "because I said so," especially at the DA meeting. Sorry, Harry, but > that's not the way life works, even in the WW. Even with your best > friends. (And believing Harry led to disaster at the MoM, remember? > Had Harry listened to Hermione and realized how improbable it was for > Voldemort to be torturing sirius Black in the MoM, Black would still > be alive.) > > Prophecy Boy and Chosen One or not, Harry is not always right, and > "Because I said so" is not a sufficient reason to believe anyone. Ron, > his best friend who has loyally stood by him and risked his life in > the chess game and by entering the CoS (not his fault that the wall > fell in) and blocked his path, deserves to be told the truth. > Julie: I agree that Harry often doesn't tell the whole truth, due to his unfortunate tendency to keep things to himself, especially if he thinks someone will try and dissuade him from a course he's determined to take. Harry is also not always right, and "just because I say so" isn't a sufficient reason to accept Harry's judgement. However, I am with Alla in this one instance. I feel Ron was mostly in the wrong here. This time it wasn't about Harry's intepretation, or Harry hiding something that only pertained to his own welfare from Ron. This is something both he and Ron wished they could do, if only they were old enough. And Harry tells Ron flat out, several times as I recall (though I don't have my books with me at the moment) that he did NOT put his name in the Goblet. Yet Ron steadfastly refuses to believe him. I do understand Ron's frustration and his initial suspicion, since Harry often does hide things. That Ron accused Harry didn't bother me, but that he wouldn't accept Harry's repeated word did. And I did see that as more Ron's issue in this case than Harry's. Julie From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 21:14:52 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (David) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 21:14:52 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <20604803.1179419864484.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168901 > Bart: > My best guess: JKR wanted to make the Seeker the most important > player on the team, and didn't bother to do the math to see that > he was the ONLY important player on the team. David: It would depend on the level of play as to the role of the Seeker. School kids who are still learning flight and manuevering will have a more a more difficult time scoring. But if you recall in the Goblet of Fire, the Irish Quidditch team out manuevered and outflew the Bulgarian team and Krum had to catch the Snitch to end the game and end the game on a more favorable term for his team and country otherwise the score could have been 340-20 Ireland. David From foilgirl_82 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 21:52:24 2007 From: foilgirl_82 at yahoo.com (Meghan) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 21:52:24 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168902 Hi, --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Snape's trust? I was not aware that Snape trusted anyone, least of > all Harry. And if Harry violated Snape's privacy it was only after > Snape violated Harry's first, and rubbed his nose in it... So, two wrongs make a right? I do think that Snape should've given Harry a chance to remove any especially painful memories before starting his lesson. However, Harry had absolutely *no* right to go snooping around someone else's memories. IMO, it's the lowest thing Harry's ever done, including Sectumsempra. > ("Who's dog was it?" Snape said just to make sure Harry knew he'd > seen humiliating incident). That is your interpretation, you're entitiled to it. Mine (and I am not a big Snape fan) is that Snape might possibly, maybe, been feeling the tiniest bit of sympathy for Harry. > And in retrospect, after we've finished book 6 it's even more > obvious that Harry did the right thing. Your argument has one flaw that I can see: both DD and the prophecy state that it is Harry's ability to love that will enable him to defeat Voldie, not his power to fight just as dirty as the bad guys. To me, a victory obtained by cruelty and torture isn't much of a victory, no matter how much the other side "deserved it". Respectfully, Meghan, who is inclined to believe in ESE!Snape, but who is a bit apalled by the amount of vitriol being spewed at him. From juli17 at aol.com Thu May 17 22:21:50 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:21:50 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168904 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" > wrote: > > > Snape's trust? I was not aware that Snape trusted anyone, least of > > all Harry. And if Harry violated Snape's privacy it was only after > > Snape violated Harry's first, and rubbed his nose in it... Meghan: > So, two wrongs make a right? I do think that Snape should've given > Harry a chance to remove any especially painful memories before > starting his lesson. However, Harry had absolutely *no* right to go > snooping around someone else's memories. IMO, it's the lowest thing > Harry's ever done, including Sectumsempra. Julie: This has been the crux of many debates about HP. Whether a wrong is a wrong is a wrong, or whether the wrongness of the act is dependent on *who* is performing the act. Should the good guys be given a pass because they are "good" or should they be held to the same (or even a higher) standard because they are the good guys and should behave better than the bad guys? I think the latter, but not everyone does. Eggplant: > > ("Who's dog was it?" Snape said just to make sure Harry knew he'd > > seen humiliating incident). Meghan: > That is your interpretation, you're entitiled to it. Mine (and I am > not a big Snape fan) is that Snape might possibly, maybe, been feeling > the tiniest bit of sympathy for Harry. Julie: This scene probably the best example of how different perspectives lend different conclusions. In my reading, I contrasted Snape's behavior here ("That is not a bad as it might have been," his mere observation rather than usual openly scathing remarks when seeing Harry's memories) as a clear improvement over his earlier behavior toward Harry, whereas other fans simply read it as *more* of the same if (perhaps) to a lesser degree. And so the debate continues ;-) Julie From lealess at yahoo.com Thu May 17 22:23:28 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:23:28 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past? - Switching Bodies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168905 > bboyminn: > > Let me summaries, Snape and Dumbledore switched bodies. > > Which means that on the tower when Snape killed > Dumbledore, it was really Dumbledore killing Snape? > Right? > > My first thought is, where in the series has it been > established that people can switch bodies. That seems > like something pretty big to drop on us without a > single clue to its existence. Though I admit that we > are vaguely aware of a Transfiguration 'Switching' > Spell, but have no indication it means 'switching' > in the sense presented here. > > Second, to what end? What was the purpose? Why would > Snape and Dumbledore even conceive of such an idea? > Dumbledore is not exactly a dunderhead, he is probably > the greatest living wizard on earth. I can see no > real practical reason for them to switch. The 'Switch' > does serve the theory, but how does the theory serve > the story? > > I'm not saying you are right or wrong, only that I > don't agree. Still...alway love a good theory. > > Steve/bboyminn > Sorry, I don't have time to make a long reply. What it means is that they switched *back* during the time it took for them to look at each other on the Tower, sort-of in the same way Voldemort jumped out of Harry's body in the Ministry. That last-minute switch on the Tower would mean that Snape would have first-hand knowledge of exactly what was ailing Dumbledore, which might have enabled him to make his decision much more quickly. Why would they switch in the first place? Because Dumbledore is in failing health and Snape has first-hand knowledge of the kinds of protections Voldemort might use to protect his Horcruxes. Snape may have made the potion. He may have been involved perpherally in Regulus Black's first attempt to get this particular Horcrux. And, maybe Dumbledore really does trust Snape, and wants him to let him have the opportunity to participate in the big adventure, too, and get to know/teach Harry in the process. Arguing against this is Snape's utter dislike for Harry, of course, and his habit of handling things on his own. You are probably right, however; to introduce a new spell at this point would be unexpected. If we were going to see a Voldemort-type possession again, it might have already happened. This switched- bodies theory (not mine, by the way -- just something I thought was interesting) does answer a lot of questions about expressed regrets after drinking the potion and odd behaviors on the part of Dumbledore, however. lealess From ida3 at planet.nl Thu May 17 22:25:58 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:25:58 -0000 Subject: What if...? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168906 What if..? I was reading something on Leaky when something occurred to me. Maybe it is just an absurd thought and it is probably nothing new but anyway, what if..? What if the one person that was present at GH was Harry but not just only present at this event but what if Harry travelled back in time before events on GH occurred? What if he had interactions with his parents or just Lily and what let to the Potter's rejecting DD as their secret keeper. What if the awful boy Petunia was referring to was non- other then Harry telling Lily about Sirius being locked up in Azkaban for 12 years? Harry looks so much like his father that people seeing him, would think they were looking at James but only Harry's eyes would have given him away. Lily or both Lily and James would realise that they can't change the future because to many unknowns would happen if they did but what if slight changes were made, like James sending the invisibility cloak to DD. Maybe in the first event Lupin was included in the secret keeper switch but was now left out of it to make it unable for him to interfere with events. It could be that Sirius was left out of it entirely but it could be that he knew more about some events but not everything, this might not even have to be from either Lily or James it could be that either one of them left him a letter or Harry did, it would explain him making a will and why he did not care much about his own life, if he thought he was going to die anyway and why he became increasingly depressed about being locked up in the house of his parents, because let's face it if you knew you would be dying next year wouldn't you be depressed if you have to spend your last time on earth in such a g*d-forsaken place? It could even be that James did not know everything and Harry only talking to his mother and why his mother agreed with the SK switch. Time travelling Harry would only know the last course of events and he doesn't know the meaning of many of the things that occurs but if he told Lily then she would know what needed to be changed for events to actually occur as Harry told her because she would be able to understand what would make it able for things to occur as they did. JKR's time travel and how she used it in her Potterverse would make it difficult to make assumptions of what did or did not occur during the first time around because after the time travelling events, only the last time and the final version of events remain standing. Harry himself would not know what was changed because of his visit into the past because he was to young to witness him being there and the changes made in the past automatically changes his memory of things, just like with anyone else that had no prior knowledge it had been different in a first time. It could be that it was not James that he heard saying to Lily that she should take Harry (baby) and run, it could be that he heard himself tell Lily that Voldemort was coming when he heard is father fight LV downstairs and why Lupin was so surprised Harry had heard his father because Lupin would know the place and would think it impossible for Harry to have heard his father. Lily might not only have saved baby Harry that night but also her 17 year old son and just like DD (on the tower) it made her unable to fight LV when he came up to the room because her actions made a timely response impossible and 17 year old Harry could not do anything to prevent events from unfolding just like he could do nothing on the tower and when LV killed Lily and directed his attention on baby Harry there was nothing 17 year old Harry could do and right after LV could no longer hurt Harry. It makes me think that Lily's sacrifice was that much more important then James's because she did not only sacrificed herself for baby Harry but also for 17 year old son and why she did not apperate out with baby Harry because it would mean leaving 17 year old Harry behind because she would know he would try to delay LV just like his dad and it might have been this events of a mother's love that protected baby Harry from the killing curse. 17 year old Harry took care of his baby self and it was probably him that informed DD of what had happened and why DD made the choices that he did for Harry and why he hesitated so much to tell Harry everything because he knew that too much information could do more harm then good. Of course it is just a theory but it would make a lot of sense to me why everything happened as it happened and it would certainly explain DD's actions but also why Lily did not apperate out, while she had the chance. Dana From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu May 17 22:40:00 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:40:00 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <20604803.1179419864484.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168907 > Bart: > The basic problem in Quidditch is that there are just too damned many points for catching the Golden Snitch. It is admitted that the team that catches the Golden Snitch is almost never the loser. A logical strategy would be to ignore the Chasers, and have the Beaters go against the opponent's Seeker. As long as it's not a VERY lopsided game, the team that caught the Snitch first would win, and therefore the proper strategic place to put your efforts is making sure the other team does NOT catch the Snitch, and hope that your Chasers and Keeper won't get TOO far behind. > > My best guess: JKR wanted to make the Seeker the most important player on the team, and didn't bother to do the math to see that he was the ONLY important player on the team. > Neri: I agree. My first thought when reading that catching the snitch was worth 150 points was that it's way too much, although I didn't calculate strategies and I didn't think about the strategy of ganging on the seeker. I definitely agree that JKR failed to do some basic thinking in her rush to make her hero more important. Now, how can we correct this flaw in a way that fits with canon? One thing would be to prevent the ability to gang on the Seeker. If the only way (or the only legal way, at least) to take down the Seeker is using bludgers, then the Beaters can't gang on the other team's Seeker because they must follow the bludgers, and the bludgers (barring magical interfering from nosy house elves) don't gang on the Seeker. Indeed, in the first SS/PS game we see that the most basic strategy for a Seeker is to fly above the other players and mostly stay out of harm way. The opponent Beaters can follow him there, of course, but they'd be useless if the bludgers mostly stay low bothering the other players. So, if the beaters can't gang on the opponent's Seeker, their next best strategy might be to concentrate on guarding their own Seeker and forget about the much less important Chasers and Keeper. But we've actually seen Fred and George doing this in CoS, when the rogue bludger was after Harry's blood (well, bone), and the disadvantage of this strategy is canonically explained there: the Beaters would also get in the Seeker's way and prevent him from seeing the snitch. Another canon argument is that winning isn't everything in Quidditch -- the spread is also very important. IIRC all four complete Hogwatrs Quidditch seasons we've seen in canon (SS/PS, PoA, OotP and HBP) were won by the larger spread, because two teams were tied at the top with two victories and one loss each. If you concentrate on your Seeker you may be able to increase your chances of winning, but only by a small spread because you've left the other team to score goals unimpeded, and this might cost you the cup by the end of the season. So what happens if you stick these factors into your strategy calculations? Neri From ida3 at planet.nl Thu May 17 22:39:49 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:39:49 -0000 Subject: What if...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168908 Dana before: > > Lily or both Lily and James would realise that they can't change > > the future because to many unknowns would happen if they did but > > what if slight changes were made, like James sending the > > invisibility cloak to DD. Dana again: Or maybe it wasn't James at all that left the invisibility cloak in DD's possession but it was Harry himself possing to be James but DD knew it couldn't be because of Lily's eyes. Dana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 23:03:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 23:03:42 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron/ On the perfection of moral virtues. LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168909 > Montavilla47: > I understand what you are saying and I agree with you to a > certain extent. But I feel like both Ron and Harry were being > jerks for several weeks. Ron was the first one to be a jerk. > But their breach lasted a lot longer than it would have if > Harry had absorbed what Hermione said about Ron being > jealous and dealt with that, instead of staying angry about > it. Alla: See, I am just not seeing that the burden was on Harry to deal with it. Actually NO scratch that, from the position of the adult I can see how the one who values his friend and sees his friend not on the best behavior, may want to do something about that. Do something about that meaning calling his friend on his behavior and see what happens. But from the position of fourteen year old, whose best friend just accused him of God knows what, why? He is stressed by entering a tournament he does not want to enter, nobody (including his best friend) believe him that he did not do it ( well, Hermione does) and he has to go and deal with Ron's jealousy? I just disagree with that. I mean if it was a less extreme situation for Harry, maybe. Again, not as obligation, but as something that friend may want to try to do in order not to lose his friend over one fight. But certainly not when Harry is trying to figure out how too survive the tournament in my opinion. Like for example in PoA, I thought it was rather obnoxious of Hermione to go and tell Minerva about the broom. But there is no question for me that she had the best intentions in my mind, so I sure would not have minded for Harry to use his brain and think it over again. Fight with Ron - just do not see it at all. Oh, and just in case I am not Harry/Hermione shipper. Could never ever from the very beginning see Hermione with anybody but Ron, saw sero, zilch, nada romantic chemistry between her and Harry. It is just in this situation I can see Hermione side and sympathise and do not have much sympathy for Ron's side :) Montavilla47: > Ron could have swallowed his pride and begged forgiveness > weeks before the first task. But if he honestly thought that > Harry had put his name in the goblet, why should he? Alla: Sure, it is the "honestly thought that Harry had put his name in the goblet" thought I am having trouble and want to slap Ron for. He IMO should have known Harry better than that. Montavilla47: He > was still worried enough about Harry that he went looking > for him when Harry was missing from bed. In return, > Harry chucked a badge at him. I'm not sure you get much > jerkier than throwing a sharp metal object at someone's > head. > Alla: Yes, again, not the longlife grudge of huge proportions, fight between friends, just the fight I completely refuse to put responsibility on Harry's shoulders for. Just as I refuse to put responsibility on Ron and Hermione for a lot of things Harry said to them in OOP. I totally sympathize with Harry going ballistic in OOP, in my view his breakdown was long overdue, just Ron and Hermione were not the people to run his mouth at. And what happened in GoF I explain by Ron not trusting his best friend enough. I do not like it. I am not saying Ron should be hated for that. Staff happens. > Carol responds: > But do you agree that if Harry had told Ron the full truth, repeating > Fake!Moody's words, that Ron would have believed him? > Alla: Do I believe it? Sure, otherwise I would think of Ron as very rotten friend, if he would not have believed his friend that people are trying to kill him. I am saying it should not come to that when Ron will **only** believe his best friend when he gives him convincing reasons to do so. Carol: > I still think Ron's reaction, if not admirable, is perfectly > understandable (even for a best friend who's like a brother since > brothers who love each other fight in RL and in fiction) and would > have been avoided altogether if Harry hadn't been worried about > sounding melodramatic. As you said yourself, Ron *knows* that people > are out to kill Harry, and he would have believed the story, but Harry > didn't give him that chance. > Alla: Harry told him that he did not do it, and that IMO should have been enough. And yes, that is what I expect best friends to do in RL as well. But to me close friends are like family, really. So, let's put the word family instead. If my brother or my mother tells me they did not do something, I will take it on faith, I sure would not ask them for any reasons, if they do not want to tell me, same with my close friends ( I do not call every acquaintance of mine friend, but if I use this word, it means a lot to me) I expect the same to be between Harry and Ron. And JKR actually said that Ron and Hermione are his family, didn't she? Carol: > Prophecy Boy and Chosen One or not, Harry is not always right, and > "Because I said so" is not a sufficient reason to believe anyone. Alla: On that we have to agree to disagree. It is not a sufficient reason to believe just anyone, and DA example actually works for me, but it should be in my view enough reason to believe a best friend. Carol: Ron, > his best friend who has loyally stood by him and risked his life in > the chess game and by entering the CoS (not his fault that the wall > fell in) and blocked his path, deserves to be told the truth. Alla: And he was - he was told that Harry did not do it, which was the truth. > Carol, still clearly seeing Ron's side and wishing Harry could have > put himself in Ron's place > Alla: I do see Ron's side, I just cannot sympathize with him, I am afraid. But I think JKR does sympathise with him, didn't she say something like that on the website? Phoenixgod: > So the message should be that he should just be a good little monkey > and politely go where the manipulators who know better than he does > tells him to go? that all those people who he'd saved when the > adults couldn't or wouldn't should be dead because Harry needs to > learn his place? > > That sounds worse than me. > > If anything, Harry needs to learn to stand up to more people. He let > Dumbledore off far too lightly in HBP and Snape... > > there aren't enough hours in the day for me to explain what Harry > should do to Snape. Alla: Oh Oh well said, so well said. I mentioned several times how much I disliked "Dumbledore's man" name Harry took, and I hope that at the end of book 7 it will transform in "I am my own man", but I am not sure if I should be holding my breath. Loved your whole post, so did :) > Meghan, who is inclined to believe in ESE!Snape, but who is a bit > apalled by the amount of vitriol being spewed at him. > Alla: Heee, responding only to your signature, but please do not be appalled, LOL. We are equal opportunity offenders here ;) I am certainly belonging to the camp who spews vitriol on Snape, but I can certainly send you links to the post that are just as vitriolic to Harry or Sirius or Dumbledore. Every character gets his fair share, me thinks :) Although we sure talk about Snape **a lot**. Now, I am a bit surprised why you would be surprised at people being angry at Snape, if you are inclined to believe that he is ESE. I always give that example which maybe can make my view easier to understand. First of all, I sure read the books I consider good with emotional attachments to the characters. I believe many people on this list do to different degree. I did cry when Sirius and Dumbledore died and will cry if Harry dies and will do a happy dance if Snape dies . So, reading with my emotions as well with my brain, I sure want the villains to be punished and as gruesomely as possible. Don't you want Voldemort to be punished? I mean, if you have sympathy for Voldemort poor damaged unloved soul , my comparison will not make sense for you, but if you do want him punished, then I see Snape just as evil as Voldemort, and in many aspects much **better** written evil, wierdly. Snape is very effective for me as evil, Voldemort I sometimes laugh it ( not what JKR intended me to feel, am sure of that. That is why I will continue be very vitriolic about Snape, till JKR tells me otherwise, LOL. That's just how I read the good books, hehe. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu May 17 23:13:39 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:13:39 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Smeltings' sticks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <464D6E43.15322.2F493D@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168910 On 17 May 2007 at 15:54, justcarol67 wrote: > Dudley and his fellow Smeltings students wear uniforms that seem to > be > a parody of British public school uniforms (maroon tailcoats, > orange > knickerbockers, and boaters), but they also carry "knobbly sticks > used > for hitting each other when the teachers weren't looking" (SS Am. > ed. > 32). Clearly, it's a boys' school and Uncle Vernon hopes that it > will > make a "man" (i.e., an even bigger bully) out of Dudley. > > Does anyone (preferably British list members) think that JKR is > poking > fun at British public schools, especially boys' schools, here? What > do > the Smeltings' sticks suggest or correspond to? > > Thanks in advance for your input on this question. Not British, but did attend a British style Public School in Australia, and very interested in such schools, their history, and their depiction in literature. She is certainly making a statement about such schools, but I'm hard pressed to say what it is precisely. Hogwarts itself, is in many ways, based on the British Public School model in my view - http://home.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/HSWW.html to see my analysis of this - so she has ample scope to point out the foibles of such schools there and generally doesn't. So perhaps she felt the need for some sort of balance. But when I read the description of Smelting's uniform, what comes to mind most strongly for me - so strongly that I really do wonder if this is what she may have been parodying - is Roald Dahl's description of his first encounter with his school uniform for Repton as described in the first volume of his autobiography 'Boy: Tales of Childhood'. It's too long for me to fairly quote the whole thing, but he spends over two pages of the book describing his shock at the 'amazing fancy-dress' he was expected to wear. White shirt with detachable white butterfly collar, as stiff as perspex, trousers that were black with grey pinstripes, held up by braces with brass clips, black waistcoat, and black tailcoat ('the most ridiculous garment I had ever seen', and finally a boater. When his sisters saw him in it, they fell all over the room laughing and remarked that he couldn't go out looking like that, he'd be arrested for sure. As for specific parallels to the Smeltings sticks, I can't think of anything specific, but some schools did historically have walking sticks, and furled umbrellas, as part of their uniforms, (as well as for any utilitarian purpose) and I have certainly encountered descriptions of these being commonly used as weaponry. 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 stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu May 17 23:29:59 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 23:29:59 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues (long) In-Reply-To: <001901c798a9$a1e7b380$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168911 > > Marion: > > Gosh. Snape as the Root Of All Evil. Now *that's* original... > phoenixgod2000: > Well, he isn't responsible for Original Sin, but I'm not convinced > he wasn't in the Garden :) Jen: Keeping that one in just because. ;) Marion: > And then it turns out in DH that Snape was already working for DD > when that prophecy was made, and that DD, being selfappointed > warchief against Voldemort, ordered his spy to 'leak' the first > half of the prophecy to Voldemort. > Voldemort was very close to *winning*, after all. > What better way to stop a megalomanic-who-is-afraid-of-death by > dangling a prophecy about his demise in front of his nose? DD would > know (knowing Tom Riddle intimately) that this would be > irresistable. Voldemort would concentrate less on taking over the > WW and go after this perceived threat. It would give the Order of > the Phoenix more time, time that they desperately needed. > It was simply a matter of 'give Voldemort enough rope and he'll > hang himself'. > Dumbles didn't know at that time of course that two of his own > (Lily and Alice) would turn out to be pregnant and due in late July. > > Didn't DD say something about making mistakes and being more sorry > about things than he could tell? Jen: You've built a good case for this scenario. I'll even add to it. Thinking about Dumbledore in the cave, if he was reliving his worst memory after drinking the potion then his words could fit for intense remorse about what happened to the Potters and his own guilty conscience: 'it's my fault.' Oh, and one other bit, the part where Dumbledore seems to whiten when Harry shouts out that he's learned Snape delivered part of the prophecy to Voldemort? A spasm of anxiety perhaps, that Harry will learn the *whole* truth and Dumbledore's carefully constructed Plan could tumble down around him. But...here's the problem I see with this theory and the other incarnations before of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, Guilty!Dumbledore (#66983) and all the way back to MAGIC DISHWASHER(#39751): Discovering Dumbledore is behind nearly every important event in the story, or even the one pushing the dominos down as in this theory, renders major parts of the story--like the choice theme--almost useless. The dramatic impact of the choices other characters made at crucial moments are suddenly unimportant for understanding their development because they are not of their own making if Dumbledore is pulling the strings. Dumbledore meet Voldemort. Anyone else want Lackey!Snape who didn't really take the prophecy to Voldemort but was acting on Dumbledore's orders?!? Not me. He's the man I love to hate, the one I won't defend because he's arrogant enough to defend himself. That's his appeal in my eyes, he acts alone and makes no apologies for the route those actions end up taking. I'm almost depressed at thinking how this 'gift of a character' might end up being just another good guy *yawn* with a veneer of badness separating him from the others. If only he could remain with his good/bad actions and traits almost perfectly balanced! Or at least that's how I read him and understand JKR's intentions for him at this stage of the story, before she tips the balance one way or another. Can't he at least keep the actions he most likely *did* do wrong of his own accord (imo)? Like joining the DE's and hastening to his master with the prophecy and taking his resentment for James out on Harry when he had an indirect hand in James being murdered, to name a few. (I'll leave the tower & UV out until the verdict is in.) Marion: > We are *told* that Snape hates Harry (and I've no doubt that Snape > actively loathes the brat after six years of backtalk, suspicion, > hating looks and snotnosed rulebreaking) but what we've been > *shown* is a eleven-year-old boy who instantly hates his teacher > and who, for six years, is determined to continue to hate him. > I'm telling you, it's not *healthy* to be so full of hatred. It's > positively Voldermortish to be so full of hatred... (but more about > this in a later post - this one is getting too long anyway) Jen: Or positively Snape-like. Again with the removal of some of Snape's best features! Innocuous!Snape. What would POA be like without, "Give me a reason," he whispered. "Give me a reason to do it and I swear I will." (chap. 19) I believed him. Or, "Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black-now get out of the way, or I will make you." Nope, no hatred there! Ah, Snape. Marion: > I think (I *hope*) that in book 7 the crisis will come when Harry > finds out, somewhere at the end of the books, just before > vanquishing Voldemort, that his hatred, the hatred which he > carefully nursed and nurtured for seven long years, is simply based > on a small boy's prejudice ("there's not a wizard gone bad not from > Slytherin"), his inability to trust people (especially adults) and > his inability to interpret other people's behaviour, translating > every bit of criticism as a direct attack. > Harry has, in fact, the emotional maturity of a three year old. Jen: I do hope Harry learns that he doesn't want to live his life as Snape has, stuck in the past by constant fanning of the flames of his own resentment and hatred. I see reasons for why Snape is who he is and expect more coming in the tragic vein, so really the two of them have something in common most likely-tragic pasts that contributed to their flaws. A case could be made and has that even Snape wants better for Harry and he's so overly concerned with Harry's choices so Harry won't end up like him. Or else he just wants to make sure Harry gets rid of Voldemort for him. Jen From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu May 17 22:36:05 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:36:05 -0000 Subject: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168912 Let me start by saying i agree with a lot of people on the transformation of Ginny, just because we didn't see it as it happened doesn't mean that she wasn't growing up right under all of your noses (including Harry) I don't understand why so many people are down on her. I don't think Ginny was all that bad in book 6. I think she was very good in book 5 especially when she points out to Harry that if he thought he was being posessed by LV that *duh* he should of asked her about it. And yes he derserved whatever sass she gave him at that point. In book 6 I see no problem with her character. Yes she slings around the bat bogey curse pretty much willy nilly as she sees fit, but come on she is the youngest sibling of 6 brothers. I'd expect her to be ready for a fight at the drop of a hat. Especially when it comes to the twins. She is a strong young woman so I can see why she broke up with Dean if she felt he was trying to treat her like a weak girl that needed help (granted it wasn't him pushing her but how was she to know?) I also see no fault in the fight she had with Ron when he caught her with Dean. He all but called her a slut. She had had enough, simple as that. She had to deal with 20 questions from the twins when they visited the joke shop, because obviously Ron was not painting a nice picture. So add in that he was a word short of calling her a Jezebel(lol) yeah, she had every right to flip on him the way she did. The fact that she went for the jugular is perfectly fine with me. I think that her and Harry could end up together. It seems the way JKR has been going from her first scene in CoS. I do believe she made the transition from Goupie(as someone called her) to actual feelings for Harry. Again, just cause we didn't see her make the change doesn't mean it didn't happen. We see things from Harry's perspective. He didn't take serious note of her til the 6th book, so therefore we didn't get a full look at her til then. But on an interesting note, let's just say Harry ends up with Hermione instead, then maybe Ron could end up with Luna and Ginny with Neville? LOL I think Harry and Luna wouldn't be a bad twist either, which leaves Ron/Hermione and Ginny/Neville yet again (see my pattern?) Ok wow I have babbled on long enough. :-) tkj From celizwh at intergate.com Fri May 18 01:21:30 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 01:21:30 -0000 Subject: Smeltings' sticks In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705171249q6919ad03j9e09c69d8abb8282@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168913 montims: > But it also reads as Dickensian to me, like much else > of the HP series... houyhnhnm: Dickensian onomatopoeia, so much so that until this thread appeared, I had not thought of the actual meaning of the word at all; "Smelting stick" is just so perfectly evocative of its purpose and use. But then I got to thinking about the literal meaning. The smelting of ores to extract metals, which goes back about 9000 years, was the earliest investigation into the nature of chemical change. The great Jabir Ibn Hayyan who devised or perfected many of the techniques used by alchemists and proto-chemists, (and who also coined the word elixer /al-iksir/, BTW)was also a pioneer in the field of applied science,preparation of various metals, development of steel, aqua regia (mixture of hydrochloric and nitric acids)to dissolve gold, among his many contributions. So maybe the Smelting Stick has an alchemical significance. I guess that's a little far fetched, but, then again, maybe not. From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri May 18 01:44:12 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 21:44:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: References: <20604803.1179419864484.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0705171844s196bf14bp85381100291bb0f0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168914 Bart: My best guess: JKR wanted to make the Seeker the most important player on the team, and didn't bother to do the math to see that he was the ONLY important player on the team. Debbie: Basically, the job of the rest of the team is to keep from falling so far behind that the Seeker cannot win the game by catching the Snitch. JKR made the Seeker *the* most important player to draw a parallel to, ahem, The Chosen One, i.e., prophecy boy, i.e., Harry. Frankly, Hermione could brew enough polyjuice for the entire Order to impersonate DEs and learn Voldemort's plan, but the information would probably be worthless without Harry. They'd score points, but ultimately would be chewed up by Voldy or his henchmen -- which is basically what's happening now. Lupin hangs out with the werewolves while Emmeline Vance is murdered. 150 points for catching the Snitch may be a bit rich, but it would be worth a lot more to the WW if Harry caught Voldemort. Ken: I honestly had the exact same thought independently this morning in the shower. Krum's decision to catch the snitch when Bulgaria was only 160 points down makes no sense under the scoring rules. Maybe it wasn't likely they would gain back enough ground to win with the snitch but it was sure worth waiting a while to be sure of that. Debbie: Krum lost confidence in his team. In choosing to take what glory he could, he failed his teammates. (Sound like any Evil Overlords you know?) Not logical in light of the actual score. And though Harry approved of Krum's action, he would never choose glory over a victory. In the Quidditch final in PoA, Harry saw the Snitch at a point when the Gryffindor Chasers hadn't scored enough to take the Quidditch Cup, and Harry lured Malfoy away instead of going for the Snitch. Harry plays for the team. David: But if you recall in the Goblet of Fire, the Irish Quidditch team out manuevered and outflew the Bulgarian team and Krum had to catch the Snitch to end the game and end the game on a more favorable term for his team and country otherwise the score could have been 340-20 Ireland. Debbie: And that's why the Irish side is symbolic of Harry & Co. while Krum and the Bulgarians are not. The Irish side never quit trying, especially the concussed Lynch. Even though Lynch was outmatched by Krum, he didn't let a little wooziness stop him from locating and streaking toward the Snitch. Once Lynch crashed to the ground, Krum could have let the Snitch fly away, but he did not. And it was the hard teamwork of the Irish chasers, combined with Krum's showmanship, that enabled Ireland to win the match. Just as Harry's refusal to give in to Voldemort allowed him to escape from the graveyard. The point is, for JKR 150 was just a number that illustrates a point. It doesn't matter whether the game really makes sense. Debbie who doesn't think JKR is a serious sports fan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 18 01:56:34 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 21:56:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464D07D2.8000705@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168915 Neri wrote: > So what happens if you stick these factors into your strategy > calculations? Bart: (Answering this one because Neri brings out the points others were making) It is true that, in a series, if everybody wins the same number of games, then the scoring becomes important. And it is also true that, at the time I tried to design the game, QTTA had not yet been published, at least not in our world. However, from what I have read, a bludger will generally go after the nearest player. The beaters can knock the bludgers a limited distance, but, by aim, they CAN go after the Seeker. Or, alternatively, one of the chasers can be assigned to get into the opponent seeker's way; the major point is that it is generally more effective going against the seeker than it is scoring goals, unless your team has the other team thoroughly outclassed. Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri May 18 01:48:02 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 01:48:02 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <20604803.1179419864484.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168916 Bart: > The basic problem in Quidditch is that there are just too damned many points for catching the Golden Snitch. It is admitted that the team that catches the Golden Snitch is almost never the loser. A logical strategy would be to ignore the Chasers, and have the Beaters go against the opponent's Seeker. zgirnius: We don't know all the rules of Quidditch. And we do know there is such a thing as a foul/penalty in it, because they are mentioned in the games that take place in the books. One explanation for why the Beaters don't go after the Seeker of the opposing team might be that deliberately targeting the Seeker with a Bludger is against the rules. If this results in opportunities for the Chasers to score points easily through penalty shots, it could quickly add up to the point where the strategy you propose would not work. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri May 18 02:04:30 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 02:04:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past? - Switching Bodies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168917 bboyminn: > Second, to what end? What was the purpose? Why would > Snape and Dumbledore even conceive of such an idea? > Dumbledore is not exactly a dunderhead, he is probably > the greatest living wizard on earth. I can see no real > practical reason for them to switch. The 'Switch' does > serve the theory, but how does the theory serve the story? houyhnhnm: If it turns out that Snape and Dumbledore had been switching identities all along, it would explain Dumbledore's statement that Snape "is now no more a Death Eater than I am." It would be an addtional reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape (a la Pwyll and Arawn). It would also explain why James Potter left his invisibility cloak with Dumbledore when Dumbledore doesn't need a cloak to become invisible (Snape does, even when he is disguised as Dumbledore). I'm not completely convinced by professor-mum's theory. The part where they switch back in Hogsmeade doesn't really make sense to me, but I predict that two or more people (at least) will turn out to be not who they appeared to be in HBP and I won't be surprised at all if it turns out that Snape and Dumbledore were trading places from the time Snape returned to the right side. The practical reason for such a switch is that it would enable Dumbledore to obtain information first hand rather than second hand. Snape may be an accomplished Occlumens, but Dumbledore appears to be by far the superior Legilimens. From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri May 18 02:10:56 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:10:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] GoF fight between Harry and Ron (WAS:Re: On the perfection of moral) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168918 > > Alla: > > They are not people who just met, they are best friends, basically brothers. I think Ron should have higher level of trust in Harry than what he showed. > > Yes, just because Harry said so IMO. > > Again, this to me was the fight between friends, I certainly do not think that it foreshadows Ron's betraying Harry or anything like that. > > But no, I do not think that Ron should have trusted Harry only if Harry gave him convincing reasons. > > I did not do it should have been **more** than enough IMO. Carol responds: But do you agree that if Harry had told Ron the full truth, repeating Fake!Moody's words, that Ron would have believed him? Sherry; No, I do not agree. and I love Ron. But I felt this was an incredible act of disloyalty. If my friend tells me something, and I have three years of living with that friend to tell me that person is honest with me, then I believe my friend, no matter what other evidence there might be, no questions asked, no doubting. I expect the same thing in return. To me, Ron was completely in the wrong, and it's to Harry's benefit that he can so easily forgive, once Ron comes to his senses. Sherry From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 04:05:11 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 04:05:11 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > Krum's decision to catch the snitch when Bulgaria was only 160 > points down makes no sense under the scoring rules. Maybe it wasn't > likely they would gain back enough ground to win with the snitch > but it was sure worth waiting a while to be sure of that. zanooda: Don't forget that it was Lynch who saw the Snitch first, not Krum. Krum didn't see it, because his nose was broken and he was bleeding heavily. Even if his intention was to wait a little longer, in this state he probably was unable to stop Lynch from catching the Snitch, so he just had no choice but to catch it himself. If Lynch caught the Snitch, the final score would have been 320 to 10. Wouldn't look so good for the Bulgarians, would it :-)? From xellina at gmail.com Fri May 18 07:57:26 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Natalia Flerova) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 11:57:26 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0705152146x7c4503ddvd8475171322bc8c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463f9ec00705180057t3cd9ea7boed3828f094900335@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168920 2007/5/17, ebennet68 : > Sarah AO: I'd like to think that if JK likes > this particular twist, then maybe two characters have been > married/secretly engaged the whole time without anyone picking > up on it. Any candidates for this one? H/Hr becomes kinda boring. How about Minevra McGonagall and Tom Riddle? ^_~ From lauren1 at catliness.com Fri May 18 08:59:58 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 01:59:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the perfection of moral virtues References: <8ee758b40705171204t322ca764ke8ebb4d4c553c273@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <090d01c7992a$f6677540$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 168922 > Betsy Hp: > my frustration and worry comes about because I'm not confident that > JKR is juggling the various issues she's raising all that well. > (Hopefully DH will show that I've worried for nothing.) Hi, After reading HBP, I am really worried, too, that things are not going to work out in the ways I hope and I'll feel so disappointed if Harry doesn't come out okay, and many of the others, too. Thanks Lauren From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 18 13:44:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 13:44:02 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron (WAS:Re: On the perfection of moral) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168923 > Carol responds: > But do you agree that if Harry had told Ron the full truth, repeating > Fake!Moody's words, that Ron would have believed him? > > > Sherry; > > No, I do not agree. and I love Ron. But I felt this was an incredible act > of disloyalty. Pippin: Didn't Harry doubt his friend when he didn't tell Ron the truth? What kind of a reason is 'He felt it would sound very melodramatic to say, "To kill me." '? *Why* couldn't Harry say, "I know this is going to sound melodramatic, but Moody says..." Was he afraid Ron would laugh at him or think he was being melodramatic on purpose? That doesn't show a lot of confidence in Ron. Ron's eyebrows rose when Harry said he hadn't put his name in, but he could have been just showing surprise. He didn't accuse Harry of lying until Harry actually had lied. Hmm....so Harry overreacted to a pair of raised eyebrows? Seems to me there's another character who did that, IIRC Pippin From don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com Fri May 18 13:39:37 2007 From: don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com (don_elsenheimer) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 13:39:37 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168924 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > I do believe she made the > transition from Goupie(as someone called her) to actual feelings > for Harry. Again, just cause we didn't see her make the change > doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don responds: One of the things that readers do see (time and time again) are Harry's negative responses to people that insist on treating him (and judging him) as the Boy-Who-Lived, rather than "Just Harry." Therefore, any "off-camera" transition of Ginny from Groupie to the Girl-Who-Treats-Harry-Like-A-Real-Person would be a terrible bit of writing that conflicts directly with one of her central themes. Although, that would be consistent with JKR's self-proclaimed insistence to remain true to the last page of Book 7 text that was written before the first book was published. I really don't care for that, by the way. If an author's original characters are like their children, they should be allowed to grow and develop over the course of a seven book series like children (i.e. without arranged marriages and pre-destined career paths). From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri May 18 13:53:53 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 13:53:53 -0000 Subject: Smeltings' sticks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168925 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Dudley and his fellow Smeltings students wear uniforms that seem to be > a parody of British public school uniforms (maroon tailcoats, orange > knickerbockers, and boaters), but they also carry "knobbly sticks used > for hitting each other when the teachers weren't looking" (SS Am. ed. > 32). Clearly, it's a boys' school and Uncle Vernon hopes that it will > make a "man" (i.e., an even bigger bully) out of Dudley. > > Does anyone (preferably British list members) think that JKR is poking > fun at British public schools, especially boys' schools, here? What do > the Smeltings' sticks suggest or correspond to? > Ken: Goddlefrood would seem to be in the best position to answer of those who have answered but he doesn't quite address the stick itself directly. My only experience with being a subject of the Queen comes from spending the summer of 1988 in Baldock, a small town 40 miles north of London, on a job assignment. The Smeltings Stick seems to me to be just the sort of ceremonial and traditional accessory that some British public schools would have, whether any have an actual school stick or not. I also remember a friend who attended the University of Missouri at Rolla. He joined an engineering fraternity there and during his pledge week he was required to carry a stick with him at all times. This hardly proves the matter but many of our traditions do come from Britian. Even more so it reminds me of something that actually did happen while I was living in England. We tuned in the BBC news on TV one evening to find that a major scandal had happened that day in the House of Commons (I think, but it could have been the House of Lords). They have a large ceremonial mace that plays some mysterious (to a Yank) role in the legislative process. During the heat of a debate the MP holding the sacred mace got very, very angry and hurled it to the floor in disgust. My, I thought we'd never hear the end of that!! Of course in the United States we tend to be less ostentatious and more direct. So on May 22, 1856, when Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina had had enough of Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner's attacks on slavery he waylaid him on the floor of the Senate chamber and beat him nearly to death with "a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs". I imagine this only scratches the surface of the history of sticks in our schools and legislatures. It might be hard to know exactly what Rowling had in mind when she introduced the Smeltings Stick. I only know that the brief section of the series where it appears is a hilarious one! Ken From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 18 14:15:51 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:15:51 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168926 > Betsy Hp: > I still think of it as filler in that it's sloppy. The idea that the > Gryffindor's are suspicious of the number of team members from > Harry's own year seems like "make worry" on JKR's part. Yes, Harry > has two people and that's including himself, from his year on the > team. *This* is enough to cause predictions of doom and gloom from > his fellow housemates? Pippin: Harry decided not to hold another trial to fill the open spot. McClaggan already thought he'd been cheated of a second chance, and I'm sure there were others who thought (or could be persuaded) to think the same thing. Put that together with the fact that every match with Slytherin is a grudge match and you have a pressure cooker. People have an emotional investment in the outcome of the game, and that leads to anxiety, hence the grumbling, which increases the anxiety even more. It's very realistic to me -- I see the same thing happening every time a new HP book is due for release. People get really tense and take the nitpicking to a new level ;) Betsy HP > I do understand what you say JKR was trying to do or show with this > side story. I just think she kind of faked it, forcing Ron into an > issue the readers had *just* seen him outgrow. The mechanics of her > story are showing through, IOWs. Pippin: I don't recall Ron ever having to deal with people being jealous of *him* before. But if it took you out of the story on first reading, then it didn't work for you. I thought the magic feather bit was a little trite, but that's just the outer layer of the onion. It's *supposed* to be accessible, IMO. The inner layer is whether the HBP book is serving a similar function for Harry, and whether Harry might ever figure out that Snape's hatred of him could be like the Gryffindors hatred of Harry in HBP. They don't really hate him, or rather they do really hate him, but it's only because they're worried about the match. So, could Snape be using his genuine hatred of James to cover the reason for his genuine hatred of Harry? > Betsy Hp: > But my worry is that it's *JKR* who's missing it. > Pippin: Nah, it's way too purposeful for that. There's some connection between Harry sending his owl to peck at Ron and Hermione's fingers, Ginny's flying bogeys, the jar of cockroaches thrown at Harry's head, the badge chucked at Ron and Hermione's attack birds. We may never see an elephant fly in HP, but when a temper flies, it does so literally. I see a connection also between Hagrid giving Dudley a pig's tale when he would actually have liked to turn Dudley into a pig, Harry thinking about how good it would feel to turn Dudley into something with feelers, and then not being able to perform the cruciatus curse on Bella because he doesn't think about how good it would feel to hurt her. I don't think JKR misses much, except maths of course. :) Pippin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri May 18 14:14:47 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:14:47 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" > wrote: > > > > > Krum's decision to catch the snitch when Bulgaria was only 160 > > points down makes no sense under the scoring rules. Maybe it wasn't > > likely they would gain back enough ground to win with the snitch > > but it was sure worth waiting a while to be sure of that. > > > zanooda: > > Don't forget that it was Lynch who saw the Snitch first, not Krum. > Krum didn't see it, because his nose was broken and he was bleeding > heavily. Even if his intention was to wait a little longer, in this > state he probably was unable to stop Lynch from catching the Snitch, > so he just had no choice but to catch it himself. If Lynch caught the > Snitch, the final score would have been 320 to 10. Wouldn't look so > good for the Bulgarians, would it :-)? > Ken: But you don't have to catch the Snitch to prevent the other Seeker from catching it. I think Hermione is right that Krum *chose* to end the match on his terms, it just wasn't the best strategy. In the end it probably wouldn't have mattered since the Bulgarians didn't seem to have an answer for the Irish scoring machine but it makes no strategic sense to catch the Snitch when doing so leaves you a mere 10 points shy of winning. It seems to me the Bulgarians actually did have an answer to the Irish scoring machine available to them. They should have basically abandoned any hope of using their chasers to score. They should have used their chasers and beaters in some defensive combination to both help their goal keeper defend their goals and to interfere with the Irish seeker. If they had slowed down the Irish scoring they would have given Krum more time to catch the Snitch when doing so would have won the game. That appears to have been their best game plan. Evidently our author isn't enough of a sports fan to see the strategic nuances of the game she invented. I realize that the Hogwarts Quidditch cup is at least partly based on the total scoring for the school year. But that does not diminish the advantage that the scoring system gives the team that catches the Snitch. It just makes it that much more important that you catch the Snitch in every match. The qualifying rounds for the World Cup may be based on total points too. But I doubt that the final match is. It has to be a winner take all affair to generate the interest it does. Otherwise the match itself would be pointless many years. That Irish team must have been doing that to opponents all year long. In terms of total points since the last Cup the Bulgarians must have been hoplessly behind going into the match. The game wouldn't have been worth watching unless the Bulgarians were able to win the Cup by winning the game. Ken From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri May 18 14:20:13 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:20:13 -0000 Subject: Smeltings' sticks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168928 > Ken: > > Goddlefrood would seem to be in the best position to answer > of those who have answered but he doesn't quite address the > stick itself directly. Goddlefrood: Sorry, I forgot about the stick with all the excitement over reminiscing about the old place. The nearest thing at my old school to a Smeltings Stick would have been the thwacking stick wielded by the regimental Sergeant Major of the Career Cadet Force (a sort of junior pre-Army type thingamabob). Said regimental Sergeant Major rarely appreciated it when one of the boys made a grab for it. Being original in our nicknames this man was called Jock, as he was from Scotland ;-). I can't remember what his real name was. There were no more specific items of dress of accoutrements that I can recall, Old Etonians, Old Harovians or even Old Wykhamists would no doubt have oddments in their school kit. Robin Cook was the gentleman you had in mind who threw down the Mace, which usually sits on the table between the parties in the House of Commons leading a blameless life. That is except when Black Rod uses the same to knock on the door of the Lords when HRH is to give a speech. The Commons follow Black Rod, who is the liaison, more or less, between the two Chambers. Perhaps that could be an idea of where the Stick under consideration came from. Just one of the silly things that goes on in the benighted isles. It is a funny sequence, as are many of the Dursley interludes :-) Goddlefrood, up rather later than is good for him once again. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 14:45:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:45:44 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron/On perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168929 > > Carol responds: > > But do you agree that if Harry had told Ron the full truth, repeating > > Fake!Moody's words, that Ron would have believed him? > > > > > > Sherry; > > > > No, I do not agree. and I love Ron. But I felt this was an incredible act > > of disloyalty. > > Pippin: > Didn't Harry doubt his friend when he didn't tell Ron the truth? > What kind of a reason is 'He felt it would sound very melodramatic > to say, "To kill me." '? *Why* couldn't Harry say, "I know this is > going to sound melodramatic, but Moody says..." Was he afraid > Ron would laugh at him or think he was being melodramatic > on purpose? That doesn't show a lot of confidence in Ron. > > Ron's eyebrows rose when Harry said he hadn't put his name in, > but he could have been just showing surprise. He didn't accuse > Harry of lying until Harry actually had lied. Hmm....so Harry > overreacted to a pair of raised eyebrows? Seems to me there's > another character who did that, IIRC Alla: Oh. Harry **lied** to Ron now? He did not tell him everything that happened, that's for sure. But per great Albus Dumbledore truth is terrible and dangerous thing and should be treated with caution, no? So, if you are agreeing that Albus Dumbledore is a liar by keeping the prophecy from Harry for five years, then sure I agree that keeping information is a lie as well, otherwise, no. I do not remember Harry saying anything to Ron which was not true. Besides even when great Albus Dumbledore claimed to tell Harry everything, oooops, he really did not as we learned in HBP. I mean, he was entering into the realm of speculations now about horcruxes now, so he did not deem it necessary to talk to Harry about it in OOP. I mean, I know that JKR needed it for the plot, but still wasn't it rather weak justification? But look, here we see Harry not being sure that somebody is trying to kill him either - so isn't he in the realm of speculations as well, sort of and maybe that is why he is afraid of sound melodramatic? Because even when he is thinking about Voldemort wanting to kill him he still does not sound 100% sure to me in this quote. I also find it especially poignant how Harry just takes it for granted that Ron and Hermione will indeed believe him that he did not do it. Oooops. I guess he underestimated Ron a bit. "Was anyone except Ron and Hermione going to believe him, or would they all think he'd put himself in for the tournament? Yet how could anyone think that, when he was facing competitors who'd had three years' more magical education than he had - when he was now facing tasks that not only sounded very dangerous, but which were to be performed in front of hundreds of people? Yes, he'd thought about it. . . he'd fantasized about it.. . but it had been a joke, really, an idle sort of dream. . . he'd never really, seriously considered entering. . But someone else had considered it. . . someone else had wanted him in the tournament, and had made sure he was entered. Why? To give him a treat? He didn't think so, somehow... To see him make a fool of himself? Well, they were likely to get their wish. . But to get him killed? Was Moody just being his usual paranoid self? Couldn't someone have put Harry's name in the goblet as a trick, a practical joke? Did anyone really want him dead? Harry was able to answer that at once. Yes, someone wanted him dead, someone had wanted him dead ever since he had been a year old. . . Lord Voldemort. But how could Voldemort have ensured that Harry's name got into the Goblet of Fire? Voldemort was supposed to be far away, in some distant country, in hiding, alone. . . feeble and powerless.... Yet in that dream he had had, just before he had awoken with his scar hurting, Voldemort had not been alone. . . he had been talking to Wormtail.. . plotting Harry's murder. Harry got a shock to find himself facing the Fat Lady already. He had barely noticed where his feet were carrying him. It was also a surprise to see that she was not alone in her frame. The wizened witch who had flitted into her neighbor's painting when he had joined the champions downstairs was now sitting smugly beside the Fat Lady. She must have dashed through every picture lining seven staircases to reach here before him. Both she and the Fat Lady were looking down at him with the keenest interest. "Well, well, well," said the Fat Lady, "Violet's just told me everything. Who's just been chosen as school champion, then?" "Balderdash," said Harry dully." _ GoF, paperback, ch.17, p. 283. JMO, Alla From tobyfoot23 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 14:44:54 2007 From: tobyfoot23 at yahoo.com (tobyfoot23) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:44:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past? - Switching Bodies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168930 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > Second, to what end? What was the purpose? Why would > > Snape and Dumbledore even conceive of such an idea? > > Dumbledore is not exactly a dunderhead, he is probably > > the greatest living wizard on earth. I can see no real > > practical reason for them to switch. The 'Switch' does > > serve the theory, but how does the theory serve the story? > > houyhnhnm: > > If it turns out that Snape and Dumbledore had been > switching identities all along, it would explain > Dumbledore's statement that Snape "is now no more a > Death Eater than I am." It would be an addtional > reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape (a la Pwyll > and Arawn). It would also explain why James Potter > left his invisibility cloak with Dumbledore when > Dumbledore doesn't need a cloak to become invisible > (Snape does, even when he is disguised as Dumbledore). > Tobyfoot23: To add another statement made by Snape in "Spinner's End" that caught me eye during the last reading of HBP: "But through all these years, he [Lord Voldemort] has never stopped trusting Severus Snape, and therein lies my great value to the Dark Lord" HBP p.31 American ed. In this weird statement from Snape he refers to himself in the third person and that "screams" clue to me. I think the person we see as Snape here is someone else (polyjuice potion, anyone?). I don't know if it's really Dumbledore or another person at this point. But it's been nagging at me for some time. Someone else have a theory? Tobyfoot23, who has trouble thinking up witty things end with, but loves reading those that are posted. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 18 15:17:54 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 15:17:54 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and Harry and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168931 > Alla: > > Not necessarily - even if Snape is revealed as not traitor and not > murderer ( hopefully not), he will still forever remain child abuser > for me, so I am talking about that Snape as well. > Pippin: In Book Seven Harry will be an adult and Dudley will be a child. Now why do you think JKR arranged things that way? I hope that Harry will prove too noble to abuse his power over Dudley in the next book, but I wouldn't bet on it. > Alla: > > We are totally parting the ways, because no matter how bad was > Slytherins insults to Ron, what Snape did is the abuse of power to > someone who has no such power. IMO of course. Pippin: What power do you think Snape has that the Slytherins do not? Harry insults Draco, Draco breaks his nose. Harry insults Snape, Harry gets detention. There's consequences either way. Harry can't give Snape detention or take points, but that's not what Harry wants to do to Snape, is it? He wants to kill Snape or grind him to powder, and there's not the slightest canon, even in Spinner's End, that Snape wants to do anything like that to Harry at all. He does tell Umbridge that he could sympathize with her desire to poison him, but even Harry doesn't take that seriously. > Alla: > > And still Harry specifically notes in OOP that he performed better > when Snape was not in the room. It is my opinion that Snape > contributed hugely to his potion failures, but we shall see how this > will play out of course. Pippin: In Snape's presence Harry gets nervous about his inadequacies, but Snape can't *make* Harry think he's inadequate, any more than the Gryffindor grumbling could make Ron miss his saves. If it was Snape, then Snape should have ruined Harry's performance in DADA too. But Snape doesn't have any effect, beyond being annoying. Snape is very good at getting Harry to focus on his self-doubts and inadequacies. But Voldemort is even better. Since Harry will never be good enough at occlumency to tune those feelings out, he's just going to have to learn to love himself as he is. ::sigh:: > Alla: . I would feel that I have no right to be angry at this child for anything, if I feel true remorse that is. Pippin: But what if you saw the child growing into a bully, even a murderer, would you let that happen rather than discipline him? You'd salve your own feelings at the cost of his future? Surely not. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 18 16:07:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 16:07:01 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron/On perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168932 > Alla: > > Oh. Harry **lied** to Ron now? He did not tell him everything that > happened, that's for sure. Pippin: "Listen," said Harry. "I didn't put my name in that goblet. Someone else must've done it." Ron raised his eyebrows. "What would they do that for?" "I dunno," said Harry. He felt it would sound very melodramatic to say, "To kill me." --GoF ch 17 Harry thinks he *does* know. He says he doesn't. He's not hiding the truth from a curious stranger, he's hiding it from his best friend, and not even giving him a reason for it. When Dumbledore hid the prophecy from Harry he gave his honest reason for it: Harry was too young. Dumbledore also hid other information that he thought Harry would not need to know. For example, Harry would not have needed to know about horcruxes if Voldemort made only one and it had been destroyed. He would not need to know that Draco was planning to murder Dumbledore if Draco was in fact incapable of murder. He would not need to know that Snape was the eavesdropper if Snape had been granted amnesty. But if Harry thought Ron didn't need to know why someone had put Harry's name in the goblet or that knowing this would endanger Ron, then he should've been happy that Ron got the wrong end of the stick. But he wasn't. He withheld his faith from Ron and still expected Ron to have faith in him. That wasn't fair. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 16:15:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 16:15:19 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron/On perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168933 > Pippin: > > "Listen," said Harry. "I didn't put my name in that goblet. Someone > else must've done it." > > Ron raised his eyebrows. > > "What would they do that for?" > "I dunno," said Harry. He felt it would sound very melodramatic > to say, "To kill me." > --GoF ch 17 > > Harry thinks he *does* know. He says he doesn't. He's not > hiding the truth from a curious stranger, he's hiding it from > his best friend, and not even giving him a reason for it. Alla: And I disagree that Harry thinks he **does** know. I believe that based on the quote I brought Harry is **not** sure at all. So, no I do not think he is **hiding the truth** from Ron. I believe he is not giving him all information he has, but I do not think he is sure that this is the truth. Pippin: > But if Harry thought Ron didn't need to know why someone > had put Harry's name in the goblet or that knowing this would > endanger Ron, then he should've been happy that Ron got > the wrong end of the stick. But he wasn't. He withheld > his faith from Ron and still expected Ron to have faith in him. > That wasn't fair. Alla: IMO Harry had faith in Ron and Ron did not rise up to it at that moment anyways. I believe that Harry was not sure that Moody is right and indeed afraid to sound melodramatic. I do not believe that to have faith in Harry Ron needed to hear that somebody is trying to kill him. Harry honestly told him that he did not do it. I know I said it upthread, and I am sorry for being a parrot but to me this should be enough. But come to think of it, Harry indeed learned to share all information he has in HBP, did he not? Do Rom and Hermione believe him? They just blow him off IMO. So, not the last time, I guess. I did think that it was another sacrifice of the character writing to the plot necessities, since I thought Ron and Hermione should have believed Harry right away. About Malfoy of all people, whom they are always suspiciuous about, but this is here on the page. I found it to be very dissapointing. JMO, Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 18 16:46:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 12:46:47 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch Message-ID: <31870816.1179506807540.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168934 From: Ken Hutchinson >won the game. That appears to have been their best game plan. >Evidently our author isn't enough of a sports fan to see the strategic >nuances of the game she invented. Bart: That was really my major point, and why I couldn't come up with a playable Quidditch game (once again, if the Snitch scored 50 instead of 150 points, the games would be played more or less the way JKR describes it). Mind you, it HAS happened that obvious strategies are not readily seen. That's why you seldom see a WWI based game; there was a simple highly effective strategy which would have won the war for whoever tried it first. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on what side you were on, the generals were all too afraid that the strategy wouldn't work, and ignored it. Which means that, if you want to create a realistic WWI game, you had to artifically constrain the players from using the msot effective strategy. It is true that we don't know if some of these effective strategies haven't been banned, kind of like the flying wedge offense has been banned in American football and rugby. In any case, nobody ever made a successful Harry Potter trading card game (although an unsuccessful one WAS marketed), and Electronic Arts has come out with a Quidditch video game (I don't know if it allows for multiplayer play, though). The other factor (which also makes this message balance more to on-topic than off-topic) is the changing flavor of the books; the educational aspects have been steadily decreasing, while the war against Voldemort has been steadily increasing, and, due to the level of mystery involved, that is difficult to turn into a game. Once book 7 is out, perhaps a topic for discussion could be a Harry Potter game that would capture the spirit of the whole series; I'll leave it to the LE's to figure that one out. Bart Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 16:54:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 16:54:39 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron/On perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168935 Pippin wrote: > > > > "Listen," said Harry. "I didn't put my name in that goblet. Someone else must've done it." > > > > Ron raised his eyebrows. > > > > "What would they do that for?" > > "I dunno," said Harry. He felt it would sound very melodramatic to say, "To kill me." > > > > Harry thinks he *does* know. He says he doesn't. He's not hiding the truth from a curious stranger, he's hiding it from his best friend, and not even giving him a reason for it. > Alla responded: > > And I disagree that Harry thinks he **does** know. I believe that based on the quote I brought Harry is **not** sure at all. So, no I do not think he is **hiding the truth** from Ron. I believe he is not giving him all information he has, but I do not think he is sure that this is the truth. > > > Pippin: > > But if Harry thought Ron didn't need to know why someone had put Harry's name in the goblet or that knowing this would endanger Ron, then he should've been happy that Ron got the wrong end of the stick. But he wasn't. He withheld his faith from Ron and still expected Ron to have faith in him. > > That wasn't fair. > > Alla: > > IMO Harry had faith in Ron and Ron did not rise up to it at that moment anyways. I believe that Harry was not sure that Moody is right and indeed afraid to sound melodramatic. > > I do not believe that to have faith in Harry Ron needed to hear that somebody is trying to kill him. > > I found it to be very dissapointing. Carol responds: As I see it, neither boy had sufficient faith in the other. We all agree that Ron should have believed Harry, but he did have reasons not to. He knows Harry, who is always breaking rules, going places he's not supposed to go, getting into danger, doing the impossible (such as being two places at once). If anyone can get past the Age Line to enter a dangerous tournament, it's Harry. But Harry, too, is showing lack of faith in a friend who has braved terrible dangers with him. Does he think Ron will laugh at him for being melodramatic if he says "To kill me?" If so, he really doesn't know Ron, who has risked his own death just by being Harry's best friend. Do I really need to list the perils he's faced just because he was loyal to Harry, including his own worst fear, gigantic spiders? *Of course* someone is trying to kill Harry. Someone is *always* trying to kill Harry, or appears to be. Did Ron laugh the previous year when Sirius Black was supposedly out to murder Harry? No, he did not, even before his own bedcurtains were slashed with a twelve-inch knife. Nor did he laugh when Harry wanted to enter the third-floor corridor to face "Snape" and keep the Philosopher's Stone from Voldemort. He entered it with him. He's not going to think that Harry is being melodramatic if Harry tells him that putting his name in the Goblet of Fire might be part of a plot to kill him. But even if Harry hesitates to present that possibility, how about his other thought--to make a fool of him. An older Slytherin could have put his name in the cup just to be mean. (A classmate of mine once ran an ad campaign consisting of a few handwritten signs running me for Junior Varsity--cheerleader. Now *that* would have been humiliating, considering that I couldn't even stand on my head, much less do a cartwheel.) But Harry, having gone through all the thoughts you quoted in his head, seems to think that Ron has gone through the same thought process. Ron, however, has been wondering how Harry could have gotten past the age line and why Harry didn't invite him along as he's always done. They're starting from two different positions, and neither is responding to the other's thoughts. Ron at least *presents* his position, whereas Harry just says that someone else must have done it but he doesn't know why. Had he presented any plausible reason, they could have had a discussion as they do about Snape in SS/PS and Draco in CoS. But to keep his thoughts to himself in this instance is self-defeating. Ron is not a mind reader. *Of course* he thinks that Harry put his own name in the cup. So does everyone else in the school. It's not just Slytherins who wear the "Support Cedric Diggory" badges. It's exactly like CoS when Harry doesn't trust Dumbledore enough to tell him that he hears a voice in the walls hissing about blood and killing. And exactly like his thinking that he didn't need to mention the dream in his message to Sirius Black. He *really* needs to stop withholding information from his friends for fear that they'll think he's being weak or melodramatic or that something's wrong with him. If Harry had told Ron what he had heard Fake!Moody say, Ron would have immediately believed that Harry didn't put his own name in the GoF. As it is, his own version of events seemed more plausible, and Harry's implication that he was stupid for thinking what everyone else thought must have seemed like insult added to injury. Harry had the information to prevent the argument from happening. Ron didn't. Carol, who is not calling "I dunno" a lie, exactly, but does think that had Harry followed it up with plausible reasons and Fake!Moody's speculations, the fight would not have happened From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri May 18 17:02:53 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:02:53 -0000 Subject: What if...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168936 --- "Dana" wrote: > > What if..? > > ... > > What if... the one person that was present at GH was > Harry but not just only present at this event but what > if Harry travelled back in time before events on GH > occurred? ...edited... bboyminn: Just one problem, we have no precedent for time-travel of that magnitude. The only examples of time-travel we have occur in increments of one hour. That is, each turn of the Time Turner moves you back ONE HOUR in time, and only back. We've never seen forward time-travel. So, Harry travels back 16 years, that's - 24hrs/day X 365days/yr X 16yrs = 140,160 ...turns of the Time Turner. That seems very impractical. At eight turns per minute, it would take over 4.8 hours. Then, of course, how does he return to the present. From the examples in the books, he just lives for another 16 years until his time travel self catches up with his present day self, except in the present, the instant before he travels back in time, Harry is 17. The next time he arrives at that point in time, he is going to be (16+17=33) thirty three years old. And, if he has been hanging around for 16 years, where has he been? Still, it was a good thought. Steve/bboyminn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri May 18 17:25:34 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:25:34 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168937 "Meghan" Wrote: > So, two wrongs make a right? No, but five years of wrongs do, or at least they would seem to be worth a right to virtually every 15 year old boy who has ever lived. > I do think that Snape should've > given Harry a chance to remove any > especially painful memories before > starting his lesson. But he didn't, but Snape is a big boy so if he wants to play the game that way he should be prepared for the consequences. Turnabout is fair play and if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen. > Harry had absolutely *no* right to go > snooping around someone else's memories. So we readers are supposed to get all weepy because big bad 15 year old Harry is picking on fully grown Professor Snape, the mighty Potions Master at Hogwarts? I don't think so. Harry is starting to understand that if he wants to survive he must never give the enemy an even brake; certainly Snape never gave one to Harry. > it's the lowest thing Harry's ever done, > including Sectumsempra. If so, if that is the worst thing Harry will ever do then he's a saint. > both DD and the prophecy state that it > is Harry's ability to love that will > enable him to defeat Voldie But that doesn't mean Harry must be a wimp and a patsy, or at least I hope that's not what JKR meant, if it is then the last book will stink to high heaven. > That is your interpretation, > you're entitiled to it. Thanks, and you are entitled to my interpretation too. justcarol67 Wrote: >Harry has never showed the least bit > of gratitude to Snape for saving his > life in SS/PS And Snape has never shown the least bit of gratitude to Harry for saving his life TWICE in the very same book, AND again in the next book. Harry did this by stopping Voldemort from taking over the world. That is to say, Harry saved Snape's life if you are correct and Snape really is the avowed enemy of Voldemort. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri May 18 18:19:34 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 18:19:34 -0000 Subject: Smeltings' sticks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168938 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Dudley and his fellow Smeltings students wear uniforms > that seem to be a parody of British public school > uniforms ..., but they also carry "knobbly sticks ... > What do the Smeltings' sticks suggest or correspond > to? > > ... > > Carol, ... bboyminn: One thing to consider is that there are a lot of primary and secondary schools in Britain, but there are only a limited number of colors. Each school wants to have a uniform that is unique and distinctive, and therein lies the problem. In the US, any private prep-school requiring a uniform is most likely going to stick with the basic Blue Blazer and gray slacks. The only distinctive feature being a different school crest on the blazers. Though occasionally, you might find a school with the daring maroon blazer. Still we keep in basic here. But, British schools would want each uniform to be, as I said, unique and distinctive. I used to have a link to a site about British school uniforms, I'm sure I referenced in in our previous discussions of the subject, but those discussions were long ago and would take forever to search out in the archives. So, back to the point, limited number of colors and limited number of ways to make the uniforms unique. Actually, I found the link - http://www.archivist.f2s.com/bsu/Bsu.html Note the Blue Coat Schools. and - http://www.archivist.f2s.com/bsu/TradBoy.htm More photos- http://www.archivist.f2s.com/bsu/tradgall/tradgall.htm Another look at the Blue Coats (with yellow socks)- http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/07/british-schoolboy-uniforms/ Some schools require 'boater' or straw hats, others use hats that somewhat resemble an American baseball caps (see photos at the above link). In some cases, it is the knee-high socks that make the uniform distinctive, other times the hat, other times the colors, but each uniform is distinctive and likely can be clearly identified from 4 blocks away. So, my point is there are only so many combinations to create unique uniforms. Once those basic combinations are used up, they need to resort to other things, like canes and Smelting Sticks. Also, I think there is the additional element of want to create traditions that are unique and distinctive for the school. So, I think the parody of the Smelting Sticks is just JKR making fun of how far some schools will go to try and stand out as distinctive from the many many other schools. Not sure if that helps, but if nothing else there are a couple of interesting links to follow. As a really really really side note: Smelt are a small fish that run in very great numbers in the spring in Lake Superior, Minnnesota. Each year they have big festivals where they net and eat tons of deep fried smelt and drink lots of beer. Additional note: even thought the name of the fish is spelled 'smelt', people around here uniformly say 'schmelt'. Though, I don't know why. Steve/bboyminn From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri May 18 16:33:31 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 10:33:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch References: Message-ID: <000001c7996c$b7ab19f0$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 168939 > Ken: > > But you don't have to catch the Snitch to prevent the other Seeker > from catching it. I think Hermione is right that Krum *chose* to end > the match on his terms, it just wasn't the best strategy. In the end > it probably wouldn't have mattered since the Bulgarians didn't seem to > have an answer for the Irish scoring machine but it makes no strategic > sense to catch the Snitch when doing so leaves you a mere 10 points > shy of winning. > > It seems to me the Bulgarians actually did have an answer to the Irish > scoring machine available to them. They should have basically > abandoned any hope of using their chasers to score. They should have > used their chasers and beaters in some defensive combination to both > help their goal keeper defend their goals and to interfere with the > Irish seeker. If they had slowed down the Irish scoring they would > have given Krum more time to catch the Snitch when doing so would have > won the game. That appears to have been their best game plan. > Evidently our author isn't enough of a sports fan to see the strategic > nuances of the game she invented. I would disagree with you on that last comment! I think Rowling presented the answer in text as to how she understands "strategic nuances" in Hermione's comment. If Krum really did think, and know beyond any doubt that they would lose, then it is much preferable to lose by only 10 points than to lose by several hundred, and be remembered for centuries as the team that got slaughtered in the World Cup. This way, Krum remains the hero who saved his team from humiliation, and everyone remembers the game as "great but fierce", "close" and with other memorable phrases that aren't derogatory to his team. Your strategy depends on one thing- leadership of their team captain. A time-out would have been called, and this captain would have had to instruct his players to the new strategy- and I think it was too early in the game for that. They weren't losing by THAT much at the point the snitch was caught. Or maybe Krum knew that his team Captain would have never chosen such a strategy, so that he chose an early defeat rather than a humiliating one. Krum caught the snitch away from Lynch before any of that happened, and chose to end the game on his own terms. I think we see plenty of times when Wood is coaching Harry as a seeker not to catch the snitch before a certain point level, proving that yes indeed the Seeker alone makes the real determination of when to end the game. I also see the twin's predictions of the outcome (Ireland wins, but Krum catches the snitch) as knowledge of the teams and how they have played before this World Cup Match. Obviously, Krum is a great Snitch Catcher, and so my bet is that is how they have won all or most of their games- by catching the Snitch early in the game before the other team had gained significant points on them. Ireland, on the other hand, has a great scoring machine, scoring early, fast and often, and chances are good that this isn't the first time that they won a game by points alone, even if the other team did catch the Snitch first. Krum, then, would have also have studied the two teams previously, and those patterns would have played into his actions to end it early on his terms, before Ireland really cleaned their clocks. Ireland was the strong favorite if the game went long, but they had already scored enough points that Krum already knew defeat was inevitable. I you are going to lose, better to keep your dignity than to be remembered for centuries as the worst defeat. Also, for strategies- Krum is young, and chances are good he would still be playing the following year. Yes, he got on a team that took him to the World Cup, but one that didn't have enough strength in the scoring section to be able to lead them to true victory in the end. He's probably got some of his own strategic planning in there- to find a team for the next year with great scoring potential as well, so that he again would go all the way to the World Cup for the second year in a row, only this time with the chance of victory. To keep his name fresh, he's got to keep his reputation as a great Snitch Catcher, and that is exactly what he does. Frankly, Rowling has such a set up here that she could easily mention a future World Cup in which Krum has been taken in by a team with a good scoring machine, with Krum actually taking the Cup in a brilliant win. Shelley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 18:32:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 18:32:45 -0000 Subject: Revenge as excuse for violating Snape's trust??? (Was: On the perfection . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168940 "Meghan" wrote: > > > So, two wrongs make a right? > Eggplant replied: > No, but five years of wrongs do, or at least they would seem to be worth a right to virtually every 15 year old boy who has ever lived. Carol responds: That assertion is debatable, and I don't think Harry actually agrees with it (nor does JKR, IMO), but it's also irrelevant to the situation. Harry isn't thinking about the "wrongs" Snape has committed (which consist of sarcasm, point deductions, detentions, and repeatedly saving his life or protecting him, which Harry doesn't acknowledge). He's not after revenge, breaking yet another rule to get back at Snape, or violating his privacy to *hurt* him. He's just curious about the memories that Snape placed in the Pensieve. He knows it's wrong to snoop (funny how he and Snape seem to have eavesdropping as a shared fault), but he can't resist the temptation. It's exactly like reading someone's secret diary. Snape has specifically removed those memories so that Harry (or Voldemort?) won't see them, but it never occurs to Harry that he might have a valid reason for doing so. "The silver-white contents were ebbing and swirling within. snape's thoughts . . . things he did not want Harry to see if he broke through Snape's defenses accidentally. . . . "Harry gazed at the Pensieve, *curiosity* welling inside him. . . . What was it that Snape was so keen to hide from Harry? Could it possibly be information about the Department of Mysteries that Snape was determined to keep from him?" (639) Oops. It's not just Snape but *Dumbledore* who's trying to keep Harry away from the Department of Mysteries, and Harry knows that. He ought to realize that they're trying to protect him from Voldemort. He knows that Snape doesn't want him to see whatever is in the Pensieve, though it never occurs to him that it might be private or that it might be something Snape doesn't want *Voldemort* to see (as may be the case with the other two memories). He just calculates the amount of time that Snape will be away and takes his chances, driven by curiosity, not revenge. Meghan: > > I do think that Snape should've given Harry a chance to remove any especially painful memories before starting his lesson. > > But he didn't, but Snape is a big boy so if he wants to play the game that way he should be prepared for the consequences. Turnabout is fair play and if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen. Carol responds: First, removing memories from one's own head is a skill that Harry hasn't learned yet. Possibly you have to be a Legilimens (not counting an accidental mind link with Voldemort) to do it (not to mention that he'd need his own Pensieve, or they might end up putting the wrong memories back into their heads). Practically and logistically, it's impossible for Harry to remove his own memories, and I very much doubt that he'd want Snape to remove them for him. But also, the whole point of the Occlumency lessons is to get Harry to prevent intrusion into his mind, and only if he has memories he doesn't want Snape to see can he learn to do it. Snape, however, may have good reason for removing his memories, not only sparing himself the humiliation of having Harry seeing him bullied by Harry's father or preventing Voldemort from seeing one or more of them. Notice that Snape is a good deal more fair and reasonable than usual with Harry in the Occlumency lessons, not deducting a single House point or assigning any detentions, explaining what Harry needs to know, even faintly praising him. He doesn't punish Harry for hitting him with a Protego and releasing some of his own childhood memories. That's what Harry is *supposed* to do, at least until he learns to use his mind as he did with the Imperius Curse. He only gets angry when Harry sees memories that aren't his own, indications that Harry not only isn't practicing Occlumency but *wants* to have that dream of the corridor. Could it be that this unusual fairness (relatively speaking--Snape is still Snape) might result from having the memory of his humiliation at James's hands out of his mind? If so, then Snape not only had every right but had very good reason to remove that particular memory. He may even have done so at Dumbledore's suggestion, and he certainly did so with DD's permission. He's using DD's Pensieve, after all. Msghan:> > > Harry had absolutely *no* right to go snooping around someone else's memories. > Eggplant: > So we readers are supposed to get all weepy because big bad 15 year old Harry is picking on fully grown Professor Snape, the mighty Potions Master at Hogwarts? I don't think so. Harry is starting to understand that if he wants to survive he must never give the enemy an even brake; certainly Snape never gave one to Harry. Carol: Not weepy. I, for one, am glad that Harry got to see what an "arrogant berk" his father really was, confirming what Snape always said about him. Unfortunately, Snape didn't realize how Harry felt, and Harry's own misery (not over his own wrong action but over his father's) didn't last very long. As for "giving the enemy an even break," he's not perceiving Snape as the enemy here, nor do I see any indication that Harry is developing that philosophy at this point. (It's only when he gets to the MoM and sees Bellatrix kill Sirius Black that he starts thinking it's okay for good guys to cast Unforgiveable Curses, and I'm pretty sure he'll learn otherwise in DH.) The point is simply that Harry should not have entered the Pensieve, which he did behind Snape's back when Snape left the room, knowing full well that Snape--the teacher who was trying to help him learn Occlumency, the Order member who was spying on Voldemort at great personal risk and was concealing info about the MoM on EE's orders--did not want him to see those memories. That Harry was acting out of curiosity, not revenge, does not excuse him for violating the trust of a professor who has never trusted him before, but it's certainly a more legitimate reason than the excuse you're trying to provide for him, revenge against an "enemy" who either isn't, or has not yet shown himself to be, an enemy. As far as Harry knows, Snape is an Order member teaching him Occlumency to protect him against Voldemort's intrusions into his mind, and, as such, he may well have good reasons that Harry would do well to respect for putting those memories into the Pensieve. Carol, who, of course, thinks that Snape had good reasons but does not yet know what they were > > > it's the lowest thing Harry's ever done, > > including Sectumsempra. > > If so, if that is the worst thing Harry will ever do then he's a saint. > > > both DD and the prophecy state that it > > is Harry's ability to love that will > > enable him to defeat Voldie > > But that doesn't mean Harry must be a wimp and a patsy, or at least I > hope that's not what JKR meant, if it is then the last book will stink > to high heaven. > > > That is your interpretation, > > you're entitiled to it. > > Thanks, and you are entitled to my interpretation too. > > justcarol67 Wrote: > > >Harry has never showed the least bit > > of gratitude to Snape for saving his > > life in SS/PS > > And Snape has never shown the least bit of gratitude to Harry for > saving his life TWICE in the very same book, AND again in the next > book. Harry did this by stopping Voldemort from taking over the world. > That is to say, Harry saved Snape's life if you are correct and Snape > really is the avowed enemy of Voldemort. > > Eggplant > From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 19:08:38 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 19:08:38 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and Harry and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168941 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > In Book Seven Harry will be an adult and Dudley will be a child. > Now why do you think JKR arranged things that way? I hope > that Harry will prove too noble to abuse his power over > Dudley in the next book, but I wouldn't bet on it. Neither would I. I'd bet even less on Ron, seeing as he's said he'll be at the Dursleys. But that is how it should be. Karma, or justice if you will, has to come around for Dudley, and if it's at the end of a wand, that's fitting. I suspect the reason that Harry is an adult and Dudley a child is simply because JKR didn't want Harry at Hogwarts in his seventh year and set the age of majority in the WW at 17. > > > Pippin: > What power do you think Snape has that the Slytherins do not? > Harry insults Draco, Draco breaks his nose. Harry insults > Snape, Harry gets detention. There's consequences either way. > Hmmm. How about the power of child abuse? That requires an adult and a child (check) and unequal power distribution (check) and abusive behavior (check). Okay, seems like at least one Slytherin in the snake hole is unique with regard to Harry! > > Snape is very good at getting Harry to focus on his self-doubts > and inadequacies. But Voldemort is even better. Since Harry > will never be good enough at occlumency to tune those feelings > out, he's just going to have to learn to love himself as he is. > ::sigh:: > Which is, I think, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for anything Snape does. Of course, you might say all this about Snape and James, or even Snape and Voldemort. Snapey-poo does have severe inadequacy problems of his own, after all. > > Pippin: > But what if you saw the child growing into a bully, even a murderer, > would you let that happen rather than discipline him? Snape thinks Harry is growing into a bully and a murderer? Oh dear, I'd say Snapey-poo is an even bigger abusive idiot than I took him for, and that's saying a lot! And once again, I'd say it's absolutely no excuse for his abuse, in any case. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 19:17:22 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 19:17:22 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/Snape and Harry and some Ron as well In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168942 > > Alla: > > > > Not necessarily - even if Snape is revealed as not traitor and not > > murderer ( hopefully not), he will still forever remain child abuser > > for me, so I am talking about that Snape as well. > > > > Pippin: > > In Book Seven Harry will be an adult and Dudley will be a child. > Now why do you think JKR arranged things that way? I hope > that Harry will prove too noble to abuse his power over > Dudley in the next book, but I wouldn't bet on it. Alla: LOL. I think for much simpler reason - for Harry to be able to use his magic without Ministry interfering in the last book. IMO of course. But I think Harry already proved himself too noble to abuse Dudley, when he had saved him from Dementors that is. Yeah, he threw some words at him - not nearly enough, if you ask me for all "Harry hunting", Harry had to live through and for making fun of Harry's nightmares, but when the danger came, Harry stood by him and did the right thing. So, I am not worrying, Pippin at all. :) Oh, and before you will make a comparison with Snape who will throw some words at Harry but when the danger comes will do the right thing as well, let me just say - not buying, at all. Because contrary to Dudley, Harry personally did not do anything to Snape when he came to school. So, I do not think that Snape had any right to run his mouth at Harry and Harry has **every** right to do so at Dudley in my opinion. If Snape did that, say, to James, I would totally buy the comparison. ;) > > Alla: > . I would feel that I have no right to be angry at this child for > anything, if I feel true remorse that is. > > Pippin: > But what if you saw the child growing into a bully, even a murderer, > would you let that happen rather than discipline him? You'd salve > your own feelings at the cost of his future? > > Surely not. > Alla: Leaving aside the incredibility (IMO) of Snape being concern for Harry as I see it, I will tell you what I would do had I found myself in RL situation remotely close to Snape. Since we **know** IMO that Harry is not turning into bully and murderer( unless you consider killing Voldemort a murder of course), obviously IMO if Snape was "concerned", his concern is wrong. So, what I would do is to be 200% sure that any information that would lead me to believe that such child ( whom I caused to live life of misery as orphan. Yeah, I think Snape did it consciously - delivered Prophecy to Voldemort) is going bad road is **correct** No buts, no maybes - correct. I mean, really hypothetically I already contributed to such child growing up an orphan. I would be really, really, really scared of being the cause of any more misery for this child, if I am wrong. But if after I would check it out, I would indeed find that there is a possibility of the child having problems, going towards the bad road, trust me, I would still **not** discipline this child, had I been teaching him. I would make sure to pass the information to another teachers and remove myself from the picture. I would be too scared that I am still not objective. That is of course only if I had personal history which can be compared to Snape and Harry of course. I know that it is not realistic to remove oneself from the picture for any child teacher may have problems with. But Yes, I believe such personal history warrants Snape doing all that, going extramile and all, had he had been remotely decent being and having true remorse in his heart. And I will tell you what I will not do **for sure**. I most certainly would not form any judgments about such child, which are so wrong on the first lesson, the moment I saw him. After all, I already hurt this child so much, why would I want to hurt him even more? So, yeah, as I always say I know story needs Snape and Harry conflict, I do, but from the position of within the story, I find Snape conduct being really really disgusting. JMO, Alla From juli17 at aol.com Fri May 18 20:10:58 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:10:58 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168943 > > justcarol67 Wrote: > > >Harry has never showed the least bit > > of gratitude to Snape for saving his > > life in SS/PS > > And Snape has never shown the least bit of gratitude to Harry for > saving his life TWICE in the very same book, AND again in the next > book. Harry did this by stopping Voldemort from taking over the world. > That is to say, Harry saved Snape's life if you are correct and Snape > really is the avowed enemy of Voldemort. > > Eggplant Julie: By that logic, Harry (nor anyone else) has ever shown any gratitude for Snape saving the entire WW because his actions *led* to Voldemort becoming Vapormort. Remember, the WW was losing big time in that first war. If Voldemort hadn't been vaporized, he likely would have won, in which case all the Order members and their families would have been killed. Which would have included Harry Potter, who instead--because of Snape's actions--survived his encounter with Voldemort. I don't really subscribe to that logic because it leaves out intent, and we could go on forever pointing out how various actions beget certain results regardless of the intent behind those actions (not to mention, we have to start giving Peter credit also for saving the WW). The meaningful difference between Harry inadvertently saving the WW, or Snape inadvertently saving it, is that Snape's actions in PS/SS were deliberate acts to save Harry. As far as we know anyway, and if that intent on Snape's part holds up (once we've read any pertinent revelations in DH), then Snape remains ahead in the saving department, and by something of a wide margin, considering he was instrumental in saving Harry in several subsequent instances. Julie From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 20:31:10 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:31:10 -0000 Subject: GoF fight between Harry and Ron/On perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168944 Alla: > But come to think of it, Harry indeed learned to share all > information he has in HBP, did he not? > > Do Rom and Hermione believe him? They just blow him off IMO. So, not > the last time, I guess. Montavilla47: Not exactly. They sometimes blow him off and sometimes don't. Ron cheerfully joins with Harry in vilifying Malfoy when they are both in the hospital wing. And when Harry gets the elves to follow Malfoy around, Ron doesn't say boo about it being a waste of time, or obsessive or anything. None of them seems to mind particularly when Harry eviserates Malfoy, either. Hermione's only problem with it seems to be *which* spell Harry used, rather than the outcome. Alla: > I did think that it was another sacrifice of the character writing > to the plot necessities, since I thought Ron and Hermione should > have believed Harry right away. About Malfoy of all people, whom > they are always suspiciuous about, but this is here on the page. > > I found it to be very dissapointing. Yes, I agree with you, Alla. Although, I think there is a justification to be made for why Ron and Hermione were... shall we say reluctant to follow Harry on his Draco obsession? The last time they followed one of Harry's hunches, it turned out very badly. Ron's still got the scars, we don't even know what kind of scars Hermione is carrying, and someone they knew and care about is dead. It does them real credit that they cared enough about Harry to follow him to the MoM, even though Hermione had big doubts about going. But you can't get around the fact that it was a disaster. Yes, the Ministry acknowledged Voldemort's return and that's a big plus. But they *didn't have to go* and the reason they did go was because they got carried away by Harry's emotional needs. If I were Ron or Hermione in HBP, I'd be putting the brake on Harry's spider-sense, too. Montavilla47 From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri May 18 20:31:05 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:31:05 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort Kill Ameila Susan Bones personally? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168945 Aussie says: Actually, Susan Bones (the student) lost her immediate family 17 years ago to Death Eaters. so it makes me wonder ... ... is LV killing off wizarding families for a reason? Tom Riddle had little personal reasons to be resentful against families ... but other Dark forces may have. Or are the Bones direct decendants of Helga Hufflepuff? Was that their importance? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 18 20:41:10 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:41:10 -0000 Subject: Religion & Law in HP and Smelting Sticks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168947 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Bart: > > > > > >> In intelligent Christian objections (intelligent being > > >> defined as based on knowledge rather than ignorance) > > > > > Goddlefrood: > > > > > >The ambiguity of the word ignorance is that it can mean both > > >lack of knowledge and ignoring the facts, I'd be interested > > >to know which one was meant as the context is not clear. It > > >does seem to be the former usage, but I'd appreciate a > > >clarification. > > > Bart: > > > I mean in the sense of lack of knowledge, although this lack > > of knowledge is often on purpose. I am referring to taking > > things out of context, using coincidence in language, not > > even reading the books being criticized, or the books on > > which the criticism is based (i.e. the Bible). > > Goddlefrood: > > So, then, wilful ignorance as well as not being knowledgeable, > thanks for the clarification. > > I agree with the sentiments expressed by Bart and have noted > that many an argument relative to the detriment that would, in > the argument of those attacking the HP books, be incurred by > the younger reader or listener is based on no real grasp of > the facts. Personally I doubt if these people have actually > a deep understanding of the Bible, in any form. What I think > is that too literal an interpretation of just about anything > can lead to problems, except of course contracts ;-). > > Mind you, even then it can lead to problems :-? > > If anyone has any view of the underlying Christian doctrine, > which is, after all, based more on the New Testament than the > Old Testament, that differs from mine, which I would summarise > as: be tolerant to others and respect different views, even if > you do not believe in those views; or, even more simply: live > and let live, then I would be interested to receive them. > > I certainly do not think that the books are in any way subversive, > neither are they trying to undermine society in any way. They > are enjoyable, amusing and a grand diversion from weightier > issues, but ultimately they will not change the world, IMO. Geoff: Speaking as an evangelical Christian, Gavin, I think that many of the Christian members of the group would join me to disagree with your summarising of Christian doctrine outlined above. Certainly, within the UK, there are many, many people who would claim to be Christians using the same benchmarks as yours. However, "Love your neighbour as yourself" was the **second** of the great commandments mentioned by Christ and many people either neglect,or choose to miss, the first: "Love God with all your heart and mind and soul". Maybe the books will not change the world but the foundation blocks of Western civilisation and culture - for example education, medicine, freedom and justice - sprang from the actions of Christinans who followed the leading and purpose of God. Often these had been triggered by someone else's written or spoken comments. Returning to the books and looking at the question of where JKR is coming from, she has indicated that she is a Christian and we know that she worships in the Church of Scotland, where she now lives. There are implicit hints to Christian belief in the HP books: Dumbledore's comments on choice; possible redemption (for characters such as Snape or Draco or Peter Pettigrew), sacrificial love as demonstrated by Lily to mention a few - and there is certainly a book in existence "The Gospel according to Harry Potter" which draws comparisons between events in the books and quotes from the Bible. Obviously, the structure of the books did not lend itself to overtly Christian observations (in the same way as LOTR). Ironically, a couple of years ago, there was a groundswell of criticism from a number of members on the group which included Wiccans, atheists and alchemists inter alia, who suggested that Christians were hijacking the books completely. I agree with you that there should be tolerance, respect and understanding of other people's views but I do not accept that I should short changing my own belief when it is belittled or attacked. That said, I am suspicious of attempts made to block our enjoyment and free access to these books - even if those involved might claim to be fellow believers. Geoff Trying to think sensibly while on holiday in a foreign country (namely Wales!!) From fooleryt1 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 20:23:12 2007 From: fooleryt1 at yahoo.com (fooleryt1) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:23:12 -0000 Subject: Smelting Stick Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168948 Has anyone thought that the Smelting Stick might have some connection to the wands used by the students at Hogwarts.Its just an idea. fooleryt1 From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri May 18 21:03:07 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 21:03:07 -0000 Subject: Smelting Stick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168949 >fooleryt1: > Has anyone thought that the Smelting Stick might have some connection > to the wands used by the students at Hogwarts.Its just an idea. > JW: An amusing simile! In both instances, students always carry their sticks with them; the sticks are an integral part of the students identification with the institution; in both cases the students are apt to use the sticks to injure other students when teachers are not looking. From ida3 at planet.nl Fri May 18 20:56:42 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:56:42 -0000 Subject: What if...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168950 bboyminn: > > Just one problem, we have no precedent for time-travel > of that magnitude. The only examples of time-travel we > have occur in increments of one hour. That is, each turn > of the Time Turner moves you back ONE HOUR in time, and > only back. We've never seen forward time-travel. > > So, Harry travels back 16 years, that's - > > 24hrs/day X 365days/yr X 16yrs = 140,160 > > ...turns of the Time Turner. > > That seems very impractical. At eight turns per minute, > it would take over 4.8 hours. Then, of course, how > does he return to the present. From the examples in > the books, he just lives for another 16 years until > his time travel self catches up with his present day > self, except in the present, the instant before he > travels back in time, Harry is 17. The next time he > arrives at that point in time, he is going to be > (16+17=33) thirty three years old. And, if he has > been hanging around for 16 years, where has he been? > > Still, it was a good thought. Dana: Well I understand what you are saying but I disagree that Hermione's time turner is the only kind of time turner or time turning available. As we have seen from the DoM battle, there was a cabinet there with hourglasses of different shapes and so to me it is not hard to imagine that each shape stands for a different kind of turning time. And we even see that one can turn time on objects, animals and people when we witness the DE fall into the bell jar of the unknown liquid and only his head got caught into a time loop while his body stayed as it was. To me it is not a lot to imagine that the MoM send Hermione a time turner which only made time travel by hour possible and that other time turners exist with which one can turn back years. Also you make the assumption that once you go back in time that it is not possible to come back into the future by the same means. If you can turn back a time turner than it would also be possible to turn it forward. We do not see that happening in PoA because there was no need for it. Harry did not need to stay in that time period for 15 1/2 years and live a double life until the moment of time turning. Also I do not think there is a need for JKR to have shown us this in advance because she already showed us that going back in time is possible. Of course we already have had the debate of time turning and people turning it into an impossible difficult matter while, as I said before, I absolutely do not believe JKR's time turning, in her world, has such a high tech basis for it. She is bad at math which probably means that she did not look at her time turning being scientifically possible or not either. It just needs to be logical in the way she uses it (yes, even if it is only to her), in my opinion the problem with time turning in the Potterverse is not caused by the way JKR uses it but due to problems in the reader's imagination of what scientifically would or wouldn't be possible or the assumption that JKR must use the rules of how time turning is used in other kinds of literature. It is actually not up to the reader to decide, what things in the Potterverse could not possibly occur because when it is there then it IS possible because JKR makes it so. JMHO That is not to say that she will make 15 ? years of time turning possible at all but to me it is not because using a time turner like Hermione's, would take to long to turn back all those years and therefore make it impossible to do. If she indeed used it to get Harry back into time and back to the events of GH then you can be sure that using a hourglass that can only be turned back by the hour, will not be the way he will go back in that time. I do think that a 17 year old Harry could explain some things we see in canon, like for instance the seemingly omniscient knowledge DD seems to have about certain events and his total lack in knowledge in other parts. He would never allow the 17 year old Harry to tell him everything but Harry would have spilt the beans on some things with or without DD's approval. It could for instance be the reason why DD tried to keep Sirius alive by having him locked up in GP, not just because he was a wanted man. It could be an explanation for Harry's feelings that it seemed DD allowed him to face LV because essentially if he met the 17 year old Harry, he knows that Harry will survive that ordeal. It could explain why DD was taking the time to handle his unfinished business in HBP because he knew he was going to die at the end of the year. It could also mean that he knew who was going to do it and because he can't change the course of events anyway, he knew the time was there when Snape entered the tower and why he did not act surprised even if he tried to plead with Snape to not let himself become a murderer not because it would change anything but because it is in DD's nature to not want to see a person lose his soul. It would, in my opinion also, explain why Lily did not disapperate from GH with baby Harry because according to JKR, Lily did not know anything about the protection her sacrifice would give baby Harry so it would be far more logical that she would run into his room grab him and get out as fast as she could but something prevented her from going and the only thing I can think off that would make a mother stay and risk the life of an infant this way is because she could not make herself leave her 17 year old son to face LV alone. JKR keeps telling us her sacrifice was so much more important then that of James, well maybe because Lily did live in the first time because she did disapperate with baby Harry and one of his parents being alive would not have made LV stop trying to hunt them down but it would have prevented his down fall at that particular moment and might have let to more horrors in the first time then after the time traveling events. Maybe Sirius did kill Wormtail in the first event because if LV did not fall at GH the first time then Wormtail's betrayal would not have let to the need of hiding as a rat for 12 years. It might have been Lily that prevented Sirius from killing Wormtail by having Wormtail set Sirius up. She could not have changed the events of their encounter but whispering a spell into Wormtail's ears, which he could use to change the course of events and safe himself. This would safe Sirius from becoming a murderer but of course a change in events that let to LV's down fall that night might have let to Wormtail's desperate measures on his own automatically saving Sirius from splitting his soul in an act of revenge. It is all just pure speculation of course but I do not think that the mechanics of a time turner would prevent JKR using time turning in DH. Have us witness the events of GH, by having Harry show up before events occured (just at that particular moment or further back does not really matter but it would help understand what let up to these events but might not be nessecary) will be far more easier to make the story of these events click in the readers mind then having someone relay it to us. Why? Because having someone else then Harry himself present at these events would raise more questions then it resolves. For instance if Snape would have been there in an attempt to safe Lily then his treatment of Harry makes absolutely no sense. Again why? Because seeing a mother sacrifice herself out of love for her son would not make you hate that son as much as you hated his father. He would rather feel guilty to that son that his actions made his mother sacrifice herself for him. That would have been the natural response of a person witnessing what happened that night. Besides Snape would in my opinion be a coward if he broke off his rescue mission just because LV was already there, the surprise element of Snape suddenly rushing in and throwing himself in front of Lily, would have provided Lily enough time to get her son out of harms way. So if Snape did not do anything while he was a witness to these events then he was by no means a hero even if somewhere deep down (at the level of his toes probably), he would have liked to have seen things happen differently. And if he was to late then he can't tell what happened one way or the other. Lupin presents would not make sense to me either because I do not believe he would just sit there and not try to help James fight LV to give Lily more time to get Harry out (and no I do not believe in a ESE!Lupin), the same goes for Sirius or even DD and having Harry learn about events by having a DE present at these events will not make the story, of what happened, a very believable one. Essentially we already got LV's version of events so no need to have one of his DEs rehearse it again from his point of view. Giving the story from Harry's POV however would be enough to make the reader understand what really happened that night. And to me it would be the only reason that would make sense to me of why Lily stayed to face LV, instead of getting out as fast as she could and why JKR drives the Lily's sacrifice being so much more important then James's home so fiercely, James would have died anyway. LV offering Lily to step aside would just a red herring because he could have offered it to her a million times she would never have taken it anyway but her sacrificing the life she could have had with Harry if she had taken baby Harry and disapperated would be an ultimate sacrifice. I think that is what she did, she sacrificed the time she would had with baby Harry so 17 year old Harry would not die that night either. Of course we have to wait and see and I have no illusions that I would be able to unravel JKR's complex mind so it might never happen regardless of it making sense to me or not. JMHO Dana From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri May 18 21:22:19 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Christianity in HP (WAS: Religion & Law in HP and Smelting Sticks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <521380.60348.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168951 Geoff Bannister wrote: Geoff: Returning to the books and looking at the question of where JKR is coming from, she has indicated that she is a Christian and we know that she worships in the Church of Scotland, where she now lives. There are implicit hints to Christian belief in the HP books: Dumbledore's comments on choice; possible redemption (for characters such as Snape or Draco or Peter Pettigrew), sacrificial love as demonstrated by Lily to mention a few - and there is certainly a book in existence "The Gospel according to Harry Potter" which draws comparisons between events in the books and quotes from the Bible. Obviously, the structure of the books did not lend itself to overtly Christian observations (in the same way as LOTR). Ironically, a couple of years ago, there was a groundswell of criticism from a number of members on the group which included Wiccans, atheists and alchemists inter alia, who suggested that Christians were hijacking the books completely. KATIE REPLIES: I resent wholeheartedly your insinuation that sacrificial love, redemption, CHOICE, and other so-called "Christian" themes in Harry Potter are Christian at all. My objection is two-fold: 1 - There is an assumption by Christians that values that are in the Bible are somehow singularly Christian. Simply because you put it in the Bible does not mean it is owned by Christianity. The Bible may mean something to you, but it means nothing to me, and I believe in sacrificial love, redemption, spirituality, loving the Creator, and treating my fellow man with humanity. This doesn't mean that I am a Christian, nor does it mean that I am practicing "Christian" values. These beliefs belong to all of humanity - why do Christians get to hijack all virtues and claim them as their own? 2 - I was part of that "groundswell" of other religions a few years back. I do not in any way believe that JK intentionally put Christian themes into these books. Perhaps her religion inspired her in an unconscious way (although I disagree with this as well), but it is obvious to me that these books are not religious. If there is any overriding faith theme in HP - it is faith in ONESELF - not in God! The fact that there may be an afterlife in HP doesn't mean it's a Christian heaven. Um...other religions believe in an afterlife. The fact that characters that we believed to be evil may redeem themselves in a sacrifical way in the end, doesn't mean it's some metaphor about Jesus - it's just really fantastic plotting and storytelling. Not everything has to do with Christianity! Jesus' story is a story that had already been told repeatedly in mythology by the writing of the Bible. Why? Because sacrifice and suffering makes a good damn story. Harry Potter is not about religion. It is about a boy who is on a journey of self-discovery, and he happens to have a wonderful cast of characters to help him through. Plus, he's a wizard, and that's dang fun. Trying not to take stuff too seriously, Katie . --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat May 19 00:01:32 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 00:01:32 -0000 Subject: Morality and Rationalism In-Reply-To: <521380.60348.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168952 > Katie (In parts): > I resent wholeheartedly your insinuation that sacrificial love, redemption, CHOICE, and other so-called "Christian" themes in Harry Potter are Christian at all. My objection is two-fold: > 1 - There is an assumption by Christians that values that are in the Bible are somehow singularly Christian. Simply because you put it in the Bible does not mean it is owned by Christianity. > 2 - I was part of that "groundswell" of other religions a few years back. > Why? Because sacrifice and suffering makes a good damn story. > Harry Potter is not about religion. Goddlefrood: It's interesting that this is bought up. First, might I say that it rarely advances an argument to say that a contrary view is resented. I'm not myself overtly religious, but if pressed I would say I was an agnostic. The argument that the Bible is somehow the repository of only Christian values and beliefs is not one with which I would personally agree. If it were to be narrowed to just the New Testament, then perhaps a case could be made. The three largest monotheistic religions each take the Bible seriously. My viewpoint was in the last paragraph quoted by Geoff in an earlier post, this: > I certainly do not think that the books are in any way > subversive, neither are they trying to undermine society > in any way. They are enjoyable, amusing and a grand diversion > from weightier issues, but ultimately they will not change > the world, IMO. Perhaps I should also have added that it is a simple fact that anyone can take whatever they choose from the books. It would be rather dull if everyone agreed about everything all the time and would lead to rather short discussions, or rather, none at all. That there are ways of making arguments for many different points of view from the available text is a matter that should hold no controversy. In my earlier post I made some links that are valid and could advance one way of looking at the books, it is not necessarily my way of looking at the books. I've probably just been a lawyer too long and appreciate being able to argue a point from many sides. To conclude then, I can appreciate the many opposing viewpoints. I have never thought a great deal about the alchemical theorists because many lead to a conclusion that Rubeus would die, and of course I do not agree, but for no really better reason than that Hagrid is my personal favourite. If he does die it needn't validate the alchemy based theories either. For what it may be worth to anyone. Goddlefrood From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 01:01:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 01:01:54 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168956 > Alla: > > But come to think of it, Harry indeed learned to share all > > information he has in HBP, did he not? > > > > Do Rom and Hermione believe him? They just blow him off IMO. So, not > > the last time, I guess. > > Montavilla47: > Not exactly. They sometimes blow him off and sometimes don't. > Ron cheerfully joins with Harry in vilifying Malfoy when they are > both in the hospital wing. And when Harry gets the elves to > follow Malfoy around, Ron doesn't say boo about it being a > waste of time, or obsessive or anything. Alla: Well, I guess I believe that they did not support Harry enough when they should have been. Since we know that it turned out to be not a waste of time at all, but quite the contrary. IMO disaster could have been averted had people believed Harry that Malfoy was up to something. But sure, agreed on those points. I still think it is wierd that they had their doubts of Malfoy is being up to something of all people - since they were all on the same page about Malfoy for five books IMO. Making Harry a slave owner erm... elf owner, that was wierd too IMO, as an aside. Montavilla47: > None of them seems to mind particularly when Harry > eviserates Malfoy, either. Hermione's only problem with it > seems to be *which* spell Harry used, rather than the outcome. Alla: It is also my only problem ( which spell Harry used) Montavilla47: > Yes, I agree with you, Alla. Although, I think there is a justification > to be made for why Ron and Hermione were... shall we say > reluctant to follow Harry on his Draco obsession? > > The last time they followed one of Harry's hunches, it turned out > very badly. Ron's still got the scars, we don't even know what > kind of scars Hermione is carrying, and someone they knew and > care about is dead. Alla: Mmmmm, point well taken, I can buy it as justification, but not quite. See below. Montavilla47: > It does them real credit that they cared enough about Harry to > follow him to the MoM, even though Hermione had big doubts > about going. But you can't get around the fact that it was a > disaster. Yes, the Ministry acknowledged Voldemort's return and > that's a big plus. But they *didn't have to go* and the reason > they did go was because they got carried away by Harry's > emotional needs. > > If I were Ron or Hermione in HBP, I'd be putting the brake on > Harry's spider-sense, too. Alla: Sure, it does them real credit that they chose to stick by Harry knowing what huge danger awaits them being friend of chosen one. I completely agree. On the other hand, I do think that in the book it is sort of not really working after five years if they would suddenly decide they are afraid and do not want to do it anymore. Does not work as noble reason for me and all that. Do you know what I am trying to say? Obviously in RL nobody can blame a person who was doing a dangerous job and decided to quit due to the increased danger to that person or the loved ones or due to any other reason. But in the book, when Ron and Hermione IMO basically since the age eleven decided to stick by Harry and follow him into dangers, etc, if they would say - awwwww, we are scared Harry, we do not want to do it anymore. I don't know - my only answer would be - didn't you know what you signed up for, cowards? Does it make sense? This is only how I feel about fictional heroes, obviously, nothing to do with RL, lol. I think Ron and Hermione chose that kind of life, which again I certainly give them a huge credit for and now have an obligation to follow through. I mean, they do not,LOL, but for me at the same time they do. Ugh, cannot explain it better. It is like, I don't know, say Merry and Pippin and especially Sam half way through decide they will not go with Frodo anymore, not because they part the ways in the book, but because they are scared and want to go home. While it is certainly understandable for me, and maybe it would have even worked in more realistic story, I am afraid in phantasy it would make me disgusted with them. Oh, and there is another reason why this justification - that Ron and Hermione remember too well what happened in the ministry and want to avoid it does not really work for me. I believe that their "rescue" mission gave more good things for resistance than bad things ( and I am huge Sirius fan and miss his character terribly), so not I do not think it was a disaster, but it is not like their previous missions went all smoothly before either. In PS/SS, I sure applaud Harry decision to go after stone, but did he really need to? In PoA once again, if we put life debt aside, which I agree would play a role at the end, I believe that Sirius and Lupin would have dealt with Peter quite nicely without Harry interference. I know about not wanting them to be murderers, etc, I am just saying that it sounds really bizarre to me if Ron and Hermione would suddenly think that they need to disregard Harry telling them that Malfoy is up to something, because some things went terribly wrong in OOP. Ron was hurt in PS, CoS, PoA, it is not like it never happened before and it never stopped him. I think that I am sticking with JKR needing nobody listen to Harry and let Malfoy to continue assasination attempts for story needs. I think it again sacrifices Ron and Hermione loyalty ( not completely but IMO still does) for plot. JMO, Alla From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 01:38:27 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 01:38:27 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168957 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > But you don't have to catch the Snitch to prevent the other Seeker > from catching it. I think Hermione is right that Krum *chose* to end > the match on his terms, it just wasn't the best strategy. I agree with you and others that Krum realized his team could never catch up and decided to finish the game with a decent score. I know it was the main reason for his catching the Snitch. I just wanted to point out that Krum's condition contributed to his decision too, IMO. He was hurt so badly that Harry was surprised he could even see where he was going. Everyone was expecting that the game would be stopped, but the referee was deep in fight with the veela and didn't notice. It just all came together - Krum's team was hopelessly loosing, he was badly injured, and Lynch was about to catch the Snitch. BTW, it was not Hermione, but Harry, who said that Krum "wanted to end it on his terms" (p.114 US hardback). Hermione had a comment of a different kind: "He was very brave, wasn't he?" Hmm... Unfortunately, I have nothing to answer to you about Quidditch strategies, this is really not my field of expertise. I don't even understand baseball and american football rules, so you can imagine :-). zanooda, who likes Viktor Krum and has a tendency to defend him everywhere ... From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 02:37:57 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 02:37:57 -0000 Subject: Christianity in HP (WAS: Religion & Law in HP and Smelting Sticks) In-Reply-To: <521380.60348.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > I resent wholeheartedly your insinuation that sacrificial love, redemption, CHOICE, and other so-called "Christian" themes in Harry Potter are Christian at all. My objection is two-fold: > 1 - There is an assumption by Christians that values that are in the Bible are somehow singularly Christian. Simply because you put it in the Bible does not mean it is owned by Christianity. The Bible may mean something to you, but it means nothing to me, and I believe in sacrificial love, redemption, spirituality, loving the Creator, and treating my fellow man with humanity. This doesn't mean that I am a Christian, nor does it mean that I am practicing "Christian" values. These beliefs belong to all of humanity - why do Christians get to hijack all virtues and claim them as their own? Leslie41 now: Not to completely hijack Geoff's response, but I'd like to answer this, at least in part. Firstly, of course you're correct. Loving thy neighbor isn't exclusively Christian. Nor is redemption, sacrificial love, etc. But Christ's teachings, which now seem to us seem generically "humanist" were absolutely *revolutionary* in his own time. He saw an equality of all people. Not just "his" people, but *all* people, regardless of gender and tribe and color. Christians "hijack" these virtues and claim them as their own because, in essence, Christ "invented" these virtues and made them manifest in the world for the first time, in their completest sense. And I don't speak here of Jesus Christ as savior--you don't need to believe that at all. I speak of Jesus as a philosopher. > 2 - I was part of that "groundswell" of other religions a few years back. I do not in any way believe that JK intentionally put Christian themes into these books. Perhaps her religion inspired her in an unconscious way (although I disagree with this as well), but it is obvious to me that these books are not religious. If there is any overriding faith theme in HP - it is faith in ONESELF - not in God! The fact that there may be an afterlife in HP doesn't mean it's a Christian heaven. Um...other religions believe in an afterlife. The fact that characters that we believed to be evil may redeem themselves in a sacrifical way in the end, doesn't mean it's some metaphor about Jesus - it's just really fantastic plotting and storytelling. Not everything has to do with Christianity! Jesus' story is a story that had already been told repeatedly in mythology by the writing of the Bible. Why? Because sacrifice and suffering makes a good damn story. Leslie41 now: Well, yes, other religions have an afterlife. But Harry Potter's world clearly includes Christmas and Easter, and Harry himself was christened (apparently that was very important to his parents) and has a godfather. I don't necessarily think the books are overtly "religious" of course, not in a "Left Behind" sort of way, but a generic sort of Christianity permeates them, which I think goes beyond the merely decorative. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat May 19 02:59:21 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 12:59:21 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <31870816.1179506807540.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <464EF4A9.7373.FA8A09@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168959 On 18 May 2007 at 0:00, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Bart: > That was really my major point, and why I couldn't come up with a > playable Quidditch game (once again, if the Snitch scored 50 instead > of 150 points, the games would be played more or less the way JKR > describes it). Shaun: Something that may have been missed in considering the scoring of Quidditch, and whether or not 150 points is appropriate for the Snitch or not is that the vast majority of Quidditch games we have seen are school games. The scoring patterns that are seen in school games may have very little to do with the scoring patterns seen in competitive Quidditch. I'll use cricket as an example, and two sources of figures I have available. You don't really need to understand cricket to understand the example. The first set of figure - competitive cricket at world standard. Cricket has just recently had a world cup. There were 51 matches and I am just crunching the numbers for the winning score in each match giving 102 scores. The average (mean) of those 102 scores is 209. The lowest score was 77, the highest 413. That is competitive cricket. The second set of scores I will look at come from school level cricket. They are actually the results for all matches my school played in 1989 - I'm using them because they are conveniently to hand in my school annual for that year. This is a high quality school level league - not necessarily the best school level league but indicative of a good standard of school level cricket. This time there were 60 matches, giving 120 scores. The average (mean) of those 120 scores is 118. The lowest score was 17, the highest 235. There's a significant difference in the type of scores you see in a competitive adult league and the type of scores you see at school level. The game is played by the same rules, and scored the same way but the scores are quite different. Perhaps it is similar in Quidditch - perhaps the scores in an adult level game, a competition level game are quite different from those seen in house games at Hogwarts. Maybe in those games, 150 points for the Snitch makes a lot more sense. We can't tell - as far as I know, we know only one score from top class Quidditch, and that's not a lot to go on. But we see a match that seems to be a lot faster scoring that the Hogwarts matches - goals may be a lot more common at higher levels than schools. And what of the Quidditch matches we hear off that went on for weeks before the snitch was caught - how many goals were scored in those matches, so how much effect did the snitch have when it was finally caught? 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 montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 03:30:13 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 03:30:13 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168960 > Alla: > Well, I guess I believe that they did not support Harry enough when > they should have been. Since we know that it turned out to be not a > waste of time at all, but quite the contrary. IMO disaster could > have been averted had people believed Harry that Malfoy was up to > something. Montavilla47: I think you may be right about that, Alla. Of course, it probably would have meant Draco's death (and possibly Narcissa's), but if you don't care about them, you don't and I certainly am not going to say you're wrong. Although... (attack of the ellipses!) DD did know that Draco was up to something--so you can't say that he didn't believe Harry. Could everyone else have overridden his idiot plan to save Draco by risking other students? Hard to say. But I take your point, and let's just assume that it would made a difference if Ron and Hermione had been fully behind Harry's belief about Draco. Would that have changed their actions? They could not have foreseen the necklace or the wine. And they still dutifully drink the FF potion and stand guard when Harry tells them to. > Montavilla47: > > It does them real credit that they cared enough about Harry to > > follow him to the MoM, even though Hermione had big doubts > > about going. But you can't get around the fact that it was a > > disaster. Yes, the Ministry acknowledged Voldemort's return and > > that's a big plus. But they *didn't have to go* and the reason > > they did go was because they got carried away by Harry's > > emotional needs. > > > > If I were Ron or Hermione in HBP, I'd be putting the brake on > > Harry's spider-sense, too. > > > Alla: > > Sure, it does them real credit that they chose to stick by Harry > knowing what huge danger awaits them being friend of chosen one. I > completely agree. > > On the other hand, I do think that in the book it is sort of not > really working after five years if they would suddenly decide they > are afraid and do not want to do it anymore. Does not work as noble > reason for me and all that. Montavilla47: I must have been unclear. I don't think that Ron and Hermione were afraid. To me, they are simply being *rational.* They understand that actions have consequences and perhaps blindly following Harry's instincts isn't always the best course of action. If I look at Ron and Hermione's actions towards Harry in book 5 and 6, I see the both of the being more thoughtful and smart. Ron, particularly, struggles with his "best friend" role from GoF on. First, he struggles with his jealousy of Harry (which we've discussed before). Then, in OotP, he struggles with the concept of outdoing Harry (by becoming a prefect--and then being on the team when Harry isn't). In HBP, he has to deal with his own emotional needs in relation to Harry *and* Hermione. In OotP, I see Hermione trying to manipulate things in order to help Harry out of the emotional swamp he's wandering in. I might be reading that into her actions, but I think the D.A. was partly created to help a friend channel his rebellious energy into a more constructive area than self-mutilation by detention. Alla: > In PS/SS, I sure applaud Harry decision to go after stone, but did > he really need to? Montavilla47: I think he did, but I think the need was more personal than anything else. The whole thing was set up like an eleven- year-old's obstacle course. Harry even suggests that DD wanted him to have the chance to tackle it. Alla: > In PoA once again, if we put life debt aside, which I agree would > play a role at the end, I believe that Sirius and Lupin would have > dealt with Peter quite nicely without Harry interference. Montavilla47: I agree with you about that one. But I wouldn't blame Harry for the moon coming out. Alla: > I know about not wanting them to be murderers, etc, I am just saying > that it sounds really bizarre to me if Ron and Hermione would > suddenly think that they need to disregard Harry telling them that > Malfoy is up to something, because some things went terribly wrong > in OOP. Ron was hurt in PS, CoS, PoA, it is not like it never > happened before and it never stopped him. > I think that I am sticking with JKR needing nobody listen to Harry > and let Malfoy to continue assasination attempts for story needs. > I think it again sacrifices Ron and Hermione loyalty ( not > completely but IMO still does) for plot. Montavilla47: But I don't see them *disregarding* what Harry says as much as applying their own intelligence--rather than blindly going along. The time they *don't* believe him is when Harry's reasoning is off. Harry's right that Draco used the necklace, but his theory that Draco bought the necklace that day in Knockturn Alley was faulty. Actually, since I think Snape was DDM, I think it's a real pity that DD kept trying to put Harry off, instead of having him consult with Snape on the project. You know, Snape might just have taken Harry suspicions seriously. :) Montavilla47 From miamibarb at comcast.net Sat May 19 04:45:37 2007 From: miamibarb at comcast.net (ivogun) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 04:45:37 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort Kill Ameila Susan Bones personally? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168961 > Aussie says: > > Actually, Susan Bones (the student) lost her immediate family 17 years > ago to Death Eaters. so it makes me wonder ... > > ... is LV killing off wizarding families for a reason? > > Tom Riddle had little personal reasons to be resentful against > families ... but other Dark forces may have. While LV / TR may not have strong rational reasons to resent the old wizarding families, he nevertheless resents them. He's paranoid. What else can explain LV's attempted murder of a baby? As we saw in HBP, LV also has this thing about the founders of Hogwarts their artifacts, and the importance of being pure-blooded. Unfortunately, the old families are what stand in his way to his access of any artifacts. He murdered his own wizarding family to get the ring and to enact revenge. After Hogwarts, LV must have found it difficult to receive the same type of respect from older members of these wizarding families as he did from his group of "friends" at school. Many would be richer, well established, and not willing to become one of his slaves. Some families guard trinkets, special abilities and magical secrets. Some would protest and work against Voldemort's use of the the dark arts. It probably took a few murders to get everyone's attention and respect. With his pureblood ideology, I fear that a lack of respect from anyone who is from one of the old families would bother him more then the same behavior from a muggle-born wizard. (My guess) Anyway, at the zenith of his power, Voldemort would only personally murder those who were great or worthy. > > Or are the Bones direct decendants of Helga Hufflepuff? Was that their > importance? Since we know about one family who are descendants of Hufflepuff, it seems more likely that we will discover someone is the descendant of Gryffindor and/or Ravenclaw. (The Bones are as likely as anyone else to be descended from Ravenclaw or Gryffindor.) From bawilson at citynet.net Sat May 19 05:22:59 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 01:22:59 -0400 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168962 Development, maturation, perfectionment--these are not straight line processes in real people, and we should not expect it in literary creations. "Three steps forward, two back" is a part of life; had JKR not depicted the kids thusly, we would have long ago dismissed them and her as totally unbelievable. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From lauren1 at catliness.com Sat May 19 06:23:49 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 23:23:49 -0700 Subject: worried about Harry's schooling Message-ID: <002701c799de$488a96a0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 168963 Hi, At the end of HBP, Hogwarts was such a scary place that it seemed it would be shut down. I am worried that JKR will not have Harry finish his schooling in order to find all of the horcruxes. I don't think this would encourage kids to finish school. I hope he does, but I am worried. Thanks Lauren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat May 19 07:23:34 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 00:23:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE:[SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen In-Reply-To: <464D5EF9.000003.02208@JUSTME> References: <464D5EF9.000003.02208@JUSTME> Message-ID: <96920743.20070519002334@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168964 **** WARNING: CRUCIAL SPOILER FOR JANE AUSTEN'S _EMMA_ **** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Friday, May 18, 2007, 1:08:25 AM, Debi wrote: D> I believe this is the shipping twist that Ms. Rowling was referring to. D> But I could always be wrong. Dave: We probably all have different judgements on this point, but for me, *the* shipping twist is when Emma assumes that Harriet is in love with Frank, who performed the "great service" of saving her from the gypsies -- until Harriet announces that she is (or *thinks* she is) in love with Mr. Knightley(!), who danced with her after Elton had cruelly snubbed her. This is the crucial twist, I think, because it puts Emma (so she thinks) in danger of losing her beloved Mr. Knightley to Harriet, and that it could have been avoided if she had just kept her big mouth shut and let Harriet marry Mr. Martin in the first place. ( And we won't talk about what such a match would have meant for the future of poor "Little Henry"... :) ) Dave (who sees Jo as "The Jane Austen of Fantasy Writers") From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat May 19 07:42:19 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 07:42:19 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168965 > Alla: > > Well, I guess I believe that they did not support Harry enough when > they should have been. Since we know that it turned out to be not a > waste of time at all, but quite the contrary. IMO disaster could > have been averted had people believed Harry that Malfoy was up to > something. Hickengruendler: Not really. Dumbledore knew from the beginning that Malfoy was up to something, and nothing changed, because he didn't want Malfoy to know that he knew. Similarly, after Harry told McGonagall about his suspicion after the Katie incident, McGonagall may have not really believed him (it's hard to tell), but nonetheless she went straight to Dumbledore with and told him about Harry's suspicion. So ultimately Dumbledore, (who was the victim of disaster you meant, I assume) had all the informations Harry had as well, and possibly more. He just decided not to act on them. Therefore would have made really a difference, if Ron and Hermione had believed Harry simply because of his hunches? Alla: > Making Harry a slave owner erm... elf owner, that was wierd too IMO, > as an aside. Hickengruendler: Yeah, but what else could he have done? He could not have freed Kreacher. He had to keep him. I hope he sets him free at the end of book 7. Alla: > I think that I am sticking with JKR needing nobody listen to Harry > and let Malfoy to continue assasination attempts for story needs. > > I think it again sacrifices Ron and Hermione loyalty ( not > completely but IMO still does) for plot. > Hickengruendler: I find this a bit extreme. It's not, that they weren't loyal to him, they just were unsure of his accusation. And they still helped him in the end watching over Draco. I mean, there's a huge difference between disloyalty and simply second-guessing someone's wildest theories. ;-) I mean, they did have a point, when they said Malfoy wasn't the only one visiting Borgin and Burkes. That said, it did get really annoying, when they tried other explanations for *everything*. (Other people were in Borgin and Burkes as well, *and* Malfoy probably just screaned in Madam Malkin's because of the needle *and* he was just trying to impress Pansy Parkinson, etc.). One or two other explanations are understandable, but when the hints got more and more, someone should have smelt the rat as well. > From xellina at gmail.com Sat May 19 08:43:48 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Natalia Flerova) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 12:43:48 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What if...? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463f9ec00705190143n134228a5v2553cc713a5728c0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168966 2007/5/19, Dana : > > > Dana: > Well I understand what you are saying but I disagree that Hermione's > time turner is the only kind of time turner or time turning > available. > Cassy: Didn't JRK sy in some interview that kids had smashed ALL the time -tirners in MoM? Of course, somewhere in the world they must have survived, but I believe it's a clear indication that she doesn't intend to use time-travel again. IMO, time travelling is fun to write/read the first time (PoA), but it presents too much inconvenient plot questions, like why it's OK to use it to save Buckbeack, but not Cedric. She just _had_ to get rid of time-turners somehow. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From xellina at gmail.com Sat May 19 08:48:41 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Natalia Flerova) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 12:48:41 +0400 Subject: Hufflepuff descendants (was Why did Voldemort Kill Ameila Susan Bones personally?) Message-ID: <463f9ec00705190148g7cd274fm7efadbe81856af33@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168967 2007/5/19, ivogun : > > > > > Since we know about one family who are descendants of Hufflepuff, it seems > more likely > that we will discover someone is the descendant of Gryffindor and/or > Ravenclaw. (The > Bones are as likely as anyone else to be descended from Ravenclaw or > Gryffindor.) > Cassy: Sorry, I must have dozed off somewhere along the way. Who are those Hufflepuff descendants? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From xellina at gmail.com Sat May 19 08:52:04 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Natalia Flerova) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 12:52:04 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] worried about Harry's schooling In-Reply-To: <002701c799de$488a96a0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> References: <002701c799de$488a96a0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <463f9ec00705190152j18005bc9uc15b23c98a31baa5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168968 2007/5/19, Lauren Merryfield : > > Hi, > At the end of HBP, Hogwarts was such a scary place that it seemed it would > be shut down. I am worried that JKR will not have Harry finish his schooling > in order to find all of the horcruxes. I don't think this would encourage > kids to finish school. I hope he does, but I am worried. > Thanks > Lauren > Cassy: Maybe that's the evil plot of JRK, to send a message: "Kiddies don't finish schools, go find some adventures in life!". It was not for nothing those books were banned in some schools, MWA-HA-HA! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nerdie55 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 09:23:39 2007 From: nerdie55 at yahoo.com (nerdie55) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 09:23:39 -0000 Subject: Christianity in HP (WAS: Religion & Law in HP and Smelting Sticks) In-Reply-To: <521380.60348.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168969 > > Geoff: > > Returning to the books and looking at the question of > > where JKR is coming from, she has indicated that she is > > a Christian and we know that she worships in the Church > > of Scotland, where she now lives. > Katie: > I resent wholeheartedly your insinuation that sacrificial > love, redemption, CHOICE, and other so-called "Christian" > themes in Harry Potter are Christian at all. > Harry Potter is not about religion. It is about a boy who > is on a journey of self-discovery, and he happens to have > a wonderful cast of characters to help him through. Nerdie55: If I may add my 2c: I have never connected HP with religious values and I don't think that JKR wrote HP with Christianity in mind. However, our western civilization and our societies are permeated by Christian values without people realising it. Redemption is present in our judicial systems and in our schools, "love thy neighbour" is part of the campaigns against bullying in schools and the campaigns for equal rights etcetera. And as JKR's private Potter society is a reflection of the one we all live in, it is inevitable that one finds these values in the Potter books as well. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat May 19 09:53:28 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 19:53:28 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Smeltings' sticks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464F55B8.3719.5E2721@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168970 On 18 May 2007 at 13:53, Ken Hutchinson wrote: > Even more so it reminds me of something that actually did happen > while > I was living in England. We tuned in the BBC news on TV one evening > to > find that a major scandal had happened that day in the House of > Commons (I think, but it could have been the House of Lords). They > have a large ceremonial mace that plays some mysterious (to a > Yank) > role in the legislative process. During the heat of a debate the > MP > holding the sacred mace got very, very angry and hurled it to the > floor in disgust. My, I thought we'd never hear the end of that!! > > Of course in the United States we tend to be less ostentatious and > more direct. Shaun: Actually the US House of Representatives has a ceremonial mace which is used in a fairly similar ceremonial way to the British Parliamentary mace. The mace is a traditional symbol of prestige and authority, and the Parliamentary maces typically have fairly elaborate ceremonials associated with them. I've always liked the maces - ever since I discovered that the Parliament of Victoria's mace vanished without trace in 1891 - there's a $50,000 reward for its safe return. I have actually often wondered what real links there are between the government of Muggle Britain and that of Wizarding Britain - we know that the Prime Minister of the day is kept informed of some things (I wonder if Gordon Brown has had a visit yet, or if they wait until he actually takes over... but the thing that I would really be interested in knowing is whether or not the Royal Family has any influence over the Wizarding World. Personally I like to imagine that they do, but I can't see any actual proof of that. Perhaps just the term Minister is an indication - I believe a Minister holds their office from the Crown... of course, whether JKR cares about that is another question. I've also wondered about the names of the money - the Galleon, and the Sickle - well, they are things - but what's a Knut? I wonder if it is linked to King Canute. Or to a Canute anyway. I'm not the only one who has made that link, I know... but again, it makes me wonder. 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 gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat May 19 09:59:10 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 09:59:10 -0000 Subject: Hufflepuff descendants (was Why did Voldemort Kill Ameila Susan Bones person In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00705190148g7cd274fm7efadbe81856af33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168971 > > ivogun: > > (And some more) > > Since we know about one family who are descendants of > > Hufflepuff > Cassy: > > Who are those Hufflepuff descendants? Goddlefrood: It's speculation so far, but the link has been made between Hepzibah Smith (the owner of the Hufflepuff Cup, amongst other trinkets) and Zacharias Smith. It has not been specifically stated that they are related, but it does seem possible, even if Smith is the most common name in England. Then again Evans is one of the more common names in Wales and Mark Evans meant nothing. From jnferr at gmail.com Sat May 19 14:40:22 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 09:40:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] worried about Harry's schooling In-Reply-To: <002701c799de$488a96a0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> References: <002701c799de$488a96a0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <8ee758b40705190740p5791a705n8b7c4a51d87ad9b5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168972 Lauren wrote: > > Hi, > At the end of HBP, Hogwarts was such a scary place that it seemed it would > be shut down. I am worried that JKR will not have Harry finish his > schooling in order to find all of the horcruxes. I don't think this would > encourage kids to finish school. I hope he does, but I am worried. montims: As other people have written, Hogwarts is based on the British education system. There, you have to stay at school till 16 (has that changed yet?). Those who can, sit what in my day were the "O" Levels and then leave. They can also leave without taking any exams if they have attended for the legally required number of years. If they are clever, and want to, they can stay at school for another 2 years and take what were "A" Levels, This is not obligatory, but required for certain jobs, or to enter university. In Britain, they do not have baccalaureat, or matriculation, or high school graduation, or any other of the different foreign school final exams... Percy got his good job at the Ministry because he had good NEWTS. The twins decided their OWLS were enough. If Stan Shunpike, for example, had failed all of his OWLS, and not returned to school to take his NEWTS, he would still have "finished his schooling". Besides, I feel that muggle kids reading a series of stories concerning a magical, fictional child's attempts to defeat the greatest threat to the wizarding world, would not take his consequent inability to attend the final year of Hogwarts as an excuse for them to bunk off... That would be foolish to the extreme. And if they do have a horcrux hunt to complete, I trust they would be excused lessons... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 15:00:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:00:23 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168973 > > Alla: IMO disaster could > > have been averted had people believed Harry that Malfoy was up to > > something. > > Hickengruendler: > > Not really. Dumbledore knew from the beginning that Malfoy was up to > something, and nothing changed, because he didn't want Malfoy to know > that he knew. Similarly, after Harry told McGonagall about his > suspicion after the Katie incident, McGonagall may have not really > believed him (it's hard to tell), but nonetheless she went straight > to Dumbledore with and told him about Harry's suspicion. So > ultimately Dumbledore, (who was the victim of disaster you meant, I > assume) had all the informations Harry had as well, and possibly > more. He just decided not to act on them. Therefore would have made > really a difference, if Ron and Hermione had believed Harry simply > because of his hunches? Alla: Dumbledore knew that Malfoy was up to something indeed. Did he know what **exactly** Malfoy was up too or was he just keeping a good pocker face on the Tower? I am not really sure. I guess it all depends on how much one thinks Snape told him . I am especially not sure that he knew about cabinet. But if he **indeed** knew about everything and indeed decided to let DE enter in school, well sure then you are right - nothing would have changed regardless of Ron and Hermione believing Harry, LOL. By the way, I know some people believed him - Arthur went to check out too, I just was unpleasantly surprised that Ron and Hermione were not on the same page with him - and it is not like any of them liked Malfoy before and would be surprised that he is up to something, you know? I guess I was doubly surprised that they did not believe him not just about any person, but Malfoy of all people. > > Alla: > > > I think that I am sticking with JKR needing nobody listen to Harry > > and let Malfoy to continue assasination attempts for story needs. > > > > I think it again sacrifices Ron and Hermione loyalty ( not > > completely but IMO still does) for plot. > > > > Hickengruendler: > > I find this a bit extreme. It's not, that they weren't loyal to him, > they just were unsure of his accusation. And they still helped him in > the end watching over Draco. I mean, there's a huge difference > between disloyalty and simply second-guessing someone's wildest > theories. ;-) Alla: Sure, I think I stand corrected. I think it sacrifices their loyalty for this one particular accusation, it is just something that runs through the book, so feels more than it was probably. Hickengruendler: I mean, they did have a point, when they said Malfoy > wasn't the only one visiting Borgin and Burkes. That said, it did get > really annoying, when they tried other explanations for *everything*. Alla: Yes, yes, yes. Oh my goodness - YES. Really annoying. > > Alla: > > Well, I guess I believe that they did not support Harry enough when > > they should have been. Since we know that it turned out to be not a > > waste of time at all, but quite the contrary. IMO disaster could > > have been averted had people believed Harry that Malfoy was up to > > something. > > Montavilla47: > I think you may be right about that, Alla. Of course, it probably > would have meant Draco's death (and possibly Narcissa's), but > if you don't care about them, you don't and I certainly am not > going to say you're wrong. > Alla: Do I care about Draco's death and Narcissa? Draco is planning assasination of Dumbledore and almost kills two students in the process. Do I think that DD looks more than a little hypocritical when he lets little brat run in the school and do it, if he indeed knows everything? YES, I absolutely do. Would I care if Draco and Narcissa died? Certainly not if that means that bigger disasters could have been averted. As I said several times, I used to hate Draco with passion, still do before last scene of HBP. After last scene of HBP I still cannot stand him, but I at least think that he will get what he signed for and more. Karma, justice and all that - life of the fugitive, etc. Again, do not get me wrong, I certainly understand what JKR is doing with it - DD saving Draco soul, etc,etc. It is just I think DD comes out very hypocritical to me - because I think he is risking lifes of innocent students while trying to prevent one bastard from becoming a murderer. So, I would prefer DD not knowing at least all the details personally. Montavilla47: > Although... (attack of the ellipses!) > DD did know that Draco was up to something--so you can't > say that he didn't believe Harry. Could everyone else have > overridden his idiot plan to save Draco by risking other > students? Hard to say. > Alla: See above > Montavilla47: > I must have been unclear. I don't think that Ron and Hermione > were afraid. To me, they are simply being *rational.* They > understand that actions have consequences and perhaps blindly > following Harry's instincts isn't always the best course of action. > > If I look at Ron and Hermione's actions towards Harry in book 5 > and 6, I see the both of the being more thoughtful and smart. Alla: LOLOLOL. Hermione as thoughtful and rational in HBP? Let's agree to disagree on that. I see her as completely blinded by jealousy that Harry bested her in Potions with the book. Montavilla47: > Ron, particularly, struggles with his "best friend" role from GoF > on. First, he struggles with his jealousy of Harry (which we've > discussed before). Then, in OotP, he struggles with the > concept of outdoing Harry (by becoming a prefect--and then > being on the team when Harry isn't). In HBP, he has to deal > with his own emotional needs in relation to Harry *and* > Hermione. Alla: Agreed actually. > Montavilla47: > But I don't see them *disregarding* what Harry says as much as > applying their own intelligence--rather than blindly going along. > Alla: As I told to Hickengruendler, it increases my annoyance that they did not believe him about Malfoy of all people. Somebody they were always on the same page about. And their intelligence turned out to be wrong, so I do not see them applying it :) Let me say again - I think Trio's friendship is one of the most touching friendships I read about in literature. I love them together. I think my point when this thread started was to say that staff happens, that's all. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 19 15:08:50 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:08:50 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: <464E394B.000007.03228@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168974 Debi: > So it is quite possible that Ginny developed "off camera" from Harry Groupie > (though I dont believe she was so much a gropie as she was in awe of him) to > someone who treats him as a real person. This is how her perception of Harry > has grown, from Famous Harry Potter, to 'just Harry, just Harry' (which is > how Harry sees himself) Pippin: Actually we do see the moment where Ginny realizes that Harry is a real person. It's in GoF, when he and Ron start laughing at the idea of anyone going with Neville to the ball. She tells them to "shut up laughing" and then announces to one and all that they got turned down by the girls they asked to the ball. Of course she's extremely miserable a moment later when she realizes that *she* might've gone with Harry, but just for a second she saw him as a guy who was getting a bit above himself and needed to be put in his place. Pippin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat May 19 15:33:31 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:33:31 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168975 > Alla: > > Dumbledore knew that Malfoy was up to something indeed. Did he know > what **exactly** Malfoy was up too or was he just keeping a good > pocker face on the Tower? I am not really sure. I guess it all > depends on how much one thinks Snape told him . > > I am especially not sure that he knew about cabinet. Hickengruendler: No, he didn't. (Neither did Snape, according to Draco, what a coincidence *g*). Dumbledore admitted this during his conversation with Draco on the Tower. However, neither did Harry, and I'm not sure how anyone could have found out, as long as they couldn't enter the RoR. Therefore given the knowledge they had regarding Draco's plan, Harry and Dumbledore were pretty much on the same level, except that Harry "only" suspected what Dumbledore knew, namely that Draco was behing the attacks that hurt Katie and Ron. Alla: > But if he **indeed** knew about everything and indeed decided to let > DE enter in school, well sure then you are right - nothing would > have changed regardless of Ron and Hermione believing Harry, LOL. Hickengruendler: No, you are right, he didn't know this. He may have suspected something, but he didn't know anything for sure. (That or he lied to Draco on the Astronomy tower, which I don't think.) Alla: > By the way, I know some people believed him - Arthur went to check > out too, I just was unpleasantly surprised that Ron and Hermione > were not on the same page with him - and it is not like any of them > liked Malfoy before and would be surprised that he is up to > something, you know? > > I guess I was doubly surprised that they did not believe him not > just about any person, but Malfoy of all people. Hickengruendler: I wasn't unpleasantly surprised in the beginning. Like I said, it is their good right to disagree with him. (And Harry was blindsided by Malfoy as the obvious suspect already in coS. Therefore I don't think it's wrong to consider the possibility, that there's another dangerous person around, just like it was in CoS, if we consider diary Riddle a person.) But this started to change, as I already said, when they tried to find other explanations for *everything Draco did*. I think JKR overdid this here a bit. By the way, I particularly never understood the argument, why Draco should be too young to be a Death Eater with 16, particularly since Barty Crouch junior wasn't much older, when he went to Azkaban. I theorized before the release of HBP that he would join the Death Eaters as a revenge for Lucius' arrest, and this was exactly the argument I got from most fans. Therefore I can say I fully identified with Harry in this point. ;-) Hickengruendler From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 19 15:53:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:53:59 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168976 > Alla: > > Dumbledore knew that Malfoy was up to something indeed. Did he know > what **exactly** Malfoy was up too or was he just keeping a good > pocker face on the Tower? I am not really sure. I guess it all > depends on how much one thinks Snape told him . Pippin: *Why* should Dumbledore be keeping a good poker face on the tower? He's at death's door. If Snape has already betrayed him, wouldn't he *want* Harry to know? Alla: > I am especially not sure that he knew about cabinet. Pippin: But Harry did not know about the cabinet either. It might have worked if he had told Ron and Hermione to keep watch *inside* the Room of Requirement. But he didn't think that was necessary for the same reason that Dumbledore did not. They both thought Draco on his own could not do anything. Harry thought he would get help from Snape, Dumbledore thought he couldn't get it. Neither anticipated Draco would smuggle DE's into the castle through the RoR. Alla: > I guess I was doubly surprised that they did not believe him not > just about any person, but Malfoy of all people. Pippin: Hermione's seen Malfoy brag and act like he's up to something before. She ended up in the hospital wing for weeks with fur all over her face, and it was for nothing. Then she followed Harry against her own better judgement in OOP and ended up in the hospital wing *again* for nothing -- as far as she knew at the time, everyone would have been better off if she'd gone back to Hogwarts and warned Snape instead of flying to London with Harry. > > > Alla: > > Do I care about Draco's death and Narcissa? Draco is planning > assasination of Dumbledore and almost kills two students in the > process. Do I think that DD looks more than a little hypocritical > when he lets little brat run in the school and do it, if he indeed > knows everything? YES, I absolutely do > > Would I care if Draco and Narcissa died? Certainly not if that means > that bigger disasters could have been averted. Pippin: They wouldn't have been. Suppose Dumbledore let himself be manipulated into letting Draco and Narcissa die. Do you think Voldemort would stop there? Once he had a handle on Dumbledore, do you think he wouldn't keep using it, again, and again and again? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 15:56:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:56:35 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168977 > Alla: > > In PS/SS, I sure applaud Harry decision to go after stone, but did he really need to? > > Montavilla47: > I think he did, but I think the need was more personal than anything else. The whole thing was set up like an eleven-year-old's obstacle course. Harry even suggests that DD wanted him to have the chance to tackle it. > Carol responds: An eleven-year-old's obstacle course? They could have been killed. All we have is Harry's theory vs. Hermione's, so I suppose we have to choose between them. Harry didn't have to risk his life; Quirrell!mort would have been thwarted by the mirror and DD could have caught him there. (Harry, of course, didn't kill him. He died when LV left his body.) As for Dumbledore, maybe he felt that it was impossible to keep Harry from doing what he thought he needed to do, so he gave him what he needed to survive the obstacle course--if he and his friends solved the mystery first. But I don't think it was set up in the first place as a test for Harry. It was set up as a series of obstacles for Quirrell (who was asked to provide an obstacle so he wouldn't know that DD suspected him), with the finally obstacle being impassable. Meanwhile, Snape, who also suspected him and perhaps didn't know about the final obstacle, was trying to thwart him, perhaps independently, and trying to keep the Trio away from the corridor (as he always tries to keep Harry in particular from going where he shouldn't go). > Alla: > > In PoA once again, if we put life debt aside, which I agree would play a role at the end, I believe that Sirius and Lupin would have dealt with Peter quite nicely without Harry interference. > > Montavilla47: > I agree with you about that one. But I wouldn't blame Harry for the moon coming out. Carol responds: I don't understand this line of thinking. True, Wormtail escaped, thanks to Lupin's forgetting to take his potion, and true, Wormtail restored Voldemort, but if not for Harry, Lupin and Black would have murdered their former friend in front of three kids. Harry's "mercy" (which, but for the moon, the forgotten potion, and the DADA curse) would have sent Wormtail back to Azkaban and the company of the Dementors) protected Lupin and Black more than it protected Wormtail. It kept them from splitting their souls and Lupin from becoming a wanted criminal (Black was already in danger of having his soul sucked and perhaps felt that he had nothing to lose, but what sentence would the MoM have passed on a werewolf who was also a murderer?) Harry's action kept them from that folly and from setting a horrible example for himself and his friends. ("It's okay for good guys to use Unforgiveable Curses and take justice into their own hands." We see from Barty Crouch Sr. that it *isn't* okay even for MoM officials to use Unforgiveables or send people to Azkaban without a trial. And Lupin and Black would have *executed* a man they knew to be a criminal without a trial, making it impossible to prove that Black hadn't already murdered him.) At any rate, it seems to me that Harry did the right thing, regardless of the unintended consequences, and Black and Lupin would have committed a terrible wrong--in front of three kids, no less--had it not been for him. He saved *their skins* as well as Wormtail's and kept their souls from splitting. Would it have been worth their lives and souls to keep Wormtail from escaping and restoring Voldemort? I think that LV would have found someone else, say Barty Jr., to restore him even if Wormtail didn't. Carol, who thinks that Harry will be rewarded for his mercy when Wormtail pays his life debt From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 16:31:21 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 16:31:21 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168978 Alla: > Again, do not get me wrong, I certainly understand what JKR is doing > with it - DD saving Draco soul, etc,etc. It is just I think DD comes > out very hypocritical to me - because I think he is risking lifes of > innocent students while trying to prevent one bastard from becoming > a murderer. So, I would prefer DD not knowing at least all the > details personally. > Montavilla47: I'm snipping most of the post because I agree with so much of it. I'm responding to this because I think it makes an interesting parallel to DD's decision to allow Lupin to attend school. Allowing a werewolf to attend school was also putting the lives of innocent students to risk. DD put very strong safeguards in place, but not enough apparently, because the Marauders got around those precautions and even Lupin said they had a lot of near misses--even before Snape almost got killed. Even after that incident, Lupin still attended school for 1-2 years. It was a risk that paid off, ultimately, since Lupin did graduate and is somewhat able to function in society. But people were put at risk because of DD's decision, and we know that at least one person narrowly escaped death. It's hard to defend DD's decision in Draco's case. You might say that he was protecting Snape's cover as well as trying to save Draco from a life of Death Eating (or just plain death). But Kate and Ron both nearly died because of his good intentions. Does that make DD's decision to help Draco worse than his decision to help Lupin? Why do we (the general "we") consider his decision enlightened and generous in Lupin's case and stupid and selfish in Draco's case? > Alla: > > LOLOLOL. Hermione as thoughtful and rational in HBP? Let's agree to > disagree on that. I see her as completely blinded by jealousy that > Harry bested her in Potions with the book. Montavilla47: Actually, I think she was more thoughtful and rational in OotP. In HBP, I see her struggling with a lot of things--one of which is that she *isn't* the smartest kid in class any more, because her at least two of her teachers are demanding that she do more than recite facts. I agree that she was jealous about Harry's success in Potions class. But I don't see that affecting her as far as Malfoy's concerned--except for her "I told you so" attitude when Harry uses Sectumsempra. Again, that's more about the spell than it is about Malfoy. She wouldn't have minded Harry almost killing Draco if he had used a Ministry-approved spell. :) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat May 19 16:51:08 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 16:51:08 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168979 "julie" wrote: > The meaningful difference between > Harry inadvertently saving the WW, > or Snape inadvertently saving it, Harry did not "inadvertently" confront the 3 headed dog and all those other horrors, he knew exactly what he was getting into. Harry did not "inadvertently" decide to go into the Chamber Of Secrets, he knew there was a good chance he'd never come out alive but he went in anyway. However Snape did NOT put himself in any personal danger when he saved Harry. > is that Snape's actions in PS/SS > were deliberate acts to save Harry. And Harry's actions were deliberate acts to save the entire world. Call me silly but I just don't find such an intent ignoble. I said it before I'll say it again, for reasons I do not understand among fans Harry is never given one inch of slack, not even enough to cover being a bit grumpy with his friends on a few rare occasions. Snape on the other hand is given about 27 miles of slack, enough to cover even the murder of Dumbledore. I just don't get it. Eggplant From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sat May 19 16:53:21 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 16:53:21 -0000 Subject: What if...? In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00705190143n134228a5v2553cc713a5728c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168980 > > Dana: > > Well I understand what you are saying but I disagree that Hermione's > > time turner is the only kind of time turner or time turning > > available. > > > Cassy: > Didn't JRK sy in some interview that kids had smashed ALL the time - tirners > in MoM? Of course, somewhere in the world they must have survived, but I > believe it's a clear indication that she doesn't intend to use time- travel > again. She just _had_ to get rid of > time-turners somehow. > JW: While I am less than certain on this, I recall that in an interview JKR said that time-travel WILL take place in DH. This would be the basis for the many conjectures (including mine) on HOW (as opposed to IF) time-travel will be used in the final book. Does anybody recall the exact quote from JKR, or is this old man's memory playing tricks on him? From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 17:05:16 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 17:05:16 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168981 Montavilla47: The whole thing was set up like an eleven-year-old's obstacle course. Harry even suggests that DD wanted him to have the chance to tackle it. Carol responds: An eleven-year-old's obstacle course? They could have been killed. As for Dumbledore, maybe he felt that it was impossible to keep Harry from doing what he thought he needed to do, so he gave him what he needed to survive the obstacle course--if he and his friends solved the mystery first. Montavilla47 responds: That's a good thought, and that probably *is* what Dumbledore was thinking. This is where the needs of the plot outweigh the needs of plausibility. Because if the goal was to keep out Quirrell, it's kind of a sad little safeguard, isn't it? Three eleven-year-olds were able to get through it--one of the hardest obstacles being the dog (no way through that one, unless you know how to get Hagrid to spill an important secret.) The second obstacle is a plant that they learn how to handle in *first year* herbology. The third obstacle can be solved by anyone who can ride a broom. The fourth obstacle is the troll--they defeated the troll back in October. The fifth obstacle is hard, because you need to know how to play chess. (And, unless you decided to bring your friends with you, you start two pieces down). But it's still an easy- enough game that a twelve-year-old boy can win it. The sixth is hard because it involves logic. But it's a logic problem that a twelve-year-old kid can solve. It's sort of like that game show, "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" So, plot-wise I don't think DD *set it up* as a test for Harry. But I think he did know that it was good for Harry to flex his hero muscles on a relatively easy course. The "bunny slope" of quests, as it were. *** Alla: In PoA once again, if we put life debt aside, which I agree would play a role at the end, I believe that Sirius and Lupin would have dealt with Peter quite nicely without Harry interference. Montavilla47: I agree with you about that one. But I wouldn't blame Harry for the moon coming out. Carol responds: I don't understand this line of thinking. At any rate, it seems to me that Harry did the right thing, regardless of the unintended consequences, and Black and Lupin would have committed a terrible wrong--in front of three kids, no less--had it not been for him. He saved *their skins* as well as Wormtail's and kept their souls from splitting. Would it have been worth their lives and souls to keep Wormtail from escaping and restoring Voldemort? I think that LV would have found someone else, say Barty Jr., to restore him even if Wormtail didn't. Carol, who thinks that Harry will be rewarded for his mercy when Wormtail pays his life debt Montavilla47: Well, I don't disagree with you, Carol. I also believe that it will be important that Harry showed mercy. Would it have been worth their lives and souls to keep Wormtail from escaping and restoring Voldemort? I think that probably Sirius and Lupin would have agree that it was--if that had been the ultimate outcome. After all, wasn't that what they were signing up for when they joined the Order? To aid in the fight against Voldemort? Don't you think Sirius would have gladly died to prevent Harry from going through what he did in the Graveyard? Now, I definitely agree that Voldemort would have found a way to restore his body. I don't think it would have been Barty, Jr. Voldemort didn't know Barty was alive until Wormtail met up with Bertha Jorkins. But it would have been someone. Wasn't it DD who told Harry that you can't completely get rid of Voldemort? That all you can do is to try and make it harder for him to come back? Montavilla47 From thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk Sat May 19 19:45:08 2007 From: thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk (simon harris) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 20:45:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <464EF4A9.7373.FA8A09@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: <20070519194508.40560.qmail@web27311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168982 > Bart: > That was really my major point, and why I couldn't come up with a > playable Quidditch game (once again, if the Snitch scored 50 instead > of 150 points, the games would be played more or less the way JKR > describes it). Shaun: Something that may have been missed in considering the scoring of Quidditch, and whether or not 150 points is appropriate for the Snitch or not is that the vast majority of Quidditch games we have seen are school games. The scoring patterns that are seen in school games may have very little to do with the scoring patterns seen in competitive Quidditch. Perhaps it is similar in Quidditch - perhaps the scores in an adult level game, a competition level game are quite different from those seen in house games at Hogwarts. Maybe in those games, 150 points for the Snitch makes a lot more sense. We can't tell - as far as I know, we know only one score from top class Quidditch, and that's not a lot to go on. But we see a match that seems to be a lot faster scoring that the Hogwarts matches - goals may be a lot more common at higher levels than schools. And what of the Quidditch matches we hear off that went on for weeks before the snitch was caught - how many goals were scored in those matches, so how much effect did the snitch have when it was finally caught? Simon: The 150 points was based on the prize money in one of the first games of Quidditch. IMO I think JK picked this vale to help the plot along not to help the game of Quidditch along in the real world. From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sat May 19 21:09:28 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 21:09:28 -0000 Subject: What are your feelings on Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168983 I am curious to know people's opinions on the Snape debate :-) I want to say that he is a DE and bad to the bone, but then what does that say about DD? He trusted him all that time and stood by him. SO I do think that as much as I don't want to admit it he probably is really on the good side. Even though he is a total jerk. Tandra From klewellen at shellworld.net Sat May 19 22:06:23 2007 From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 18:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What are your feelings on Snape? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168984 On Sat, 19 May 2007, Tandra wrote: > I am curious to know people's opinions on the Snape debate :-) Karen: At last I catch the start of a thread. My name is Karen and I live in New York. I have been a member for a while, but did not want to post in the midst of a thread. Here are my thoughts. One of the many fantastic thinks about JKR is her ability to capture the complexities of human nature in very simple ways. Snape is a magnificent example of this. I feel we will all be surprised. Is it likely that his character will be finally painted in simple colors? Not a chance. Will he likely be a source of lessons? Absolutely, and far more than the potions ones too for sure. Would I invite him to dinner? Well......depends on what I was serving . Thanks, Karen From kjones at telus.net Sun May 20 01:40:47 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 18:40:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's Past? - Switching Bodies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464FA71F.7010207@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168985 > > > bboyminn: > > > > > Second, to what end? What was the purpose? Why would > > > Snape and Dumbledore even conceive of such an idea? > > > Dumbledore is not exactly a dunderhead, he is probably > > > the greatest living wizard on earth. I can see no real > > > practical reason for them to switch. The 'Switch' does > > > serve the theory, but how does the theory serve the story? > > > > houyhnhnm: > > > > If it turns out that Snape and Dumbledore had been > > switching identities all along, it would explain > > Dumbledore's statement that Snape "is now no more a > > Death Eater than I am." It would be an addtional > > reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape (a la Pwyll > > and Arawn). It would also explain why James Potter > > left his invisibility cloak with Dumbledore when > > Dumbledore doesn't need a cloak to become invisible > > (Snape does, even when he is disguised as Dumbledore). > > > > > KJ writes: While I suspect that switching of identities may play a part in the final book, I am thinking that it might more likely involve the switching between Harry and Voldemorte. The only reason that I think that way is because JKR has set us up with Kreacher, who must obey Harry, but is not obliged to obey anyone else, including Voldemorte. This may end up the only method of distinguishing between the two of them, if Voldemorte has some way of switching bodies or identities with Harry. I see no other real purpose for Kreacher's existence. This might also explain why Sirius had to die. If Harry had not inherited the elf, this would not work. KJ From fiziwig at yahoo.com Sun May 20 03:15:50 2007 From: fiziwig at yahoo.com (Gary) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 03:15:50 -0000 Subject: What are your feelings on Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > I am curious to know people's opinions on the Snape debate :-) Gary: Just for fun: Snape wants to defeat LV so he himself can take his place as the biggest, baddest, meanest wizard on the block. Snape wants to rule the world, and DD and LV are both in his way, so they BOTH have to go. Well, anyway, it's more fun that the usual theories. From bartl at sprynet.com Sun May 20 05:27:02 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 01:27:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <20070519194508.40560.qmail@web27311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20070519194508.40560.qmail@web27311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <464FDC26.8000408@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168987 simon harris wrote: >> Bart: That was really my major point, and why I couldn't come up >> with a playable Quidditch game (once again, if the Snitch scored 50 >> instead of 150 points, the games would be played more or less the >> way JKR describes it). Shaun: > Something that may have been missed in considering the scoring of > Quidditch, and whether or not 150 points is appropriate for the > Snitch or not is that the vast majority of Quidditch games we have > seen are school games. The scoring patterns that are seen in school > games may have very little to do with the scoring patterns seen in > competitive Quidditch. Bart: I was making the assumption that the two teams are on the same class as each other. Simon: > The 150 points was based on the prize money in one of the > first games of Quidditch. IMO I think JK picked this vale to help the > plot along not to help the game of Quidditch along in the real world. Bart: No, the prize money was based on the 150 points. Don't confuse WW chronology with JKR chronology. Besides, if 150 points WERE written in stone, all you have to do is raise the point total of the goals. I'll bet you a galleon and 23 sickles that the WW isn't as obsessed with base 10 as the real world; just make the goals 30 points each and everything works. There is a real version of poker. It's called "Red Dog". Very dramatic game. You'll see it described SCARNE'S GUIDE TO MODERN POKER (John Scarne, who was consulted by every major casino in Las Vegas as well as the U.S. government on gambling, was the first person to write books on card games with a knowledge of statistics, not to mention a knowledge of cheating techniques). Even Scarne only included it for completeness. As a game, it is virtually unplayable. However, it is often used as a plot for a short story, usually played by a bunch of people stuck together in one place, because, although it is normally quite boring, it can lead to quite dramatic moments, especially if the author has control of what cards show up. Quidditch is JKR's Red Dog Poker. It was not designed to be played; it was designed to create dramatic moments for the hero. Earlier someone pointed out how, in PS/SS, the security system seemed to be designed to create a challenge for 11 year olds, not someone who could break into Gingrotts and get away (I have mentioned that it can be inferred from DD's later statements that this was his intent, although there's considerable disagreement about the accuracy of this interpretation). Bart From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun May 20 05:31:15 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 22:31:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00705180057t3cd9ea7boed3828f094900335@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0705152146x7c4503ddvd8475171322bc8c9@mail.gmail.com> <463f9ec00705180057t3cd9ea7boed3828f094900335@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168988 honeypi: The thing about Austen's Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax plot twist that made it so successful is there was just enough in canon, so that when the truth was revealed it was easy for Emma to connect the dots. Emma was being deliberately mislead by Churchill, and Jane was cooperating in the deception. I would expect an Emma-like twist to the HP series would involve a long time deception by people close to Harry. Lynda: Oh, is that it? See, that was no surprise to me at all. I saw it from the beginning of the book (without having been briefed on the book, read in synopses, etc.). The way it was written I knew what was going on in the plot and was really at a loss as to why Emma couldn't figure it out because it was so obvious to me. As I said before, its made Emma my least favorite of Austen's works. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun May 20 05:35:44 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 15:35:44 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <464FDC26.8000408@sprynet.com> References: <20070519194508.40560.qmail@web27311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46506AD0.13842.163F197@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 168989 On 20 May 2007 at 1:27, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Bart: > I was making the assumption that the two teams are on the same class > as > each other. Shaun: So was I. I am assuming the two teams competing against each other are of the same class as each other - but that doesn't mean the scoring patterns will be the same at different levels of competition. In some sports - and cricket was the example I used - the scores achieved in high level leagues are typically significantly higher than the scores achieved in lower level leagues, even though the teams in each league are likely to be of a similar standard to each other. In school level cricket, a score of 150-200 is a pretty good score. For first class cricket, scores of 400 or more are good scores. If the same holds in Quidditch - if higher scores are normal in league matches, or world class matches, than they are in school matches, 150 points from the snitch may not be as decisive as we see it being in the school matches at Hogwarts. 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 moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun May 20 05:58:21 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 22:58:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What are your feelings on Snape? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705192258p5ca6efceu8f04a849ca05fb15@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168990 I have absolutely no ideas about Snape because there are so many possibilities and there is so much yet unrevealed. He could be completely evil and doing nothing more than whatever is in his power to bring about as much turmoil and mayhem as possible to promote the dark arts and Voldemort and gain power for himself. Or, that could all be a clever ruse and in the end we will discover that he was actually working for DD, on the side of good. Either is possible at this point in the story. I'm just waiting for the last chapter... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Sun May 20 06:02:16 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 01:02:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <464FDC26.8000408@sprynet.com> References: <20070519194508.40560.qmail@web27311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <464FDC26.8000408@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40705192302x4ba2f991i87b1db7b1cf4b467@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168991 > > Simon: > > The 150 points was based on the prize money in one of the > > first games of Quidditch. IMO I think JK picked this vale to help the > > plot along not to help the game of Quidditch along in the real world. > > Bart: > No, the prize money was based on the 150 points. Don't confuse WW > chronology with JKR chronology. Besides, if 150 points WERE written in > stone, all you have to do is raise the point total of the goals. I'll > bet you a galleon and 23 sickles that the WW isn't as obsessed with base > 10 as the real world; just make the goals 30 points each and everything > works. montims: OK - I've found my copy of Quidditch Through the Ages, and it mentions (page 12) Barberus Bragge bringing a caged Snidget to a match in 1269, and saying that he would award 150 Galleons to the player who caught it during the course of the game. On the next page it says "Chief Bragge's idea had forever changed the nature of Quidditch. Golden Snidgets were soon being released during all Quidditch games... When the bird was killed, the game was over and the Hunter's team was awarded an extra 150 points, in memory of the 150 Galleons promised by Chief Bragge" (page 14) It also mentions, on page 26: "Given their immense importance in the overall outcome of the match, for the capture of the Snitch so often snatches victory from the jaws of defeat, Seekers are most likely to be fouled by members of the opposition." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun May 20 06:24:24 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 06:24:24 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "julie" wrote: > > > The meaningful difference between > > Harry inadvertently saving the WW, > > or Snape inadvertently saving it, > > Harry did not "inadvertently" confront the 3 headed dog and all those > other horrors, he knew exactly what he was getting into. Harry did not > "inadvertently" decide to go into the Chamber Of Secrets, he knew > there was a good chance he'd never come out alive but he went in > anyway. However Snape did NOT put himself in any personal danger when > he saved Harry. Julie: Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were refering to Harry surviving DH. It is true that Harry thwarted Voldemort in the instances above. I won't go so far as to say he saved the WW at that point, as Voldemort still survived to gain a body in GOF. So I can't really see Snape (or most anyone outside of Ginny) even thinking Harry saved his life. Harry may do so someday, as he will certainly save the WW, but he hasn't been put in that position yet. (And I am not taking away from Harry's bravery or what he did accomplish in delaying Voldemort's return; you just can't extrapolate "saving the WW" from it.) As for Snape, we don't yet know how much personal danger he has placed himself in throughout the books. Though it is true he certainly wasn't in any personal danger in PS/SS. That wasn't the point though. The point was Harry didn't thank Snape for saving him. Which is not required, though I actually wouldn't have been surprised if Harry had, as their relationship, while unpleasant, hadn't deteriorated to outright hostility at that point. Julie: > > > is that Snape's actions in PS/SS > > were deliberate acts to save Harry. Eggplant: > And Harry's actions were deliberate acts to save the entire world. > Call me silly but I just don't find such an intent ignoble. Julie: Harry's actions weren't ignoble at all. But I was also replying to your post that Snape should thank Harry for saving *him.* That's the assertion I disagree with, that Snape has had reason to thank Harry for saving him, as Harry has never directly done so. Eggplant: > I said it before I'll say it again, for reasons I do not understand > among fans Harry is never given one inch of slack, not even enough to > cover being a bit grumpy with his friends on a few rare occasions. > Snape on the other hand is given about 27 miles of slack, enough to > cover even the murder of Dumbledore. I just don't get it. Julie: I haven't taken much part in the debate over Harry's grumpiness with his friends, but I admit I do feel free to call Harry on his misdeeds. Why? Because Harry is the hero, one of the good guys, and I automatically hold him to a higher standard than Snape, or Draco, or any of the other questionable characters. (Those on the definite side of evil--Voldemort, Bellatrix, Fenrir, etc--I pretty much ignore, as they're lost causes.) I can't speak for others, but the reason I give Snape a lot of "slack" as you call it, is because he is DELIBERATELY written as an ambiguous character. Yes, it was JKR who put all that slack in Snape's character! While we know he's unpleasant in personality, we don't yet know if he is on the side of good or evil. Thus our point of evaluation is not defined, as it is with Harry. We know Harry and his motivations as Harry flat out TELLS us when he's acting in a less than noble manner (he knows it's wrong to peek into the Pensieve, he knows it's wrong to sneak off to Hogsmeade, he knows he's being irrational blaming Snape for Siruis's death, etc, etc.) It's difficult to ignore Harry's own conscience telling on him! As for Snape, we all have theories about why he did this and why he did that, but we have few facts. For instance, his "murder" of Dumbledore may yet turn out to be one more misinterpretation, as so many seemingly obvious things (Sirius the murderer, Scabbers the innocent rat, Moody the DADA teacher) have turned out to be such. At least until we read DH, just about any version of Snape could turn out to be the reality. Julie From lauren1 at catliness.com Sun May 20 07:09:24 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 00:09:24 -0700 Subject: Harry's Invisibility Cloak Message-ID: <005601c79aad$d527e610$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 168993 Hi, In HBP, at the tower where Snape killed Dumbledore, Harry took off without his Invisibility Cloak. Maybe I missed something but I wonder what happened to it. Thanks Lauren From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun May 20 08:44:41 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 08:44:41 -0000 Subject: What are your feelings on Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168994 > > Tandra: > > I am curious to know people's opinions on the Snape debate :-) > Gary: > Just for fun: > Snape wants to defeat LV so he himself can take his place as the biggest, baddest, meanest wizard on the block. Snape wants to rule the world, and DD and LV are both in his way, so they BOTH have to go. Goddlefrood, reporting from the asylum: Where's the fun in that? It's a theory that has some familiarity, IOW it's all been said before ;-) What would really be fun is if it turned out that Snape never existed at all. Just a thought, not an opinion. Irma Pince will be involved, whatever happens. Deja Vu Goddlefrood From ida3 at planet.nl Sun May 20 11:21:54 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 11:21:54 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168995 Julie: > Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were refering > to Harry surviving DH. It is true that Harry thwarted > Voldemort in the instances above. I won't go so far as to > say he saved the WW at that point, as Voldemort still > survived to gain a body in GOF. So I can't really see > Snape (or most anyone outside of Ginny) even thinking > Harry saved his life. Harry may do so someday, as he > will certainly save the WW, but he hasn't been put in > that position yet. Dana: I disagree with this assessment because Harry did save Snape's life when the spell rebounded in GH, sure it was actually Lily who did the saving but if Snape is good then this event did safe him from being on the wrong side. We see what happens to people that wanted to leave LV's service, they do not live to tell the tale. So if Snape really defected at great personal risk then Lily's actions removed that risk at least for more then 13 years. If Snape is truly good but just a nasty person then he owes his live to the Potters more then once and how does he repay them? By bullying their son. Yes, a really noble man that Snape. Julie: > As for Snape, we don't yet know how much personal danger > he has placed himself in throughout the books. Though it > is true he certainly wasn't in any personal danger in PS/SS. > That wasn't the point though. The point was Harry didn't > thank Snape for saving him. Which is not required, though > I actually wouldn't have been surprised if Harry had, as > their relationship, while unpleasant, hadn't deteriorated > to outright hostility at that point. Dana: Well the only problem I have with Snape placing himself in personal danger, throughout the books, is that we never actually see him in any mortal peril. We see that his return to LV's side is less dangerous then defying the man and not return (LV promised the one that left him forever would be punished but we never saw Snape paying for it). We see that Snape lives through sending the Order in OotP and we see him live through the UV in HBP. For me it is not that difficult to come to the conclusion that Snape only made very calculated risks that never truly risked his own life. And that wouldn't make these actions noble. Someone said that taking the UV was putting himself in risk of dying; well I disagree because a UV is only a risk to you if you do not oblige to its stipulations and we actually see that Snape thought he could risk it because he was under the impression that he was going to be ordered to do it anyway. Meaning that he already decided that he was going to kill DD if asked to by LV and therefore the UV did not put more risk to his life then when he never planned to kill DD. The only problem was that he misjudged LV's decision making because he was never asked to do it but now he had no choice if he wanted to life through the whole ordeal. So to me sending the Order could have just been Snape thinking LV would want him to act as an Order member to keep his cover with DD and as we see he is still alive in HBP so he gambled right (if it was a gamble at all ;o). So Snape actually does nothing that could risk his own life and his gambles of how to preserve his own life have actually saved his life through it all (even the first VW). He only gambled wrong in HBP when he took the vow because the order to kill DD never came and he actually lost more then he had been willing to do before but it was still not enough to try and fight his way through to safe DD's life at the cost of his own. (And no I do not believe he did it all for Harry crap because where was he during the 4 to 6 hours that he lost Harry out of sight when he was in the company of someone that possed a threat to Harry's safety twice before) Also my opinion about Harry and Snape's relationship not deteriorating in outright hostility is different from yours. On two occasions Snape's treatment of Harry became downright worrisome. The first was after PoA when Harry helped Sirius escape and the second after the pencieve scene. Snape laid the basis for Harry not trusting him to such an extent that Harry believed Snape was not going to help him when he was in dire need in OotP. DD might have downsized Snape's hatred for Harry in his "after the fact" speech but it was actually the expression of this hatred that made it possible for Harry to believe this about Snape. You might think that it is not so bad and nothing Snape could actively have done to change this but I disagree. Snape is the adult here and if he is so good in compartmentalizing his feelings and what makes him a such suburb occulemens, then he should have made a bigger effort to control his hatred for Harry but he didn't. This was an active choice Snape made; he is not an innocent victim that could have done nothing to prevent this from happening. He laid the basis for it himself without Harry ever doing anything to deserve it. Harry should have controlled his curiosity with the pencieve but it was Snape's own responsibility to make sure Harry never got that chance by not leaving Harry unsupervised in the room with the memories, he was supposed to be hiding from Harry at all coast in the first place. It is like having a cabinet with guns and locking it so your kids can't snoop around in it but then hide the key in plain view. When something bad happens because of it then it is unreasonable to put the blame with the kid because you were stupid enough to think such a kid knows that snooping around is wrong. If you want to prevent the kid messing with things you do not want them to mess around with then you'll need to be on your guard at all times and make sure that the kid under no circumstances has access to the things that provoke that curiosity in the first place and that include emergency situations. The blame is with the adult and no matter how wrong it is for the kid to snoop around you can't shove the responsibility into their shoes and not take any yourself. Especially if you have seen before that this kid has trouble controlling his curiosity. And that is what Snape did, he runs out and not remove the threat from his office and no Snape was not in that much of a hurry that he forgot, he had enough time to tell Harry that the lesson is cancelled and that it will be continued at another time instead. Julie: > Harry's actions weren't ignoble at all. But I was also > replying to your post that Snape should thank Harry for > saving *him.* That's the assertion I disagree with, that > Snape has had reason to thank Harry for saving him, as > Harry has never directly done so. Dana: Well as I stated above the Potters have saved Snape's life on more then one occasion but instead of thanking them, he hates them for it even more. Harry would never want the people that he saves to treat him any differently and go around thanking him on bended knee but Snape however does want the glory of being considered a hero for his deeds and why he rubs it into everybody's faces at every chance he gets. He should have been grateful that both James and Lily saved him, in the same way he wants to be recognized for his actions but his behavior shows only ungratefulness in how he treats their son. And him putting the blame with James for being in danger does not exclude he should be thankful to James because that is what everybody says of Snape's actions as well and Harry still needing to be grateful to Snape. Snape actions have put Harry in more dangers then Snape actively saves him from but still Snape is considered the hero that Harry should be grateful towards. Julie: > I haven't taken much part in the debate over Harry's grumpiness > with his friends, but I admit I do feel free to call Harry on > his misdeeds. Why? Because Harry is the hero, one of the good > guys, and I automatically hold him to a higher standard than > Snape, or Draco, or any of the other questionable characters. > (Those on the definite side of evil--Voldemort, Bellatrix, > Fenrir, etc--I pretty much ignore, as they're lost causes.) Dana: Well it is interesting that the hero is supposed to be perfect while Snape fans consider Snape the hero for his actions as well but give him slack for behaving the way he does. If Snape is the hidden hero of the books then he should be held to the same standards as you hold Harry. If Snape is one of the good guys, as many presume he is, then he has no excuses for his behavior. You can't say he is one of the good guys and then allow him to behave nasty while the good guys are not given the same slack. And if he is just a bad guy that has some good in him then he can't by no means be the hero by these same standards because if you're bad then your good actions are only redeeming factors but it doesn't make you automatically one of the good guys. Julie: > I can't speak for others, but the reason I give Snape a lot > of "slack" as you call it, is because he is DELIBERATELY > written as an ambiguous character. Yes, it was JKR who > put all that slack in Snape's character! While we know > he's unpleasant in personality, we don't yet know if he is > on the side of good or evil. Thus our point of evaluation > is not defined, as it is with Harry. We know Harry and his > motivations as Harry flat out TELLS us when he's acting in > a less than noble manner (he knows it's wrong to peek into > the Pensieve, he knows it's wrong to sneak off to Hogsmeade, > he knows he's being irrational blaming Snape for Siruis's > death, etc, etc.) It's difficult to ignore Harry's own > conscience telling on him! Dana: Is JKR really keeping Snape's motivations deliberately ambiguous or are these just the ideas of the readers and why it is now being exploited by the publishers to create more interest in the final book? Because JKR has never been ambiguous about Snape being a horrible teacher (or even person) or that bullying your students, is the worst thing a teacher can do. Yet as we see in previous discussions Snape's teaching methods are considered noble by his fans while it never was the author's intent to make this noble in her books. It was never ambiguous that Snape acts on his hatred for James, Sirius or even Lupin and why he even insults Tonks because of her association with him. She never makes it ambiguous that Snape acts on his own rather then working with DD and that he calls DD's judgment into question on more then one occasion. The only thing that makes Snape's actions ambiguous is DD's trust has in him but not what we see of him on page. Only his fans make him ambiguous because DD's trust in him must mean that there is more to Snape then meets the eye but personally I do not think it will be so. Because hatred is the one thing that can make people disloyal to their friends and make them betray the people they are supposed to protect. Underestimating someone's hatred can cause your own downfall and I believe that is what happened to DD. And believing that the circumstances of the trust you have in someone can never change is very unrealistic and the story of Harry Potter actually begins with precisely that. Wormtail had been friends with James for 7 years and still the fear to his own life was enough to betray that trust. To me the story of Snape is precisely the same. Snape told DD a story of true remorse and DD believed that Snape, like James, had overcome his hatred to do what is right and I believe DD truly believed that Snape would always do what is right regardless of the hatred he felt and why DD downplayed Snape's hatred for Harry in OotP or even why he allowed Snape to continue bullying Harry. I believe DD truly believed that Snape would never betray Harry because of that hatred but I believe he was very wrong and Harry is right that Snape let his hatred for Sirius get in the way and I believe he did betray Sirius with the intention to get him out of hiding and killed even IF he had not foreseen that LV was going to use it against Harry. (And that is a big IF because I believe Snape did foresee that Harry being in trouble would be the only reason Sirius could be lured out but that he knew Harry's life was not in danger because LV was not going for the prophecy and then let his DEs kill Harry at the same time because what is the use of getting it to use against Harry if he is already death?) The first sign that Snape was actually nothing like James and actually could never overcome his hatred is in PoA, when his true hatred for Sirius made him actively try to get Sirius soul sucked. Lupin like DD wants to believe that there is always something good in a person and why Snape's loss of control after Sirius escape was downplayed as him being disappointed in not receiving the Order of Merlin. It wasn't, it was Snape not getting his ultimate revenge on Sirius that caused him to lose it as he did and this misreading of his actions is what caused DD to make the vital mistake of trusting Snape enough to send him back to LV. Snape's hatred is a threat to the safety of people and it should have been treated with the utmost care but it wasn't and I believe this is the essence of Snape motivations that JKR is going to drive home with Snape's character. Harry is going to go the same way if he doesn't learn to control his hatred for Snape. Snape's character is not ambiguous only DD's trust in him is. Trust is a beautiful thing to have and it makes you more open to people in your environment but it can also be dangerous if you do not understand that the trust you have in a person can change due to changes in circumstances, situations, people losing trust in you and people's inability to overcome their past. DD's trust in Snape was 15 or 16 years old and after the events of GH, the stimulation to Snape's hatred was removed. James was dead, Sirius locked up in prison and Harry was too young to attend Hogwarts. But Harry's arrival reactivated that hatred and both Lupin and Sirius showing up in the third year added to the fuel and then when he had to work with all three of them for the cause it became unbearable and the final straw was when the conflict came to a climax again in the kitchen scene in OotP. I believe that Spinner's End is as straight forward reading as one can get with Snape. I believe he actively choose LV's side because he already betrayed the Order and DD in OotP. Snape never believed in Harry and Spinner's End is not the only proof of that. He will be proven wrong of course but I believe that the moment he betrayed the Order he placed himself back in LV's camp and because he believed that LV was going to use him to kill DD anyway, he made the Vow because it would help him win the trust of his fellow DEs. Snape story is entirely the opposite of Sirius's in PoA where it was claimed that Sirius betrayed the Potters because he was tired of his life as a double agent and wanted to come out as being LV's second in command. It turned out to be inaccurate because Sirius would never betray the Potters but this story line will be true for Snape. Readers believe Snape could never betray DD and choose LV's side and be his second in command but we will see that in this case it will be true. Snape's timing in choosing LV's side openly by killing DD will prove to be the worst timing of all because he believes LV without DD will be undefeatable but he misjudged Harry and he misjudged LV's permanent downfall coming sooner then he could imagine. Snape will not have time to enjoy his position as second in command long and he will pay dearly for this decision. Harry will be his only chance for redemption but not because Snape was still on the side of good when he killed DD but because he made the wrong choices of picking the wrong side, when he decided his revenge was more important then doing the right thing. Him taking the vow is just a red herring because Snape had already decided that he would kill DD if he was ordered to do so by LV, the vow did not change that. It only changed the circumstances under which he had to do it or even that he had to do it at all. As it stands now LV never ordered him to do it in case Draco failed. It are the choices that make us who we are not our abilities and Snape choices in the books are not ambiguous and JKR never made them ambiguous she only made DD's trust in Snape ambiguous and why people have such a hard time reading Snape's character. If she had never put in DD's vouching for Snape over and over again then there would not have been any difficulty to put Snape in the right camp. Just as it is not hard to place Lucius in the right camp while the MoM does believe he is not on LV's side. For me Snape not wanting to listen to reason in PoA and trying to actively take a man's life is enough for me to conclude Snape can never be truly good, not even close. Good means that you value the life of another person regardless of your personal feelings for that person. Harry had every reason to have Wormtail executed by Sirius and Lupin but he still believed it was not right to play judge, jury and executioner at the same time. Snape does not have this moral compass that drives his actions and only this is enough to conclude that if the circumstances presented themselves in such away that to him it is justified killing a person and this means he would betray the reason for DD's trust in him, in a heartbeat, if it was okay in Snape's own believe system. Just as it is okay for him to bully Harry because he hated his father so much while that same man saved his life and should have been enough for Snape to be grateful as is stated Harry should thank Snape on bended knee for his attempt to safe him in PS, while it was actually Hermione who saved him and by no means certain that the twins would have let Harry fall to the ground if he could not longer hang on. I hear the argument of Sirius coming on about his attempt to kill Snape when he was 16, well as I said before Sirius only responsibility for his actions lies with Lupin not Snape. Both were kids and therefore you can't hold Sirius accountable for not foreseeing Snape could not control his curiosity and actually do as Sirius suggested. It was actually not curiosity that drove Snape to his actions but him wanting to get the marauders expelled at all cost. Sirius might not actually have wanted to trick Snape out of his own hatred from Snape but just because he was fed up with Snape trying to get his friends into trouble. That doesn't make it right but it was not a personal revenge that let Sirius to his actions. But Snape in PoA was an adult that should have dealt with his feelings of hatred a long time ago. Sirius did betray a secret he promised to keep to his friends by revealing to Snape how he could get into the WW and go after Lupin. Besides Sirius already paid dearly for his actions of betraying Lupin because I do believe that it set the stage for him and James excluding Lupin in the SK switch and it got him locked up in Azkaban for it for 12 years and no one believing him that he would never betray his friends in such a way. Let's see how Snape repays his dues. JMHO Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Sun May 20 11:47:31 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 11:47:31 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168996 Dana before: > I hear the argument of Sirius coming on about his attempt to kill > Snape when he was 16, well as I said before Sirius only > responsibility for his actions lies with Lupin not Snape. Both were > kids and therefore you can't hold Sirius accountable for not > foreseeing Snape could not control his curiosity and actually do as > Sirius suggested. It was actually not curiosity that drove Snape to > his actions but him wanting to get the marauders expelled at all > cost.Sirius might not actually have wanted to trick Snape out of > his own hatred from Snape but just because he was fed up with Snape > trying to get his friends into trouble. That doesn't make it right > but it was not a personal revenge that let Sirius to his actions. Dana again: Just for the fun of it I want to add one particular funny fact. Sirius actually already repaid putting Snape in danger at the age of 16 by telling him how to get passed the willow. How? He safed everybodies life including that of the unconcious Snape by getting Lupin away from them all in PoA. Dana From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun May 20 12:28:49 2007 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 12:28:49 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168997 justcarol67: > Harry didn't have to risk his life; Quirrell!mort would have been > thwarted by the mirror and DD could have caught him > there. Amiable Dorsai: What was to prevent Quirrel!mort from taking the Mirror to the Chamber of Secrets, where he could hack the problem at his leisure? Amiable Dorsai From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun May 20 13:37:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 13:37:00 -0000 Subject: Protecting the Stone was Ron and Hermione in GoF etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168998 > Amiable Dorsai: > What was to prevent Quirrel!mort from taking the Mirror to the Chamber > of Secrets, where he could hack the problem at his leisure? > Pippin: Permanent Sticking Charm? But it doesn't matter where Quirrellmort takes the Mirror, except perhaps to Nicholas and Perinel. Voldemort will still be trapped if he looks into it, and it's unlikely that he can retrieve the Stone intact unless he does. The point of the whole set up isn't to protect the Stone, it's to trap Voldemort, IMO. We saw that Voldemort used intentionally crude protections around the horcrux, apparently to put the thief off his guard. Dumbledore, who knows that Voldemort has contempt for him, may have used the same strategy. Pippin From honeypi28 at yahoo.com Sun May 20 13:48:41 2007 From: honeypi28 at yahoo.com (honeypi28) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 13:48:41 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168999 > honeypi: > > > The thing about Austen's Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax plot twist that > made it so successful is there was just enough in canon, so that when the > truth was > revealed it was easy for Emma to connect the dots. Emma was being > deliberately mislead > by Churchill, and Jane was cooperating in the deception. I would expect an > Emma-like > twist to the HP series would involve a long time deception by people close > to Harry. > > Lynda: > > Oh, is that it? See, that was no surprise to me at all. I saw it from the > beginning of the book (without having been briefed on the book, read in > synopses, etc.). The way it was written I knew what was going on in the plot > and was really at a loss as to why Emma couldn't figure it out because it > was so obvious to me. As I said before, its made Emma my least favorite of > Austen's works. > > Lynda > honeypi: We'll done. Think of what a huge shipping war you would have sparked if Emma were an incomplete series, and you had guessed by book 1 that Frank and Jane were to be paired. I'm not aware of anyone else who saw that twist coming, but considering the number of readers Austen has, I suppose there are more of you out there. I believe, however, Austen intended the relationship between Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax to be a surprise; just as JKR is intending to surprise us in DH. The grand volume of HP readers means some few must have guessed accurately at the twist(s) by now. Of course, having guessed Emma's twist doesn't mean you've guessed HP's. Or have you? *smiles* I'm not expecting JKR to give so overt a nod to Emma as to have secret engagements revealed at the end so meaningful to Harry as the F/J ship was to Emma. It might be fun, but I'm not expecting it because HP isn't a romance series. At most I would look for a Frank Churchill-inspired character who is close to Harry, someone he trusts, but who has all along been deceiving him. Ginny would be my prime suspect in such a twist, but Neville would do very nicely as well. In truth, I really only thought JKR was giving kudos to Austen for technique. Honeypi From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun May 20 14:37:09 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 14:37:09 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705192302x4ba2f991i87b1db7b1cf4b467@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169000 > >>Bart: > > No, the prize money was based on the 150 points. Don't confuse WW > > chronology with JKR chronology. > > > >>montims: > OK - I've found my copy of Quidditch Through the Ages, and it > mentions (page 12) Barberus Bragge bringing a caged Snidget to a > match in 1269, and saying that he would award 150 Galleons to the > player who caught it during the course of the game. > > When the bird was killed, the game was over and the Hunter's team > was awarded an extra 150 points, in memory of the 150 Galleons > promised by Chief Bragge" (page 14) > Betsy Hp: I think what Bart is saying though (and I trust he'll correct me if I'm wrong ) is that JKR *wrote* "Quidditch Through the Ages" *after* she wrote PS/SS. So in the chronology of JKR, the 150 points came about *before* the history of those points. IOWs, this is a made up game in a made up world and JKR could have come up with any point amount she wanted and created a history to support it. So the problem of the 150 points is still JKR's problem, not Barberus Bragge's. *My* issue with quidditch is the lack of any sort of bench. I mean, even if players aren't allowed to trade out *during* a game, why not have fully trained substitutes ready to go if something happens pre- game? Though really, why no substitutions? Is that some sort of wacky British thing? (Oh, and I fully acknowledge this is a nitpicky question probably demanding too much realism for what, in the end, is I think supposed to be just a wacky wizarding sport.) Betsy Hp From shedevil00202 at hotmail.com Sun May 20 13:37:31 2007 From: shedevil00202 at hotmail.com (Kazzi) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 13:37:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's Invisibility Cloak In-Reply-To: <005601c79aad$d527e610$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169001 > >>Lauren: > In HBP, at the tower where Snape killed Dumbledore, Harry took off without his Invisibility Cloak. Maybe I missed something but I wonder what happened to it. < Kazzi: Hi, No you didn't miss anything, I noticed that too. I don't think he got it back. Kazzi From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun May 20 15:10:14 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 15:10:14 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <000001c7996c$b7ab19f0$f4639905@joe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169002 > > > Ken: > > > > Evidently our author isn't enough of a sports fan to see the strategic > > nuances of the game she invented. > > > Shelley > > I would disagree with you on that last comment! I think Rowling presented > the answer in text as to how she understands "strategic nuances" in > Hermione's comment. If Krum really did think, and know beyond any doubt that > they would lose, then it is much preferable to lose by only 10 points than > to lose by several hundred, and be remembered for centuries as the team that > got slaughtered in the World Cup. This way, Krum remains the hero who saved > his team from humiliation, and everyone remembers the game as "great but > fierce", "close" and with other memorable phrases that aren't derogatory to > his team. > Ken: But that is just it, Shelly, the only way a Quidditch match can be "close" is if the final score is lopsided! In any match in which the chaser performance is evenly matched the winning margin is going to be right at 150 points. Losing 170-160 by catching the snitch not only doesn't make the match close, it makes the losing team look rather clueless. Winning 170-160 by catching the snitch is still a win but it makes the winner look very lucky indeed because their chasers were hopelessly outmatched. > Shelley > > Your strategy depends on one thing- leadership of their team captain. A > time-out would have been called, and this captain would have had to instruct > his players to the new strategy- and I think it was too early in the game > for that. They weren't losing by THAT much at the point the snitch was > caught. Or maybe Krum knew that his team Captain would have never chosen > such a strategy, so that he chose an early defeat rather than a humiliating > one. Krum caught the snitch away from Lynch before any of that happened, and > chose to end the game on his own terms. I think we see plenty of times when > Wood is coaching Harry as a seeker not to catch the snitch before a certain > point level, proving that yes indeed the Seeker alone makes the real > determination of when to end the game. > > I also see the twin's predictions of the outcome (Ireland wins, but Krum > catches the snitch) as knowledge of the teams and how they have played > before this World Cup Match. Obviously, Krum is a great Snitch Catcher, and > so my bet is that is how they have won all or most of their games- by > catching the Snitch early in the game before the other team had gained > significant points on them. Ken: Any team that plays on the international level and makes it into the world cup finals is going to have more in the way of strategy than let's go out on the field and see how it goes. Unless they used a time turner the Twin's bet was probably based on previous performance, as you say. The Bulgarians would have gone into the game with a strategy to defeat the Irish. They didn't need to get 160 points behind and call a time out to come up with one. Catching the snitch to lose 170-160 is not just humiliating, it is doubly humiliating. Wood only coaches Harry about holding off on catching the snitch for one match, even though he does it a lot before that one match. The Hogwarts house cup rules are different, it would seem, than the world cup final. Gryffindor needed the points to win, 150 was not enough in that case and merely winning the match was not enough. If anything like that applies in the world cup final it isn't mentioned and even if it did apply Krum's team apparently still came up short. > > Shelley > > Also, for strategies- Krum is young, and chances are good he would still be > playing the following year. Yes, he got on a team that took him to the World > Cup, but one that didn't have enough strength in the scoring section to be > able to lead them to true victory in the end. He's probably got some of his > own strategic planning in there- to find a team for the next year with great > scoring potential as well, Ken: As a motivation for Krum I will buy this. As a defense of the Quidditch scoring system or the Bulgarian stragtegy in the match I don't. > Debi: > > I have to disagree, first, its her game, her invention. > Ken: And that proves she understands it because ... ? > Debi: > > Second, how do you know its allowed for a team to actively slow down the > other team, if teams could just focus on slowing each other down until their > seekers found the snitch, where is the sportsmanship in that? I would think > rules regarding chasers and beaters are exact, chasers are chasers, not a > defensive line, beaters the same. Many sports games have ruled to what each > type of player can and can't do. A defensive player plays defence, and is not > allowed to play offence, I would assume that strategy would end up in a > penalty. > Ken: I've seen no indication in the text of the novels that there are any restrictions on how the players are deployed. In that match for the house cup in PoA the Slytherins send their whole team, including their goal keeper, to try to block the Gryffindor chaser and Harry nearly loses the match by dive bombing the blockers! The Bulgarians are playing a very physical game where the Irish seem more of a finesse team. That actually could have been worked into a plausible strategy for the Bulgarians. By playing smash mouth Quidditch and depending on Krum to keep Lynch off the Snitch they might have worn down the Irish to the point where they could pull back within 140 points and then turn Krum loose on the snitch. To do that you have to be willing to drop behind by a considerable amount and wait for the other team to run out of steam. The trouble is that the Bulgarians are not portrayed as having a strategy and Krum did not have to catch the snitch to prevent Lynch from catching it because Lynch crashed into the ground for no reason at all as far as I can see. > Debi: > > Third, I'm assuming the Bulgarian team never considered they would loose. Ken: Ok, but how does that square with Krum catching the snitch in a situation where Bulgaria was certain to lose? It is clear to me that the world cup match is written entirely to highlight Krum, not to make a memorable sports scene. The final score means nothing, the Irish flattened the Bulgarians, the match is chiefly interesting for the behavior of the team mascots. The best argument that the Quidditch scoring system is flawed comes from the real world, not canon. It is simply this: there is no popular sport that has an equivalent scoring system. Ken From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun May 20 15:37:20 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 15:37:20 -0000 Subject: What if...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169003 > Cassy: > Didn't JRK sy in some interview that kids had smashed ALL the time - > tirners in MoM? Of course, somewhere in the world they must have > survived, but I believe it's a clear indication that she doesn't > intend to use time-travel again. She just _had_ to get rid of time- > turners somehow. > JW: > While I am less than certain on this, I recall that in an interview > JKR said that time-travel WILL take place in DH. This would be the > basis for the many conjectures (including mine) on HOW (as opposed > to IF) time-travel will be used in the final book. Does anybody > recall the exact quote from JKR, or is this old man's memory > playing tricks on him? Jen: This is the only interview I could find and searched for everything I could think of at Accio quotes--time-turner, time travel, MOM... I vaguely remember something like what Cassy mentioned but nothing turned up (and if it was a comment of JKR's like, 'well all the time-turners were smashed, weren't they?' I would be suspicious, heh). Q: Will Harry time-travel again? JKR: Not telling! (AOL, Oct. 2000) It doesn't seem like time travel is ruled out with that answer. Like JW said at some point in a post, I see the possibility for Dumbledore's and Ron's respective watches to be time-turners or another type of magical device that has to do with the time-space continuum. Nothing saying there's not some other way to see across time with JKR! She invented the Pensieve as a great magical object and narrative device, so she could have another object up her sleeve. At some point I read in a post that it seemed doubtful Ron's watch was a time-turner b/c the Weasleys wouldn't have such an item or be able to buy one. There are two possibilities: 1) It was a family heirloom. 2) The one I like: Dumbledore had it in his possession and asked the Weasleys to give it to Ron as if it was from them because he thought the watch might help Harry at some point. Ron seems to know the significance of the watch but is cut off from Harry possibly asking about it and noticing a similarity to Dumbledore's watch due to distraction (unless I'm forgetting and Harry hasn't noticed DD's watch? Oh well, Hermione probably has. ): "Seriously good haul this year!" he announced, holding up a heavy gold watch with odd symbols around the edge and tiny moving stars instead of hands. "See what Mum and Dad got me? Blimey, I think I'll come of age next year too..." "Cool," muttered Harry, sparing the watch a glance before peering more closely at the map." (HBP, "Birthday Surprises" pp. 365-366, UK ed.) Jen From celizwh at intergate.com Sun May 20 16:03:03 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 16:03:03 -0000 Subject: What are your feelings on Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169004 Goddlefrood, reporting from the asylum: > Where's the fun in that? It's a theory that has some > familiarity, IOW it's all been said before ;-) > What would really be fun is if it turned out that > Snape never existed at all. houyhnhnm: Oho! Do you mean the eleven-year-old who came to Hogwarts knowing more curses than half the kids in seventh year never existed? Or just the Snape who first appeared in chapter seven of PS. Goddlefrood: > Irma Pince will be involved, whatever happens. houyhnhnm: I will be very disappointed if it turns out to have been just Madam Pince behind that black veil. I am hoping it was Snape (assuming there really is a Snape). From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun May 20 16:01:13 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 16:01:13 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione supporting Harry WAS: Re: GoF fight between Harry and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169005 > Amiable Dorsai: > What was to prevent Quirrel!mort from taking the Mirror to the Chamber > of Secrets, where he could hack the problem at his leisure? > > Amiable Dorsai > Hickengruendler: Nothing, I suppose (assuming Parseltongue!Voldie would have told the Basilisk not to attack Quirrell). But he still wouldn't have been able to get the stone ot of the mirror. Therefore he would have probably spend all eternity in the Chamber of Secrets. *g* From bartl at sprynet.com Sun May 20 16:32:09 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 12:32:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46507809.3010001@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169006 horridporrid03 wrote: > *My* issue with quidditch is the lack of any sort of bench. I mean, > even if players aren't allowed to trade out *during* a game, why not > have fully trained substitutes ready to go if something happens pre- > game? Though really, why no substitutions? Is that some sort of > wacky British thing? I'm trying to remember anything that indicates that a disabled player cannot be replaced. Not going back through the books, it seems to me that every time a player was disabled, the game ended before anything could be done in the way of substitutions (or even a "time-out"). Bart From don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com Sun May 20 16:34:39 2007 From: don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com (don_elsenheimer) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 16:34:39 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169007 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > >Actually we do see the moment where Ginny realizes that Harry is a >real person. It's in GoF... Don replies: There's a big difference between seeing "the" moment, and seeing "a" moment. As you note later on, Pippin, it didn't last, and "just for a second she saw him as a guy who was getting a bit above himself." I'll still hang my hat on the last chapter of the last book (6), where Ginny tells Harry that she "knows" he wouldn't be happy unless he was fighting Voldemort. Either JKR and her editor(s)did a sloppy job letting this comment get into print (as it goes against both the truth and what someone who knows the "real" Harry would say), or Ginny is still an immature girl who wants to project her idea of what Harry "should" be onto who he really is. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun May 20 17:02:25 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 20 May 2007 17:02:25 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/20/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1179680545.14.7812.m46@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169008 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday May 20, 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 sherriola at earthlink.net Sun May 20 17:05:54 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 10:05:54 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169009 Don replies: I'll still hang my hat on the last chapter of the last book (6), where Ginny tells Harry that she "knows" he wouldn't be happy unless he was fighting Voldemort. Either JKR and her editor(s)did a sloppy job letting this comment get into print (as it goes against both the truth and what someone who knows the "real" Harry would say), or Ginny is still an immature girl who wants to project her idea of what Harry "should" be onto who he really is. Sherry: I took that completely differently. I don't think Ginny knows Harry will be *happy*, but I do think she knows he feels this is what he has to do. But also, she was hurt, and that's the kind of comment a girl might make in such a circumstance, trying to pretend she isn't hurt, that she understand and all that crap. I do exactly the same kind of thing, so I don't show the hurt too much to the person who is doing the hurting. It isn't really about Ginny thinking Harry won't be happy unless he's fighting Voldemort. Of course she knows he won't be happy, but that this is what he has to do, this is his destiny and future. I found it moving, though at the same time, I wanted to tell Harry to get a life and to realize that of course everyone knows about Ginny and his relationship, and it's too late to make such a gesture. And I wanted to tell Ginny to fight against his words, because I know I would have done what she did. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun May 20 18:20:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 18:20:51 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169010 Julie wrote: > > > As for Snape, we don't yet know how much personal danger he has placed himself in throughout the books. Though it is true he certainly wasn't in any personal danger in PS/SS. That wasn't the point though. The point was Harry didn't thank Snape for saving him. Carol responds: But Snape *was* in prsonal danger in SS/PS. He was injured by Fluffy trying to thwart Quirrell and could have been killed. (Exactly why he entered the corridor at that point has never been clear to me.) And he was in danger for having saved Harry's life because Voldemort knew he did it. (And before anyone argues that Hermione saved Harry's life, she only did so under the mistaken idea that snape was cursing Harry's broom and by setting fire to his robes, she accidentally caused Quirrell to lose eye contact with Harry. Had Snape not been performing the countercurse, there would have been no Harry for her to accidentally save. If anything, the two of them together saved his life.) Possibly Snape didn't know or suspect what was in Quirrell's head, but he's a Legilimens and he also knew that Quirrell hadn't previously worn a turban. I think "where your loyalties lie" indicates not only that he knows Quirrell's loyalties don't lie with Dumbledore, he also has a very clear and accurate idea that Quirrell is trying to steal the Stone for Voldemort. Snape was in grave danger from Voldemort whether he knew it or not, and I think he did know it. He was also in grave danger when he returned to Voldemort with his prepared cover story (which is how I read "If you are ready, if you are prepared") for his actions relating to Quirrell (and reasons for not being in the graveyard). He also placed himself in grave danger by facing a werewolf about to transform and a man he thought had betrayed the Potters and murdered thirteen people in PoA. The danger from the werewolf, at least, was very real. We don't know *exactly* how much personal danger he's placed himself in, but we know (unless we choose to read the one Voldemort believes has left him forever differently than Snape himself reads it) that as of the end of GoF, he was in danger of being killed by Voldemort, and only Occlumency and a gift for creating plausible cover stories saved him. We know that he spied for Dumbledore "at great personal risk," which surely means the peril of death if Voldemort found out. He's doing the same thing from the end of GoF onward, again risking death by sending the Order to the MoM. (I won't even talk about the risk he's facing now from both sides.) Carol, assuming DDM!Snape, of course From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun May 20 18:53:35 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 18:53:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's Invisibility Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169011 --- "Kazzi" wrote: > > > >>Lauren: > > In HBP, at the tower where Snape killed Dumbledore, > > Harry took off without his Invisibility Cloak. > > Maybe I missed something but I wonder what happened > > to it. > > Kazzi: > Hi, > No you didn't miss anything, I noticed that too. > I don't think he got it back. > > Kazzi > bboyminn: I don't think he /got/ it back, but I do think he will /get/ it back. Just as before when Harry has left his Cloak behind, it was returned to him, and it will be again. I am curious as to how though. If the Ministry investigates the scene, they may find it and Scrimgeour might, in a sense, hold it hostage to arrange a face-to-face meeting with Harry. Or the Hogwarts staff may find it first and return it to Harry, but without a doubt he will get it back. So, again, you are right, as of the end of the 6th book, as far as we know, he doesn't have it back yet. This may be a minor detail to JKR, and when the final book begins, Harry may just have it back. But it seems odd that she would make such a point of Harry noting that he doesn't have his cloak. That makes me think that some how, the cloaks return will play some part in the final story. Just a thought Steve/bboyminn From jmmears at comcast.net Sun May 20 19:35:30 2007 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 19:35:30 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169012 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "don_elsenheimer" wrote: > I'll still hang my hat on the last chapter of the last book (6), where > Ginny tells Harry that she "knows" he wouldn't be happy unless he was > fighting Voldemort. Either JKR and her editor(s)did a sloppy job > letting this comment get into print (as it goes against both the truth > and what someone who knows the "real" Harry would say), or Ginny is > still an immature girl who wants to project her idea of what > Harry "should" be onto who he really is. I'm confused by this statement. Do you mean that you interpreted that statement of Ginny's at Dumbledore's funeral literally? As in, she actually is saying that "hunting Voldemort" (the actual quote) makes Harry "happy" (ie, joyful, light-hearted)? I confess that it's never even occured to me that anyone would interpret her statement this way. My reading was that she'd been expecting this sort of gesture from Harry for some time because she knows that he'll never be able to rest, or get on with his life while Voldemort is still out there. In effect, she's saying that the reason she likes him is because he is who he is. Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but I don't see where anything in that sentence "goes against both the truth and what someone who knows the 'real' Harry would say." Jo S. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun May 20 19:37:00 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 19:37:00 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <46507809.3010001@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169013 --- Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > horridporrid03 wrote: > > *My* issue with quidditch is the lack of any sort > > of bench. I mean, even if players aren't allowed to > > trade out *during* a game, why not have fully > > trained substitutes ready to go if something happens > > pre-game? Though really, why no substitutions? Is > > that some sort of wacky British thing? > Bart: > > I'm trying to remember anything that indicates that > a disabled player cannot be replaced. Not going back > through the books, it seems to me that every time a > player was disabled, the game ended before anything > could be done in the way of substitutions (or even a > "time-out"). > > Bart > bboyminn: I wonder if it isn't a case of 'play what you brought'? In other words, you can only play the team you brought to the field that day. Based on what we find in the books, it seems reserve players are allowed; in other word, the second string. Also, the year Harry is captain, he substitutes players several times before the matches. But, once you step on to the field, or perhaps into the locker room, you are stuck with the players you have. If you brought reserves to the field then if needed you can play them. But you can't just grab a friend out of the stands to play, if you are one player down. As to why each team doesn't have a second string of reserve players, it seems very hard with enrollments at Hogwarts so low, to put together a good team, much less come up with a second team of reserves. Also, if I am right, the team would be able to substitute and train a replacement player, if the injured player goes down well before the next match. So, there really is not need to complicate training by including reserve players. The captain just concentrates on his main team, and keeps in mind other classmates who flew well in try-outs should he ever need to bring one of them in. This method seems to cover the most bases. It is just Harry's unfortunate luck to have been taken out of the game in ways that did not allow a reserve to be brought in. For example, if Harry is injured in the middle of a game, and they didn't bring a reserve Seeker to the field, then they are stuck playing without a Seeker. However, they would be able to bring a new Seeker to the next game. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sun May 20 19:45:45 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 19:45:45 -0000 Subject: The remaining Horcruxes.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169014 So as I see it there are 3 left, but in the last part of HBP Harry is dwelling on four. P.236 "He kept reciting their names to himself, as though by listing them he could bring them within read: the locket, the cup, the snake, something of Gryffindor's or Ravenclaw's..." Now, aren't we to believe that R.A.B destroyed the locket? So why does he count this one? Besides that, wouldn't he have had to use one of them for his return in GoF? So wouldn't that just leave 2? The book was destroyed, the ring, the locket by R.A.B and having to use one in GoF leave us with 2, no? I'm also not sure if I can see the snake as one. IDK as much as he "loves" the snake would you trust an animal with part of your soul? But that leads me to the Harry being a Horcrux idea. I hadn't really given much thought to it, but when Harry thwarted him maybe he took a piece of his soul, want it or not. So, that then plays into the idea that Harry has to die in the last book. (As much as I don't want it to happen I think that he might die) Ok I have babbled on long enough. Hopefully it makes some sense. Please feel free to pick it all apart :-) TKJ From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sun May 20 19:53:05 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 19:53:05 -0000 Subject: What makes LV so powerful? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169015 This has been gnawing at me since I just finished the 6th book yet again. I know LV hunts down power and finds out stuff that most other wizards don't care to find out, but I don't get why he was so powerful by the time DD met him in the orphanage. It seemed obvious to DD that he wasn't an ordinary wizard, but where did all this power come from? Because he was an heir of Slytherin? Is there anything that leads us to believe that Slytherin was all that powerful? I just don't see why he is all so powerful. Can anyone help me there? TKJ From casieloo at bway.net Sun May 20 20:12:27 2007 From: casieloo at bway.net (leaverish) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 20:12:27 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: <20604803.1179419864484.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169016 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > The basic problem in Quidditch is that there are just too damned many points for catching the Golden Snitch. < I disagree. As someone else has already said, I think that concentrating on the seeker (in real wizarding life, not in a card game) would mean you'll loose the game as the other team would easily score enough points to counteract the snitch (unless their seeker was extremely lucky). However, it occured to me that JKR could have made the game MUCH more interesting IMO if she made the team who catched the snitch LOOSE points instead of gain points. You have to catch the snitch in order to end the game, but you have to make sure your way up in points before you do so! I think this would have added a whole new level of strategy, uncertainty and excitement to the game, and it really is in accordance with the general craziness of the wizarding world... Leaverish From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun May 20 19:38:19 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 12:38:19 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What are your feelings on Snape? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40705201238h4c5f7283mb8d850d48329cdd1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169017 > > > Tandra: > > > > I am curious to know people's opinions on the Snape debate :-) > Goddlefrood, reported from the asylum: > ... > > What would really be fun is if it turned out that Snape never > existed at all. > > Just a thought, not an opinion. Kemper now: It wouldn't be as fun as Grawp Grawp Binks being taken down by a rock from a sling by a first year, David Creevey. But to bring it back to topic: Snape rules! Not a thought, just an opinion. Kemper, on the mend From ida3 at planet.nl Sun May 20 20:58:47 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 20:58:47 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169018 Carol responds: > > But Snape *was* in prsonal danger in SS/PS. He was injured by Fluffy > trying to thwart Quirrell and could have been killed. (Exactly why > heentered the corridor at that point has never been clear to me.) > And he was in danger for having saved Harry's life because > Voldemort knew he did it. (And before anyone argues that Hermione > saved Harry's life,she only did so under the mistaken idea that > snape was cursing Harry's broom and by setting fire to his robes, > she accidentally caused Quirrell to lose eye contact with Harry. > Had Snape not been performing the countercurse, there would have > been no Harry for her to accidentally save. If anything, the two of > them together saved his life.) > > Possibly Snape didn't know or suspect what was in Quirrell's head, > but he's a Legilimens and he also knew that Quirrell hadn't > previously worn a turban. I think "where your loyalties lie" > indicates not only that he knows Quirrell's loyalties don't lie > with Dumbledore, he also has a very clear and accurate idea that > Quirrell is trying to steal the Stone for Voldemort. Dana: According to Snape himself he did not know LV was in the back of Quirrell's head and he considered Quirrell himself a mediocre wizard. We see that Voldemort is not only a suburb legilimens but a good occlumens as well so don't you think he would be able to keep Snape out of Quirrell's head? According to Snape himself he thought Quirrell was going after the stone for his own personal greed. And at this moment there is nothing to counter Snape's own view as being a lie. It is just an assumption on your part that he knew DD was hiding the stone from Voldemort and thus Quirrell getting it for him. There is absolutely no indication in canon that DD ever confided in Snape about anything. DD might have had the suspicion that it was LV trying to steal the Stone but there is certainly no indication that anyone else knew this too. Hermione might have saved Harry by accidentally knocking Quirrell over and breaking his eye contact but she nevertheless did save Harry. I do not understand that Snape's attempt to thwart Quirrell and not being able to watch all three heads of Fluffy at the same time is him suddenly trying to safe the WW from Voldemort at great personal risk but Hermione's attempt to save Harry isn't. Quirrell could have tried to kill her next for her thwarting his plan to deal with Harry. Snape shouldn't have gone to DD with his suspicions about Quirrell instead of acting out alone. Harry would never have been in danger in the first place if he had done that and Hermione wouldn't have needed to accidentally save Harry's life because of it, not even to mention Quirrell getting DD out of Hogwarts providing a way for Harry to face him. It wasn't even enough for Snape to tell DD about Quirrell after he made an attempt on Harry's life and you claim that Snape's counter curses would have actually saved Harry but Harry's broom got higher and higher even with his muttering them. So if Harry hadn't held on by his own strength then he would have fallen a longer distance to the ground would that have saved him? It is always interesting to see that other people's attempt to save someone is just plain luck and nothing they actively did but Snape actions were deliberate even if he indeed deliberately put everyone in that danger in the first place by withholding information. Carol: > Snape was in grave danger from Voldemort whether he knew it or not, > and I think he did know it. He was also in grave danger when he > returned to Voldemort with his prepared cover story (which is how I > read "If you are ready, if you are prepared") for his actions relating > to Quirrell (and reasons for not being in the graveyard). Dana: Yes, indeed isn't it interesting that Snape had his story for LV ready in just two hours or actually less because it took sometime for Harry to return, deal with Barty and then DD asking him, to me this is actually an indication that he started to think about it when he felt LV summoning his DEs but before DD even asked him to return. Besides he was in grave danger not returning to LV anyway so his best chances were with going back to him. It wasn't him going in as a spy that caused him to endure a bigger danger because of it. He either faced LV willingly or paid with his life for not returning at all just like Karkaroff. DD might worry about Snape because he truly believed Snape was in his pockets all those years but Snape certainly didn't, he had already had his story ready even before he knew DD was going to ask him and sure it would have caused him some suspense but as he boosts to Bella he was sure that his (cover or true) story was something LV was willing to buy and if he didn't then he was not facing a different risk then he was going to face for not going back at all. So the only thing that remains questionable, did he really go back to LV because DD asked him too or did he go to save his own life. According to Snape it was both because going on DD's order was part of his excuse for not showing up earlier but I'm sure he would have wiggled his way out of that one too. Carol: > He also placed himself in grave danger by facing a werewolf about to > transform and a man he thought had betrayed the Potters and murdered > thirteen people in PoA. The danger from the werewolf, at least, was > very real. Dana: Really and him seeing Lupin on the map just seconds before and going in to see Sirius, while not knowing Sirius is an animagus Lupin was no threat to, was not something Snape could reduce to Lupin not being in his werewolf form? And him hiding under the cloak for more then 10 minutes while assuming Lupin could turn into a werewolf at any second did not put the lives of three students in danger, even knowing Lupin would not be a tame werewolf for forgetting to take his potion? The only man that saved anyone that night from werewolf Lupin was Sirius by getting werewolf Lupin away from them all. And it is never stated that Lupin could not kill an animal just that he posed no treat to them becoming a werewolf. In their schooldays Sirius and James were always together so Sirius could not have known if he would be able to deal with Lupin alone but he nevertheless did. And the only two that could not have run for it were Ron and Snape. Snape again put the lives of all of them in danger by not going to DD telling him Lupin did not take his potion or that he believed Sirius was in the Shrieking Shack. No he messed that up by constantly nagging about Lupin all year and DD not wanting to hear another word about it. He also could have known that both Lupin and Sirius were no treat after him listening in on the conversation for more then 10 minutes. He could also know from Lupin's absence that the story Sirius, Harry and Hermione were telling was true because he knew Lupin was absent because he transformed. And no one having any werewolf injuries would be proof that someone did get Lupin away from them all but he went and tried to hurry the process of getting Sirius's soul sucked anyway and he went against DD as well. He even tells Fudge he hopes DD is not going to be a problem. DD vouched for Snape when he needed him and the story of Wormtail was already known to him by that time but he still did not want to listen and if DD hadn't been there then Snape would have ended up in Azkanban but when DD does that for someone else then Snape suddenly needs to remind DD that Sirius tried to kill him. Did he forget how many lives he put on the line when he brought LV the prophecy? I guess so. Like with himself there must have been something that made DD believe Sirius story and so it should have been enough for Snape just as he expects of anyone else that DD's trust in him should be enough for them to trust him without further explanation. Snape never went to the Shrieking Shack because he wanted to keep Harry (or any other student) safe from a murderer and a werewolf, he was still trying to get his ultimate revenge on the marauders and when he could not get Sirius, he outed Lupin's secret. And if he actually had wanted to keep the student body safe from a werewolf then he should have brought the potion Lupin forgot, before wanting to drag him to the castle or he should have suggested leaving Lupin in the Shack instead. But maybe he was not kidding when he said that they didn't have to go that far and he would have let the Dementor's have both of them in front of three students. Carol: > We don't know *exactly* how much personal danger he's > placed himself in, but we know (unless we choose to read the one > Voldemort believes has left him forever differently than Snape > himself reads it) that as of the end of GoF, he was in danger of > being killed by Voldemort, and only Occlumency and a gift for > creating plausible cover stories saved him. We know that he spied > for Dumbledore "at great personal risk," which surely means the > peril of death if Voldemort found out. He's doing the same thing > from the end of GoF onward, again risking death by sending the > Order to the MoM. (I won't even talk about the risk he's facing now > from both sides.) Dana: We know that in the first VW he had the protection of both LV and DD because what ever side would win Snape had played his cards right. He was with DD on LV's orders so his so-called defection never put him at real risk (Bella confirms this in Spinner's End) and we see that he never defected truly because he never sold out his fellow DEs by providing the MoM with their names, or at least he never provided evidence of it openly that could harm him later. The great personal risk, is what DD states Snape did but at this moment the only info Snape seemed to have provided is that LV was going to target the Potters. He never got the name of the spy that was working for LV for more then a year that provided important information about the Potters movements. To be honest LV summoning his DEs in GoF to witness his return and him mentioning all their names doesn't give the impression that no one knew, who was who in the first war. I do not know were the idea came from that LV kept his DEs in the dark about their fellow DEs. I might have missed it in the books but with Sirius specifically mentioning that he heard things about Wormtail in Azkaban makes me think Snape knew this too but he never told DD this information because it could have only come from him and he would have risked his cover if he had done so. Wormtail already having the Dark Mark before LV regained his body also indicates to me that he already was a DE in the first war. The whole SK fiasco could never have happened if DD knew who had been the spy in the Potters inner circle. Snape might have made himself think that it was Sirius who betrayed the Potters but he might have had a hand in that too by not revealing the identity of the spy. So for me all those personal risks DD are referring too are still Snape taking calculated risks. Letting himself be ordered to go to DD and doing the same by letting himself be ordered to return to LV's side. And at this moment we only have DD's claim that Snape remorse was about how LV interpreted the prophecy and not that Snape had remorse for joining LV's side. If Snape risked his life by sending the Order to the MoM then why isn't he dead? No one could have notified the Order except Snape and DD showing up after the Order would make LV know it wasn't DD himself that notified them. And no other teacher could have notified the Order and then be able to tell them were Harry had gone to because even the Order did not know LV's plan to lure Harry there. It was only Snape that knew this information. So why isn't he dead? He would have proven then and there that he is still in DD's pocket and LV is not the forgiving kind. And the UV plan to make Snape kill DD indeed might have been a plan of LV to torture Snape but it was still Snape's own choice to take it. And LV could only have made him do it by making the suggestion to Snape that he was going to ask it of him any way. So in that case Snape would still have done it because he cherished his own life above anyone else's. DD would never have given Snape the order to take an UV to kill him and take away Harry's only protection against LV. Snape might consider himself to be a great wizard but I do not think DD would think Snape would be able to handle LV by his lonesome. I do have to correct on thing I said before about the argument in the forest thought. DD did not want to pull out Snape as a spy. To me it actually says that DD wanted Snape to go back to LV to find out more information about what he was planning. And Snape telling DD that he takes Snape's personal risks for granted and then DD saying to Snape that he agreed to do it and then Snape saying he doesn't want to do it anymore. Makes a lot of sense to me but of course that is just my opinion. JMHO Dana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun May 20 22:01:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 22:01:20 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/ Of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169019 > Dana: It is just an assumption on your part that he knew DD was hiding > the stone from Voldemort and thus Quirrell getting it for him. There > is absolutely no indication in canon that DD ever confided in Snape > about anything. DD might have had the suspicion that it was LV trying > to steal the Stone but there is certainly no indication that anyone > else knew this too. Alla: There are plenty things I agree with you in this post, but this assumption that Snape indeed knew that DD was hiding stone from Voldemort, I think has merit. Unless of course you argue that teachers did not know what they were defending. I mean, I guess one can argue that. But then I picture this rather wierd little scene, when Dumbledore gathers the teachers and tells them. Hey guys, please prepare the best defenses you know. And what are we defending, Albus? Something. I mean, not that Dumbledore never keeps secret from his teaching staff, LOL. But it still feels strange to me, if it is true. Dana: > Hermione might have saved Harry by accidentally knocking Quirrell > over and breaking his eye contact but she nevertheless did save > Harry. I do not understand that Snape's attempt to thwart Quirrell > and not being able to watch all three heads of Fluffy at the same > time is him suddenly trying to safe the WW from Voldemort at great > personal risk but Hermione's attempt to save Harry isn't. Quirrell > could have tried to kill her next for her thwarting his plan to deal > with Harry. Alla: Oh I agree. I think Hermione gets exactly half of the praise, LOL. Dana: > Snape shouldn't have gone to DD with his suspicions about Quirrell > instead of acting out alone. Harry would never have been in danger in > the first place if he had done that and Hermione wouldn't have needed > to accidentally save Harry's life because of it, not even to mention > Quirrell getting DD out of Hogwarts providing a way for Harry to face > him. Alla: Actually, think about it. Quirrell did not attempt anything after match, did he not? Could it be because Snape indeed went to Dumbledore? Just saying :) > Carol: > > He also placed himself in grave danger by facing a werewolf about to > > transform and a man he thought had betrayed the Potters and murdered > > thirteen people in PoA. The danger from the werewolf, at least, was > > very real. > > > Dana: > Really and him seeing Lupin on the map just seconds before and going > in to see Sirius, while not knowing Sirius is an animagus Lupin was > no threat to, was not something Snape could reduce to Lupin not being > in his werewolf form? And him hiding under the cloak for more then 10 > minutes while assuming Lupin could turn into a werewolf at any second > did not put the lives of three students in danger, even knowing Lupin > would not be a tame werewolf for forgetting to take his potion? > Alla: Oh, I know, I agree with this 100% Dana. Snape putting himself in danger, well sure maybe to execute his long dreamed revenge, LOL. IMO of course. And YES, YES and YES again. If he had thought for one second about safety of the teens, he would have rushed in to get them away from about to be werewolf Remus as soon as possible, IMO. Instead he was staying and listening at his leisure. Uhu, he was very concerned about danger, LOLOL. I think the only thing he was concerned with that night was revenge, nothing else. Dana: > The only man that saved anyone that night from werewolf Lupin was > Sirius by getting werewolf Lupin away from them all. Alla: Me too :) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun May 20 22:49:48 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 22:49:48 -0000 Subject: The remaining Horcruxes.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > Now, aren't we to believe that R.A.B destroyed the locket? So why > does he count this one? Besides that, wouldn't he have had to use > one of them for his return in GoF? So wouldn't that just leave 2? > The book was destroyed, the ring, the locket by R.A.B and having to > use one in GoF leave us with 2, no? zanooda: Harry cannot disregard the locket just because RAB wrote he intended to distroy it. Harry needs to be 100% sure. I don't think LV "used" any of his Horcruxes to come back in GoF. Horcruxes just prevent the part of LV's soul remaining in his body from passing on in case the body is destroyed. Horcruxes function like anchors, not like spare parts. That's how I understand it, anyway. So, IMO, the four H-xes remain. > Tandra: > I'm also not sure if I can see the snake as one. IDK as much as he > "loves" the snake would you trust an animal with part of your soul? > But that leads me to the Harry being a Horcrux idea. > So, that then plays into the idea that Harry has to die in the last > book. zanooda: I don't like Nagini!Horcrux idea either. As for Harry!Horcrux, yes, I'm in this camp, but if it turns out to be true, I'm sure that JKR will find the way around it and Harry will survive, even though he will be ready to sacrifice himself. If Harry dies, I'll take it really, really hard ... > Tandra: > Please feel free to pick it all apart :-) zanooda, taking Tandra on her(?) word :-) From juli17 at aol.com Sun May 20 23:20:17 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:20:17 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169021 > > Julie: > > Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were refering > > to Harry surviving DH. It is true that Harry thwarted > > Voldemort in the instances above. I won't go so far as to > > say he saved the WW at that point, as Voldemort still > > survived to gain a body in GOF. So I can't really see > > Snape (or most anyone outside of Ginny) even thinking > > Harry saved his life. Harry may do so someday, as he > > will certainly save the WW, but he hasn't been put in > > that position yet. > > > Dana: > I disagree with this assessment because Harry did save Snape's life > when the spell rebounded in GH, sure it was actually Lily who did the > saving but if Snape is good then this event did safe him from being > on the wrong side. We see what happens to people that wanted to leave > LV's service, they do not live to tell the tale. So if Snape really > defected at great personal risk then Lily's actions removed that risk > at least for more then 13 years. > > If Snape is truly good but just a nasty person then he owes his live > to the Potters more then once and how does he repay them? By bullying > their son. Yes, a really noble man that Snape. Julie: Then we're back to giving credit for unintended consequences that result from actions, with no regard to intent. Therefore, Snape saved the entire WW by blabbing the Prophecy, which caused Voldemort to target and eventually kill the Potters, wherein his AK attempt on Harry rebounded and vaporized him. Thanks to this fortuitous event, Voldemort (who was clearly winning that first "war" according to Dumbledore) did not take over the WW, kill the Order members and their families (which would have included Harry Potter) and everyone else who stood in his way, and turn the lives of those who'd managed to survive into living nightmares. I just want to know...why hasn't Snape been given the Order of Merlin for providing the WW with this 13 year respite from Voldemort?? Obviously the last sentence is a joke, since I'm just illustrating the pitfalls of crediting people with the results of their actions regardless of intent. Or blaming them, since by that logic Harry undid all the good of his survival at DH by saving Wormtail in POA, thus allowing Voldemort to regain his physical form and greatly enhance his power. > Julie earlier: > > As for Snape, we don't yet know how much personal danger > > he has placed himself in throughout the books. Though it > > is true he certainly wasn't in any personal danger in PS/SS. > > That wasn't the point though. The point was Harry didn't > > thank Snape for saving him. Which is not required, though > > I actually wouldn't have been surprised if Harry had, as > > their relationship, while unpleasant, hadn't deteriorated > > to outright hostility at that point. > > > Dana: > Well the only problem I have with Snape placing himself in personal > danger, throughout the books, is that we never actually see him in > any mortal peril. We see that his return to LV's side is less > dangerous then defying the man and not return (LV promised the one > that left him forever would be punished but we never saw Snape paying > for it). We see that Snape lives through sending the Order in OotP > and we see him live through the UV in HBP. For me it is not that > difficult to come to the conclusion that Snape only made very > calculated risks that never truly risked his own life. And that > wouldn't make these actions noble. > Julie: Your many arguments about Snape having not a single redeeming quality may come true. I still stand by the fact that we do NOT know just how much danger Snape has faced, nor why Snape did many of the things he did. JKR has written it that way deliberately. Snape may yet prove to be both courageous and remorseful about his DE days. Or he may not. If he does prove to be those things, that won't excuse or erase his general meanness or lack of maturity in holding on to old grudges (as you say, Snape should have had the ability to hide his hatred for Harry, which even Dumbledore expected he could and should do). You are operating on the assumption that his meanness means he can't be on the side of good or have any moral virtues whatsoever, while I say the two are not mutually exclusive. > > Julie earlier: > > I haven't taken much part in the debate over Harry's grumpiness > > with his friends, but I admit I do feel free to call Harry on > > his misdeeds. Why? Because Harry is the hero, one of the good > > guys, and I automatically hold him to a higher standard than > > Snape, or Draco, or any of the other questionable characters. > > (Those on the definite side of evil--Voldemort, Bellatrix, > > Fenrir, etc--I pretty much ignore, as they're lost causes.) > > > Dana: > Well it is interesting that the hero is supposed to be perfect while > Snape fans consider Snape the hero for his actions as well but give > him slack for behaving the way he does. Julie: Who said the hero is supposed to be perfect? He's human so he's NOT supposed to be perfect. Some fans prefer to look at the hero and see only his virtues. Others are willing to look at his faults and discuss how he can improve. That isn't demanding that the hero be perfect, but that the hero GROW. Unlike other characters, who can stay stuck in their self-destructive ruts, the hero MUST grow, or his journey doesn't mean much. Dana: If Snape is the hidden hero > of the books then he should be held to the same standards as you hold > Harry. Julie: You are saying that, not me. Snape being on the side of good doesn't make him a hidden hero, or any kind of hero except maybe an anti-hero. Dana: If Snape is one of the good guys, as many presume he is, then > he has no excuses for his behavior. You can't say he is one of the > good guys and then allow him to behave nasty while the good guys are > not given the same slack. Julie: I don't expect that. As I said before, the "slack" comes in when we are talking about actions taken where the motivation isn't clear. Until DH we can't know Snape's true motivations, so we can't truly judge him. We can guess, as you guess on the side of completely bad and unredeemable, and I guess on the side of mean but with a moral standard. BTW, I concede Snape's general meanness, bitterness, and immaturity in perpetuating his old grudges. Always have. It's the other stuff that remains unanswered. > > Dana: > Is JKR really keeping Snape's motivations deliberately ambiguous or > are these just the ideas of the readers and why it is now being > exploited by the publishers to create more interest in the final > book? Because JKR has never been ambiguous about Snape being a > horrible teacher (or even person) or that bullying your students, is > the worst thing a teacher can do. Julie: Yes, JKR is keeping Snape's motivations deliberately ambiguous. Besides the way she so obviously writes him that way (the Tower scene could have been written very clearly if she'd wanted to show Snape's true "evil" character without a doubt) there is also her cackling laugh and refusal to answer when fans have asked repeatedly for more information on Snape (patronus, who he loved, etc, etc) or have asked directly if he is good or bad. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is JKR behind the Snape ambiguity, not we deluded (as you would imply) fans. As for JKR's comments, she's said Snape is a deeply horrible person, that there's more to him than you see, that you shouldn't think him *too* nice (the latter comment is actually a concession that he can be "nice" in the sense of doing something for the right reason, BTW). But she is also about to give away the real Snape, who's appearance is a mean, horrible person. After all, if he's something different or more complex than simply and unredeemably horrible, and she implies such too strongly, then what is even the point of writing him (given that she would have just killed all the mystery)? Dana: Yet as we see in previous > discussions Snape's teaching methods are considered noble by his fans > while it never was the author's intent to make this noble in her > books. Julie: I think the argument has been that his methods are effective in general, not noble. Though most have agreed that his targeting of Harry and Company for unnecessarily harsh treatment is not effective nor acceptable. BTW, you keep painting "Snape fans" with the same brush. That's neither fair not true. Dana: > It was never ambiguous that Snape acts on his hatred for James, > Sirius or even Lupin and why he even insults Tonks because of her > association with him. > > She never makes it ambiguous that Snape acts on his own rather then > working with DD and that he calls DD's judgment into question on more > then one occasion. The only thing that makes Snape's actions > ambiguous is DD's trust has in him but not what we see of him on > page. > > Only his fans make him ambiguous because DD's trust in him must mean > that there is more to Snape then meets the eye but personally I do > not think it will be so. Julie: Er, Dana, do you realize you just quoted JKR? She said straight out "THERE IS MORE TO SNAPE THAN MEETS THE EYE." So it WILL in fact be so, from the mouth of Herself. Dana: > For me Snape not wanting to listen to reason in PoA and trying to > actively take a man's life is enough for me to conclude Snape can > never be truly good, not even close. Good means that you value the > life of another person regardless of your personal feelings for that > person. Harry had every reason to have Wormtail executed by Sirius > and Lupin but he still believed it was not right to play judge, jury > and executioner at the same time. Snape does not have this moral > compass that drives his actions and only this is enough to conclude > that if the circumstances presented themselves in such away that to > him it is justified killing a person and this means he would betray > the reason for DD's trust in him, in a heartbeat, if it was okay in > Snape's own believe system. Julie: I just have to say this is a ridiculous argument. Snape did NOT try to actively take Sirius's life. He threatened a KILLER (as far as anyone knew at the time) with being soul-sucked, which you can equate with killing, not unlike a cop telling a killer he has just arrested that he's going to face the death penalty. Snape is quoting the WW LAW as it would apply to Sirius, while in the process of TAKING Sirius to the authorities, exactly what he is supposed to do. At no time is he being judge, jury and executioner (he's only being judge, based on his current knowledge, as far as we know it). BTW, Snape COULD have killed Sirius then and there, and totally gotten away with it. Sirius is a wanted killer, Snape knows that and knows the Ministry is not going to punish him in any way for taking out such a threat (didn't the Wanted poster even say "Dead or Alive"?). So *why* oh why doesn't he? To decide that Snape in fact does have a moral compass is a completely valid conclusion, and it is mine. I'm sure here you can argue that Snape is really a cowardly snake who didn't want to endanger his meal ticket in Dumbledore, or whatever you wish to come up with to support your Snape is totally and unrepentantly evil theory. And you can do that because Snape remains DELIBERATELY AMBIGUOUS. So have at it ;-) Dana: > Let's see how Snape repays his dues. Julie: Yes, let's. Julie, excited to note that repayment is due in exactly two months ;-) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun May 20 23:30:08 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:30:08 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169022 Dana: It wasn't even enough for Snape to tell DD about Quirrell after he made an attempt on Harry's life and you claim that Snape's counter curses would have actually saved Harry but Harry's broom got higher and higher even with his muttering them. So if Harry hadn't held on by his own strength then he would have fallen a longer distance to the ground would that have saved him? It is always interesting to see that other people's attempt to save someone is just plain luck and nothing they actively did but Snape actions were deliberate even if he indeed deliberately put everyone in that danger in the first place by withholding information. Montavilla47: Snape thinking that Quirrell wanted the stone doesn't mean necessarily that he thought Quirrell was trying to kill Harry. The two things might be related, or they might not be. The simplest reading of the text is that Snape didn't know who was trying to kill Harry in the stadium. It's the interpretation that most easily fits with Snape's request to referee the next match--as that would give him the best vantage point to identify the mysterious killer. Also, we don't know that Snape *didn't* share his suspicions about Quirrell stealing the stone with Dumbledore. There's no reason to suppose that he didn't. We know that Dumbledore likes to give people the benefit of the doubt. Without proof from Snape, DD was unlikely to remove Quirrell from his job or otherwise take action against his D.A.D.A. teacher. As DD explained later on, the Mirror was a pretty good defense against someone who wanted that stone for nefarious reasons. As far as luck goes, I'd say the whole broomstick situation was pretty lucky. It was lucky that Snape saw what was going on and took action. It was lucky that Hermione accidently knocked down Quirrell. It was lucky that Harry managed to stay on the broom long enough. What I don't understand is the need to cheapen Snape's contribution to the whole saving thing. Quirrell tried to kill Harry. He didn't succeed. There were at least three things that contributed to that lack of success. One of them (as knowledged by Quirrell) was Snape's countercurses. However, I doubt Snape thought he was risking anything by counterjinxing the broom. So, I would agree that it wasn't at great personal risk. He was more at risk for threatening Quirrell in the woods. Dana: Yes, indeed isn't it interesting that Snape had his story for LV ready in just two hours or actually less because it took sometime for Harry to return, deal with Barty and then DD asking him, to me this is actually an indication that he started to think about it when he felt LV summoning his DEs but before DD even asked him to return. So the only thing that remains questionable, did he really go back to LV because DD asked him too or did he go to save his own life. According to Snape it was both because going on DD's order was part of his excuse for not showing up earlier but I'm sure he would have wiggled his way out of that one too. Montavilla47: I agree that Snape had his story ready long before that general DE summing in GoF. He as much as tells Karkaroff that he's made his decision to stay at Christmas time. Once the Dark Mark started showing up, he knew he'd have three choices: 1. He could face Voldemort and either lie (or, if he's LVM, not). 2. He could run away, as Karkaroff did. 3. He could stay and hope that Dumbledore would protect him (as Dumbledore was protecting Trelawney). The only way that 3 would not be an option is if Dumbledore refused to protect him unless he continued to spy. I don't think that Dumbledore would have done that. He *asks* Snape to go back to Voldemort. And he's shown that he'll protect even people like Draco and Narcissa for no other reason than that they require protection. Even if Snape is LVM, he still was risking whether or not LV would allow him to tell his story before killing him. When we see the way that LV treated those who returned immediately, it's far from sure that Snape would survive that first meeting. LV's own words about "the one who left" indicate that he would not be interested in excuses. That Snape risked returning at all (and that DD let him) indicate to me that they both had tremendous trust in Snape's ability as an Occlumens. But the risk is apparent from DD's manner as he asks Snape to go. Dana: He also could have known that both Lupin and Sirius were no treat after him listening in on the conversation for more then 10 minutes. He could also know from Lupin's absence that the story Sirius, Harry and Hermione were telling was true because he knew Lupin was absent because he transformed. And no one having any werewolf injuries would be proof that someone did get Lupin away from them all but he went and tried to hurry the process of getting Sirius's soul sucked anyway and he went against DD as well. He even tells Fudge he hopes DD is not going to be a problem. Montavilla47: I don't think even the most ardent Snape admirer would call that scene in the hospital wing Snape's shining hour. He's quite incredibly petty and vengeful. But, like the broomstick incident in PS/SS, there are many factors contributing to the situation. One, obviously, is that having nearly been killed by Black (using Lupin) in the past, Snape is less likely to believe them in the present. Another may have been his own frustration that DD hasn't believed his worries about Lupin all year. Another may have been his own curiosity (the same curiosity that sent him own the tunnel twenty years earlier) when Lupin is explaining the story to the kids. Was he acting with his best judgment? Of course not. Was he sincerely trying to protect the school from someone he thought was a murderer? I believe he was. If that happened to coincide with getting revenge on someone who tried to kill him, well, that part was the gravy. :) Dana: ... and we see that he never defected truly because he never sold out his fellow DEs by providing the MoM with their names, or at least he never provided evidence of it openly that could harm him later. The great personal risk, is what DD states Snape did but at this moment the only info Snape seemed to have provided is that LV was going to target the Potters. He never got the name of the spy that was working for LV for more then a year that provided important information about the Potters movements. Montavilla47: I think it's interesting that it's held against Snape that he didn't "name names" because none of the characters in the books (notably Fudge or DD, or even Moody) hold that against him. On the contrary, there seems to be a lot of contempt held for Karkaroff who did name names. We can't really know what information Snape passed along to DD, although you're right that he never seemed to learn who the spy in the Order was. But the personal risk part is so obvious that I don't see how we need that part shown or explained. The danger of being discovered and killed is as obvious a part of spying as getting burned is a part of fire- fighting. Dana again: To be honest LV summoning his DEs in GoF to witness his return and him mentioning all their names doesn't give the impression that no one knew, who was who in the first war. I do not know were the idea came from that LV kept his DEs in the dark about their fellow DEs. I might have missed it in the books but with Sirius specifically mentioning that he heard things about Wormtail in Azkaban makes me think Snape knew this too but he never told DD this information because it could have only come from him and he would have risked his cover if he had done so. Montavilla47: If everyone knew everyone in the DE's, then it wouldn't have been any special risk for Snape to tell DD, as any DE would have known. In GoF, Karkaroffs says that LV didn't want his DEs to know who the others were--since they were less likely to be betrayed. That's a standard way of setting up a secret organization--so that your members are limited in their knowledge of other members. I agree that this is contradicted by the reunion in the Graveyard. It's hard to reconcile the conflicting bits of information. Dana: If Snape risked his life by sending the Order to the MoM then why isn't he dead? No one could have notified the Order except Snape and DD showing up after the Order would make LV know it wasn't DD himself that notified them. And no other teacher could have notified the Order and then be able to tell them were Harry had gone to because even the Order did not know LV's plan to lure Harry there. Montavilla47: Your reasoning is good if Voldemort were sure that there was no other way for the Order to know that Harry was at the Ministry besides a teacher informing them. But there might have been other ways to know that. For example, what if Harry sent a note to the Order, telling them that he was going? What if DD has a way to track Harry's movements? What if Harry had used one of those Patronus things to contact the Order once he arrived at the Ministry? What if Harry left a note with Flitwick (or Madam Hooch, Madam Pomfrey, Sinestra, Vector, or Sprout) and one of them contacted the Order? What if Sibyl Trelawney spoke a prophecy that "tonight, the Chosen One will run off to the Ministry of Magic"? What if he contacted the Weasleys and they contacted the Order? How about this... DD has an invisible spy guarding the DoM and that person noticed six teenagers running by yellling out, "Sirius! Sirius! We're here!" Just a few possible suggestions, Montavilla47 From aceworker at yahoo.com Sun May 20 23:48:33 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 16:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The trouble with Quidditch Message-ID: <672021.24890.qm@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169023 What a lot of people forget when analyzing Quidditch scores is that Quidditch is a game in which score are added together. So that when Bulgaria plays Ireland they came in already down points, lets say 160. I think there is some incidental evidence that the world cup teams are grouped into fours just as the school Quidditch and groups of 3 games are added together just as in Hogwarts. 150 is about the right number of points for a set of six games (4 teams). Below are relevant portion from an old post of mine 11261, which I've cleaned up and amended from it's orignal condition to try to make it more readable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quidditch is not a sport in which the individual game matters much. It is a series of games in which the points are added together. In other words the points from one game are added to another to determine the winner and while catching the snitch is important a seeker could catch and win the snitch in all three games of the house cup and the team could still lose it. It is the point differentile that matters, so part of catching the snitch is timing. For instance I'm making up these scores to illustrate the point. Round 1 G1 Gryffindor vs Hufflepuff G 160- H 60 G Snith Harry beats Cedric. H chases beat G chasers 6-1 G2 Ravenclaw vs. Slytheirn S 240 R 10 S Snitch Draco beats Cho. S chasers pound R chasers 9-1 Total points after Round 1 1. Slytherin 240 2. Gryffindor 160 3. Hufflepuff 60 4. Ravenclaw 10 snitch catches: G 1 S 1 Round 2 G3 Hufflepuff vs. Slytherin H 160 S 150 H Snitch: Cedric beats Draco. Slytherin chasers pound H chasers 15-1 G4 Gyffindor vs. Ravenclaw R 330 G 270 Snitch: Gryffindor Harry beats Cho, but R wins anway. R chasers pound G chasers 33-12 Total points after Round 2 1. Gryffindor: 430 2. Slytherin 390 3. Ravenclaw 340 4. Hufflepuff 220 Snitch catches: Gryff 2 Huffle 1 Sly 1 Raven 0 Note: Ravenclaw is ahead of Hufflepuff even though they haven't caught a snitch yet. When Harry catches snitch score was R 330- G 120 (33-12 since goals are worth 10). Harry catching snitch was defensive because 480-120 puts Gryffindor prob out of cup hunt. So sometime catching a snitch can be defensive. Perhaps Krum catch was meant by JKR to be defensive. One explantion is that the seeding for the next world cup is determined by point deferntial. G5 Hufflepuff vs. Raveclaw R 300 H 280 H Snitch (poor timing, Cedric was a bit distracted by Cho, and unintentially caught the snitch to early .) R wins. R chasers beat H chasers 30-13. G6 Gryffindor vs. Slytherin. G 170 S 150 G snitch. Harry beats Draco but Slytherin Chasers pound Gryffindor Chasers. (15-2) Final standings: 1.Ravenclaw 640 2. Gryffindor 600 3. Slytherin 540 4. Hufflepuff 500 snitch catches: G3 H2 S1 R 0 Ravenclaw won the cup by its chaser scoring 64 goals versus 15 for Gryffindor, 20 for Hufflepuff and 39 for Slytherin and never cathing the snitch. The play of the chasers is a lot like basketball where there is a lot of back and forth, momentum swings and fast breaks and where it it fairly easy at any time to be up 3 to 1. The key to Quidditch seems to be grabbing the Snitch when your are up at least 3-1 on points or if down less then 3-1 grabbing it before you opponent does to win. The 150 point snitch score allows you to win even when down 3 -1 for instance your down 150-50. You catch the snitch you win 200-150. You need 600-700 points overall to win the cup so you can't just grab the snitch and take 150 points form each game, and win each one 150-0 you'd only end up with 450 points. At least one opponent would at a minimum 300 points (2 snitch questions) and be within snitch distance in the last round. Could you imagine how basketball would work if a 3/4 court shot was worth 30 points and ended the game and you added the points of at least 3 games together to determine the winner? And an individual game couldn't end until one were made. That is what Quidditch is like. Since you play 3 games the most you can be up is 1 snitch catches going into the final round plus minus chaser points. Probably the range is usualy within 100-200 points in the final game. So the seeker is really impotant in the last round, but the cushion he or she has or lacks is mainly due to the chasers. It is very important for the seeker to always know the score. For instance in the last Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff game above Cedric the Hufflepuff seeker caught the snitch 20 points two late or twenty to early. Basically chaser/keeper defense and seeker timing is how you win cups. Wow that was a lot to write for a fictional game. I do think JKR made on mistake in the scoring system of the game, making the center hoop 30 points instead of 10 would have made goal strategy more interesting for the keeper and made the chasers even more more important, but she wanted to empasize the seeker since it is Harry's spot. --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sun May 20 23:52:35 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:52:35 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169024 Dana: > According to Snape himself he did not know LV was in > the back of Quirrell's head and he considered Quirrell > himself a mediocre wizard. We see that Voldemort is not > only a suburb legilimens but a good occlumens as well > so don't you think he would be able to keep Snape out > of Quirrell's head? According to Snape himself he thought > Quirrell was going after the stone for his own personal greed. houyhnhnm: Since I'm not aware of any scene in the books in which Snape breaks the fourth wall, I would be hesitant to say that I know what Snape knew or didn't know or what he really thinks, especially based on his statements to a crazed Voldemort devotee who wants to out him as a traitor. Dana: > Snape shouldn't have gone to DD with his suspicions > about Quirrell instead of acting out alone. houyhnhnm: I am assuming you meant Snape *should* have gone to DD. There is nothing to show that he didn't. Dana: > Yes, indeed isn't it interesting that Snape had his > story for LV ready in just two hours houyhnhnm: By Christmas the Dark Mark had already been getting clearer for months. Snape had all year to prepare his story, very likely in close consultation with Dumbldedore, who said, "You know what I must ask you to do." I don't expect we will get a soliloquy from Snape in DH, nor do I expect the events in PS will be gone over again to answer the specific questions of how much Snape suspected or knew about Quirrell or how closely Snape and Dumbledore were working together. It's a dead certainty, though, that we will find out much more about the relationship between Dumbledore and Snape and the general question of their working relationship will be answered. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun May 20 23:56:44 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:56:44 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169025 > >>Betsy Hp: > > *My* issue with quidditch is the lack of any sort > > of bench. I mean, even if players aren't allowed to > > trade out *during* a game, why not have fully > > trained substitutes ready to go if something happens > > pre-game? Though really, why no substitutions? Is > > that some sort of wacky British thing? > >>Bart: > > I'm trying to remember anything that indicates that > > a disabled player cannot be replaced. Not going back > > through the books, it seems to me that every time a > > player was disabled, the game ended before anything > > could be done in the way of substitutions (or even a > > "time-out"). Betsy Hp: I checked and during the quidditch world cup the Irish seeker, Lynch, got hurt mid-game. There was a time-out while medi-wizards checked him over and the game went on for a while afterwards. That's one place I can think of where, if substitutions were allowed, one would have taken place. > >>bboyminn: > I wonder if it isn't a case of 'play what you brought'? > In other words, you can only play the team you brought > to the field that day. Betsy Hp: That's what it seems to be, yes. > >>bboyminn: > Based on what we find in the books, it seems reserve players are > allowed; in other word, the second string. Betsy Hp: Yeah, but they're weird about it. For example, Dean *only* practices with the team *after* Katie is hurt. IOWs, there's not really an official group of reserve players. Harry has to scramble to find replacements. And the replacement is obviously going to be way behind in terms of working with the team. > >>bboyminn: > > As to why each team doesn't have a second string of > reserve players, it seems very hard with enrollments > at Hogwarts so low, to put together a good team, much > less come up with a second team of reserves. Betsy Hp: I'm not saying they'd have a *deep* bench. But why not have anyone who's interested (and as it's the only sport going, I'd imagine quite a few would be interested) be on the team as reserves? That way you've got folks in training who know the plays, and the captain has a good idea of their strengths and weaknesses. It'd also help train up younger students for the next year when older students graduate. > >>bboymin:: > Also, if I am right, the team would be able to > substitute and train a replacement player, if the > injured player goes down well before the next match. Betsy Hp: Wait, how? Are you saying that an injured team is allowed to delay their next match? (This could be the way it works, I honestly can't recall.) > >>bboyminn: > So, there really is not need to complicate training > by including reserve players. The captain just > concentrates on his main team, and keeps in mind > other classmates who flew well in try-outs should > he ever need to bring one of them in. > Betsy Hp: I totally disagree. The captain is supposed to just note that *way* back in the fall, so and so was a good flyer? What if they'd practiced all summer and then never touched a broom after not making the cut? Suddenly that okay player isn't so okay anymore. Also, the chasers should work as a pretty tight unit. Ditto the beaters. Throwing a different player into the mix too close to game day could totally throw off an entire section of your team. Much better, IMO, to have your backups around and training with the main team so any subsitutions occur as seamlessly as possible. Plus there's the added benefit of perhaps using a different team makeup based on the team you're going up against. And yes, I fully recognize that I'm taking the game far too seriously. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 00:46:54 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 00:46:54 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's DeathEater role call (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169026 > >>Dana again: > > To be honest LV summoning his DEs in GoF to witness his return > > and him mentioning all their names doesn't give the impression > > that no one knew, who was who in the first war. > > > >>Montavilla47: > > That's a standard way of setting up a secret organization--so that > your members are limited in their knowledge of other members. > I agree that this is contradicted by the reunion in the Graveyard. > It's hard to reconcile the conflicting bits of information. Betsy Hp: Though, Voldemort doesn't speak *all* of the names. He mentions the Lestranges, but they're already out (so to speak ). And he names Lucius, Crabbe, Goyle, MacNair, Avery and Nott. Crabbe, Goyle and possibly Nott (going by that edited scene JKR mentioned) are all part of Lucius's crew and therefore may well be in questionable standing with Voldemort (that imperious thing). So Voldemort may have outed them as a sort of punishment. Avery and MacNair I have no idea about. I don't know if they're already pretty much known by everyone (MacNair, maybe?) or if Voldemort was also doing the punishing thing (Avery, who was also crucioed). But there are Death Eaters that Voldemort leaves out of his little roll call moment. And there's been discussions before about whether or not these were *all* of Voldemort's Death Eaters or just his innermost circle. So there's still some secrecy going on at Death Eater headquarters. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 00:48:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 00:48:42 -0000 Subject: Was Ministry going to punish Snape if kills Sirius on site? WAS: On perfection o In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169027 >> Julie: > BTW, Snape COULD have killed Sirius then and there, and > totally gotten away with it. Sirius is a wanted killer, > Snape knows that and knows the Ministry is not going to > punish him in any way for taking out such a threat (didn't > the Wanted poster even say "Dead or Alive"?). So *why* > oh why doesn't he? Alla: Is it possible that Ministry IS going to punish him and dear Snape does not want that? Ministry may be trigger happy to get Sirius to dementors, but I cannot find any canon references that Muggle or Magical community was allowed to shoot Sirius on sight, no questions asked, etc. Does not mean those references do not exist of course, but I would love to see them before accepting the fact that Snape will not be punished for killing Sirius on sight. As far as I am concerned, that is precisely why he does not do it and delivers Sirius to the castle, hoping Dumbledore would not interfere with Ministry proceedings. Oooops. So, here is the canon I found about Sirius initial introduction and how they want him to be captured, etc. I see no references to **Dead or Alive** in these quotes, but maybe I just missed them. "Harry sat down between Dudley and Uncle Vernon, a large, beefy man with very little neck and a lot of mustache. Far from wishing Harry a happy birthday, none of the Dursleys made any sign that they had noticed Harry enter the room, but Harry was far too used to this to care. He helped himself to a piece of toast and then looked up at the reporter on the television, who was halfway through a report on an escaped convict: "... The public is warned that Black is armed and extremely dangerous. A special hot line has been set up, and any sighting of Black should be reported immediately."? PoA, ch.2, p.18, british edition, paperback. Alla: So, in these quote muggles are encouraged to report about Sirius, are they not? They are not being told that he is armed and dangerous and needs to be killed on sight. Here is another quote: " Stan had unfurled a copy of the Daily Prophet and was now reading with his tongue between his teeth. A large photograph of a sunken- faced man with long, matted hair blinked slowly at Harry from the front page. He looked strangely familiar. "That man!" Harry said, forgetting his troubles for a moment. "He was on the Muggle news!" Stanley turned to the front page and chuckled. "Sirius Black," he said, nodding. "'Course 'e was on the Muggle news, Neville, where you been?" He gave a superior sort of chuckle at the blank look on Harry's face, removed the front page, and handed it to Harry. "You oughta read the papers more, Neville." Harry held the paper up to the candlelight and read: BLACK STILL AT LARGE Sirius Black, possibly the most infamous prisoner ever to be held in Azkaban fortress, is still eluding capture, the Ministry of Magic confirmed today. "We are doing all we can to recapture Black," said the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge, this morning, "and we beg the magical community to remain calm." Fudge has been criticized by some members of the International Federation of Warlocks for informing the Muggle Prime Minister of the crisis. "Well, really, I had to, don't you know," said irritable Fudge. "Black is mad. He's a danger to anyone who crosses him, magic or Muggle. I have the Prime Minister's assurance that he will not breathe a word of Black's true identity to anyone. And let's face it-who'd believe him if he did?" While Muggles have been told that Black is carrying a gun (a kind of metal wand that Muggles use to kill each other), the magical community lives in fear of a massacre like that of twelve years ago, when Black murdered thirteen people with a single curse. Harry looked into the shadowed eyes of Sirius Black, the only part of the sunken face that seemed alive. Harry had never met a vampire, but he had seen pictures of them in his Defense Against the Dark Arts classes, and Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one." ? PoA, p.33-34, british edition, paperback. Alla: All I can see in this quote is that Magical community lives in fear, etc. Can anybody please refer me to the page that says that good law abiding witches and wizards were allowed to shoot Sirius with no consequences for themselves? Thanks ;) From fiziwig at yahoo.com Sun May 20 23:54:27 2007 From: fiziwig at yahoo.com (Gary) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:54:27 -0000 Subject: Harry the Horcrux WAS:Re: The remaining Horcruxes.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169028 TKJ: > I don't like Nagini!Horcrux idea either. As for Harry!Horcrux, yes, > I'm in this camp, but if it turns out to be true, I'm sure that JKR > will find the way around it and Harry will survive, even though he > will be ready to sacrifice himself. If Harry dies, I'll take it > really, really hard ... Gary: I think my biggest objection to Harry as a horcrux is simply that LV set out to kill infant Harry, and failing that, lost his powers. When could he have possibly managed to embed his soul/essence in Harry? Before he tried to kill him? If so, then why try to kill him. After he failed to kill Harry? Then how did he summon the power to do so? The only possible argument would be that he did not intend to kill Harry when he cursed him, but did intend to make him his horcrux. But that doesn't square with his obvious intention to kill Harry in the graveyard in GoF. Why would he seek to destroy his own horcrux even if he did have a new body? I'm afraid there are just to many inconsistencies for me to accept the Harry as horcrux scenario. From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 00:27:26 2007 From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:26 -0000 Subject: The remaining Horcruxes.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169029 TKJ: //But that leads me to the Harry being a Horcrux idea. I hadn't really given much thought to it, but when Harry thwarted him maybe he took a piece of his soul, want it or not.// Coriandra2002: I don't think it's possible for Harry to be a Horcrux. Voldemort clearly wants Harry dead which would make no sense if Harry's a horcrux because his death would bring Voldemort another step closer to mortality. I read a fascinating theory, however, just after HBP came out. It looked like Professor Dumbledore's drinking the potion was an unsucessful attempt to get the horcrux that it was hiding. Maybe, however, the potion *was* the horcrux and by drinking it Dumbledore made himself one. I was outraged at first that Dumbledore apparentally died pleading for his life with a Death Eater, but that may not have been the case. Maybe when he was saying "Severus... please..." he was pleading for Snape to *kill* him which Snape didn't want to do, but it was necessary in order to destroy the horcrux that Dumbledore had made himself and to "prove" his loyalty to Voldemort, making himself a more effective spy for the Order of the Pheonix. Has anyone else ever considered that? From catlady at wicca.net Mon May 21 02:03:50 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 02:03:50 -0000 Subject: Molly/Goyle/Good Marks/HPhenomenon/Quidditch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169030 Miles wrote in : << Molly was the brightest witch of her age? Molly was as ambitious as Hermione is? >> Maybe she was. She certainly produced a number of extremely bright children, and she's ambitious for *their* success. Molly shows prejudices that don't seem congruent with Hermione's drive for Social Justice, but maybe she was idealistic when young and then gave it up. Goddlefrood wrote in : << The tale that will unfold should tell you a great deal about the inner workings of the mind of the insane, >> Meaning your mind? << Why oh why, Peter did you bite the goon? What had his father ever done to you? >> Why does it have to be about Goyle Senior? Why can't it be about Peter defending the stash of chocolate because he loves chocolate? Pippin wrote in : << Harry is an 'E' student who got one 'O'. Hermione is an 'O' student who got one 'E'. If you are looking for intellectual equals in the current cast, I'm afraid there's only Snape and Voldemort to choose from. >> And all those Aurors, such as Dawlish, to whom Dumbledore said: 'I'm sure you are an excellent Auror ? I seem to remember that you achieved "Outstanding" in all your NEWTs'. Elfundeb quoted in : << Fred and George mess around a lot, but they still get really good marks >> By the way, is that consistent with them getting only 3 OWLs? (Was it three OWLs each or three between them?) Steve bboyminn wrote in << In the history of publishing, no books like the Harry Potter series have ever existed. No books in which countless millions around the world are eager and desperate to know the secrets. >> I think the same thing happened with some Charles Dickens books, altho' the desperate wait was not between books, but between chapters of the serialized publication in a periodical. Betsy Hp wrote in : << *My* issue with quidditch is the lack of any sort of bench. I mean, even if players aren't allowed to trade out *during* a game, why not have fully trained substitutes ready to go if something happens pre-game? >> "Reserve" players *are* allowed. In GoF, Oliver Wood tell Harry that "he had just been signed to the Puddlemere United reserve team." Lots of canon in PS/SS. Lee Jordan's commentary mentions "Alicia Spinnet, a good find of Oliver Wood's, last year only a reserve". When advised not to play in the match that Snape will referee, "I can't," said Harry. "There isn't a reserve Seeker. If I back out, Gryffindor can't play at all." It doesn't make much sense to me that Harry's team doesn't have *any* reserves. No reserve Seeker, okay, it's been established that Gryffindor is having a terrible drought of Seekers. But no reserves for any position? Especially as the comment about Alicia indicates that Gryffindor *used* to have reserves? Wood told Harry "A game of Quidditch only ends when the Snitch is caught, so it can go on for ages -- I think the record is three months, they had to keep bringing on substitutes so the players could get some sleep." It appears that substitutes are allowed for non-injured players, just not for injured players. I suppose there is some back story like, originally substitutes were not allowed at all, and when they were allowed, very 'physical' teams howled that this was unfair to them, depriving them of their fair reward for injuring an opponent. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon May 21 03:11:19 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 20:11:19 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0705202011ka2ee81dxe92b60af98e7dc70@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169031 Lynda says: I'm hoping to see Neville happily paired off in the final book (if he lives through the volume). Whether it will be a big shocker/twist remains to be seen. There are a few people I see as possible matches for him. One thing is, I don't always look for the most obvious relationship in my reading, or my writing for that matter (or even in real life). For the most part, I am waiting with slightly veiled anticipation for the last book so that I can dig my greedy little hands in. At the present, however, I am watching my copy of A&E's version of Pride and Prejudice--I live in a very small apartment--while I read my email. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon May 21 03:25:15 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 03:25:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169032 When I first read Snape's speech to Harry in POA about "[you'd] have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black," I understood it in the context of POA as Snape being the one mistaken in Black: He didn't appear to believe the evidence of 'two thirteen year old wizards' as Dumbledore did and without Dumbledore's intervention, the Dementors were going to perform the kiss. There's no canon for what may have happened between Dumbledore and Snape after the revelation that Sirius escaped, whether they talked again or how much Dumbledore revealed about the night in question, but what's evident from the hospital scene in GOF is that Snape doesn't trust Sirus (and the sentiment is mutual): "Snape had not yelled or jumped backward, but the look on his face was one of mingled fury and horror. 'Him!' he snarled, staring at Sirius, whose face showed equal dislike. 'What is he doing here?' 'He is here at my invitation,' said Dumbledore, looking between them, 'as are you, Severus. I trust you both. It is time for you to lay aside your old differences and trust each other.'" (GOF, chap. 36, p. 712, Am. Ed.) So canon is in place for Dumbledore trusting both Sirius and Snape when Dumbledore explains events outside Harry's awareness on the night of the DOM: "You see, when you gave Professor Snape that cryptic warning, he realized that you had had a vision of Sirius trapped in the bowels of the Department of Mysteries. He, like you, attempted to contact Sirius at once." And a few paragraphs later: "Professor Snape requested that Sirius remain behind, as he needed somebody to remain at headquarters to tell me what had happened, for I was due there at any moment." (Chap. 37, p. 830, Am. ed.) According to Dumbledore, Sirius didn't wish to remain behind and delegated the task of meeting Dumbledore to Kreacher. Dumbledore never talked to Sirius directly but deduced from Snape's words, Kreacher's story and his own Legilimency what had happened on the night in question. He concluded from the various bits of information that Kreacher told Narcissa about the relationship between Sirius and Harry, how Harry was the one Sirius cared most for in the world and that the 'one person whom you [Harry] would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black.' I took this information at face value on many readings of OOTP but now the idea gives me pause. From the way Kreacher is presented in canon he doesn't have the kind of insight into human relationships that Dumbledore is giving him credit for. He's addled, out of touch with reality at times and obsessed with Mrs. Black and all she stood for. He has eyes and ears only for her or 'legitimate' Blacks and his understanding of human relations is what people tell him, like Mrs. Black saying how much Sirius disappointed her for instance. Kreacher doesn't understand why a 'Mudblood' would talk to him, that it was Hermione's attempt at caring for him; to Kreacher it's simply repugnance based on his indoctrination from the Blacks about Muggleborns. Sirius caring about a half-blood, if Kreacher even noticed, would be instantly dismissed as Sirius hurting Kreacher's mistress again rather than something he would ponder and consider in light of a relationship between Sirius and Harry. I realize Dumbledore is reporting the story in his own words to convey what might be alternately heart-warming and guilt-producing for Harry, but there's still an element missing for me that Kreacher could come up this depth of relational information on his own. Fast forward now to HBP and the conflicting information from Snape about what he says he reported to LV about Black. He tells Bella in front of Narcissa that "the Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him off." (HBP, 'Spinner's End, p. 35, UK ed.) I've read explanations on the list for this and there's still a big question mark in my mind for why he said that. Snape is risking everything there; one moment of Narcissa saying 'wait...what?' and there's doubt shed on Snape's entire act at Spinner's End, his career as a spy (as a DE would see him), not to mention a threat to his life if Narcissa went back to LV. Even though Narcissa is playing her own double game there, what would stop her from running to LV in desperation for Draco's life and saying she thinks Snape might not be who he says he is? That would be a huge point in her favor and she might think that would be enough to get Draco off the hook if she turned in a traitor. Plus, she'd likely be right to think it would turn LV from thinking about punishing Lucius to the bigger task of punishing Snape. To pull all this canon together, I'd say Narcissa didn't blink an eye because she already *knew* what information Snape had given to LV, that she'd heard it from Voldemort himself when he told her what to order Kreacher to do the night he planned to put a vision in Harry's head. Dumbledore heard and saw correct information from Kreacher and via Legilimency, but I don't believe it was information Kreacher actually thought of himself; rather, it was information *told* to him by Narcissa. Kreacher, in his undying loyalty to the Blacks and evidently confused state, would simply believe whatever Narcissa told him was true. He would tell Dumbledore whatever he'd been ordered to tell him--or ordered to tell anyone who asked him--and Legilimency would pick up what Kreacher was reporting as true and correct. Snape would be very capable of seeing the relationship between Sirius and Harry and not only that, he saw into Harry's mind during Legilimency lessons and the memory of the Dementors swooping across the lake came up *3* times. Was he hoping to finally see some proof for what happened that night? If only Snape could find out what drove the dementors back he might know how Sirius escaped. They go pretty far into the memory on the third try until Harry casts his Protego and turns the tables. As for motive, well revenge IS sweet. I'd say it's more than that though. Since we have no canon either way about what Snape heard re: the night of the Shrieking Shack, there's every likelihood he still thought Sirius capable of murder and both a threat and a danger to the operation. Having Dumbledore side with a Marauder again and trust Sirius' story over his own may have been the last straw for Snape and he decided to take matters into his own hands. For instance, how exactly do Lucius & Bella know about the animagus disguise for Sirius? Sirius imagines that Wormtail told Voldemort but there's no canon for Peter having any connection to the Malfoys. There IS canon for Snape having a relationship with them and now we know Narcissa and Bella have a somehwhat close relationship. Last, I'd say that HBP gives the impression Snape acts alone when he chooses to, meaning the UV. Loyalty to Dumbledore doesn't mean he believes what Dumbledore believes or is going to act the way Dumbledore does. I could see Snape considering the 'disposal' of Black to be an act for the greater good of the cause regardless of how Dumbledore might view it. Jen From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 03:50:38 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 03:50:38 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169033 > Carol: > But Snape *was* in prsonal danger in SS/PS. He was injured by Fluffy > trying to thwart Quirrell and could have been killed. (Exactly why > he entered the corridor at that point has never been clear to me.) Mike: I was never under the impression that Fluffy was put there to *kill* any intruders. I thought he was there to deter anyone from trying to get past him, despite Dumbledores dire warning at the start of term feast of "... to die a very painful death." I'm just not believing that Dumbledore would allow a murderous three-headed dog to be encountered by first year students (accidently, mind you), especially since a simple Alohomora spell was the only requirement to get into dangerous proximity. Besides, I think Snape had a few more spells at his disposal to thwart Fluffy's heads. > Carol: > Had Snape not been performing the countercurse, there > would have been no Harry for her to accidentally save. Mike: Can I just interject here for a moment. Why do we think that Snape "save Harry's life" by performing the countercurse? Didn't Neville bounce down the lane when his Uncle Algie drops him from an upper window? Doesn't Hagrid tell us it's preposterous that Lilly and James could have died from a automobile accident? There were many hundreds of wizarding students and probably a fair few qualified witches and wizards present. Could none of them perform a cushioning charm if Harry had fallen off? In fact, didn't JKR tell us (too lazy to find the exact quote) that wizards and witches die from wizarding afflictions and not common Muggle afflictions or accidents? Dumbledore told Harry that James saved Snape's life, but he only said that Snape was "protect"ing Harry all year. Not that Snape ever *saved Harry's life*. I just think Snape is getting credit for something that didn't rise to the level of *life-saving*. Protecting, yes, that's what Dumbledore called it, but saving Harry's life - IMO that gives him too much credit. > Carol: > Snape was in grave danger from Voldemort whether he knew it or not, > and I think he did know it. [re: confronting Quirrell] Mike: Only upon Voldemort's *possible* re-animation, not at this time though. He's more than a match for Quirrell even with LV attached. > Carol: > He was also in grave danger when he returned to Voldemort with > his prepared cover story (which is how I read "If you are ready, > if you are prepared") for his actions relating to Quirrell > (and reasons for not being in the graveyard). Mike: Yes, I agree. Inside our timeline - that is during actual book time and not previous to Nov 1, 1991 - this is definitely when Snape is in true mortal danger, and in my opinion, the only time. But lets give him his due, noone can know how LV is going to treat Snape at this time. (Of course this presupposes DDM!Snape, which camp I count myself a member of, despite my detestation of Sevie. Otherwise, that is if Snape is still on LV's team, then he is not in any real danger.) > Carol: > He also placed himself in grave danger by facing a werewolf about to > transform and a man he thought had betrayed the Potters and murdered > thirteen people in PoA. The danger from the werewolf, at least, was > very real. Mike: First off, if he's in such danger why doesn't he bring the Wolfsbane potion with him? And please don't tell me he'll spill it. I'm sure Severus can come up with a bubble charm or some such to keep it from spilling. Also, remember he was only aware of Lupin heading for the Womping Willow, he knew not of the trio, Black, nor Pettigrew already in the Shack. Snape doesn't seem that concerned with the possibilities, and he has the history to know what he's in for. Secondly, is tying up an untransformed werewolf enough to thwart him? Well, Snape seemed to think that was enough, didn't he? So he still didn't seem to take Lupin as that much of a threat to life and limb. Finally, if there was actual mortal danger, who prevented Lupin from killing anyone? That's right, Sirius Black in his animagus dog form. So either Snape felt there was no real mortal danger in the possibility of facing a werewolf, or he rather stupidly relied on someone else coming to his rescue. Someone that he didn't know was there when he left the castle and someone he didn't know had the ability to transform into an animal large enough to thwart a werewolf. Which version of Snape do you like? > Carol: > We know that he spied for Dumbledore "at great personal risk," > which surely means the peril of death if Voldemort found out. > He's doing the same thing from the end of GoF onward, again risking > death by sending the Order to the MoM. (I won't even talk about > the risk he's facing now from both sides.) Mike: As I said above, I agree with this assessment. > Carol, assuming DDM!Snape, of course Mike, who still despises DDM!Snape, despite his belief in his DDMness. ;) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 04:05:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 04:05:31 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169034 > Mike: > Can I just interject here for a moment. Why do we think that > Snape "save Harry's life" by performing the countercurse? >There > were many hundreds of wizarding students and probably a fair few > qualified witches and wizards present. Could none of them perform a > cushioning charm if Harry had fallen off? Alla: Hmmm, I seem to remember Harry falling in another book and Dumbledore performing something indeed;) From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 04:37:53 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 04:37:53 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169035 Mike: First off, if he's in such danger why doesn't he bring the Wolfsbane potion with him? And please don't tell me he'll spill it. I'm sure Severus can come up with a bubble charm or some such to keep it from spilling. Also, remember he was only aware of Lupin heading for the Womping Willow, he knew not of the trio, Black, nor Pettigrew already in the Shack. Snape doesn't seem that concerned with the possibilities, and he has the history to know what he's in for. Secondly, is tying up an untransformed werewolf enough to thwart him? Well, Snape seemed to think that was enough, didn't he? So he still didn't seem to take Lupin as that much of a threat to life and limb. Finally, if there was actual mortal danger, who prevented Lupin from killing anyone? That's right, Sirius Black in his animagus dog form. So either Snape felt there was no real mortal danger in the possibility of facing a werewolf, or he rather stupidly relied on someone else coming to his rescue. Someone that he didn't know was there when he left the castle and someone he didn't know had the ability to transform into an animal large enough to thwart a werewolf. Which version of Snape do you like? Leslie41 now: Actually, my Snape is neither of those versions, because the assertion that he should have brought the goblet with him is flawed in that it doesn't see things from Snape's perspective. Snape believes he's going into a confrontation with Lupin and the man he thinks he's protecting, the outlaw and dangerous Azkaban escapee, Sirius Black. So, um, what point would there be in bringing the potion? Snape believes he's going into a fight. Enemies do not usually hold off battling to imbibe potions, even potions that might keep them from turning murderous. In fact, Snape might even think that Lupin deliberately didn't take it. From his perspective, Snape's best hope is to get there immediately before the moon comes up and subdue the prisoners--or rather turn them over to the Dementors. And he has plenty of time to do that (somehow I don't think that even a werewolf would be a match for them). Snape wrongly believes the worst about Lupin and Black, but it is no less than what most everyone else believes in the Wizarding World, with regard to both of them. (And Snape has far more reason to believe the worst about them.) It's not Snape that gets Lupin fired. Snape just spreads the word that Lupin's a werewolf. It's the complaints about a werewolf teaching at Hogwarts that do that. It seems to me that Snape's critics often seem to view his behavior with the knowledge and understanding that *they* have of the other characters (taking Harry's perspective, to to speak), not the knowledge that Snape himself has. From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 21 05:08:07 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 05:08:07 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues/ Of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169036 Alla: > > There are plenty things I agree with you in this post, but this > assumption that Snape indeed knew that DD was hiding stone from > Voldemort, I think has merit. > > Unless of course you argue that teachers did not know what they > were defending. I mean, I guess one can argue that. But then I > picture this rather wierd little scene, when Dumbledore gathers the > teachers and tells them. Hey guys, please prepare the best defenses > you know. And what are we defending, Albus? > > Something. I mean, not that Dumbledore never keeps secret from his > teaching staff, LOL. But it still feels strange to me, if it is true. Dana: How about someone is trying to steal the stone of my friend Flamel and I promised I would do anything to protect it ;o) How many of the people in the WW knew that LV did not die and was gone for ever after the events in GH. Even if DD had the idea that it was for Voldemort it would only be his idea, why would he worry the teachers about Voldemort trying to return by using the stone if he wouldn't be sure about it himself. Actually he wouldn't. He would just state someone was trying to steal it and that would be enough explanation. Dana From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon May 21 06:16:31 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 06:16:31 -0000 Subject: Harry the Horcrux WAS:Re: The remaining Horcruxes.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169037 > Gary: > > I think my biggest objection to Harry as a horcrux is simply that LV > set out to kill infant Harry, and failing that, lost his powers. > When could he have possibly managed to embed his soul/essence in > Harry? Before he tried to kill him? If so, then why try to kill > him. After he failed to kill Harry? Then how did he summon the > power to do so? > > The only possible argument would be that he did not intend to kill > Harry when he cursed him, but did intend to make him his horcrux. But > that doesn't square with his obvious intention to kill Harry in the > graveyard in GoF. Why would he seek to destroy his own horcrux even if > he did have a new body? > > I'm afraid there are just to many inconsistencies for me to accept > the Harry as horcrux scenario. Jen: Harry doesn't have to be a Horcrux for a soul piece to have made it into the cut that became his scar. The notion of Horcruxes is about the objects Voldemort uses to seal a piece of his soul inside but what's important is that a soul can tear when a murder occurs, and two murders have occurred prior to the rebounded AK. I don't subscribe to the idea that Harry is an intentional Horcrux on Voldemort's part or that he's an 'accidental' Horcrux; Voldemort would have no idea Harry is carrying around a soul piece. There's the possibility that a ripped soul fragment became the 'bit of himself' Voldemort put inside Harry and that explains Harry's powers from LV. JKR doesn't have to come up with any mechanism or explanation for what happened that way because she already has the perfect scenario - even Dumbledore can't explain what happened that night, it was a phenomenon new to the WW and can therefore be anything including a soul piece that got torn out and found its way into Harry when Voldemort was ripped from his body. Jen From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon May 21 06:34:25 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 06:34:25 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169038 > Mike: > Can I just interject here for a moment. Why do we think that > Snape "save Harry's life" by performing the countercurse? zgirnius: Because Quirrell describes his actions as an attempt on Harry's life, not an attempt to make himself a nuisance, perhaps? > Mike: > Also, remember he was only aware of Lupin heading for the > Womping Willow, he knew not of the trio, Black, nor Pettigrew already > in the Shack. Snape doesn't seem that concerned with the > possibilities, and he has the history to know what he's in for. zgirnius: Snape had been suspecting Lupin of being in league with Black all year. If he had no idea he would be finding Black at the end of that tunnel, I do not believe he would have gone. Lupin forgets his potion and decides to go ride the change out in the Shack? Fine. The motive to follow had to be that he thought he would finally get the proof he needed that Lupin was in league with Black. > Mike: > So either Snape felt there was no real mortal danger in the > possibility of facing a werewolf, or he rather stupidly relied on > someone else coming to his rescue. zgirnius: I presume he planned to leave Lupin tied up in the Shack. Even if he could get free, he could not get past the Willow in his transformed state. If we must call people stupid, I would reserve that word for the ones who untied him and brought him back out of the Shack even after Snape explicitly reminded them of the danger he posed (Sirius and Lupin, that is). Lupin especially, who in the excitement of the night forgot he had not taken his potion on *two* separate occasions. It is also not clear that Snape originally intended to enter the Willow. He followed Lupin out there, but it is possible, for all we know, his discovery of Harry's invisibility cloak may have forced his hand. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon May 21 06:57:24 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 06:57:24 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169039 --- "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > *My* issue with quidditch is the lack of any sort > > > of bench. I mean, even if players aren't allowed > > > to trade out *during* a game, why not have fully > > > trained substitutes ready to go ... > > ... > > ... > > > >>bboyminn: > > I wonder if it isn't a case of 'play what you brought'? > > In other words, you can only play the team you brought > > to the field that day. > > Betsy Hp: > That's what it seems to be, yes. > > > >>bboyminn: > > Based on what we find in the books, it seems reserve > > players are allowed; in other word, the second > > string. > > Betsy Hp: > Yeah, but they're weird about it. For example, Dean > *only* practices with the team *after* Katie is hurt. > ... > > > >>bboyminn: > > > > As to why each team doesn't have a second string of > > reserve players, it seems very hard with enrollments > > at Hogwarts so low, to put together a good team, much > > less come up with a second team of reserves. > > Betsy Hp: > I'm not saying they'd have a *deep* bench. But why > not have anyone who's interested ... be on the team > as reserves? ... > bboyminn: You argument is right, but I think different captains have different strategies. We hear in the game commentary by Lee Jordan that Katie or one of the other players on Harry's team was a reserve the previous year. However, more members means more training, and far more complex training. I suspect some team captains prefer to concentrate on the main team instead of wasting limited and valuable training time on a second string. In principle, I agree with your assessment, and in a larger school, it certainly would be wise to have an 'A' squad and a 'B'-squad. But Hogwart's enrollment seems very small at the moment. We see that when Harry (or the team) needs players, competent ones are hard to find. The players they do find and use in OotP are just marginal at best. The players they pull together in HBP, are better, but still not up to the grade of Harry's original team. So, it's two things, extra players means a dilution of the practice time for the main team and the attention of the captain, and the extra players available are limited in skill. > > >>bboymin:: > > Also, if I am right, the team would be able to > > substitute and train a replacement player, if the > > injured player goes down well before the next match. > > Betsy Hp: > Wait, how? Are you saying that an injured team is > allowed to delay their next match? > bboyminn: To a limited extent, yes. Draco, rescheduled a game when he was injured, but we suspect that was more of a strategic ploy than an actual need. No, what I am saying is that you play the team you brought to the field, something you agreed with. But between games, substitutions can be made without problems. Harry and Slytherins make many member changes between games. So, in a just finished game in which a player is injured, there is plenty of time to train a new player before the next match. That type of substitution is allowed without restriction. > > >>bboyminn: > > So, there really is not need to complicate training > > by including reserve players. The captain just > > concentrates on his main team, and keeps in mind > > other classmates who flew well in try-outs should > > he ever need to bring one of them in. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I totally disagree. The captain is supposed to just > note that *way* back in the fall, ... bboyminn: Yes, a captain is always thinking about who flies well and who doesn't. When Harry needed a new player he remembered Dean flew well in trials and brought him onto the team. Harry also knew Dean's temperament and general likability, as well as his skill. All I am saying is that more players complicates practice and dilutes the captains time and attention. Some captains might not mind, and feel having the reserves always at the ready is a bonus. Other captain, like Harry and Wood, might want to concentrate on the main team, and merely keep in mind who would work for a substitute. One of the points I'm making is that at this level of play, it is not that often that a single player simply can not go on after a reasonable time-out and therefore an in-game substitution is rarely needed. So, it's up to the temperament of the captain, and what his priorities are. If he is a risk taker, he concentrates on his first string and hopes for no serious injuries. If he likes to play it safe, he accepts the dilution of his training time in trade for having a second string at the ready. It's not just about the rules, it is also about the circumstances and preferences of the captain. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 07:07:35 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 07:07:35 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169040 > > Mike previously: > > Which version of Snape do you like? > > Leslie41 now: > > Actually, my Snape is neither of those versions, because the > assertion that he should have brought the goblet with him is flawed > in that it doesn't see things from Snape's perspective. Snape > believes he's going into a confrontation with Lupin and the man he > thinks he's protecting, the outlaw and dangerous Azkaban escapee, > Sirius Black. Mike answering with some of my previous: > > Also, remember he was only aware of Lupin heading for the > > Womping Willow, he knew not of the trio, Black, nor Pettigrew > > already in the Shack. Snape saw Lupin and only Lupin on the Map. It presupposes a lot to think that Snape knew Sirius was already in the Shack. In fact I believe his exact words were: "Not even I dreamed you would have the nerve to use this old place as your hideout -" (PoA p.359, US) Since canon tells us that Snape didn't think Padfoot was in there, why should I believe that Snape thought he was going into a confrontation with anyone other than Lupin? > Leslie41 continues: > So, um, what point would there be in bringing the potion? Snape > believes he's going into a fight. Enemies do not usually hold off > battling to imbibe potions, even potions that might keep them from > turning murderous. In fact, Snape might even think that Lupin > deliberately didn't take it. Mike: Why would Snape think he's going into a fight? Has Lupin failed to take his potion at any other time during the past year? Has Lupin given Snape any reason to believe that he "deliberately" failed to take his potion tonight? Is there any other reason, besides a delusional Snape, for Snape to think that tonight Lupin has decided to forgo the potion that makes his transformations bearable? Lupin explained how painful his transformations were without the Wolfsbane, do you think that Snape is unaware of the painfulness? It looks to me that "your" Snape thinks the worse of Lupin without any proof. And he is *wrong* about just about everything, isn't he? > Leslie41: > From his perspective, Snape's best hope is to get there > immediately before the moon comes up and subdue the prisoners-- > or rather turn them over to the Dementors. And he has plenty of > time to do that (somehow I don't think that even a werewolf > would be a match for them). Mike: I've addressed the plural "prisoners". As to dealing only with Lupin (the only one Snape is following), by what authority does Snape get to decide that Lupin is an outlaw? They are both teachers at the same school, neither has authority over the other. Where does Snape get off deciding that Lupin is breaking some law then tying and gagging him? This has always got my goat, that Snape has bestowed upon himself the moral authority to silence Lupin, because he says so. And if Snape has plenty of time to subdue Lupin before he transforms, why doesn't he have plenty of time to bring him his potion? Once again, he has no knowledge of anyone else. Whatever else he may think is going on, why not at least bring the potion? If he's so sure that he's in for a fight (still not seeing how he logically comes to that conclusion) then the potion languishes in his robes, so what? But a demented Snape, out looking for some kind of revenge, ... him I can see saying "screw the potion, I can get that Lupin now." And if his best option is to subdue Lupin before he transforms, why does he hide under the cloak and listen to Lupin rehash their schoolboy days for what seems like forever (to me)? > Leslie41: > Snape wrongly believes the worst about Lupin and Black, but it is > no less than what most everyone else believes in the Wizarding > World, with regard to both of them. Mike: I see. Lupin is a werewolf, therefore it's OK to assume he is a killer. Disregarding that he has killed noone as far as we know. Disregarding that he has taught at Hogwarts for an entire year, and taken his wolfsbane during the entire time. Disregarding that Dumbledore was the one that hired him, and that the Ministry, however reluctantly, has allowed the hire. No, Snape knows better than everyone and he's going to prove it. After all, he's the "Potions Master" at Hogwarts and that gives him special dispensation to disregard everyone elses authority and take matters into his own hands. I ask again, where does Snape get the authority to act unilaterally? > Leslie41: > (And Snape has far more reason to believe the worst about them.) Mike: Ah, the real crux of the matter. Snape hates the Marauders, therefore that gives him the authority to decide what's going on and he doesn't have to listen to anyone. The Marauders picked on him when they were in school and that makes them criminals not worth listening to. He gets to bind and gag Lupin because anything he might say is a lie, not worth hearing. > Leslie41: > > It seems to me that Snape's critics often seem to view his behavior > with the knowledge and understanding that *they* have of the other > characters (taking Harry's perspective, to to speak), not the > knowledge that Snape himself has. Mike: Actually, I'm a Snape critic, and I think I was looking at Snape's behavior based on what *Snape knew*, not what I knew. Snape didn't know Sirius nor the kids were in the Shack. Snape had nothing other than his own prejudices to inform him that Lupin was up to no good that evening. Snape had no reason to believe he was going into a fight other than his own expectations that Lupin was actively helping Sirius. And he was basing that on his schoolboy grudge, not on anything approaching legal or moral proof. And upon reaching the Shack, Snape actively disregards what's going on in front of him, and acts upon his schoolboy grudge. Remember, all of the kids have their wands out, Lupin's is stored away, and Sirius has no wand. Yet the kids are listening to the story, questioning it, but clearly not "Confunded". Does Snape take a logical approach or does he completely disregard what the kids have concluded deserves hearing out? I say the latter. Mike From darksworld at yahoo.com Mon May 21 07:47:28 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 07:47:28 -0000 Subject: The remaining Horcruxes.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169041 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "coriandra2002" wrote: > > > TKJ: > //But that leads me to the Harry being a Horcrux idea. I hadn't really > given much thought to it, but when Harry thwarted him maybe he took a > piece of his soul, want it or not.// > > Coriandra2002: > I don't think it's possible for Harry to be a Horcrux. Voldemort clearly > wants Harry dead which would make no sense if Harry's a horcrux > because his death would bring Voldemort another step closer to mortality. > > I read a fascinating theory, however, just after HBP came out. It > looked like Professor Dumbledore's drinking the potion was an > unsucessful attempt to get the horcrux that it was hiding. Maybe, > however, the potion *was* the horcrux and by drinking it Dumbledore > made himself one. > > I was outraged at first that Dumbledore apparentally died pleading for > his life with a Death Eater, but that may not have been the case. > Maybe when he was saying "Severus... please..." he was pleading for > Snape to *kill* him which Snape didn't want to do, but it was > necessary in order to destroy the horcrux that Dumbledore had made > himself and to "prove" his loyalty to Voldemort, making himself a more > effective spy for the Order of the Pheonix. > > Has anyone else ever considered that? > Charles: I haven't been around here for awhile, so I don't know if the idea has been considered before, but I find that notion unlikely. If the potion was the horcrux, then it would have been RAB that became a horcrux, not DD. If DD was indeed begging Snape to kill him, it was to keep Draco from doing it, and no other reason, IMO. Charles, who thinks that DD's portrait has got a lot of 'splainin' to do. From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 21 09:56:56 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 09:56:56 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169042 > Julie: > Then we're back to giving credit for unintended consequences > that result from actions, with no regard to intent. Therefore, > Snape saved the entire WW by blabbing the Prophecy, which > caused Voldemort to target and eventually kill the Potters, > wherein his AK attempt on Harry rebounded and vaporized him. > Thanks to this fortuitous event, Voldemort (who was clearly > winning that first "war" according to Dumbledore) did not > take over the WW, kill the Order members and their families > (which would have included Harry Potter) and everyone else > who stood in his way, and turn the lives of those who'd > managed to survive into living nightmares. I just want to > know...why hasn't Snape been given the Order of Merlin for > providing the WW with this 13 year respite from Voldemort?? Dana: Maybe you are forgetting that people still died because of him sending LV on a wild goose chase. Lily's self-sacrifice was a wonderful thing, Snape bringing the prophecy to LV so LV could go and kill some people was something entirely different. Lily did sacrificed herself to save her son and her love protected him and caused LV's downfall. This might not have been intentional but it nevertheless meant that LV could no longer terrorize the WW and she did sacrifice herself for it. Snape when he brought the prophecy to LV could not have know it would cause LV's downfall but he COULD have known that people were going to die because of it. Did we see Snape sacrifice himself to save the WW? No we did not, he actually brought the prophecy to LV, according to DD, because he thought LV should know that someone was going to cause his down fall and if it was his intention to cause LV's demise then he just should have hold his tong and LV would never have known what hit him. So if intent would indeed be an issue then in my opinion Snape was as guilty for causing these people's death as was LV himself. He wasn't merely the messenger that could not have foreseen that LV would be going to kill people because of it. And at this moment the only canon we have what caused Snape remorse, was not him bringing it to LV but just that he did not foresee which people LV was going to target because of it and that it involved people he knew. So in other words if it had involved people he didn't know Snape would not have felt any remorse about it at all. JMHO Dana From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon May 21 09:59:20 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 09:59:20 -0000 Subject: When Severus Came to The Shack (Was: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169043 > Jen: > Since we have no canon either way about what Snape heard > re: the night of the Shrieking Shack, there's every likelihood > he still thought Sirius capable of murder and both a threat > and a danger to the operation. Goddlefrood: Thank you for a thoughtful post. I just wanted to add a little information to respond to the above snippet that may assist. The ultimate conclusion is that Snape did not hear the part of the exchange in the Shrieking Shack where Sirius was exonerated, but he did come i quite a little earlier than when he threw off the Invisibility Cloak in my interpretation. Here is the relevant extract of where I feel he first started listening in: "Lupin broke off. There had been a loud creak behind him. The bedroom door had opened of its own accord. All five of them stared at it. Then Lupin strode towards it and looked out into the landing. 'No one there ...' 'This place is haunted!' said Ron 'It's not,' said Lupin, still looking at the door in a puzzled way. 'The Shrieking Shack was never haunted ... the screams and howls the villagers used to hear were made by me.'" p. 258 - Bloomsbury Paperback Edition My view is that this is Snape entering. It is before Remus starts to explain about his school days and how he came to Hogwarts, but after the exposition on the night of the Potters' deaths. Snape appears within the room from under the IC on p. 262 after much information has been revealed, including, but not limited to the Marauders becoming Animagi. Perhaps this would assist, perhaps not, there it is. Goddlefrood From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon May 21 10:41:26 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:41:26 -0000 Subject: Goyle/Gilderoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169045 > Goddlefrood wrote in > : > << The tale that will unfold should tell you a great deal about the inner workings of the mind of the insane, >> > Catlady: > Meaning your mind? Goddlefrood: I'm beginning to wonder if I may belong in the same ward as poor Gilderoy. Not that I'm a wizard or anything, but we could almost be soulmates :-) > Goddlefrood (quoted by Catlady): > << Why oh why, Peter did you bite the goon? What had his father > ever done to you? >> > Catlady: > Why does it have to be about Goyle Senior? Why can't it be > about Peter defending the stash of chocolate because he loves > chocolate? Goddlefrood: I could not possibly credit such an outlandish theory, sorry :-| From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 21 10:48:39 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:48:39 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169046 Jen: >To pull all this canon together, I'd say Narcissa didn't blink an > eye because she already *knew* what information Snape had given to > LV, that she'd heard it from Voldemort himself when he told her > what to order Kreacher to do the night he planned to put a vision > in Harry's head. Dumbledore heard and saw correct information > from Kreacher and via Legilimency, but I don't believe it was > information Kreacher actually thought of himself; rather, it was > information *told* to him by Narcissa. Kreacher, in his undying > loyalty to the Blacks and evidently confused state, would simply > believe whatever Narcissa told him was true. He would tell > Dumbledore whatever he'd been ordered to tell him--or ordered to > tell anyone who asked him--and Legilimency would pick up what > Kreacher was reporting as true and correct. Dana: I absolutely agree with you and why I snipped a large part of you post. So I just want to add one thing that was not entirely right when I red DD's speech in OotP and that is about Kreacher regarding Narcissa as the last Black he had any respect for while we see that a picture of Bella seemed to be Kreacher's favourite. Although it is pure speculation on my part I did find it interesting to see that in HBP, JKR added two stories of memory planting to cover up who really was responsible for the crimes committed and I'm seriously wondering if that is what happened with Kreacher too. I do not have my books on hand but from what I remembered didn't both LV's uncle and Mrs Smith's house-elf believe that they were guilty? LV did that when he was still young so I have no trouble believing that he has improved memory planting since he last done it. Legilimency would not have been enough to retrieve the original memory or distinguish between a planted memory and an original one. DD had great difficulty to retrieve the original memory of LV being there at the time the murders took place and he only found them because he had a suspicion there was more to the story then them being guilty. One could think how could he get to Kreacher to even have done this besides Kreacher going to Narcissa on his own? Well I always found it strange that DD could summon Kreacher in the beginning of HBP, while he is not Kreacher's master and if he could have done it then so could LV. Kreacher might actually have never left GP during Christmas and was just happy that he defied Sirius and not serve him. He might indeed have gone somewhere else maybe visiting Bella in Azkaban and she telling him it will not be long for she got out and what made him so happy. He could have gone to the Malfoy's but we do not see anything besides DD's story that links Kreacher to Narcissa besides her being a Black. But at this moment it is far from sure that Kreacher actually was guilty of betraying Sirius at all and him not just being set up to take the fall for it to cover up for someone else. So in essence I agree with your post and it was something that I had noticed too. Jen > As for motive, well revenge IS sweet. I'd say it's more than that > though. Since we have no canon either way about what Snape heard > re: the night of the Shrieking Shack, there's every likelihood he > still thought Sirius capable of murder and both a threat and a > danger to the operation. Having Dumbledore side with a Marauder > again and trust Sirius' story over his own may have been the last > straw for Snape and he decided to take matters into his own hands. > For instance, how exactly do Lucius & Bella know about the > animagus disguise for Sirius? Sirius imagines that Wormtail told > Voldemort but there's no canon for Peter having any connection to > the Malfoys. There IS canon for Snape having a relationship with > them and now we know Narcissa and Bella have a somehwhat close > relationship. Dana: There is only one problem with the idea that Snape could not have known the story, that was told in the aftermath of PoA by the time of OotP, being true and that is Wormtail helping LV to regain a body, he would have known about that because when he went back to LV, he either would have been told about it or Wormtail was still there. And this would mean Wormtail was indeed alive and not killed by Sirius and this would thus make the story that was told by Sirius, Harry and Hermione automatically to truth and nothing but the truth and if LV told his DEs about Sirius being an animagus, then this too would confirmed the story. This would also mean that what ever Snape did was indeed out of revenge and nothing more then revenge. And besides since when would it be noble of Snape to just kill the people DD trusts. If it wasn't for DD almost no one would have trusted Snape so would have been okay for them to have killed Snape because they might think he is still working for LV? Killing is never good and therefore in JKR's world there can never be good intentions for killing anyone not even for the greater good and if Snape would take it up on himself to get rid of someone that was on his side out of revenge then he is a liability to the Order and he betrayed DD's trust because his personal revenge was more important and because Sirius could only be lured out of hiding in an attempt to protect Harry, Snape put Harry at risk to just to get what he personally wanted. That makes Snape a really bad guy that had his hatred for a person make him to very immoral things. Snape is like Mike states in a different post not someone that would have had any authority to make that judgement over Sirius. And it can never be for the greater good to just go out and go kill your fellow man in the fight against evil because that is what evil does and you can't fight evil with evil and it is not what DD was about. JMHO Dana From don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com Mon May 21 12:57:23 2007 From: don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com (don_elsenheimer) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:57:23 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > I took that completely differently...she was hurt, and that's the kind of comment a girl might make in such a circumstance, trying to pretend she isn't hurt, that she understand and all that crap. I do exactly the same kind of thing, so I don't show the hurt too much to the person who is doing the hurting. Don's reply: Stoic resolve and putting on a brave face is one way of responding to this situation, but Ginny is anything but stoic. She's supposed to be the spark-plug red-head fire-brand, right? The girl with six brothers who doesn't put up with anyone's bs. Sherry: "Of course she knows he won't be happy, but that this is what he has to do, this is his destiny and future." Don's reply: Wives and girlfriends have sent their men off to war and to their "destiny and future" for thousands of years. How many say the equivalent of what Ginny said? If your read of the scene is right, I would have expected her to say something like, "I understand...you have to do what you have to do, and I love you for that." Sherry: "I found it moving, though at the same time, I wanted to tell Harry to get a life and to realize that of course everyone knows about Ginny and his relationship, and it's too late to make such a gesture. And I wanted to tell Ginny to fight against his words, because I know I would have done what she did." Don's reply: laughter! Sherry, you are a closeted HHr shipper! That's exactly what Ginny should have said. But she didn't. Guess who did, though? Harry didn't want Hermione and Ron to horcrux hunt, but Hermione said that she was already a target and that there was no way she wasn't going to be by his side. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon May 21 13:56:55 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 09:56:55 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The remaining Horcruxes.... Message-ID: <3354976.1179755815670.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169048 From: coriandra2002 >I was outraged at first that Dumbledore apparentally died pleading for >his life with a Death Eater, but that may not have been the case. >Maybe when he was saying "Severus... please..." he was pleading for >Snape to *kill* him which Snape didn't want to do, but it was >necessary in order to destroy the horcrux that Dumbledore had made >himself and to "prove" his loyalty to Voldemort, making himself a more >effective spy for the Order of the Pheonix. > >Has anyone else ever considered that? As far as Dumbledore asking Snape to kill him, many believe that; it is key to the so-called DDM!Snape theory (summary of major Snape theories for newcomers to the group follows). However, creating a Horcrux requires a murder, so I don't believe that drinking the potion can turn someone into a Horcrux; it's a mite too Rube Goldbergish for my taste. Basic theories of Severus Snape (with some subtheories): DDM!Snape: DDM stands for "Dumbledore's Man". Snape remains loyal to the Order of the Phoenix (note that this does NOT mean that Snape is a totally or even basically good person, evil people, like Dung Fletcher, can team up with good people to stop a far greater evil). The basic subtheories about the Tower are: A) Dumbledore WANTED Snape to kill him; a popular subtheory is that Dumbledore was already living on "borrowed time", anyway, with the most common piece of evidence his apparently dying hand and arm and that Snape was the one keeping him alive in the first place. B) Snape, stuck in an untenable situation, determines unilaterally that the best bet is to kill Dumbledore. The "Severus, please" might have been Dumbledore giving permission, or might have been asking for help determining a way out. C) Snape did not kill Dumbledore; the AK spell was a fake. DD either died from something else (such as the potion), or, through some loophole in JKR's statements to the effect that DD is not just merely dead but really, most sincerely dead. ESE!Snape: The easiest theory to describe. Snape used no trickery at Spinner's End, he did kill Dumbledore, and Dumbledore's mysterious reason for trusting Snape was a cross between a macguffin and a red herring. JKR is doing a double-twist, effectively saying, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." OFH!Snape: Snape is playing a dangerous game, playing both sides of the fence, hoping that he comes out on top regardless of who wins. Note from American History: When Alexander Hamilton was a college student at King's College (later Columbia University), there were student protests. During the protests, the students attempted to do harm to the College President, but some students managed to spirit the President to safety. Some accounts list Alexander Hamilton as the leader of the protesting students; others list him as the leader of the group who spirited the college president to safety. The best evidence is that both accounts are correct. Just showing that there IS RW precedent for OFH!Snape. Bart From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Mon May 21 13:59:26 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 13:59:26 -0000 Subject: Was Ministry going to punish Snape if kills Sirius on site? WAS: On perfection o In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > >> Julie: > > > BTW, Snape COULD have killed Sirius then and there, and > > totally gotten away with it. Sirius is a wanted killer, > > Snape knows that and knows the Ministry is not going to > > punish him in any way for taking out such a threat (didn't > > the Wanted poster even say "Dead or Alive"?). So *why* > > oh why doesn't he? > > Alla: > > Is it possible that Ministry IS going to punish him and dear Snape > does not want that? Ministry may be trigger happy to get Sirius to > dementors, but I cannot find any canon references that Muggle or > Magical community was allowed to shoot Sirius on sight, no questions > asked, etc. > > Does not mean those references do not exist of course, but I would > love to see them before accepting the fact that Snape will not be > punished for killing Sirius on sight. As far as I am concerned, that > is precisely why he does not do it and delivers Sirius to the > castle, hoping Dumbledore would not interfere with Ministry > proceedings. Oooops. > > So, here is the canon I found about Sirius initial introduction and > how they want him to be captured, etc. > > > I see no references to **Dead or Alive** in these quotes, but maybe > I just missed them. > > > "Harry sat down between Dudley and Uncle Vernon, a large, beefy man > with very little neck and a lot of mustache. Far from wishing Harry > a happy birthday, none of the Dursleys made any sign that they had > noticed Harry enter the room, but Harry was far too used to this to > care. He helped himself to a piece of toast and then looked up at > the reporter on the television, who was halfway through a report on > an escaped convict: > "... The public is warned that Black is armed and extremely > dangerous. A > special hot line has been set up, and any sighting of Black should be > reported immediately."? PoA, ch.2, p.18, british edition, paperback. > > Alla: > > So, in these quote muggles are encouraged to report about Sirius, > are they not? They are not being told that he is armed and dangerous > and needs to be killed on sight. > > Here is another quote: > " Stan had unfurled a copy of the Daily Prophet and was now reading > with his tongue between his teeth. A large photograph of a sunken- > faced man with long, matted hair blinked slowly at Harry from the > front page. He looked strangely familiar. "That man!" Harry said, > forgetting his troubles for a moment. "He was on the Muggle news!" > Stanley turned to the front page and chuckled. "Sirius Black," he > said, nodding. "'Course 'e was on the Muggle news, Neville, where > you been?" He gave a superior sort of chuckle at the blank look on > Harry's face, removed the front page, and handed it to Harry. > "You oughta read the papers more, Neville." > Harry held the paper up to the candlelight and read: > BLACK STILL AT LARGE > Sirius Black, possibly the most infamous prisoner ever to be held > in Azkaban fortress, is still eluding capture, the Ministry of Magic > confirmed today. > "We are doing all we can to recapture Black," said the Minister of > Magic, Cornelius Fudge, this morning, "and we beg the magical > community to remain calm." Fudge has been criticized by some members > of the International Federation of Warlocks for informing the Muggle > Prime Minister of the crisis. > "Well, really, I had to, don't you know," said irritable Fudge. > "Black is mad. He's a danger to anyone who crosses him, magic or > Muggle. > I have the Prime Minister's assurance that he will not breathe a > word of > Black's true identity to anyone. And let's face it-who'd believe him > if > he did?" > While Muggles have been told that Black is carrying a gun (a kind of > metal wand that Muggles use to kill each other), the magical > community > lives in fear of a massacre like that of twelve years ago, when Black > murdered thirteen people with a single curse. > Harry looked into the shadowed eyes of Sirius Black, the only part > of > the sunken face that seemed alive. Harry had never met a vampire, > but he > had seen pictures of them in his Defense Against the Dark Arts > classes, > and Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one." ? PoA, > p.33-34, british edition, paperback. > > Alla: > All I can see in this quote is that Magical community lives in fear, > etc. Can anybody please refer me to the page that says that good law > abiding witches and wizards were allowed to shoot Sirius with no > consequences for themselves? > Thanks ;) > JW: The reference to "dead or alive" was on a wanted poster in the movie. I too can find no mention of this in the book. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon May 21 14:22:28 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:22:28 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169050 "justcarol67" wrote: > But Snape *was* in prsonal danger in SS/PS. > He was injured by Fluffy The question was when Snape saved Harry's life in book 1 did that act put him in any personal danger and the answer is clearly no. One the other hand, Harry's life was put in grave danger when he saved the world in book 1 and again in book 2; and what's more he knew it would be very dangerous but he did it anyway. > Exactly why he [Snape] entered the corridor > at that point has never been clear to me. That is an excellent question, what was Snape doing in that corridor, he was supposed to be guarding the stone, why was he trying to sneak past Fluffy? But there is a very simple answer to that question, an explanation that becomes all the more plausible now that we know more about the man than we did in book 1; Snape was trying to steal the Philosopher's Stone. I think it's a pity Harry never thought to tell Dumbledore that Snape had tried to sneak past Fluffy, if he had Dumbledore might have wised up about his Potions Master way back in book 1. And by the way, Filch is apparently in on the plot because Snape tells him of his frustration and disappointment in failing to get past the dog. Eggplant From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon May 21 14:28:36 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:28:36 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > All I am saying is that more players complicates > practice and dilutes the captains time and attention. > Some captains might not mind, and feel having the > reserves always at the ready is a bonus. Other captain, > like Harry and Wood, might want to concentrate on the > main team, and merely keep in mind who would work for > a substitute. > That is all true but there are compensating advantages to wasting time on the B team. Team captains often seem to serve for multiple years, they aren't all 7th years. Everyone wants to win this year but when next year comes you will want to win then too. So developing talent on your B team is critical to your long term success and from the Hogwarts staff's point of view it is an important skill for budding young leaders like Quidditch captains to learn. Secondly, as someone who played team sports in his small town Wisconsin high school, I am completely baffled as to how you even hold a practice without a B team to scrimmage against. There are some things you can work on in drills of course but it takes real game play against opponents to hone them to a competitive level. And there are many things that can only be learned during actual game play. The match that Slytherin had delayed because of Draco's injury, which we all *know* not suspect was healed by then, is completely unrealistic. No one gets to delay matches because of injuries anywhere but Hogwarts. Unless you want to forfeit, you have two choices: you can play hurt or you can play a substitute. At a school this is another chance missed to teach a life lesson. In life, not every important deadline can be pushed off, in fact most cannot. Quidditch players have to learn that too if they are to succeed in life. It is another case of the plot requirement to hammer home an image of Snape/Draco/Slytherin trumping plausibility. Ken From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 21 14:42:54 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:42:54 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169052 > Sherry: > "I found it moving, though at the same time, I wanted to tell Harry > to get a life and to realize that of course everyone knows about > Ginny and his relationship, and it's too late to make such a > gesture. And I wanted to tell Ginny to fight against his words, > because I know I would have done what she did." > > Don's reply: laughter! Sherry, you are a closeted HHr shipper! That's > exactly what Ginny should have said. But she didn't. Guess who did, > though? Harry didn't want Hermione and Ron to horcrux hunt, but > Hermione said that she was already a target and that there was no way > she wasn't going to be by his side. > Pippin: If Harry had the same sort of feelings about Hermione that he does about Ginny, he wouldn't have let her come with him, and if she did, it would be a hindrance. Harry had to leave a wounded Hermione behind in order to protect the prophecy and Ginny knows that. He doesn't want to have to make that kind of a choice about her. Ginny will still be in danger, but she'll be a lot safer at Hogwarts, the now-fortified Burrow, or at Grimmauld Place than she would be traipsing around the WW with Harry. She understands that the most important thing she can do for Harry right now is keep herself safe. It's not like Voldemort is going to be defeated by the bat bogey hex. And I'm sure things will change in a heartbeat if there is something Ginny alone can do. What Ginny meant, IMO is that Harry won't be happy if he stays out of the war to be with her. She trusts that if she does need to know what Harry's doing, or he needs her help, he'll tell her. It's *not* an immature trust in some hero, it's the same kind of trust the adults gave to Dumbledore. They understood that knowing too much would expose the Order to great danger, since no matter how faithful they might be, only highly skilled occlumency or the Fidelius Charm could shield information from Voldemort for very long. It shows growth on Ginny's part that she accepts this now, instead of throwing a fit like she did at the beginning of OOP when her mother refused to let her listen in on Harry's conversation with Sirius. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 21 15:51:19 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:51:19 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack was Re: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169053 > Mike: > I've addressed the plural "prisoners". As to dealing only with Lupin > (the only one Snape is following), by what authority does Snape get > to decide that Lupin is an outlaw? Pippin: I'll turn your question around. By what authority did Lupin decide that Sirius was *not* an outlaw? Snape arrived at the Shack and found Lupin relating some personal history while Sirius sat unbound and Ron lay seriously injured. Given that Sirius and Lupin are old friends, how could it not look fishy? If Lupin meant well, wouldn't he have sent a patronus to Dumbledore for help, and wouldn't Dumbledore have arrived already? Oh, but, Lupin explains, he doesn't want Dumbledore to know what a bad, bad boy he's been. If that meant Sirius Black remained at large, and a danger to Harry, hey, it was all for a good cause, namely keeping Dumbledore's faith in Remus J Lupin. Uh oh. Snape already knows, or thinks he knows, to what lengths Lupin will go to keep his secrets. That he's telling so many of them to three children does not bode well. The fact that the kids still had their wands would mean nothing, since Lupin only had to say "Expelliarmus!" to take them away -- his own wand isn't even stowed in his robes, it's stuck in his belt. And Lupin is also capable of wandless magic, as Snape may know. >From Snape's point of view, Lupin must either be trying to enlist the childrens' help in some scheme, or attempting to keep them unaware of their danger until he transforms and can deal with them as a werewolf. Under the circumstances, binding and gagging Lupin so that he can't do wandless or nonverbal magic seems very sensible. Threatening to turn him over to dementors was wrong -- but it's funny how many people think that Dumbledore should have sacrificed presumed Death Eater Draco with far less evidence. Mike: > And if Snape has plenty of time to subdue Lupin before he transforms, > why doesn't he have plenty of time to bring him his potion? Once > again, he has no knowledge of anyone else. Whatever else he may think > is going on, why not at least bring the potion? Pippin: The potion has to be drunk "directly" according to Snape in chapter 8. Presumably it keeps as long as it's in the cauldron, but would have spoiled by the time Snape got out to the Shack with the goblet. Mike: > And if his best option is to subdue Lupin before he transforms, why > does he hide under the cloak and listen to Lupin rehash their > schoolboy days for what seems like forever (to me)? Pippin: If JKR was not being misleading when she said that Lupin didn't transform on the way to the shack because the moon wasn't up, and if she wasn't mistaken when she wrote that Harry and Hermione saw the moon going in and out while they were waiting for their former selves to emerge from the Shrieking Shack, then the riddle is solved. Lupin transforms when the moon has risen -- to what elevation I don't know but Snape doubtless would. The only way the story makes sense is if the movement of the clouds is sheer coincidence. A better question is why Lupin felt he had to sit around and rehash his old school days, with Ron seriously injured and in pain, a dangerous outlaw in custody, and the marauders map open and activated on his desk, on a night when he would soon be transforming into a werewolf and supposedly hadn't taken his potion. I've never heard a convincing reason for it all. Either Pettigrew's reappearance made him completely irrational, in which case he was hardly trustworthy, or he was Up To Something. Pippin From honeypi28 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 16:05:59 2007 From: honeypi28 at yahoo.com (honeypi28) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:05:59 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169054 Don: > > I'll still hang my hat on the last chapter of the last book (6), > where > > Ginny tells Harry that she "knows" he wouldn't be happy unless he was > > fighting Voldemort. Either JKR and her editor(s)did a sloppy job > > letting this comment get into print (as it goes against both the > truth > > and what someone who knows the "real" Harry would say), or Ginny is > > still an immature girl who wants to project her idea of what > > Harry "should" be onto who he really is. Jo S: > I'm confused by this statement. Do you mean that you interpreted that > statement of Ginny's at Dumbledore's funeral literally? As in, she > actually is saying that "hunting Voldemort" (the actual quote) makes > Harry "happy" (ie, joyful, light-hearted)? I confess that it's never > even occured to me that anyone would interpret her statement this way. > My reading was that she'd been expecting this sort of gesture from > Harry for some time because she knows that he'll never be able to rest, > or get on with his life while Voldemort is still out there. In effect, > she's saying that the reason she likes him is because he is who he is. > > Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but I > don't see where anything in that sentence "goes against both the truth > and what someone who knows the 'real' Harry would say." honeypi: I believe it does go against the "truth and what someone who know the 'real' Harry would say" when the words are taken at face value. JKR could easily have written the scene differently if she meant to express Ginny's understanding of Harry's feelings more accurately. She says (not implies - says) that Harry won't be happy unless he's hunting LV. Ginny is wrong. Harry does not take pleasure in hunting LV, period. Ginny also reveals (as if we didn't already know) that this may be why she likes Harry so much. Which might mean she likes that Harry is willing to do what he must; or, it could mean she is still enthralled with Heroic Harry, as she has been from the very beginning. If she means to say the reason she may like Harry so much is because he is happy to hunt LV (which is the literal meaning of what she has said) then it is not the 'real' Harry (Just Harry) that she wants. Of course, if we decide instead to interpret away from the words actually expressed on the page, we could read a number of different meanings into the moment. I'm not suggesting that Ginny doesn't genuinely care for Harry, I just don't know if it's for the right reasons. The absence of really meaningful conversations between Harry and Ginny has made it difficult for me to embrace the relationship ... and Harry's 'monster' was just a bit troubling. I hope there will be more depth developed between them if Harry/Ginny is to be the final pairing for our hero, because as of HPB, their romantic connection, seems to me, superficial. Don: >Harry didn't want Hermione and Ron to horcrux hunt, but > Hermione said that she was already a target and that there was no way > she wasn't going to be by his side. Pippin: >If Harry had the same sort of feelings about Hermione that he does >about Ginny, he wouldn't have let her come with him, and if she >did, it would be a hindrance. Harry had to leave a wounded >Hermione behind in order to protect the prophecy and Ginny >knows that. He doesn't want to have to make that kind of >a choice about her. honeypi: It will be impossible to convince me that Harry is more concerned about Ginny's safety than he is about Hermione's. Harry's preference in general is to go it alone because he does not want to risk ANYONE's life. Ginny's reaction is not consistent with her spunky nature, but it is consistent with her willingness to give in to Harry (she seems to take his side in everything - did they every disagree about anything?) Hermione, on the other hand, does exactly what she always does - she tries protect Harry, be by his side through all the worst, even if she has to fight with him to do so. Harry folds because he knows well enough that Hermione (and Ron,too) will not yield - not because he loves them less or differently. Honeypi From don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com Mon May 21 13:14:24 2007 From: don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com (don_elsenheimer) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 13:14:24 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169055 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "serenadust" wrote: >Do you mean that you interpreted that statement of Ginny's at Dumbledore's funeral literally? As in, she actually is saying that "hunting Voldemort" (the actual quote) makes Harry "happy" (ie, joyful, light-hearted)? Don responds: Yes, a literal interpretation is exactly what I made. There's no textural indication of sarcasm, and Ginny is far more likely to respond to a hurt with a bat-bogey hex, rather than with irony. In addition, a literal interpretation fits my analysis of her character (i.e. an immature still star-struck teen that wants to project her fairy-tail heroic imagine on to Harry). I also am pretty adament about a literal reading of this scene when I'm on the barricades of the ship wars...many H/G shippers insist that the war is over because of what they see on the printed page (and in the transcripts of JKR's limited interviews). They can't have it both ways. Not that I have reason to put you in the latter camp, btw, as your reply doesn't take a stand on ships. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 17:03:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 17:03:57 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169056 Dana wrote: > To be honest LV summoning his DEs in GoF to witness his return and him mentioning all their names doesn't give the impression that no one knew, who was who in the first war. I do not know were the idea came from that LV kept his DEs in the dark about their fellow DEs. I might have missed it in the books but with Sirius specifically mentioning that he heard things about Wormtail in Azkaban makes me think Snape knew this too but he never told DD this information because it could have only come from him and he would have risked his cover if he had done so. > Montavilla47 responded: > If everyone knew everyone in the DE's, then it wouldn't have been any special risk for Snape to tell DD, as any DE would have known. In GoF, Karkaroffs says that LV didn't want his DEs to know who the others were--since they were less likely to be betrayed. > > That's a standard way of setting up a secret organization--so that your members are limited in their knowledge of other members. > > I agree that this is contradicted by the reunion in the Graveyard. It's hard to reconcile the conflicting bits of information. Carol responds: First, I'd like to thank Montavilla47 for her answers in this post, most of which I've snipped because I agree with them in most respects. I'd especially like to thank her for pointing out that 1) JKR herself has stated that there's more to snape than meets the eye, and 2) that Snape fans in general do not agree on every aspect of their argument, any more than anti-Snapers agree with every point that Dana makes. All of us are individuals. Specific people may refer to Snape's teaching methods as "noble"; others of us acknowledge that, while generally effective given the results we see, his specific methods don't work for Neville or Harry. As Montavilla47 says, JKR *has* made Snape ambiguous, and until DH comes out, each reader is free to see one side as stronger than the other. Many of us, for example, think that being a "mean" (sarcastic and sometimes unfair) teacher does not mean that he is evil or Voldemort's man. Many of the other teachers, including Mcgonagall, are unfair or unduly harsh at one time or another (telling Neville not to show the Durmstrang students that he's incapable of performing a simple Switching Spell), but that doesn't make them ESE. Anyway, I disagree with Dana on so many points and for so many reasons that I'm only going to focus on this one, for which we can show the canon. As Montavilla47 notes, it's Karkaroff (who should know and who is naming as many names as he can to get himself off the hook) who states that Voldemort made sure that the DEs didn't all know each other (though obviously some knew each other): "--we never knew the names of every one of our fellows--He [Voldemort] alone knew exactly who we all were--" (GoF Am. ed. 588). Considering that only one of Karkaroff's names is useful to Crouch, I have a feeling he'd have revealed more if he knew them. Snape, in showing Fudge his Dark Mark (which I've yet to figure out why he'd do if he weren't supporting Dumbledore's contention that Voldemort is back) says, "Every Death Eater had the sign burned into him by the Dark Lord. It was a means of distinguishing one another, and his means of summoning us to him" (710). Why would they need to "distinguish... one another" if they all knew each other? As for the graveyard scene, it does not contradict Karkaroff's words. The only people Voldemort names are those whose names have already been published in the Daily Prophet as having pleaded the Imperius Curse (Malfoy, Macnair, Avery, Nott, Crabbe, and Goyle): As Fudge says to Harry, "You are merely repeating the names of those who were acquitted of being Death Eaters thirteen years ago. You could have found those names in old reports of the trials!" (706). But Harry is actually naming only those DEs whom Voldemort addresses by name. Voldemort doesn't identify the three missing DEs (Snape, Karkaroff, or the supposedly dead Barty Jr.), or, of course, the three (Evan Rosier, Wilkes, and ??) who "died in [his] service." More important, he does not name everyone who is present: "Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence, but he paused before others and spoke to them" (651). As we learn in "Spinner's End," several other DEs besides the six that Voldmemrot names pled the Imperius Curse to escape imprisonment: Fenrir Greyback, Amycus and Alecto Carrow, and Yaxley (whom I believe to be the brutal-faced DE, FWIW). Surely, however, those four loyal DEs are in attendance at the graveyard since Voldemort notes only three living DEs that are missing and they would have been killed as traitors had they not shown up. Certainly, they wouldn't have been trusted with helping Draco to kill Dumbledore in HBP if they weren't in the graveyard in GoF, nor would Snape in his guise as DE have mentioned them to the Black sisters in the same breath as Lucius Malfoy if they were disloyal. But that can't be all of the people who aren't named (setting aside the DEs currently in prison, who would presumably account for the other gaps in the circle). Apparently, quite a few DEs are present: The narrator notes that "Between graves, behind the yew tree, in every shadowy space, wizards were Apparating" (646), all of them hooded and masked, and Harry is "outnumbered by at least thirty to one" as they circle him in preparation for the duel between LV and Harry (660). So thirty or more Death Eaters are present. Of those, six are named (not counting Wormtail, who is only addressed by his nickname). We can identify several others who are almost certainly present as they're not in prison at that time (Greyback, Yaxley, the Carrows, Gibbon, the big blond DE if he's someone other than Crabbe). But that gives us twelve (thirteen counting Wormtail), with at least seventeen or eighteen more present but unidentifiable by the reader or Harry as of HBP. Why would Voldemort skip over those people without naming them or speaking to them? Surely it can't be because they're even more negligible than Crabbe and Goyle, whom he acknowledges. Could it be because their names were never released to the public, and, as Karkaroff said, only Voldemort knows who they are? Are they spies whose identity must be protected for their services to have any value? Voldemort alone knows the answer. Voldemort trusts no one, not even his own Death Eaters, and he may well be keeping their names secret not only from Harry (whom LV thinks is going to die anyway), but from their fellow DEs, which, as Mad-eye Moody whispers to DD in the Pensieve trial scene, is "a wise move as it prevent[s] someone like [Karkaroff] from turning all of them in" (588). Carol, who has more to say on the subject but doesn't want the length of the post to get out of hand From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon May 21 17:07:42 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 17:07:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169057 Gavin: > The ultimate conclusion is that Snape did not hear the part of the > exchange in the Shrieking Shack where Sirius was exonerated, but > he did come in quite a little earlier than when he threw off the > Invisibility Cloak in my interpretation. > My view is that this is Snape entering. It is before Remus > starts to explain about his school days and how he came to > Hogwarts, but after the exposition on the night of the Potters' > deaths. > > Snape appears within the room from under the IC on p. 262 after > much information has been revealed, including, but not limited > to the Marauders becoming Animagi. Jen: Double agents need to be very attuned to picking up all sorts of information and understanding nuances so it's likely Snape heard the entire conversation going on while he was present. He didn't get to hear the part about the switch in Secret Keepers though, and my thinking is even when Snape finds out Peter is alive and an active DE later on, Snape still wouldn't know the entire story and continues to blame Sirius for the deaths of the Potters. That second night in the Shack years later was almost a reincarnation of how the Prank night occurred from the information we have so far: Snape is following the Maruaders to the Shack, trying to get the goods on them and turn them in once and for all. He gets information only to take it to Dumbledore and discover Dumbledore knows as much as he does and doesn't believe the rest, that the Maruaders' story-- along with the 'new' Marauders in Snape's eyes, the Trio--have Dumbledore's ears and assistance and Snape is left out in the cold once again. The idea behind that being Snape really did snap and was as 'unbalanced' as Fudge predicted but Dumbledore couldn't see it. It was another misstep on Dumbledore's part with Snape, a continuation of the belief that all old wounds can be healed which proved to be a tragic mistake at the end of OOTP. My guess is the Prank and DD's handling of it led Snape in large part to choose Voldemort's side the first time around and this time Snape decided not to mess around anymore, that he would deal with the Marauders himself. And the next day he does deal with Lupin by letting it be known he's a werewolf. There's no canon for what Dumbledore was planning to do about Lupin or that Snape consulted with him or Lupin prior to telling everyone, he just acted on his own to get Lupin not only out of Hogwarts but out of work and society, period. Dana: > Although it is pure speculation on my part I did find it > interesting to see that in HBP, JKR added two stories of memory > planting to cover up who really was responsible for the crimes > committed and I'm seriously wondering if that is what happened with > Kreacher too. I do not have my books on hand but from what I > remembered didn't both LV's uncle and Mrs Smith's house-elf believe > that they were guilty? LV did that when he was still young so I > have no trouble believing that he has improved memory planting > since he last done it. Jen: Both Winky and Morfin believed they were guilty and offered full confessions. An implanted memory could have happened although Dumbledore was well into his research on Voldemort's life by then and might have looked for such a thing with Kreacher. I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility though! Dana: > One could think how could he get to Kreacher to even have done this > besides Kreacher going to Narcissa on his own? Well I always found > it strange that DD could summon Kreacher in the beginning of HBP, > while he is not Kreacher's master and if he could have done it then > so could LV. Jen: Huh, that IS interesting. Never considered how Dumbledore did that. He's using some type of magic and not actually calling his name as Harry does during HBP when he's the master, so it's somehow magically forcing Kreacher to appear and not the enchantment the elves operate under to serve a master. > Dana: > There is only one problem with the idea that Snape could not have > known the story, that was told in the aftermath of PoA by the time > of OotP, being true and that is Wormtail helping LV to regain a > body, he would have known about that because when he went back to > LV, he either would have been told about it or Wormtail was still > there. And this would mean Wormtail was indeed alive and not killed > by Sirius and this would thus make the story that was told by > Sirius, Harry and Hermione automatically to truth and nothing but > the truth and if LV told his DEs about Sirius being an animagus, > then this too would confirmed the story. Jen: I explained some of my thinking in my first comments, that Snape could know Peter was alive and a DE and *still* hold Sirius accountable as the SK. Snape's opinion of Wormtail's skills isn't much better than his friends at Hogwarts if Spinner's End is an indication (even if Snape found out Peter was the one to kill the thirteen Muggles). Snape's concern would only be the Marauder who ruined his attempt to undo his own mistake of passing the prophecy, imo. Dana: > And besides since when would it be noble of Snape to just kill the > people DD trusts. If it wasn't for DD almost no one would have > trusted Snape so would have been okay for them to have killed Snape > because they might think he is still working for LV? Jen: I didn't say I thought it was noble! ;) I was trying to explain what Snape's thinking might have been to justify what he was doing. He operates with his own moral code is my opinion, not the one Dumbledore operates with, and that means sometimes he acts outside of what Dumbledore would want to see happen (gave the example of the UV as a speculation, and outing Lupin as werewolf above). All the Order members do that to some extent because Dumbledore doesn't run a dictatorial regime like LV does and gives his underlings a wide berth to make choices and succeed or fail. Dana: > Killing is never good and therefore in JKR's world there can never > be good intentions for killing anyone not even for the greater good > and if Snape would take it up on himself to get rid of someone that > was on his side out of revenge then he is a liability to the Order > and he betrayed DD's trust because his personal revenge was more > important and because Sirius could only be lured out of hiding in > an attempt to protect Harry, Snape put Harry at risk to just to get > what he personally wanted. That makes Snape a really bad guy that > had his hatred for a person make him to very immoral things. Snape > is like Mike states in a different post not someone that would have > had any authority to make that judgement over Sirius. And it can > never be for the greater good to just go out and go kill your > fellow man in the fight against evil because that is what evil does > and you can't fight evil with evil and it is not what DD was about. Jen: I agree with you in theory but not in actul canon, I guess? Snape didn't kill Sirius himself for one thing; I'm saying he might have passed useful information to Voldemort and the Malfoys to set up the conditions that occurred. And I'd guess Snape didn't know Voldemort's full plan re: Harry just like he didn't know what LV would make of the prophecy or Voldemort's entire plan with Draco in HBP. I was thinking more that Snape passed info about Sirius being an animagus and his relationship with Harry in the hopes it might lead to Sirius getting caught or killed (he doesn't appear to care that Sirius died in HBP), but not actually planning how that would happen or knowing how vast the consequences would end up being. (A little like Harry. Ironic?) That's his pattern so far in my reading anyway. Last I'd say that for all Snape knew, his taunts alone would be enough to lure Sirius out of hiding. He tries often enough according to what Sirius told Harry when Harry first arrived at Grimmauld and then we see Snape's taunts in action over Christmas. Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 17:49:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 17:49:16 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack was Re: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169058 > Pippin: > Threatening to turn him over to dementors was wrong -- but > it's funny how many people think that Dumbledore should have > sacrificed presumed Death Eater Draco with far less evidence. Alla: I am glad we agree on Dementors' part, LOL. I wonder how you make out comparison with Draco here and especially with "far less evidence" part? I mean, Dumbledore knows what Draco is doing, does he not? Meaning preparing his assassination. So, I presume that Dumbledore is perfectly aware of what's going on with more or less details (cabinet, etc). Draco preparing Dumbledore's assassination is canon fact. Lupin being Up To Something is not canon fact, it may be Snape's interpretation, but if it is, I second Mike's question, who does Snape think he is to act as judge , jury and executioner? Especially since he apparently pleaded his case with Dumbledore for a year with no results. Oh, I speculate Snape wanted them all dead and the only thing that stopped him from killing Lupin and Sirius on site was the possibility that Ministry will catch him and send him to that "nice" island Azkaban. I am sure Snape could have cooked up a story ? that it was a self defense and all that, but why risk that maybe he will not be believed, etc? So much easier to bring them to the castle and watch how dementors kiss them IMO. Oh, and I do not remember people arguing that Dumbledore should feed "presumed DE Draco" ( who may very well have dark mark under his sleeve) to the Dementors. Take him out of circulation ? sure, absolutely, but not even arrest him in my view. I mean, I would not cry if he would have accidentally died in the process ? fate, etc, but I sure do not want DD to kill him, lol. From mestrenathanrj at gmail.com Mon May 21 18:12:53 2007 From: mestrenathanrj at gmail.com (Nathan_RJ) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:12:53 -0000 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169059 Hello, it's my first post on the list. I'd like to present a question and my theory about how Voldy dies. In few words, my theory is that Voldy was wrong about HP being the one on the prophecy. This one would be in fact Neville - do not forget Neville is son of famous Auror parents, and also has strong reasons to kill LV. So, in my opinion, the end of DH will be: HP and LV discovering that HP is really a (accidental) Horcrux, and HP will ask some of his friends (Rony, or Hermione, or Ginny) to kill him as being the only way to LV become mortal. Then Neville kills LV. Later, the love (in a way that I do not suspect) brings HP back to life. And you? Do you also believe that Neville is the one? Rgds, Nate From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 18:31:09 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:31:09 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues--Snape, the shack, and unilateral authority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169060 Mike: > Snape saw Lupin and only Lupin on the Map. It presupposes a lot to > think that Snape knew Sirius was already in the Shack. In fact I > believe his exact words were: "Not even I dreamed you would have > the nerve to use this old place as your hideout -" (PoA p.359, US) > Since canon tells us that Snape didn't think Padfoot was in there, > why should I believe that Snape thought he was going into a > confrontation with anyone other than Lupin? Leslie: Because of the additional information that is contained in the first part of that quote. The entire quote is as follows: "I've told the headmaster again and again that you're helping your old friend Black into the castle, Lupin, and here's the proof. Not even I dreamed you would have the nerve to use this old place as your hideout " So when Snape says that he's referring to the conversations with Dumbledore, which happened periodically throughout the year. As soon as he sees Lupin on the map runing towards the willow, he suspects Black is there. And he's right. He's telling Lupin he suspected that he was helping Black to hide out, but he didn't know exacty how. When he saw Lupin on the map, he suspected how. > Mike: > Why would Snape think he's going into a fight? Snape thinks he's going into a fight because he believes Lupin is there with Black. Everyone in the wizarding world believes Black is a dangerous criminal. He's Osama Bin Laden as far as everyone is concerned. Lupin was one of Black's childhood friends. Snape is also Black's sworn enemy. Snape is going to try to apprehend them both. Snape has no reason to believe he *won't* be going into a fight. > > Leslie41: > > From his perspective, Snape's best hope is to get there > > immediately before the moon comes up and subdue the prisoners-- > > or rather turn them over to the Dementors. And he has plenty of > > time to do that (somehow I don't think that even a werewolf > > would be a match for them). > > Mike: > I've addressed the plural "prisoners". As to dealing only with > Lupin (the only one Snape is following), by what authority does > Snape get to decide that Lupin is an outlaw? They are both teachers > at the same school, neither has authority over the other. Where > does Snape get off deciding that Lupin is breaking some law then > tying and gagging him? This has always got my goat, that Snape has > bestowed upon himself the moral authority to silence Lupin, because > he says so. Leslie: Snape has every reason to believe that Lupin is in cahoots with Black, as Lupin immediately begins defending him the second Snape arrives. Certainly Lupin is not there to subdue Black, that's obvious. He binds and gags Lupin not only to shut him up, but to incapacitate him. And though Snape has "decided" that Lupin is an outlaw, you will notice that he doesn't act the vigilante. He could certainly kill Black and would be thought a hero for it. He would have gotten that order of Merlin. But Snape comes to capture, not to kill. The "authority" that he presumes is to merely do what anyone else would in that situation, other than Dumbledore, perhaps. Mike: > And if Snape has plenty of time to subdue Lupin before he > transforms, why doesn't he have plenty of time to bring him his > potion? Once again, he has no knowledge of anyone else. Whatever > else he may think is going on, why not at least bring the potion? Leslie: I don't understand why you keep putting the blame on Snape for Lupin not taking the potion. Lupin's the one who forgot it. Lupin himself takes responsibility for that and doesn't blame Snape for it. Why are you? But aside from that...Snape did not bring the potion because he doubtless thought that Lupin would be subdued when he transformed. The potion makes Lupin's transformations easier and eliminates the insanity that goes along with being a werewolf. Snape's not interested in making Lupin's life any easier at that point. Mike: > And if his best option is to subdue Lupin before he transforms, why > does he hide under the cloak and listen to Lupin rehash their > schoolboy days for what seems like forever (to me)? Leslie: Because, of course, Snape does not act until his suspicions have been completely confirmed. He does not take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, though he certainly could have. He could have easily killed Black the very second he realized that Black was there, and been called a hero for it. But he doesn't. He waits and assimilates information. If we are to assume that Snape was there from the moment that the door seemed to open by itself, what Snape hears is Lupin's story of the Whomping Willow, then Lupin's admission that he and his animagi friends left the Shrieking Shack and roamed about the grounds and Hogsmeade during Lupin's transformations, an extremely foolhardy thing to do and one that not only betrayed Dumbledore's trust but put a lot of people at risk. He then hears Lupin admit that he knew Black was an animagus, but he didn't tell Dumbledore. "Snape's been right about me all along," Lupin says. Snape then hears Lupin refer to the prank. Sirius says "It served him right..." Even after all these years he's still not sorry he played a trick on Snape that nearly got him killed. > Mike: > I see. Lupin is a werewolf, therefore it's OK to assume he is a > killer. Disregarding that he has killed noone as far as we know. Leslie: Um, again, by Lupin's own admission he had many "near misses" that still haunt him. And the very purpose of werewolves is to kill people or maim them. Of course it's okay to assume he's a killer, or at least a potential killer. Lupin himself would do no less. The Shrieking Shack only protects Hogwarts if Lupin stays inside it. He doesn't. The Wolfsbane only protects Hogwarts if Lupin takes it. He forgets. Lupin doesn't blame Snape for either of those facts. He blames himself. And he's right. Mike: > Disregarding that he has taught at Hogwarts for an entire year, and > taken his wolfsbane during the entire time. Disregarding that > Dumbledore was the one that hired him, and that the Ministry, > however reluctantly, has allowed the hire. Leslie: Remember that Snape has just heard Lupin admit that as a teenager he went roaming about the grounds in his werewolf form, and that he nearly killed people many times. Mike: > No, Snape knows better than everyone and he's going to prove it. > After all, he's the "Potions Master" at Hogwarts and that gives him > special dispensation to disregard everyone elses authority and take > matters into his own hands. I ask again, where does Snape get the > authority to act unilaterally? Leslie: Where is this "authority" and "unilateral" action that you speak of? Snape merely attempts to subdue a criminal. He does not "take matters into his own hands". If he had done that he would have killed both Black and Lupin. It's Lupin and Black that wish to act on their own "unilateral authority" by killing Pettigrew. It's only Harry who stops them. In fact, if we look at Snape and Lupin/Black here, they are in nearly identical situations. Both Snape and Lupin/Black are confronted with old enemies that betrayed them, enemies that are guilty of murder (or at least Snape has the right to believe that). It's Lupin and Black that gleefully insist on killing Pettigrew themselves. Snape does no such thing, and holds back from that even when Black tries to attack him. So who's taking matters into their own hands? Who's acting on "unilateral authority"? Not Snape. > Mike: > Ah, the real crux of the matter. Snape hates the Marauders, > therefore that gives him the authority to decide what's going on > and he doesn't have to listen to anyone. The Marauders picked on > him when they were in school and that makes them criminals not > worth listening to. He gets to bind and gag Lupin because anything > he might say is a lie, not worth hearing. Leslie: The Marauders picking on him in school doesn't make them criminals. The fact that Sirius is a known criminal does, and Lupin has just admitted that he withheld information about Black's status as an animagus. From Snape's perspective, Black killed a bunch of people. And Lupin seems to be aiding and abetting him. Snape shows far more restraint than an auror might have, I would suggest. > Mike: > Actually, I'm a Snape critic, and I think I was looking at Snape's > behavior based on what *Snape knew*, not what I knew. Snape didn't > know Sirius nor the kids were in the Shack. Leslie: Not the kids, but he was pretty sure Sirius was there. Mike: > Snape had nothing other > than his own prejudices to inform him that Lupin was up to no good > that evening. Leslie: Snape takes the time to listen to Lupin admit he wandered about the grounds as a werewolf, and didn't tell Dumbledore that Black was an animagus. Mike: > Snape had no reason to believe he was going into a > fight other than his own expectations that Lupin was actively > helping Sirius. Leslie: Lupin admits he was "helping" Sirius by not revealing his animagus status. Lupin says "Snape was right about me." Mike: > And he was basing that on his schoolboy grudge, not on > anything approaching legal or moral proof. Leslie: See above. Mike: > And upon reaching the Shack, Snape actively disregards what's going > on in front of him, and acts upon his schoolboy grudge. Leslie: Snape acts on what he hears from Black and Lupin during their conversation. And the fact that Black is a known criminal. What Snape attempts to do is subdue them and give them over to the authorities. Mike: > Remember, all of the kids have their wands out, Lupin's is stored > away, and Sirius has no wand. Yet the kids are listening to the > story, questioning it, > but clearly not "Confunded". Does Snape take a logical approach or > does he completely disregard what the kids have concluded deserves > hearing out? I say the latter. Leslie: The "logical approach" when discovering a murderer is to run away and inform the authorities. If you're especially brave and skilled, you subdue them and turn them over to the authorities. Which is exactly what Snape tried to do. Again, I think your opinion is skewed by what *you* know about Black and Lupin, not what anyone else (including Snape) could be presumed to know. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 19:04:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 19:04:13 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues--Snape, the shack, and unilateral authority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169061 > Leslie: > Because, of course, Snape does not act until his suspicions have been > completely confirmed. He does not take a "shoot first, ask questions > later" approach, though he certainly could have. He could have easily > killed Black the very second he realized that Black was there, and > been called a hero for it. But he doesn't. He waits and assimilates > information. > Alla: I think this is related to the question I asked in another thread. Could you give some canon that Snape would be a hero for killing Sirius? Not for capturing, but for killing. Is there any indication in the books that people were allowed to use lethal force against Sirius Black and not just being not sent to Azkaban, but rewarded for it. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon May 21 19:11:39 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 19:11:39 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Neville's boggart Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169062 wynnleaf Something dawned on me for the first time the other day and I don't recall seeing this addressed in all the traitor!Lupin theories, although perhaps pippin has mentioned it at some point. Why does Lupin choose Neville for the first person in the boggart lesson? Later in POA, Harry asked Lupin why he didn't give Harry a chance to tackle the boggart in class. Lupin claims that it's because he assumed that Harry's boggart would be Voldemort (in fact, this *was* Harry's first thought as well), and Lupin didn't think it a good idea to have a boggart change into Voldemort right there in class. Before the rest of the books came out, that explanation made sense. Now it doesn't. We now know that Lupin was a member of the Order at the time of the Potter's deaths, *as well as* when Frank and Alice Longbottom were crucioed into insanity. If Lupin was so concerned that Harry's boggart might be Voldemort, why did he choose Neville to be the first person to deal with a boggart in the class? For whatever reasons, Snape had warned Lupin that Neville Longbottom was in the class. Some speculate Snape was warning Lupin that, in addition to Harry, there was another child in the class likely to have a terrifying boggart. Regardless of Snape's purpose, Lupin would have known enough about Neville to realize that. If Lupin *assumed* that Harry's boggart was Voldemort, shouldn't have he assumed that Neville's boggart would relate to being crucioed into insanity by death eaters? Yet Lupin chose Neville *even before* asking what his greatest fear was. Now one might think that Lupin's asking Neville to relate his greatest fear lets Lupin off the hook, so to speak. But consider the consequences of the situation if Neville had been forced to say, in front of the whole class, "my greatest fear is being crucioed into insanity by the Lestranges." Neville had never shared his parent's fate with any of his friends. He was clearly, in OOTP, very shy about sharing that part of his life. Yet Lupin's action could have forced Neville into doing just that. Why would Lupin put Neville in this position? If we are to believe Lupin's excuse for not letting Harry confront a boggart in class, we must question why Lupin chose Neville even *prior* to asking him about his greatest fear. Lupin's explanation to Harry does not hold up to close scrutiny when compared to his actions with Neville. In my opinion, it can only be explained by further revelations about Lupin (legilimency anyone?). Considering that many, including me, think of POA as the best crafted of the books, the several big plot holes in POA are surprising. Unless, of course, they are intentional. Lupin's transformation only after the moon comes out from the clouds; Lupin repeatedly forgetting his coming werewolf transformation, in spite of a direct reminder and in spite of his own lengthy discussion about said transformations; and now, Lupin's choosing of Neville for the first boggart confrontation, when Lupin's own explanation for *not* choosing Harry should have held true for Neville as well -- are these all just plot holes? wynnleaf, who thinks it funny how such a well-crafted book should have so many big plot holes, and they all revolve around why Lupin did something inexplicable. From jmestacio at yahoo.com Mon May 21 17:57:57 2007 From: jmestacio at yahoo.com (-jme-) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <388294.33740.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169063 Pippin: If Harry had the same sort of feelings about Hermione that he does about Ginny, he wouldn't have let her come with him, and if she did, it would be a hindrance. Harry had to leave a wounded Hermione behind in order to protect the prophecy and Ginny knows that. He doesn't want to have to make that kind of a choice about her. jme says: Forgive me for saying this but I think this conclusion might be a tad bit of stretching from Ginny's comments at the end of HBP. I can't really see how you can read that from what Ginny said. It seemed to me that the situation was a simple question of continuing the relationship considering that they were at the brink of war with Harry at the forefront. For me, it looked like she was conceeding to his decision to basically put everything they had on hold because of things he has to do. Most HHr shippers use this scenario against the HG ship mainly because IMO we have always envisioned an equal heroine for Harry. Given his almost nonexistent familial connections, we were hoping for some who would always stay by his side the way his best friends had. IMO, an equal partner for Harry would not be contented to sit on the sidelines while her man goes off to god-knows-where to confront a raving megalomaniac. Granted with how stubborn Harry is, there is always the chance that she may not have won that argument but the point was she should have at least fought for that right. IMHO, the debate on whether Hermione or Ginny should end up with Harry stems from the fact that the strongest male and female characters [i.e. Harry and Hermione] do not really have equals in the story. Ron and Hermione are poles apart and they fight constantly. It's one thing to be argumentative but it's a totally different thing to always be fighting and hurting each other. That do not constitute a healthy relationship in anyway you look at it. On the other spectrum meanwhile, Ginny and Harry rarely fight [if they ever did]. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but what's troubling about their relationship is how Harry totally dominates Ginny. Dominate in terms of the more important things, she concedes to Harry automatically without even pressing her side of things. A trait which is totally contrary to the independent and free-spirit portrayal of her in canon and which to me, suggests that while she may have gotten over the BWL persona of Harry, the problem might now lie in her idealizing him. This is, again, not healthy in any relationship. If maybe JKR had fleshed it a bit more, they would have worked better. Then again, the main focus of the story is the tragic hero and his journey so maybe that's also a good thing. "Fairytales are are more than real. Not because they tell us that dragons exist but because they tell us that they can be defeated." [GK Chesterton] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 19:56:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 19:56:51 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169064 Mike wrote: > Can I just interject here for a moment. Why do we think that Snape "save Harry's life" by performing the countercurse? > > Dumbledore told Harry that James saved Snape's life, but he only said that Snape was "protect"ing Harry all year. Not that Snape ever > *saved Harry's life*. > > I just think Snape is getting credit for something that didn't rise to the level of *life-saving*. Protecting, yes, that's what Dumbledore called it, but saving Harry's life - IMO that gives him too much credit. > Carol responds: I acknowledge the inconsistencies and confusion regarding what can and can't kill a wizard (JKR's fault ;-) ), but *Quirrell* says he was trying to kill Harry ("No, no, no, *I* tried to kill you"), so I think we have to believe that that's what he was trying to do. He also says that he'd have managed to knock Harry off his broom (and thereby succeed in killing him) before Hermione bumped into him "*if Snape hadn't been muttering a countercurse, trying to save you*" (SS Am. ed. 289). Not "protect." "Save." Later, Hermione mentions that Snape saved Harry's life in their first year--not a word about her own accidental bumping into Quirrell as saving him. (I think it's in HBP, but I don't recall exactly where. Anyone have the quote handy?) Snape himself tells Bellatrix in "Spinner's End" that he couldn't kill Harry or allow Harry to be killed in front of him, ostensibly because DD wouldn't like it (understatement). Snape doesn't say so, but I assume that's what he's referring to (HBP Am. ed. 31). He may also have Barty Jr. in mind, but I don't think that either Voldie or Bellatrix know that he rushed in with DD and McGonagall to rescue Harry and catch the culprit on that occasion. At any rate, I agree that Snape was protecting Harry (as he so often does), but in this instance, he was also saving him since Quirrell was, by his own confession, trying to kill Harry. And if that's the case, Hermione (who didn't suspect Quirrell) would have been too late to accidentally block his eye contact had it not been for Snape, whose countercurse presumably kept the broom from rocketing sky high before throwing Harry off (or enabled him to hold onto his broom). Hermione didn't know whose eye contact to break and could have done much more harm than good by setting fire to her fellow rescuer's robes. Carol earlier: > > He was also in grave danger when he returned to Voldemort with his prepared cover story (which is how I read "If you are ready, if you are prepared") for his actions relating to Quirrell (and reasons for not being in the graveyard). > Mike: > Yes, I agree. Inside our timeline - that is during actual book time and not previous to Nov 1, 1991 - this is definitely when Snape is in true mortal danger, and in my opinion, the only time. Carol responds: So you're not denying that he spied for DD "at great personal risk" before GH, just not counting it because it occurs before the books begin? Hm. IMO, it should count as risking his life because the peril of discovery was very real, but it's true that we only have DD's word for it. If DD is right, however, then it's an early example of Severus's courage. (Think how MWPP would have loved him if he hadn't been placed in Slytherin and didn't have that reputation for an interest in Dark magic.) However, going back to book time, we don't know how much Snape knew, but if *Hagrid* suspected that Voldemort wasn't dead and was likely to come back at some point, it seems likely that Snape also suspected it, especially if he was working closely with Dumbledore. And it therefore seems likely that he knew or strongly suspected that Quirrell was stealing the Stone for Voldemort ("where your loyalties lie," etc.). If I'm right, Snape was deliberately placing himself in very real, though not immediate, danger by thwarting him. Also, though I have a high opinion of Snape's wizarding skills and agree that Quirrell-as-Quirrell was probably a mediocre wizard, Possessed!Quirrell seems to be another matter--that is, Voldemort can apparently act through him (though unfortunately all we have is the pov of an inexperienced eleven-year-old wizard who thinks that Quirrell can cast a deadly curse without a wand). My point, though, is that if Voldemort had succeeded in obtaining the sorceror's Stone and using it to return to power, Snape would have been in real danger--the same danger that he belatedly faced whn he faced Voldemort at the end of GoF. It wasn't just his absence from the graveyard or his failure to go after LV and resuce him that he had to explain. He had to come up with an explanation for the whole business of thwarting Quirrell and saving Harry--hence "If you are ready; if you are prepared." Snape knows what DD "must ask [him] to do" (return to Voldemort), but DD expects him to have prepared his own explanations (cover stories) for his disloyalty to Voldemort. He has to pretend that he thought Voldemort was dead or permanently disabled and that he thought it was just "unworthy Quirrell" who was trying to steal the Stone. He also has to come up with a reason for not killing Harry or allowing him to be killed in his presence. So, yes, Snape was not in real danger *until* he stood in LV's presence and told those lies, but he was in danger *because* of those previous actions. Make sense? Also, he's always in danger as a spy or double agent of making a fatal slip that could blow his cover and cost his life. (Note Sirius Black's jealousy that Snape is out risking his life for the Order while Black has to stay home with Kreacher and his mad mother's portrait for company.) Carol: > > He also placed himself in grave danger by facing a werewolf about to transform and a man he thought had betrayed the Potters and murdered thirteen people in PoA. The danger from the werewolf, at least, was very real. > > Mike: > First off, if he's in such danger why doesn't he bring the Wolfsbane potion with him? And please don't tell me he'll spill it. Carol: All right, I won't (though I still think it's a valid objection). Maybe he'd rather capture the werewolf without his potion. More dangerous and heroic that way, and it makes Lupin look more culpable. As you say, at that point, Snape didn't know when he rushed after Lupin that any students were in danger. By the time he found the Invisibility Cloak, it was too late to go back. :-) Mike: > Also, remember he was only aware of Lupin heading for the Womping Willow, he knew not of the trio, Black, nor Pettigrew already in the Shack. Snape doesn't seem that concerned with the possibilities, and he has the history to know what he's in for. Carol responds: He doesn't know about Pettigrew, true. If he had, he'd have been forced to believe Lupin's story and events would have turned out quite differently. As it is, he thinks that Black murdered Pettigrew along with the Muggles twelve years earlier and has no idea that Pettigrew is present in the shack in rat form. (Even when he hears that suggestion, it seems as preposterous to him as it does later to Fudge.) And, true, Snape doesn't know that Harry and his friends are in the tunnel *until* he finds the Invisibility Cloak, at which point he knows that Harry, at least, is in grave danger. But Sirius Black is another matter. Surely, Snape guessed why Lupin had run out to the Shrieking Shack. Obviously, Lupin saw someone on the Marauder's Map, someone who was hiding in the Shrieking Shack. And who could that be except the wanted murderer, Sirius Black? So Snape doesn't want to be encumbered with a goblet of potion, whether or not it would spill as he clambers in the dark through the tunnel. He wants to have free access to his wand. So Snape, DADA expert though he is, deliberately charges out minus the Wolfsbane Potion to catch not only the murderer but his werewolf accomplice, who has, Snape has every reason to think, been helping Black get into the castle. Obviously you don't agree, but I'd call that reckless courage worthy of a Marauder. Mike: > Finally, if there was actual mortal danger, who prevented Lupin from killing anyone? That's right, Sirius Black in his animagus dog form. So either Snape felt there was no real mortal danger in the possibility of facing a werewolf, or he rather stupidly relied on someone else coming to his rescue. Someone that he didn't know was there when he left the castle and someone he didn't know had the ability to transform into an animal large enough to thwart a werewolf. Which version of Snape do you like? Carol: I like courageous-but-vengeful Snape who wants to bring the murderer and his werewolf accomplice to justice and prove to Dumbledore that he was right along and is willing to place himself in peril that he thinks he can handle, complicated by DDM!Snape rescuing that pesky, rule-breaking Harry Potter yet again once he finds the Invisibility Cloak. If Harry hadn't been there, he wouldn't have had the Cloak and would have had no reason to listen at the door. He'd have gone charging in to face Lupin about to transform and armed with a wand and Sirius Black, whom he believes to be a murderer, armed with a twelve-inch knife (and possibly a wand as well if Lupin supplied him with one). He wanted a chance, I think, to go against the werewolf and the murderer one against two and win. It *was* a risk, but he thought that he could take them both on, and given his prowess in dueling with Harry in HBP, he may well have been right. OTOH, if they had really been the people Snape thought they were, he might well have been wrong, and he didn't know that eh "murderer" was also an Animagus capable of transforming into a huge Grimlike dog. Had the kids not been there, Black certainly wouldn't have transformed into a dog to protect *Snape* once Lupin transformed into a werewolf. He'd have transformed into a dog and *attacked* Snape, who would have been holding him at wandpoint with the strings to Lupin's bonds in his other hand. That's a danger that snape could not have anticipated. (He wouldn't even have heard the Snimagus portion of the story because they'd have had no reason to tell it to each other.) > > Carol, assuming DDM!Snape, of course > > Mike, who still despises DDM!Snape, despite his belief in his DDMness. ;) Ah, well. Love him or hate him, at least we agree as to where his loyalties lie. I don't think that JKR can possibily answer all the questions about him, which will leave scenes like this one open to a variety of interpretations even after DH. Carol, who wonders what Phineas Nigellus would think of a Slytherin who repeatedly risks his own neck, tsk! tsk! From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 20:25:39 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 20:25:39 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues--Snape, the shack, and unilateral authority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169065 > Alla: > > I think this is related to the question I asked in another thread. > Could you give some canon that Snape would be a hero for killing > Sirius? Not for capturing, but for killing. Is there any indication > in the books that people were allowed to use lethal force against > Sirius Black and not just being not sent to Azkaban, but rewarded > for it. As for the Order of Merlin, that's only a hypothesis. But the Order of Merlin is not a reliable indicator of a wizard's merit anyway, it seems. But Snape certainly would have been hailed a hero, and vindicated with regard to his hatred of Black and Lupin, which for him would be enough of a "reward." The fact that he's wrong about them is entirely beside the point. He cannot be expected to be "right" in this instance. His motives may be suspect but his actions are totally blameless, and despite what Harry says, he doesn't let his grudge get in the way. He waits, observes and listens, then withholds lethal force when it is justified. Any one of us would be lucky in that situation to demonstrate that much reserve. I myself would certainly not listen to a bunch of 13-year- olds if I were confronted with a murderer, especially a murderer who's also a magician. I would either run away, or get that murderer to the authorities as quickly as possible. I think many judge Snape harshly not because of what he does but because of the way he does it. He crazy with glee over the capture of Lupin and Black, gloats, and takes obvious pleasure in their capture and impending imprisonment. His improper attitude obscures, for some people, the propriety of his actions. Which is Snape all over, and why I'm such a fan of the character. As for the use of lethal force, it certainly was appropriate in Snape's case, as Black started toward him with "a roar of rage". Though wandless, Black obviously indended harm. If a known murderer heads toward me with a "roar of rage," and I have a gun, I'll shoot, even if he doesn't. So would a cop, most likely. But Snape doesn't. He shows he is willing to use lethal force but only if Black doesn't behave himself. His aim is capture, not killing. Of course, either way Snape believes that he's going to be praised, and vindicated. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon May 21 20:36:17 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 20:36:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169066 > Jen: Double agents need to be very attuned to picking up all sorts > He didn't get to > hear the part about the switch in Secret Keepers though, and my > thinking is even when Snape finds out Peter is alive and an active DE > later on, Snape still wouldn't know the entire story and continues to > blame Sirius for the deaths of the Potters. zgirnius: I have difficulty believing Dumbledore would not straighten him out a bit, for his own safety, at some point during GoF when they arrive at the conclusion that Voldemort is coming back and Snape will return to him as and resume his role as Dumbledore's spy. (That this was descussed prior to the actual events is implicit in Dumbledore's words and Snape;es reponse.) > GoF, "The Parting of the Ways": > "Severus," said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, "you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready . . . if you are prepared ..." > "I am," said Snape. zgirnius: Snape knows what Dumbledore is talking about, and he has prepared for it in advance. Claer enough,m it seems to me, that this has been discussed. Snape needs to know which Marauder is the dangerous spy that hid from Dumbledore for a year, since that person (Peter) still has the ears of Voldemort. Of course, nothing obligates Snape to change his mind about Sirius's previous attempt to kill *him*, which to my mind is more than enough to explain his attitude in GoF, OotP, and HBP. Why should Snape care if Sirius is dead, when Sirius's own attitude conveys to Snape so clearly that Sirius would regard his death with no more concern? And of course, if Dumbledore communicated the whole story, Snape might still blame Sirius. It was his lame idea to use Peter in the first place. Sirius blames himself for this in PoA. > Jen> > And the next day he does deal with Lupin by letting it be > known he's a werewolf. There's no canon for what Dumbledore was > planning to do about Lupin or that Snape consulted with him or Lupin > prior to telling everyone, he just acted on his own to get Lupin not > only out of Hogwarts but out of work and society, period. zgirnius: Snape gave a public explanation of Lupin's condition, and of the fact that he was roaming about the grounds transformed and sans potion helping the fugitive Sirius Black and placing students in danger, to Fudge the night before. Dumbledore was then forced to spend a deal of time talking Fudge around to the idea that Lupin was at least not an accomplice of Black, and had only been, like Snape, trying to help the kids. You may hold a different opinion, but I cannot imagine that Fudge thought Lupin should continue in his role as a teacher after those revelations no matter how favorably Dumbledore tried to paint his actions. > Jen: > I was thinking more that Snape passed info about Sirius being an > animagus and his relationship with Harry in the hopes it might lead > to Sirius getting caught or killed (he doesn't appear to care that > Sirius died in HBP), but not actually planning how that would happen > or knowing how vast the consequences would end up being. (A little > like Harry. Ironic?) zgirnius: If Peter was talking (and why whould Dumbledore and Snape believe he was not?), none of this was news to Voldemort. He should have known Sirius was an Animagus, and that Sirius offered Harry a home and Harry, who has lousy guarduians, accepted joyfully. This is all stuff Scabbers/Peter knows. From BrwNeil at aol.com Mon May 21 20:40:22 2007 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:40:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169067 In a message dated 5/21/2007 10:46:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, foxmoth at qnet.com writes: Ginny will still be in danger, but she'll be a lot safer at Hogwarts, the now-fortified Burrow, or at Grimmauld Place than she would be traipsing around the WW with Harry. She understands that the most important thing she can do for Harry right now is keep herself safe. It's not like Voldemort is going to be defeated by the bat bogey hex. And I'm sure things will change in a heartbeat if there is something Ginny alone can do. What Ginny meant, IMO is that Harry won't be happy if he stays out of the war to be with her. She trusts that if she does need to know what Harry's doing, or he needs her help, he'll tell her. It's *not* an immature trust in some hero, it's the same kind of trust the adults gave to Dumbledore. They understood that knowing too much would expose the Order to great danger, since no matter how faithful they might be, only highly skilled occlumency or the Fidelius Charm could shield information from Voldemort for very long. It shows growth on Ginny's part that she accepts this now, instead of throwing a fit like she did at the beginning of OOP when her mother refused to let her listen in on Harry's conversation with Sirius. Pippin I think everyone agrees that Harry is the hero of the series, Hermione the heroine, and Ron the loyal sidekick. JKR made a decision to be different and whether we agree with it or not in her story the sidekick gets the girl. I wonder if she could possibly have another surprise in store for us. Everyone is expecting Ginny to be waiting for Harry when he defeats Voldemort. Ginny, however, has a tendency to not like to be without a boyfriend. What if she moves on? Here is a great twist. Ginny doesn't wait for Harry, but instead starts dating Neville and their relationship becomes serious. I know it sounds crazy, but if it happens, remember where you heard it first. Neil ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 21 20:48:11 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 20:48:11 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack was Re: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169068 > > Pippin: > > > Threatening to turn him over to dementors was wrong -- but > > it's funny how many people think that Dumbledore should have > > sacrificed presumed Death Eater Draco with far less evidence. > > > Alla: > I am glad we agree on Dementors' part, LOL. > > I wonder how you make out comparison with Draco here and especially > with "far less evidence" part? I mean, Dumbledore knows what Draco > is doing, does he not? Pippin: The only fair way to make this comparison, IMO, is to presume that neither Dumbledore nor Snape had any information not revealed to the reader concerning Draco's guilt and Lupin's respectively. However, if you want to assume that Dumbledore has heard from eyewitnesses who saw Draco accept his assignment to murder Dumbledore from Voldemort, you'll have to allow me to assume that Snape knows for certain that Lupin is a DE protected by a Fidelius Charm. :) Otherwise, however sure he might be, Dumbledore cannot have any direct information about Draco that hasn't been revealed to the reader. We know that Harry does not know what Draco's assignment is, and we know that Draco did not tell Snape. Snape knows at most what Voldemort has told him and what he's guessed from other Death Eaters. It's hearsay. What came from Snape, Dumbledore would trust because Dumbledore trusted Snape completely. But as you have yourself said many times, Dumbledore's trust does not prove anything. AFAWK, Draco had not been seen to consort with Death Eaters other than his immediate family. Neither Harry nor anyone else, AFAWK, had proof that Draco bought the necklace (not a crime in any case) or had anything to do with poisoning the mead. In fact, until Draco appeared before Dumbledore, there was no direct evidence that Draco had done anything worse than dodge Snape's questions. Snape, OTOH, heard and saw Lupin consorting with Black. He heard him confess to breaking his agreements with Dumbledore in the past, allowing himself to be led into Hogsmeade in werewolf form, endangering innocent lives. He heard Lupin admit that he had been too cowardly to inform anyone that he knew Sirius was an animagus. Lupin said he believed Sirius had powers from Voldemort that would enable him to enter the castle without using his animagus abilities. He said that Snape had been right all along to tell Dumbledore that he, Lupin, could not be trusted. Having just heard Lupin confess with his own mouth that he could not be trusted and that he had been protecting Sirius's secrets all year so that Dumbledore wouldn't learn the truth, how could Snape believe that Lupin could be trusted to cooperate with Black's arrest? In fact, Lupin doesn't cooperate. He starts trying to convince Snape that Black is innocent and shouldn't be turned in -- but why? Snape hasn't yet said anything about taking Sirius directly to the dementors. If Pettigrew's survival is the proof of Sirius's innocence, why does Lupin seem so eager to keep it out of Dumbledore's hands? Imagine how it would look to DDM!Snape that Lupin supposedly has proof of Sirius's innocence, and rather than bring it to Dumbledore, he's out in the Shrieking Shack trying to convince three teenagers. Huh? Alla: > Oh, and I do not remember people arguing that Dumbledore should > feed "presumed DE Draco" ( who may very well have dark mark under > his sleeve) to the Dementors. Pippin: You are arguing, if I understand correctly, that Draco should have been confined without evidence, or on secret evidence. It seems, however, that you think Snape was out of line to confine Lupin on the basis of the evidence we know he had. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 20:49:57 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 20:49:57 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues--Snape, the shack, and unilateral authority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169069 > > Alla: > > > > I think this is related to the question I asked in another thread. > > Could you give some canon that Snape would be a hero for killing > > Sirius? Not for capturing, but for killing. Is there any indication > > in the books that people were allowed to use lethal force against > > Sirius Black and not just being not sent to Azkaban, but rewarded > > for it. Leslie41: > As for the Order of Merlin, that's only a hypothesis. But the Order > of Merlin is not a reliable indicator of a wizard's merit anyway, it > seems. But Snape certainly would have been hailed a hero, and > vindicated with regard to his hatred of Black and Lupin, which for > him would be enough of a "reward." The fact that he's wrong about > them is entirely beside the point. He cannot be expected to > be "right" in this instance. His motives may be suspect but his > actions are totally blameless, and despite what Harry says, he > doesn't let his grudge get in the way. He waits, observes and > listens, then withholds lethal force when it is justified. Alla: Let me try again, maybe I was not clearly expressing myself. I do not care for the purpose of this question whether Snape's actions are right or wrong. I mean, I do care very much of course, but for the purpose of this question it is truly irrelevant. All that I am questioning is your assertion that Snape would have been hailed a hero for **killing** Sirius Black. Let me say it again - **not** for capturing Sirius Black. We all know that Snape almost got his Order of Merlin for that. So, sure for that - for **capturing** he will be a hero. Where is the canon support that Snape would have been **rewarded** for **kiling** Sirius? For all I know Snape does not kill Sirius precisely for that reason - he does not want to stand trial or hearing or whatever. He does precisely what he will be rewarded for - captures the "murderer" and his "accomplices" In the quotes that I brought upthread it is said that Muggles are encouraged to report to the authorities and Witches and wizards live and fear and await the capture. So, I make the conclusion that the only people who were **authorised** to capture and I don't know, maybe kill him if he does not obet, were aurors and unspeakables and whoever? Is it not a reasonable conclusion to make? What in the books is in contradiction with such conclusion? I will make further assumption, which is of course can be incorrect OR correct. Witches and wizards who kill people are being punished for that, are they not? They at least have to explain to Ministry their actions and if they are not deemed innocent (HAHA) they will be sent to Azkaban, no? So, my conjecture is that since it is not specifically said that wizarding population was allowed to use lethal force, they would be punished for using it against Sirius Black same way as against any other person. Of course, Snape may be able to get away with it - claiming self defense or not. But if he is not, he is going to be shipped to Azkaban, no? So, again, why are you ( generic you) so sure that he will be called a hero instead of criminal if he kills Sirius Black? Maybe that was the reason why Snape was not in a hurry to kill, but instead to capture Sirius and Lupin? And again, whether I consider Snape's actions right or wrong is not the issue for me here. No, I am not hiding that I consider them wrong, LOL. I am just thinking that Snape's reserve has to do with him not wanting to go to Azkaban, that's all. JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon May 21 21:06:35 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:06:35 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues--Snape, the shack, and unilateral authority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169070 > Alla: > > I think this is related to the question I asked in another thread. > Could you give some canon that Snape would be a hero for killing > Sirius? Not for capturing, but for killing. Is there any indication > in the books that people were allowed to use lethal force against > Sirius Black and not just being not sent to Azkaban, but rewarded > for it. zgirnius: It seems a reasonable inference, given that Sirius had been sentenced to summary Kissing upon his capture, a sentence that the Dementors were free to carry out without any further instructions from a government representative. And from his description in public communications of no less that the Minister for Magic himself as "a danger to anyone who crosses him, magic or Muggle". Surely, if Snape had insisted he was a danger to him and three Hogwarts students, one of whom had already had his leg broken by Black, Fudge would not have argued the point. From applesnivy at yahoo.com Mon May 21 20:59:04 2007 From: applesnivy at yahoo.com (Audra Conway) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 13:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Kreacher Message-ID: <47682.51855.qm@web34212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169071 Forgive me for I have not kept up on the whole thing with Kreacher and being summoned. I wanted to say it could be possible that when SB died and he left GP to Harry that Dumbledore was the person in which would give the estate to HP. In that case until HP turned 17 Dumbledore would hold the estate in trust, hoping it would work out (being that the Black family kept it in the family only) HP was not of SB bloodline. If Dumbledore was the person SB left everything in trust for HP then I would almost bet that Kreacher would have to obey Dumbledore until such time as HP took over. Dumbledore summoned Kreacher to see if there might be a snag. The other thing I was going to say is that Kreacher could go to who he wanted to an extent as found out when Dobby tried to warn HP in the CoS. It seems to an extent that they do have some free will. Audra To Think a Thing is to Create a Thing. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 21 21:21:05 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:21:05 -0000 Subject: Christianity in HP (WAS: Religion & Law in HP and Smelting Sticks) In-Reply-To: <521380.60348.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > Geoff Bannister wrote: Geoff: > > > Returning to the books and looking at the question of where JKR is > coming from, she has indicated that she is a Christian and we know > that she worships in the Church of Scotland, where she now lives. > There are implicit hints to Christian belief in the HP books: > Dumbledore's comments on choice; possible redemption (for characters > such as Snape or Draco or Peter Pettigrew), sacrificial love as > demonstrated by Lily to mention a few - and there is certainly a book > in existence "The Gospel according to Harry Potter" which draws > comparisons between events in the books and quotes from the Bible. > Obviously, the structure of the books did not lend itself to overtly > Christian observations (in the same way as LOTR). > > Ironically, a couple of years ago, there was a groundswell of > criticism from a number of members on the group which included > Wiccans, atheists and alchemists inter alia, who suggested that > Christians were hijacking the books completely. > > Katie: > I resent wholeheartedly your insinuation that sacrificial love, redemption, CHOICE, and other so-called "Christian" themes in Harry Potter are Christian at all. Geoff: I have only just got round to thinking replying to responses to my post, having been away in Cardiff over the weekend where my host's PC decided to crash thus cutting me off from the group for the best part of three days! Wearing my hat as a List Elf, I felt that this thread was begining to sail too close to the rocks and rapids of Off Topic so I have posted a reply on HPFGU-OTChatter should you feel inclined to read it. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 21:31:07 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:31:07 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169073 > >>honeypi: > It will be impossible to convince me that Harry is more concerned > about Ginny's safety than he is about Hermione's. Harry's > preference in general is to go it alone because he does not want to > risk ANYONE's life. Betsy Hp: I totally agree. But I also think part of the reason Hermione (and Ron! ) were able to convince Harry so easily that they were sticking with him is that they've proven themselves in the past. I don't think Harry really sees Ginny as a fellow fighter. I think he puts her in the Neville/Luna camp: nice to have the extra bodies but not really of great use. (Not that I'm saying this is either fair or correct of Harry. Just saying that's how he sees it. ) > >>honeypi: > > Hermione, on the other hand, does exactly what she always does - > she tries protect Harry, be by his side through all the worst, even > if she has to fight with him to do so. Harry folds because he > knows well enough that Hermione (and Ron,too) will not yield - not > because he loves them less or differently. Betsy Hp: Actually, I've always felt that Hermione can be pretty intimidated by Harry when he gets his dander up. So I actually see Hermione yielding fairly easily if Harry was adamant about his "no". (Though she would probably try and come at the issue from a different angle.) However, Ron can, has, and will face Harry down if he thinks Harry needs it. (Ron has always been the best of the Trio on the care and feeding of Harry, IMO.) And of course, Ron and Hermione together would be near impossible for Harry to refuse. > >>jme: > > IMHO, the debate on whether Hermione or Ginny should end up with > Harry stems from the fact that the strongest male and female > characters [i.e. Harry and Hermione] do not really have equals in > the story. Ron and Hermione are poles apart and they fight > constantly. > > On the other spectrum meanwhile, Ginny and Harry rarely fight [if > they ever did]. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but what's > troubling about their relationship is how Harry totally dominates > Ginny. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, while I'd agree that Hermione is the strongest female character in the book and Harry is the strongest male character, I disagree that Harry and Hermione are on par with each other. Harry is the hero, yes. But Hermione is a side-kick and her equal really is Ron, IMO. So Harry doesn't have a female equal within the book. Harry and Ron without Hermione has its weaknesses, but Harry and Hermione without Ron has its weaknesses too. And honestly, I seriously think Harry is closer to Ron than he is to Hermione (and no, not in a shippy manner, I'm talking canon here ). So I'd even see the Harry, Ron bond as stronger than the Harry, Hermione bond. The interesting thing is that I don't see much of a bond at all with Harry and Ginny. And while there is a bond between Hermione and Ron, at this point it's pretty destructive, I agree. But honestly, I put that to JKR being a better writer of friendships than she is of real, honest to goodness, falling in love, you are my soul-mate, romance. (IMO, JKR absolutely *nails* the puppy love, first time dating, so *that's* what girls are for, awkwardness of the pre-teen and teenage years.) [An aside: This is why I'm hoping for Snape and Lily being friends rather than either of them being in love with the other.] I also think JKR has a bit of a problem writing women. Which would be a serious handicap in creating an equal for her hero. Or at least, that's how I see it. Betsy Hp (this might be a second posting -- poo on Yahoo!Mort) From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 22:02:56 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:02:56 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues--Snape, the shack, and unilateral authority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169074 Alla: > All that I am questioning is your assertion that Snape would have > been hailed a hero for **killing** Sirius Black. Let me say it > again - **not** for capturing Sirius Black. We all know that Snape > almost got his Order of Merlin for that. So, sure for that - for > **capturing** he will be a hero. Leslie: Do you think Snape would be hailed as a hero for killing Voldemort? Do you think Harry would? Sirius is not of that order, of course, but he is a known dangerous criminal, perceived by everyone as a crazed, insane murderer of thirteen people, Muggle and wizard. Black's actions in Hogwarts don't seem to undermine that judgement, either. He's not just thought to be a killer, he's believed to be *crazy*, and described as such. Voldemort described as more rational. Alla: > So, my conjecture is that since it is not specifically said that > wizarding population was allowed to use lethal force, they would be > punished for using it against Sirius Black same way as against any > other person. Leslie: Well, no one speaks of "capturing" Voldemort, do they? The understanding is that Voldemort will be *killed*. Obliterated. The wizarding population is obviously allowed to use deadly force against him. At the end of HBP, Harry himself specifically states: "I'm the one who's going to kill him." Then Harry also specifically drops a very clear hint that if Severus Snape shows up, he's going to kill him as well. So yes, I would assume that deadly force, under the right circumstances, is acceptable. > Alla: > So, again, why are you ( generic you) so sure that he will be > called a hero instead of criminal if he kills Sirius Black? Leslie: For the same reason that Harry would be called a hero for killing Voldemort. Again, the two "villains" are not of the same order, but they're both "guilty" of multiple murders, and Black is believed to be Voldemort's servant. Now, of course when a wizard kills someone, just like when a police officer kills a criminal, there is certain to be some sort of inquiry. But it's stretching things a bit, I think, to suggest that there's even a remote possibility that Snape would end up in Azkaban for killing a known insane murderer who was advancing on him with rage in his eyes and a clear intent to do harm. It just seems bending sense a bit to believe that. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 22:38:53 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:38:53 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169075 > >>Jen: > > He [Dumbledore] concluded from the various bits of information > that Kreacher told Narcissa about the relationship between Sirius > and Harry, how Harry was the one Sirius cared most for in the world > and that the 'one person whom you [Harry] would go to any lengths > to rescue was Sirius Black.' > I took this information at face value on many readings of OOTP but > now the idea gives me pause. Betsy Hp: This is an interesting theory, Jen... *But* (heh, you knew that was coming) I have two big issues with it. > >>Jen: > From the way Kreacher is presented in canon he doesn't have the > kind of insight into human relationships that Dumbledore is giving > him credit for. He's addled, out of touch with reality at times > and obsessed with Mrs. Black and all she stood for. > Betsy Hp: This is issue number one. I think you're selling house-elves short in general and Kreacher in particular. I've always read Kreacher's mad act as just that, an act. Just like every other house-elf we've met in canon, Kreacher has figured out a way to express his unhappiness and do pretty much as he wishes. He's arranged it so he doesn't have to fake any genuine loyalty to people he sees as desecrating his home. He's arranged it so he doesn't have to take part in that desecration, and he's arranged it so he can protect what he is able. And he ran to the "enemy" at the very first opportunity. > >>Jen: > Kreacher doesn't understand why a 'Mudblood' would talk to him, > that it was Hermione's attempt at caring for him; to Kreacher it's > simply repugnance based on his indoctrination from the Blacks about > Muggleborns. Betsy Hp: Or, maybe Kreacher sees Hermione's sympathy as the DADA class saw Umbridge's sympathy: an attempt to indoctrinate him away from his personal beliefs and loyalties. I do think Hermione was sincere in her pity (whereas I doubt Umbridge was all that sincere in hers), but that overly kind, ignoring of stated beliefs, can come across as pretty condesending when you're on the receiving end. And, while I'm not a big fan of the twins, I wouldn't call them stupid. Plus, they are a bit more familiar with house-elves than Hermione (all those kitchen raids). So this exchange holds weight with me: "It doesn't matter," Hermione whispered, "he's not in his right mind, he doesn't know what he's saying --" "Don't kid yourself, Hermione, he knows *exactly* what he's saying," said Fred... [OotP scholastic hardback p.108-109] > >>Jen: > Sirius caring about a half-blood, if Kreacher even noticed, would > be instantly dismissed as Sirius hurting Kreacher's mistress again > rather than something he would ponder and consider in light of a > relationship between Sirius and Harry. > Betsy Hp: But Kreacher already knows that Sirius left the family because of his different views on blood and status (and he probably knew who Sirius went to live with). And he knew enough about Sirius to know that the best way to get Sirius out of the way was to hurt Buckbeak. To my mind, the idea that Kreacher *wouldn't* realize that Sirius was Harry's godfather and close to Harry because of that, is a stretch. It'd mean that Kreacher really was not paying attention to what Sirius was up to. Which strikes me as very un-Kreacher like. And un- house-elf like for that matter. We see Kreacher do his best to stymie Harry when they're at Hogwarts (his ode to Draco's beauty was classic, IMO). It makes sense that he'd do the same thing to Sirius. He's already squirreling away those items he's afraid Sirius will destroy. Why not also notice those items, creatures, and people, Sirius cares about? Why not also notice what the boy who is the mascot for the "wrong side" is up to? > >>Jen: > > Fast forward now to HBP and the conflicting information from Snape > about what he says he reported to LV about Black. He tells Bella > in front of Narcissa that "the Dark Lord is satisfied with the > information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps you > have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emmeline Vance, > and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you > full credit for finishing him off." (HBP, 'Spinner's End, p. 35, > UK ed.) > Betsy Hp: But, per Dumbledore, there is information about Sirius that Voldemort had, and that Dumbledore *knew* Voldemort had: "Voldemort knew already, of course, that Sirius was in the Order, that you knew where he was..." [ibid p.831] So Voldemort was getting some information from somewhere that Dumbledore was aware of. It makes sense that the information was coming from Snape. Dumbledore would need to give his spy *something* to feed the beast and keep suspicion to a minimum. > >>Jen: > Dumbledore heard and saw correct information from Kreacher and > via Legilimency, but I don't believe it was information Kreacher > actually thought of himself; rather, it was information *told* to > him by Narcissa. > > Snape would be very capable of seeing the relationship between > Sirius and Harry... > > As for motive, well revenge IS sweet. > > Having Dumbledore side with a Marauder again and trust Sirius' > story over his own may have been the last straw for Snape and he > decided to take matters into his own hands. > Betsy Hp: And this is the second big issue I have with this theory. I cannot see Snape taking matters into his own hands to the extent that he actively *lies* to Dumbledore. Even if it's just by omission. This is obviously my opinion, but I read Snape as being absolutely loyal to Dumbledore. While Snape did have some autonomy (he'd have to to survive, frankly) I doubt any Order secrets were shared with Voldemort that Dumbledore didn't vet. And those times Snape *did* have to make a snap decision (ie the UV) I think he'd let Dumbledore know about it at first opportunity. Therefore, if Snape had been the one to tell Voldemort about Harry's relationship to Sirius, Dumbledore would have known about it immediately. So there wouldn't be any confusion for Dumbledore about the source. I do agree Snape enjoyed getting his revenge against Sirius, but I saw his vengence coming from the snarky and snide remarks made to Sirius throughout OotP. He certainly seemed to be enjoying himself when he and Sirius went at it in front of Harry. And that strikes me as more true to Snape's character than bald-faced lying to Dumbledore. > >>Jen: > Loyalty to Dumbledore doesn't mean he believes what Dumbledore > believes or is going to act the way Dumbledore does. Betsy Hp: I agree with the second part of your statement, but totally disagree with the first part. I think Snape's loyalty and the reason Dumbledore trusts him completely comes from the fact that both Snape and Dumbledore share pretty much the same beliefs. Yes, they might dicker about methods and details (I actually see Snape throwing grand tantrums in Dumbledore's office, and Dumbledore getting a twinkly kick out of it most of the time) but when it comes to the end game and to their general guiding principles, I think Snape and Dumbledore are very much on the same page. Actually, that's what I find so cool about Snape. He's absolutely for Dumbledore's WW, Snape just brings the snark and leaves the lemon drops to Dumbledore. > >>Jen: > I could see Snape considering the 'disposal' of Black to be an act > for the greater good of the cause regardless of how Dumbledore > might view it. Betsy Hp: But his actions in the Shack in PoA prove this idea wrong. Snape begs for a "reason" to take down Sirius. Which, IMO, shows just how much like Dumbledore Snape already is. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 22:38:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:38:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's supposed involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169076 zgirnius: > If Peter was talking (and why whould Dumbledore and Snape believe he was not?), none of this was news to Voldemort. He should have known Sirius was an Animagus, and that Sirius offered Harry a home and Harry, who has lousy guarduians, accepted joyfully. This is all stuff Scabbers/Peter knows. > Carol responds: Exactly. Voldemort knows as of the first chapter of GoF and probably before that Wormtail is a rat Animagus ("You know that I can disguise myself most effectively," Wormtail says). Surely, Wormtail has told him the whole story of his escape from his former friends, the dog Animagus and the werewolf. (If he didn't tell it voluntarily, Voldemort, being a Legilimens and fond of the Cruciatus Curse, would have forced the whole story out of him.) Moreover, he would have told Voldemort (perhaps when Harry was a baby) that Black was Harry's godfather. Unlike Snape, who arrived late and then was knocked unconscious, Wormtail heard the entire conversation between Lupin, Black, and HRH in the Shrieking Shack and afterwards, including Black's offer to let Harry live with him, which occurs while he is in human form before his escape. And we can be pretty sure that Voldemort obtained every scrap of information possible from him, and Wormtail, no Occlumens, so far as we know, and terrified of Voldemort yet having no place else to go, would have willingly told him. Wormtail knows much more about the Marauders and their history than Snape does, having been one himself. He may even have told Voldemort their Animagus forms and appearance before Godric's Hollow. Certainly, he told him about the Secret Keeper switch, and it seems likely that he also told him about the extra-close friendship between James Potter and Sirius Black. He would have seen in the Shrieking Shack evidence of that affection being passed on to Harry. As far as I can see, the only piece of information that Snape could have added to this wealth of knowledge and used to claim a share of the credit in Black's death to Bellatrix, who knew quite well who actually killed Black, is that he had seen Black at Hogwarts in Animagus form shortly before DD sent him to "return" to LV. But Snape would have known that DD would keep Black safe (as he did Hagrid and Trelawney). As long as Black didn't set foot out of Order HQ (which would have been set up as quickly as possible), he was safe from both Aurors and DEs (as Snape in his snarky way kept reminding him). Where all this places Kreacher, I'm not sure, but it's important to point out that the plot in which he was involved related to Harry and the Prophecy orb, not to the death of Black, which was an unintended side effect. I don't think we can dispute Kreacher's escaping to the Malfoys, which is canon. So is his injury of Buckbeak, complete with bandaged hands (either he ironed them for disobeying his master or Buckbeak injured him back). And we know he lied to Harry and laughed when he found out that Harry believed he had gone to the MoM. But Kreacher could hardly know that "master" would never return since he wasn't even there. So my question is, how did Kreacher know that it was time to injure Buckbeak? Was he communicating with the Malfoys? And how did *they* know that the vision had actually gone through this time around? It can't be Snape, who finds out that Harry thinks Black is being tortured *after* Harry has talked to Kreacher and supposedly confirmed that Black is gone. Nor can it be Umbridge or Draco, who know still less about the matter. all I can figure out is that LV knew that the vision had gone through and notified Narcissa, who summoned him (being a Black, she would have that power). Okay, I think I've answered my own question. But as far as Sirius Black being the person Harry was most likely to want to rescue is concerned (setting aside people like Ron, whose kidnapping would be difficult to feign considering that he was always in Harry's company), about all Kreacher could do is confirm what Wormtail had already said about the relationship between Harry and Black. And, again, there was no specific plot to kill Black. The plot was to lure Harry to the Mom under the *pretense* that Black had been captured. Carol, who thinks that Kreacher's role is just as it appears to be and that Snape had no real share in Sirius Black's unplanned death, however little he may regret Black's passing From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon May 21 23:25:27 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 23:25:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169077 > zgirnius: > I have difficulty believing Dumbledore would not straighten him out > a bit, for his own safety, at some point during GoF when they > arrive at the conclusion that Voldemort is coming back and Snape > will return to him as and resume his role as Dumbledore's spy. > (That this was discussed prior to the actual events is implicit in > Dumbledore's words and Snape;es reponse.) > > > GoF, "The Parting of the Ways": > > "Severus," said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, "you know what I > > must ask you to do. If you are ready . . . if you are > > prepared ..." > > > "I am," said Snape. > > zgirnius: > Snape knows what Dumbledore is talking about, and he has prepared > for it in advance. Claer enough,m it seems to me, that this has > been discussed. Jen: I'm in complete agreement that Dumbledore and Snape talked about Peter being alive and on his way to locate Voldemort since that would impact Snape's life if Voldemort returned now that he has the help of a servant. Dumbledore dispenses information on a need-to- know basis and that would be high on the list of things Snape would need to know. What Snape doesn't know is that Dumbledore has been in contact with Sirius and considers him a loyal member of the inner circle to be present in the hospital room the night of Voldemort's rebirth. Dumbledore has not given Snape all the information he knows as is par for the course with DD or Snape would not react to Sirius appearing. So it's unclear what Snape does and doesn't know about Sirius' escape the previous year zgirnius: > Of course, nothing obligates Snape to change his mind about > Sirius's previous attempt to kill *him*, which to my mind is more > than enough to explain his attitude in GoF, OotP, and HBP. Jen: I suppose it could be enough, although it sure seems like Dumbledore's treatment of Snape at the end of POA and believing Sirius over Snape again would rub salt in old wounds. And to see Sirius reappear and be considered loyal enough to be part of Dumbledore's inner circle when Snape *does* believe him capable of murder would be yet another burden to bear, as well as Snape not having all the information to determine why Dumbledore believes Sirius is trustworthy. zgirnius: > Why should Snape care if Sirius is dead, when Sirius's own attitude > conveys to Snape so clearly that Sirius would regard his death with > no more concern? Jen: I don't think Snape should care, however, he's not the one who ended up dead so we'll never know Sirius' reaction. Sirius was supposed to stay at Grimmauld place and didn't and that's his choice and consequence. Snape's job as a double-agent was to deliver intelligence to Dumbledore that would keep the type of plot that occurred in OOTP from happening and for whatever reason, he wasn't able to access enough information or do so in a timely enough fashion to prevent Harry going to the DOM. Occlumency was a failed proposition and apparently there was no plan B to take its place even though Voldemort was gearing up for the big event of getting Harry to the DOM. Zara: > And of course, if Dumbledore communicated the whole story, Snape > might still blame Sirius. It was his lame idea to use Peter in the > first place. Sirius blames himself for this in PoA. Jen: Yes, no argument here! zgirnius: > Dumbledore was then forced to spend a deal of time talking Fudge > around to the idea that Lupin was at least not an accomplice of > Black, and had only been, like Snape, trying to help the kids. You > may hold a different opinion, but I cannot imagine that Fudge > thought Lupin should continue in his role as a teacher after those > revelations no matter how favorably Dumbledore tried to paint his > actions. Jen: My only point was that there's no mention in POA that Dumbledore planned to have Lupin stay. In fact, given Dumbledore's knowledge of the curse I'd say he was certain Lupin *wasn't* staying to teach more than one year when he hired him. Snape acted alone there. > zgirnius: > If Peter was talking (and why whould Dumbledore and Snape believe > he was not?), none of this was news to Voldemort. He should have > known Sirius was an Animagus, and that Sirius offered Harry a home > and Harry, who has lousy guarduians, accepted joyfully. This is all > stuff Scabbers/Peter knows. Jen: Sirius does conjecture Peter blew his animagus disguise and that's the information we get about it. As for Peter knowing about the offer of a home, I've re-read that section in POA and can't tell that Peter would have heard or listened to Harry and Sirius. He's walking with Lupin and Ron, behind is Snape, and behind him are Harry and Sirius. Anyway, Peter wouldn't know more intimate information about the progression of the relationship between Sirius and Harry, where Sirius regards him as a mix between a son and a brother and Sirius is the one Harry would go to any lengths to save. That's got to come from someone later on. Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 23:36:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 23:36:20 -0000 Subject: Was Ministry going to punish Snape if kills Sirius on site? WAS: On perfection o In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169078 > JW: > The reference to "dead or alive" was on a wanted poster in the > movie. I too can find no mention of this in the book. > Alla: Yep, it was in that medium, not in canon :) There is a poster in Hogsmeade which also says nothing about deadly force. "By Order of Ministry of Magic Customers are reminded that until further notice, Dementors will be patrolling the streets of Hogsmeade every night after sundown. This measure had been put in place for the safety of Hogsmeade residents and will be lifted upon recapture of Sirius Black. It is therefore advisable that you complete your shopping before Nightfall. Merry Christmas." - PoA, p.148, british edition, paperback. Alla: So, here as well we see nothing to the effect of - good citisens, please take your wands and let's go hunting that Sirius Black. Nope, it reads to me as Dementors are here to capture him, do not interfere. > > Alla: > > > > I think this is related to the question I asked in another thread. > > Could you give some canon that Snape would be a hero for killing > > Sirius? Not for capturing, but for killing. Is there any indication > > in the books that people were allowed to use lethal force against > > Sirius Black and not just being not sent to Azkaban, but rewarded > > for it. > > zgirnius: > It seems a reasonable inference, given that Sirius had been sentenced > to summary Kissing upon his capture, a sentence that the Dementors were > free to carry out without any further instructions from a government > representative. And from his description in public communications of no > less that the Minister for Magic himself as "a danger to anyone who > crosses him, magic or Muggle". Surely, if Snape had insisted he was a > danger to him and three Hogwarts students, one of whom had already had > his leg broken by Black, Fudge would not have argued the point. > Alla: Reasonable inference? Sure, but it seems that no mentioning of something in canon makes for even stronger inference, no? And it is not mentioned, like at all. I mean maybe it is, but I keep asking to refer me to the pages and nobody did it yet :) "... The public is warned that Black is armed and extremely dangerous. A special hot line has been set up, and any sighting of Black should be reported immediately."? PoA, ch.2, p.18, british edition, paperback. I mean, this is Muggle public, but still? Anything more than that, maybe? One would think that Wizarding population is encouraged to do more than that - say fire a nice Avada and be done? Does Fudge do that in that speech that I brought up upthread as well? Nope, he just mentions that public lives in fear and he is dangerous. So, I think that the argument that witches and wizards are not expected to use deadly force against Black is reasonable as well. Now, could Snape claim self defense and prevail? Sure, absolutely. he could have done that. But to me this is a very long way to go from arguing that Snape will be a hero for killing Sirius. I would agree that he has a chance to be called acquitted after the hearing, but not hero, LOL. So, sure I am buying that Fudge may have bought Snape story. If Dumbledore would not have contradicted such story that is. Fudge really does not appear to stick with Snape for long in PoA, does he? But my question is why would Snape want to **try**? To risk that all? Why would he want to risk a chance of the hearing? Much nicer to bring Black to castle and watch how Dementors kiss him, I would say. To make a long story short, I guess I am arguing against Snape demonstrating some sort of not self serving restraint in the Shack. I believe that the only reason that he did not kill Sirius and Lupin is because he did not want to take a chance and be tried for using whatever curses he would have use to kill them - maybe unforgivables or maybe not. The last couple paragraphs are of course speculation ( why Snape did not kill them right away), but I think that it is based on canon not saying that people are allowed to kill Black on site. So, I guess I call it very canon based speculation :) > Alla: > > So, my conjecture is that since it is not specifically said that > > wizarding population was allowed to use lethal force, they would be > > punished for using it against Sirius Black same way as against any > > other person. > > Leslie: > > Well, no one speaks of "capturing" Voldemort, do they? The > understanding is that Voldemort will be *killed*. Obliterated. The > wizarding population is obviously allowed to use deadly force against > him. At the end of HBP, Harry himself specifically states: "I'm the > one who's going to kill him." Then Harry also specifically drops a > very clear hint that if Severus Snape shows up, he's going to kill > him as well. > > So yes, I would assume that deadly force, under the right > circumstances, is acceptable. Alla: Well, I am talking about using deadly force against very specific "criminal" Sirius Black, not Voldemort and as far as I can see canon is silent on allowing to use deadly force against this specific "criminal". There are three places at least where it could have been put in and it was not, so I am going to assume that nothing of the sort was allowed. I guess it is agree to disagree time. But sure I agree with you that use of the deadly force under the right circumstances may be allowed. The question for me is whether authorities considered the capture of Sirius Black to be the right time and right place. I do not think they did, but I would happily accept canon page stating the contrary. I have to say also that I consider Harry's desire to kill Snape to be rather weak indicator that it is allowed. It is Harry's wish, which I totally understand, but for all I know he may very nicely end in Azkaban if he does that. IMO of course. Alla. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon May 21 23:48:36 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 23:48:36 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack was Re: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169079 > Pippin: > I'll turn your question around. By what authority did Lupin decide > that Sirius was *not* an outlaw? Mike: Ahh, but I'm not gonna let ya . This is between Lupin and Snape. They each have their differing position on Sirius. They are both teachers at the same school, have the same authority in their present positions. But only one of them has a Dark Mark, however faded, on his forearm. Only one of them still feels hard done by from a prank that happened 20 years ago. And apparently, that prank is what gives Snape the moral authority, since he has no other evidence of Lupin's duplicity and his assertion that Lupin was helping Sirius were not only a figment of Snape's imagination, they were WRONG. > Pippin: > Ron lay seriously injured. Given that Sirius and Lupin are old > friends, how could it not look fishy? Mike: And Snape did what for Ron? If Snape opens his eyes, he should see that while Lupin is storytelling, Harry and Hermione are questioning Lupin's story and Sirius is sitting on the bed, **wandless** and staring at the rat. What is fishy about this scene is *why* this Conspirator!Lupin is telling a story and *why* this criminal Black is sitting mostly placidly on the bed and staring at the rat and not his supposed victim, Harry. If Lupin and Black have finally cornered their intended victim, what's all this other falderall? > Pippin: > If Lupin meant well, wouldn't he have sent a patronus to > Dumbledore for help, and wouldn't Dumbledore have arrived already? Mike: You presume that Dumbledore had invented his messenger Patronus already. You take it for granted that Lupin should have sent the patronus(if it existed)? Why do you not expect the same from Snape after he had the situation under his control? Either the messenger patronus did not yet exist, or they are both as culpable. In fact, if Snape's so sure of what he's going to find in the Shack, why doesn't he messenger DD before he enters the tunnel? The least he could do was warn DD that Lupin hasn't taken his Wolfsbane. > know, or not, that I don't disagree with ;) > > Pippin: > The fact that the kids still had their wands would mean nothing, > since Lupin only had to say "Expelliarmus!" to take them away -- > his own wand isn't even stowed in his robes, it's stuck in his > belt. And Lupin is also capable of wandless magic, as Snape may > know. Mike: The kids know "Expelliarmus!" too, thanks to Snape the previous year. They have their wands at the ready, they could just as easily all fire off Expelliarmus simultaneously at Lupin and not only relieve him of his wand, but also knock him out for good measure. Oh, wait, they did that, but against a raving, unreasoning Snape. I'm at a loss on your point of Lupin's wandless magic. :-? I honestly don't remember what you are referring to. > Pippin: > The potion has to be drunk "directly" according to Snape in chapter > 8. Presumably it keeps as long as it's in the cauldron, but would > have spoiled by the time Snape got out to the Shack with the goblet. Mike: I find this conjecture unconvincing. I believe most theorists have presumed Lupin not drinking his potion in front of Snape in Ch 8 was him acting passive-agressively towards Snape. At least that's the analysis (not by me) I found most convincing for Snape's comment and Lupin's behavior. Any speculation as to how long the potion remains viable is just that. > Pippin: > > > A better question is why Lupin felt he had to sit around and > rehash his old school days, with Ron seriously injured and > in pain, a dangerous outlaw in custody, and the marauders > map open and activated on his desk, on a night when he > would soon be transforming into a werewolf and supposedly > hadn't taken his potion. I've never heard a convincing reason > for it all. Either Pettigrew's reappearance made him completely > irrational, in which case he was hardly trustworthy, or he was > Up To Something. Mike: I don't disagree with you here. I found Lupin's whole story telling scene only slightly less infuriating than Dumbledore's explanation scene at the end of OotP. But JKR chose this vehicle to give us much appreciated backstory, for which I am eternally grateful and still hungry for more. So, it's a mixed bag for me. It seems Pettigrew's reappearance spontaneously triggered ridiculous responses from three other former classmates. ;)) ********** The bottom line for me: Harry entered the Shack convinced Sirius Black is the reason his parents are dead and therefore with murderous intent in his heart. He has yet to be convinced of the contrary when Snape makes his entry under the cloak. Yet Harry has enough common sense to listen to Lupin's story, to at least hear him out. Snape is blinded by his own revengeful thoughts (and possibly by his chance at receiving accolades for his part in capturing Black. There is plenty of evidence from his words in the Shack ["you should be thanking me on bended knee"] and in his smirk when Fudge mentions the Order of Merlin.) And what was one of the reasons why Black is so reviled? Why selling out to Voldemort; revealing the Potter's secret so LV can act on the prophesy information that **who** brought to LV in the first place? Explain to me again where Snape gets his moral authority! Two adults in the Shack have Dark Marks on their forearms and they aren't Sirius Black nor Remus Lupin. Mike From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue May 22 00:27:55 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 00:27:55 -0000 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169080 Welcome Nathan! Nathan: In few words, my theory is that Voldy was wrong about HP being the one on the prophecy. Juli: You could be right, but Dumbledore clearly explains in HBP that Harry is indeed the 'chosen one'. LV chose Harry to be the one the prophesy refers to. Voldemort picked Harry and marked him (his scar) as his equal. As far as we know (which isn't much by the way) Voldemort doesn't even aknowledge Neville's existance, he's never made a single hit against him or his family. I am not counting his parents, they were tortured because of their job, in fact Jo said once on her website (in Rumors I think) that the Lestrange weren't sent to the Longbottom's house searching for Neville, they were there for Frank and Alice Nathan: HP and LV discovering that HP is really a (accidental) Horcrux, and HP will ask some of his friends (Rony, or Hermione, or Ginny) to kill him as being the only way to LV become mortal. Then Neville kills LV. Later, the love (in a way that I do not suspect) brings HP back to life. Juli: How is it possible to create an accidental Horcrux? Slughorn mentions to young Tom Riddle that there are some spells to be done other than the actual killing, so how is it possible to create an horcrux without saying or doing whatever needs to be done? Harry would NEVER ask his friends to commit murder. We already know that killing someone breaks our soul, and the soul is the most precious posession of any given person, so why would he condem his friends to that? Sorry but I don't see it happening. Harry may sacrifice himself, that is a strong possibility, he is so focused on his goal that his life is nothing but a small price to pay to get rid of the menace of Voldemort. We already know there's no way to bring anyone from the death. Jo told us so after she killed Sirius. A huge fan of Sirius as I am, I wish for nothing more than his return to book seven, but all I have are false hopes, I know he won't come back. As I know Harry won't come back if he gets killed. Juli - returning after a long time From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Tue May 22 00:54:40 2007 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 00:54:40 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: your moderation status at HPfGU Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169081 Greetings and salutations! The List Elves hereby remind those of you who are still moderated that if you wish to participate fully and on a timely basis in the discussion of The!New!Book (aka Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) from the get-go, you have until July 21st to demonstrate to us your ability to follow our posting rules, which can be read at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/PostingRules25Mar07.html Please give yourself enough time to earn your release from the moderated status; even those of you who rarely venture out of Lurkdom may wish to end your silence in face of new canon. You are still on moderated status if you have *not* received notification to the contrary and should check with us to be sure if you cannot remember. Or you can go on just reading us from Lurkville. That's fine with us too. So, if you are one of our beloved lurkers, haven't posted in recent months, or are not sure whether you are still a moderated member, to check on your current status please send an email from the email account associated with your membership of our main list to: HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (without the extra space) As always, replies to admins like this one should be sent to HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com or to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback , never to the main list. This particular message is being sent to all members on Special Notice as well as the main list. The List Elves From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 00:56:10 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 00:56:10 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack was Re: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169082 > >>Mike: > > They are both teachers at the same school, have the same authority > in their present positions. Betsy Hp: Actually, Snape is the head of a house. So he's got greater responsibility and therefore greater authority in some issues. Plus, there's the seniority thing. > >>Mike: > > And apparently, that prank is what gives Snape the moral authority, > since he has no other evidence of Lupin's duplicity and his > assertion that Lupin was helping Sirius were not only a figment of > Snape's imagination, they were WRONG. Betsy Hp: Um, no it wasn't. Lupin *did* help out Sirius; he kept Sirius's secrets. The only thing Snape was wrong about was Sirius being the traitor. Lupin was *extremely* lucky there. What Snape's past gave him was a keen insight into the various weaknesses of the Marauders. And he was correct about Lupin. Lupin put his reputation above the safety of Harry and his loyalty to Dumbledore. > >>Mike: > You presume that Dumbledore had invented his messenger Patronus > already. > Betsy Hp: Wait, is this in doubt? I've always assumed that the Patronus messenger thing has been around since the first Order. Do you have canon that suggests otherwise? > >>Mike: > Why do you not expect the same from Snape after he had the > situation under his control? Either the messenger patronus did not > yet exist, or they are both as culpable. Betsy Hp: Oh, I see. IMO, Snape barely had the situation under control when suddenly the Trio turned on him. Plus, he would have needed to take his wand off of Sirius in order to conjure the Patronus. A worry that Lupin did not have. > >>Mike: > In fact, if Snape's so sure of what he's going to find in the > Shack, why doesn't he messenger DD before he enters the tunnel? The > least he could do was warn DD that Lupin hasn't taken his Wolfsbane. Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think Snape *did* want to catch Lupin in the act. I'm quite sure he was frustrated that Dumbledore put so much trust in Lupin. Especially as he watched (from Snape's pov) Lupin seduce Harry to his side. I'm guessing that (in a sort of Prank redux) Snape wanted to catch Lupin doing something so obviously wrong Dumbledore would be forced to face the fact that Lupin really *is* bad. Just as Sirius had been shown to be. I'm guessing that Snape didn't stop to send a Patronus once he stumbled upon the invisibility cloak because he wasn't sure exactly what Lupin was up to with Harry in the Shack. (I don't think Snape knew exactly what was going on. He expressed some surprise that Sirius was actually there.) > >>Mike: > The bottom line for me: Harry entered the Shack convinced Sirius > Black is the reason his parents are dead and therefore with > murderous intent in his heart. He has yet to be convinced of the > contrary when Snape makes his entry under the cloak. Yet Harry has > enough common sense to listen to Lupin's story, to at least hear > him out. Betsy Hp: Right, except Harry trusts Lupin. This whole scene began because Snape *doesn't* trust Lupin. Imagine the scene redone, only Harry bursts in on Snape doing an explanation soliloquy. Do you think Harry would pause and listen, or do you think he'd wrap Snape up to take to the authorities? Especially if he heard Snape admit to killing Dumbledore? Honestly, I don't think Snape acts out of line here at all. Everything he does makes perfect sense, IMO. > >>Mike: > Snape is blinded by his own revengeful thoughts (and possibly by > his chance at receiving accolades for his part in capturing Black. > Betsy Hp: That he doesn't take the opportunity to kill Sirius (and Lupin for that matter) tells me that Snape is not blinded by thoughts of revenge. Either that, or Snape isn't really all that bloodthristy and is more interested in justice than vengence. Which points to a man with a pretty strong sense of principle, IMO. > >>Mike: > And what was one of the reasons why Black is so reviled? Why > selling out to Voldemort; revealing the Potter's secret so LV can > act on the prophesy information that **who** brought to LV in the > first place? Betsy Hp: I know! Oy, the humanity! Gosh, it just explains so much of Snape's completely loosing it later, IMO. He makes this horrible mistake, does his best to correct it, and Sirius Black comes along and screws the entire thing up. Snape's wrong choice leads to death, despite his scramble to fix things, because of a man Snape had long thought less than trustworthy. And then it turns out, Sirius was just stupid not evil! I'd have lost it myself. > >>Mike: > Explain to me again where Snape gets his moral authority! Two > adults in the Shack have Dark Marks on their forearms and they > aren't Sirius Black nor Remus Lupin. Betsy Hp: Snape's moral authority comes from being a person who acts. Which automatically puts him on a higher moral plane than Lupin, even if Lupin is a good guy. If Snape had taken the view that his mistake in his youth makes him unworthy of ever acting again, then yeah, he'd be just as weak as Lupin and not much with the authority. But Snape also has the moral authority of being the only adult in the room completely loyal to Dumbledore. You know, if the rest doesn't cut it for you. Betsy Hp From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue May 22 01:10:07 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:10:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705211810j57253bdelc6a2aac7d6f80662@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169083 Don's reply: Wives and girlfriends have sent their men off to war and to their "destiny and future" for thousands of years. How many say the equivalent of what Ginny said? Lynda: As both a former soldier and a wife to a soldier, I'll say you might be surprised. Many wives (and husbands) of service members say things amazingly similar to what Ginny said. I've heard them from both sides of the uniform. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue May 22 01:17:09 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:17:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705211817w25d888e5u401e30a259919a62@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169084 Nate: Do you also believe that Neville is the one? Lynda: No. The series I'm reading is the Harry Potter series not the Neville Longbottom series. If he does kill Voldy it won't be because Voldy was wrong about the prophecy but because he is acting to aid Harry and casts a spell at the last minute. Remember, Voldemort chose Harry to be his contender, fulfilling his own doom as it were. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Tue May 22 01:25:28 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:25:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] GoF fight between Harry and Ron/ On the perfection of moral virtues. LONG References: Message-ID: <037f01c79c10$18f297b0$6601a8c0@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 169085 Alla: > But from the position of fourteen year old, whose best friend just > accused him of God knows what, why? He is stressed by entering a > tournament he does not want to enter, nobody (including his best > friend) believe him that he did not do it ( well, Hermione does) > and he has to go and deal with Ron's jealousy? Magpie: Actually, I'd say yeah, a little. Obviously Ron's whole position on this subject is wrong, but Ron spends *a lot* or time worrying about Harry's problems and Harry's moods. And Harry rarely has to do the same. Ron here is going to apologize, but it's not like Harry ever thought of saying, "Oh, and sorry for that crack about your wanting a scar." So I don't think it's too much to expect Harry to care about Ron's feelings, even if they're silly. If he has to wait until he's not under some sort of threat to care about his friends, he'll have spent the first 7 years with barely any time to do that. I realize boys might not feel the need to go over everything said in a fight but still--when Ron's dealing with Quidditch troubles in OotP Harry's also wrapped up in his own issues and takes this position ("I can't even play Quidditch, so I'm the one with the problem")--as well as not being able to help anyway because he doesn't know how to help with that sort of problem. But still, it leads to a pattern of Harry getting a lot of support from Ron and Ron not only not needing as much support from Harry, but not asking for it (Ron's used to being in that role). I don't think it's asking too much (it actually might be a good thing) for Harry to deal with something like Ron's jealousy, even while he is, as usual, dealing with much more glamorous problems. Ordinary people do have problems too. And this is a flaw of Harry's anyway, imo, given a lot of his behavior in OotP, like with Seamus. Ron's not believing Harry does go to some of his own insecurities, and it's really not a bad thing for friends to recognize those things in each other--just as Ron knows not to take it personally when Harry's being paranoid in OotP. As it happens, Ron's had a lot more chances to prove his willingness to trust Harry and he's proved it a lot. This one time, on what he didn't think was a life threatening thing, he didn't. Ron is wrong here and needed to apologize, but it was a real disappointment to me that the fight brought up issues that were then swept away with Ron realizing Harry hadn't put his name in the Goblet and saying so, as if the fight hadn't brought up issues other than that. It was never, that I could see, just about the facts of Harry putting his name in the Goblet or not. Alla: > I did think that it was another sacrifice of the character writing > to the plot necessities, since I thought Ron and Hermione should > have believed Harry right away. About Malfoy of all people, whom > they are always suspiciuous about, but this is here on the page. > > I found it to be very dissapointing. Magpie: I thought it was necessary. First, it's not completely unrealistic that sometimes, when Harry's friends don't see Harry himself in danger, they might want to focus on things that interest them and not automatically do what Harry is focused on. But more importantly, Harry's understanding of what Malfoy could be up to was something that separated him from most other students. It wasn't, imo, about Hermione and Ron not wanting to catch the murderer, since that (oddly) was never a big concern for the school besides Harry. It was that distinction of everyone else thinking Malfoy couldn't be doing anything important and Harry instictively knowing not only that Voldemort might target him, but what Malfoy might do because of his family. It was nicely foreshadowed back in PoA when Draco makes the comment about wanting to go after Sirius Black if his family had been killed. That's the first time Ron and Hermione are not on the same page as Harry. He says "Malfoy knows" and they don't see why'd he'd ever listen to him. Having just listened to a cool related paper this weekend, it got me also thinking that it's important that Harry begin dealing with his own Gothic family issues here--as Sirius' heir, that means the Blacks. Harry starts moving towards Slytherin and the Black family in HBP. Plot-wise, this was about Harry taking his own solitary journey into Slytherin (several journeys, actually). He's inherited their house, and it was sort of fitting that Ron and Hermione were a bit separated from his dealings with them. That said, Ron and Hermione *do* believe him that Malfoy is up to something. They know that for a fact. They don't think there's proof he's the person trying to murder people (and some of their denials are a bit of a stretch, especially given the type of thing they've run with before), but then, that's not really a case of "believing" Harry since it's not like Harry is telling the truth--it's only his theory. HBP is a very different book in that for once Voldemort isn't targetting Harry. He's not in danger. If he were I think they'd get to work--as they do when he asks them to guard the school while he's gone. Ron and Harry don't have to get interested in this because Harry is any more than Ron and Harry have to really be enthusiastic about SPEW because Hermione likes it. -m (who also thinks that the difference in Ron's Quidditch troubles between OotP and HBP are like the difference between white and off-white) From shurbetsean at yahoo.com Tue May 22 01:08:41 2007 From: shurbetsean at yahoo.com (shurbetsean) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 01:08:41 -0000 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169086 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nathan_RJ" wrote: > In few words, my theory is that Voldy was wrong about HP being the > one on the prophecy. This one would be in fact Neville - do not forget > Neville is son of famous Auror parents, and also has strong reasons > to kill LV. > > So, in my opinion, the end of DH will be: HP and LV discovering that > HP is really a (accidental) Horcrux, and HP will ask some of his > friends (Rony, or Hermione, or Ginny) to kill him as being the only > way to LV become mortal. Then Neville kills LV. Later, the love (in a way that I do not suspect) brings HP back to life. Nate, I do not believe Neville is the one to kill Voldy, but I do believe the "love" factor will play a part in Voldy's death and Harry might give his life for the peace of their world, however. Does that make sense since in his world there will always be villians and people will always be needed to meet the villians' challenges. I pray Harry doesn't die, but if he does I will likely cry like a baby! Sean From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue May 22 01:55:11 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 01:55:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169087 > Jen: > Sirius does conjecture Peter blew his animagus disguise and > that's the information we get about it. As for Peter knowing about > the offer of a home, I've re-read that section in POA and can't tell > that Peter would have heard or listened to Harry and Sirius. zgirnius: He could have. I think he would have. He was facing the prospect of life in Azkaban, I think he would be grabbing for any possible idea of ways to talk Harry around, which means paying attention to Harry. He also saw Harry attack Snape in defense of Sirius. There's just too much there, in my opinion. > Jen: > Anyway, Peter wouldn't know more intimate information > about the progression of the relationship between Sirius and Harry, > where Sirius regards him as a mix between a son and a brother and > Sirius is the one Harry would go to any lengths to save. That's > got to come from someone later on. zgirnius: Neither would Snape know any intimate information about the progression of their relationship! Unless Dumbledore did confide in Snape about Sirius, which you are supposing he would not, Snape would not be aware that Harry was corresponding with him in GoF, and that Sirius lived in the vicinity of Hogsmeade for a time and was visited by Harry. Neither would Snape be aware of the relationship as it developed during Harry's time at 12 GP. Snape showed up only for Order meetings and did not socialize at all. Nor did he and Harry ever discuss Sirius. Snape could *speculate*, naturally. So could Peter, for that matter. Or Narcissa, with the aid of Kreacher. Or Kreacher might just be able to tell. I find bizarre the idea that Snape might believe that Sirius was the traitor, and yet believe that Dumbledore still trusted him at the end of GoF. Actually, I also find it bizarre that Snape would credit Harry with a powerful attachment to the man who betrayed his parents. It is not a simple matter of Marauders vs. Snape, after all. There is the small matter of James, himself a Marauder, and clearly someone Snape would regard as a favorite of Dumbledore's (that Head Boyship...). Even if Snape had the bare minimum of information about Peter - that he was a servant of Voldemort in the first war and was returning to his master and helping to restore him in GoF, that's the point at which I figure Snape would put two and two together: That the reason Harry and Dumbledore trust Sirius is that they think Sirius is innocent. And since Peter is alive, AND a Death Eater, this just might be because they know *he* was the traitor. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue May 22 02:04:16 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:04:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius References: Message-ID: <03b101c79c15$82587530$6601a8c0@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 169088 >> >>Jen: >> Kreacher doesn't understand why a 'Mudblood' would talk to him, >> that it was Hermione's attempt at caring for him; to Kreacher it's >> simply repugnance based on his indoctrination from the Blacks about >> Muggleborns. > > Betsy Hp: > Or, maybe Kreacher sees Hermione's sympathy as the DADA class saw > Umbridge's sympathy: an attempt to indoctrinate him away from his > personal beliefs and loyalties. I do think Hermione was sincere in > her pity (whereas I doubt Umbridge was all that sincere in hers), but > that overly kind, ignoring of stated beliefs, can come across as > pretty condesending when you're on the receiving end. Magpie: That was the only interpretation I had. I thought Kreacher was being sarcastic and annoying back: Why is the Mudblood speaking to me when she's beneath me? Sort of thing. Jumping off from that, I do think Kreacher absolutely had everything he needed to draw conclusions about the emotional lives in the house. Perhaps more than most, being he's such a Slytherin House Elf. Kreacher is driven by such OTT emotions himself--remember his (imo truthful) remark about Sirius breaking his mother's heart, and other little asides that I thought hinted at Kreacher having a long history with Sirius as an individual. That, along with his own deep emotions about the family he's lost, makes me think if there's one thing Kreacher has a handle on, it's family emotions and hurt. I don't think he's crazy. Eccentric, but not crazy. Really, what does he say that's not basically sane? -m From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Tue May 22 02:10:52 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 02:10:52 -0000 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169089 Nathan: > > In few words, my theory is that Voldy was wrong about HP being the > > one on the prophecy. This one would be in fact Neville - do not forget > > Neville is son of famous Auror parents, and also has strong reasons > > to kill LV. > > > > So, in my opinion, the end of DH will be: HP and LV discovering that > > HP is really a (accidental) Horcrux, and HP will ask some of his > > friends (Rony, or Hermione, or Ginny) to kill him as being the only > > way to LV become mortal. Then Neville kills LV. Later, the love (in > a way that I do not suspect) brings HP back to life. > > > Nate, > I do not believe Neville is the one to kill Voldy, but I do believe > the "love" factor will play a part in Voldy's death and Harry might > give his life for the peace of their world, however. Does that make > sense since in his world there will always be villians and people > will always be needed to meet the villians' challenges. I pray Harry > doesn't die, but if he does I will likely cry like a baby! > > Sean JW: Why all this talk of killing when the author believes in the sanctity of life, and that murder destroys the soul? The killer of LV will be ........ S P O I L E R............. NOBODY! My interpretation of the signs and augers is that what awaits LV is NOT death, but a fate WORSE than death. LV will be destroyed, but not killed. This was foreshadowed (maybe even fiveshadowed!) in the confrontation between LV and DD in the MoM at the end of OotP. Perhaps all the joy of life will be sucked out of him. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 02:29:49 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 02:29:49 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169090 > > Mike: > > Can I just interject here for a moment. Why do we think that > > Snape "save Harry's life" by performing the countercurse? > > zgirnius: > Because Quirrell describes his actions as an attempt on Harry's > life, not an attempt to make himself a nuisance, perhaps? Mike: Yes, you are right of course, Quirrell did say that he tried to kill Harry. But I don't see how that changes my assertion. There remains the four points I brought up previously. And quite frankly, I still find Quirrell's action a impotent attempt. I suppose he was trying to make it look like an accident, but even that genious of magic Hagrid recognized Dark Magic at work. Why doesn't Quirrell sneak out to one of Harry's practices and hex his broom then? Not near as many other wizards around to counter his hex. It just seems to me that the attempt at the Quidditch match was so feeble in plan and scope so as to not count as a valid life threatening attempt. That is why I don't give Snape full marks for thwarting it, Quirrell's claim notwithstanding. > zgirnius: > Snape had been suspecting Lupin of being in league with Black all > year. If he had no idea he would be finding Black at the end of > that tunnel, I do not believe he would have gone. Lupin forgets his > potion and decides to go ride the change out in the Shack? Fine. > The motive to follow had to be that he thought he would finally get > the proof he needed that Lupin was in league with Black. Mike: I'll go along with that motivation for Snape. Which means to me that Snape is stuck in 'all the Marauders are evil' mode. As Snape has no proof for his assertion that Lupin is in cahoots with Sirius other than they were friends at school together. Oh yeah, and they all picked on Snape at school - ipso facto, they are all murderers or murder abetters. Well not James, he never made it that far. He probably would have had he lived longer, but Voldemort put a stop to that when he killed the Potters after learning of the prophesy from ... oops! > zgirnius: > I presume he planned to leave Lupin tied up in the Shack. PoA p. 360: He clicked his fingers, and the ends of the cords that bound Lupin flew to his hands. "I'll drag the werewolf. Perhaps the dementors will have a kiss for him too -" Mike: I guess not. :) > zgirnius: > Even if he could get free, he could not get past the Willow in his > transformed state. Mike: How do you figure? How did he get out all those times when they were the Marauders? Lupin would just move faster on all fours as a werewolf. > zgirnius: > If we must call people stupid, I would reserve that word for > the ones who untied him and brought him back out of the Shack even > after Snape explicitly reminded them of the danger he posed (Sirius > and Lupin, that is). Mike: But canon shows that Snape fully intended to "drag the werewolf" out himself. And though it's only a guess, I doubt tying up a werewolf can stop the transformation from happening. Werewolf!Lupin had no problem extricating from the shackles, I doubt the rope would have held him. Besides, I called Snape stupid for being so hell-bent on catching Lupin in a compromising situation that he didn't stop to think how he was going to subdue a werewolf. He had the wolfsbane in his hands, didn't bring it. So maybe that means taking care of a werewolf isn't that hard, therefore not that life threatening, which is what precipitated this response in the first place. > zgirnius: > Lupin especially, who in the excitement of the night forgot > he had not taken his potion on *two* separate occasions. Mike: I see one, what is two? But this brings up another point. Lupin sees the trio leave Hagrid's Hut with **Peter Pettigrew**. Then he sees *Sirius Black* join the fray and he, Ron, and Peter head into the willow. Followed shortly afterwards by Crookshanks, Harry and Hermione. Holy S***. The kids are heading to the Shreiking Shack with at least one *murderer*. Lupin cannot tell who has wands, whether Sirius is dragging Ron or Pettigrew is forcing Sirius and Ron at wand point. But Lupin is irresponsible for not sitting in his office and waiting for Snape to show up with his potion. Just let whatever's happening happen, Lupin. Don't be bothered, remember, you're the wimpy do- nothing of the Marauders. Now Snape, he's the responsible one of the bunch. After all, he shows up in Lupin's office to find him gone and sees him heading for the willow. Well hell, he must be up to no good, so screw bringing the potion, he's gotta get going and catch Lupin at whatever he's up to. And if Lupin transforms in the meantime (without his wolfsbane), well he'll think of something. Besides, that won't look so good on Lupin's resume, now will it? mwahahaha. Doesn't look so black and white after you take both what Snape and Lupin saw on the map into account, does it? > zgirnius: > It is also not clear that Snape originally intended to enter the > Willow. He followed Lupin out there, but it is possible, for all we > know, his discovery of Harry's invisibility cloak may have forced > his hand. Mike: Um, so what would you speculate his intentions were when he left the castle on Lupin's tail? I thought he knew Lupin was up to no good with Black. Doesn't he want to catch them red-handed? So originally, he might have intended to sit outside the Willow throwing stones at it to see how far the Willow could hit them? Just waiting for the both of them to emerge? Doesn't sound like the Severus we all know and love , sorry, something caught in my throat. ;)) Mike From jmmears at comcast.net Tue May 22 02:56:38 2007 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 02:56:38 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169091 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, BrwNeil at ... wrote: > > I think everyone agrees that Harry is the hero of the series, Hermione the > heroine, and Ron the loyal sidekick. JKR made a decision to be different and > whether we agree with it or not in her story the sidekick gets the girl. > > I wonder if she could possibly have another surprise in store for us. > Everyone is expecting Ginny to be waiting for Harry when he defeats Voldemort. > Ginny, however, has a tendency to not like to be without a boyfriend. What if > she moves on? Here is a great twist. Ginny doesn't wait for Harry, but > instead starts dating Neville and their relationship becomes serious. Hang on, I really don't think that we "all" agree that Hermione is the heroine of the books at all. Personally, I think she's very much in the brainy, female, big-sisterish, side-kick role along with Ron who's Harry's virtual brother. Given the fact that Harry seems to prefer hanging out with Ron to being with Hermione on her own, I don't think she fits into the role of heroine in Harry's eyes either. As for Ginny taking up with Neville, gosh I sure hope not. She'd eat that poor boy alive ;). > I know it sounds crazy, but if it happens, remember where you heard it first. > > Neil OK, I promise to give you full props :D. Jo S. who is not, not, not, getting involved in a shipping argument. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue May 22 03:00:15 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 03:00:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's supposed involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169092 > Carol responds: > > As far as I can see, the only piece of information that Snape could > have added to this wealth of knowledge and used to claim a share of > the credit in Black's death to Bellatrix, who knew quite well who > actually killed Black, is that he had seen Black at Hogwarts in > Animagus form shortly before DD sent him to "return" to LV. Neri: I don't think such information would be enough for Snape to claim a share of the credit, not in front of Bella (who killed Black herself) and Narcissa (Kreacher's contact woman). Moreover, Snape phrases his words to Bella in a way that suggests a difference between his Vance information and his Black information: "The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him off." The difference is in Bella's previous knowledge about these two pieces of information: she could only guess about the first, but knew for sure about the second, or Snape wouldn't be able to use "certainly". I have to agree with Jen: it's implied that Snape's information was important in disposing of Sirius and that the two sisters (or at least Bella) already know this. > And, again, there was no specific plot to kill Black. The plot > was to lure Harry to the Mom under the *pretense* that Black had been > captured. > Neri: We don't know that there wasn't a plot to kill Black. As I've pointed out here before several times, the logical way for Voldemort to plan his operation was to tell Snape to warn the Order a little too late, so that they'd rush to the DoM to save Harry and be caught in an ambush of either DEs or Aurors. If this is the way it was planned then Snape would be able to claim later that his information helped in disposing of Black without giving away too much too soon to the reader. It may have been Snape's own secret plan to prevent Harry from going to the DoM (in my theory because of the debt) while sending instead Sirius and possibly some other Order members Snape isn't exactly fond of to get caught or killed. Neri From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 03:28:12 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 03:28:12 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169093 > zgirnius: > Snape had been suspecting Lupin of being in league with Black all > year. If he had no idea he would be finding Black at the end of > that tunnel, I do not believe he would have gone. Lupin forgets his > potion and decides to go ride the change out in the Shack? Fine. > The motive to follow had to be that he thought he would finally get > the proof he needed that Lupin was in league with Black. Mike: I'll go along with that motivation for Snape. Which means to me that Snape is stuck in 'all the Marauders are evil' mode. As Snape has no proof for his assertion that Lupin is in cahoots with Sirius other than they were friends at school together. Leslie: Firstly, see my post of 1:32 p.m., in which I answered all of your assertions. It seems you either have not seen or are not replying to that one, so I will reiterate here where it seems appropriate. See that post for a far more lengthy discourse on some of these issues. >From my perspective, the evidence I offer is pretty irrefutable, canonically. Whatever proof Snape needs that Black and Lupin are in cahoots he gets immediately upon his arrival at the Shrieking Shack, when he hears Lupin admit that he ventured out of the Shrieking Shack during his years at Hogwarts, betraying Dumbledore and greatly endangering everyone. Snape also hears Lupin admit that he refused to reveal that Black was an animagus. Also, Lupin is most obviously not attempting to subdue Black. What else would Snape think? > zgirnius: > Even if he could get free, he could not get past the Willow in his > transformed state. Mike: How do you figure? How did he get out all those times when they were the Marauders? Lupin would just move faster on all fours as a werewolf. Leslie: Because it took the Marauders to let him out, that's why. He essentially was "locked in" at the Shrieking Shack, unless someone came to get him out. Obviously that's the case, because what protection would the shack have been had they left the door open? Mike: But canon shows that Snape fully intended to "drag the werewolf" out himself. And though it's only a guess, I doubt tying up a werewolf can stop the transformation from happening. Werewolf!Lupin had no problem extricating from the shackles, I doubt the rope would have held him. Leslie: Even if we put aside the fact that Snape expected to find two enemies there (see my previous post?yes indeed he thought there were two), a situation that didn't exactly lend itself to potion-taking, we need to remember that a fair amount of time passes between the time Snape leaves Hogwarts and the time that Lupin transforms. It takes Snape some time to get to the shack, then he's hidden under the invisibility cloak for a good while as well. Then, even after Snape is knocked out, there's about 15 pages of dialogue, after which everyone has to get out through the tunnel, a rather arduous and hardly hasty process. Even only considering from the time that Snape is knocked out, I would guess that there's a good half hour or 45 minutes that passes before Lupin transforms. Lupin is hardly on the verge of transforming when Snape leaves the castle. Hardly. During that 45 minutes, I might add that Lupin doesn't remember he didn't take the potion, and he has plenty of time to go back and get it. No one's in danger anymore, of course, so there's no excuse anymore for "forgetting". Mike: But this brings up another point. Lupin sees the trio leave Hagrid's Hut with **Peter Pettigrew**. Then he sees *Sirius Black* join the fray and he, Ron, and Peter head into the willow. Followed shortly afterwards by Crookshanks, Harry and Hermione. Holy S***. The kids are heading to the Shreiking Shack with at least one *murderer*. Lupin cannot tell who has wands, whether Sirius is dragging Ron or Pettigrew is forcing Sirius and Ron at wand point. But Lupin is irresponsible for not sitting in his office and waiting for Snape to show up with his potion. Just let whatever's happening happen, Lupin. Don't be bothered, remember, you're the wimpy do- nothing of the Marauders. Leslie41: You grant Lupin an enormous amount of leeway that you refuse to grant Snape. Snape believes that a murderer is in the Shrieking Shack (again, see my previous post on this), a murderer with whom Lupin is in cahoots, a murderer who has made a great mess of Hogwarts and scared the bejesus out of everyone, and whom everyone believes wants to kill a student. Oh, wait! Snape's got to remember to bring the potion! To put it in some sort of a bubble or something to keep it safe so Lupin can take it when Snape gets there! That's a speculation I find, at best, fairly incredible, and bolstered only by an unreasonable prejudice against Snape. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue May 22 01:38:52 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 20:38:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705211838o954ba04tdf0eb2f7b3d7c473@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169094 > > Neil: > > I think everyone agrees that Harry is the hero of the series, Hermione > the > heroine, and Ron the loyal sidekick. JKR made a decision to be different > and > whether we agree with it or not in her story the sidekick gets the girl. montims: Sorry, but I DON'T agree. I see Harry as the eponymous hero of the stories. The remaining characters are friends, some better and longer lasting than others, but I do not recognise a heroine as well. The series isn't The Trio and..., it is Harry Potter and... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue May 22 03:48:40 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 03:48:40 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169095 > Mike: > But canon shows that Snape fully intended to "drag the werewolf" out > himself. And though it's only a guess, I doubt tying up a werewolf > can stop the transformation from happening. Werewolf!Lupin had no > problem extricating from the shackles, I doubt the rope would have > held him. > > Besides, I called Snape stupid for being so hell-bent on catching > Lupin in a compromising situation that he didn't stop to think how he > was going to subdue a werewolf. He had the wolfsbane in his hands, > didn't bring it. > Neri: My take on this has always been that both Lupin and Snape didn't remember that this was to be a full moon night. It is well established that Lupin has to take his potion every day during the week before his transformation (he says so in the Shack, and we also see Snape bringing him the potion in Halloween day and Lupin is seen that night in the great hall, but misses his class several days later). Imagine Lupin going to Snape's office every day for a week each month to take his potion, or alternatively Snape bringing it to Lupin's office, and in the seventh night Lupin becomes a wolf and he simply remains in his office until it's over. So once he has already started taking the potion each month both he and Snape have no urgent reason to keep track and remember when is the transformation due (unless it's going to fall on a day when Lupin has a class, but this wasn't the case here). Both Snape and Lupin don't behave in the Shack as if a transformation is due any moment, although Lupin forgetting his potion comes up in the conversation. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 22 04:30:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 04:30:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack was Re: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169096 > > Pippin: > > I'll turn your question around. By what authority did Lupin decide > > that Sirius was *not* an outlaw? > > Mike: > Ahh, but I'm not gonna let ya . This is between Lupin and Snape. > They each have their differing position on Sirius. They are both > teachers at the same school, have the same authority in their present > positions. But only one of them has a Dark Mark, however faded, on > his forearm. Pippin: Dark Mark or not, Snape had been pardoned by Dumbledore, Head of the Wizengamot, and cleared by the Ministry of Magic. He had as much moral authority as any other wizard on Dumbledore's side. He was confronting a person whom Dumbledore himself believed to be a murderer convicted of killing an unprecedented thirteen people in a terrorist attack. All Snape proposed to do was turn Sirius and Lupin over to the proper authorities. If Snape had no authority to serve as judge (and I agree he did not) then he had no authority to rule on Sirius's guilt or innocence, yet that's what Lupin tried to get him to do. It's Lupin who tries to subvert justice, who doesn't want Sirius taken in even before Snape says anything about dementors. > > > Pippin: > > Ron lay seriously injured. Given that Sirius and Lupin are old > > friends, how could it not look fishy? > > Mike: > And Snape did what for Ron? Pippin: He put Ron on a stretcher and took him to the hospital wing. Mike: > If Snape opens his eyes, he should see that while Lupin is > storytelling, Harry and Hermione are questioning Lupin's story and > Sirius is sitting on the bed, **wandless** and staring at the rat. Pippin: But Lupin's story has nothing to do with the matter in hand, which is the betrayal of the Potters and the murder of thirteen other people. Even Sirius can't see the point of going through it all. When Lupin transforms, he will be a monster capable of killing them all, and he shows no awareness or even any reaction to Snape's assertion that he hasn't taken his potion. It's bizarre. And since JKR says her story is character-driven, I can only assume that she *chose* a bizarre way of having Lupin deliver this information. She's telling us something about him, but what? Mike: > What is fishy about this scene is *why* this Conspirator!Lupin is > telling a story and *why* this criminal Black is sitting mostly > placidly on the bed and staring at the rat and not his supposed > victim, Harry. If Lupin and Black have finally cornered their > intended victim, what's all this other falderall? Pippin: Black is supposed to be out of his mind, why wouldn't he be staring at a rat? As for Lupin, Snape admits to not being sure what he's doing. But he's already confessed enough to be taken in for questioning in connection with Black at least. > > Pippin: > > If Lupin meant well, wouldn't he have sent a patronus to > > Dumbledore for help, and wouldn't Dumbledore have arrived already? > > Mike: > You presume that Dumbledore had invented his messenger Patronus > already. You take it for granted that Lupin should have sent the > patronus(if it existed)? Pippin: We know he used it in GoF, but if it hadn't been invented yet then presumably the Order had some other way of being in touch. Snape would not use it casually because he was not yet openly an Order member and wouldn't want that revealed. It would have been wise for Snape to have back up, but as usual in crime stories, he didn't know he needed it until it was too late to send for it. I never said that Snape knew what he would find in the shack. All he knew from the Map was that Lupin was running down the tunnel. That's not proof of anything. If Lupin preferred to wait out his transformation in the shack instead of taking his potion, presumably that would be his choice. The tree can be stilled from inside the tunnel only by somone small enough to exit and reach the knot without being whomped, so Werewolf!Lupin would be safe enough inside -- unless Sirius came by and freed him. That might be what Snape was afraid of and why he set out, perhaps only intending to keep watch. But then he found the cloak and that changed matters. He had to find out whether Harry was safe. > > Pippin: > > The fact that the kids still had their wands would mean nothing, > > since Lupin only had to say "Expelliarmus!" to take them away -- > > his own wand isn't even stowed in his robes, it's stuck in his > > belt. And Lupin is also capable of wandless magic, as Snape may > > know. > > Mike: > I'm at a loss on your point of Lupin's wandless magic. :-? I honestly > don't remember what you are referring to. Pippin: He conjured a handful of flames on the Hogwarts Express. He then drew his wand to drive off the dementor. > Mike: > I find this conjecture unconvincing. I believe most theorists have > presumed Lupin not drinking his potion in front of Snape in Ch 8 was > him acting passive-agressively towards Snape. At least that's the > analysis (not by me) I found most convincing for Snape's comment and > Lupin's behavior. Any speculation as to how long the potion remains > viable is just that. Pippin: Any speculation on why Snape didn't bring some out to the Shack is also just that :) But the potion was smoking, which shows that it must be breaking down in some way. Mike: > ********** > The bottom line for me: Harry entered the Shack convinced Sirius > Black is the reason his parents are dead and therefore with murderous > intent in his heart. He has yet to be convinced of the contrary when > Snape makes his entry under the cloak. Yet Harry has enough common > sense to listen to Lupin's story, to at least hear him out. Pippin: It's only common sense because Harry has little idea as yet what DE's are capable of. He doesn't understand how vulnerable he and his friends really are (or would have been if Sirius had really been a DE. ) Their wands might have been exactly as much use as Cedric Diggory's was. I agree that Snape was blinded, by revenge, or possibly by his horror that James might have taken his warning against Black to heart and actually chosen Peter as the secret keeper because of Snape's advice. If he had agreed calmly to take them to the castle and Dumbledore, and had resisted the temptation to taunt them with dementors, things might have gone differently. But I don't see him as doing more than taunting, though Sirius and Lupin weren't to know that. His *job* is finding out what the DE's are up to. He would know that Dumbledore would never reward him for destroying a source of information by allowing Sirius's soul or Lupin's to be sucked out. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 04:50:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 04:50:56 -0000 Subject: Was Ministry going to punish Snape if kills Sirius on site? WAS: On perfecti In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169097 Alla wrote: > > To make a long story short, I guess I am arguing against Snape > demonstrating some sort of not self serving restraint in the Shack. > > I believe that the only reason that he did not kill Sirius and Lupin > is because he did not want to take a chance and be tried for using > whatever curses he would have use to kill them - maybe unforgivables > or maybe not. Carol responds: Thanks for the canon, all of which shows that Snape did the right thing: taking the man he thought was a murderer to Fudge rather than killing him himself--in marked contrast to Lupin and Black, who wanted to take justice into their own hands regarding Peter Pettigrew, the real murderer, by murdering him in front of three kids. Snape thought that Sirius Black had murdered the same twelve Muggles that Wormtail actually killed, as well as Pettigrew himself, based on the testimony of many Muggle witnesses and a sentence to Azkaban, and that Black was trying to murder Harry, as evidenced by the Fat Lady's painting and Ron's bedcurtains, both slashed with a twelve-inch knife by Sirius Black. He also thought, based in part on Black's own words a moment before, that Black tried to murder *him* when they were both sixteen. Quite possibly he was tempted by vengeance, but quite wisely and sensibly, he refrained from killing Black, instead attempting to bring him in, being knocked unconscious by three kids (whom he later claimed had been confunded and did not ask to have expelled), and then waking up to find that the werewolf was loose on the grounds and everyone else in the party (except Wormtail, whom he didn't see and didn't believe had been present) was unconscious. What does Snape do? Does he take advantage of the situation to silently murder Black or turn him over to the Dementors himself? Nope. He conjures stretchers for Black and the three kids and takes the kids to the hospital wing and Black to Fudge. Whatever he may have wanted to do, he did the right thing. It's no fault of his that the MoM convicted the wrong man, nor that the real killer escaped into the night in the form of a rat. (Nor is it Harry's. He, too, did the right thing. Only Lupin and Black, who would have killed a man if it weren't for Harry's intervention, and Lupin again in endangering three children by going out onto the grounds without his potion, knowing that at least one of them was in the Shrieking Shack, did anything wrong IMO. So thanks, Alla. You're right that Snape may have avoided a prison sentence for taking justice into his own hands a la Lupin and Black, but he also refrained from committing murder in front of three kids. Had it turned out that Black really was planning to kill Harry, I think even the most ardent anti-Snapers would have to reluctantly call Snape a hero. And even as it is, the kids owe him their lives for taking them to the hospital wing when a werewolf was on the grounds. They just can't see Snape's side of things because they think he's motivated solely by a schoolboy grudge. Carol, who hopes to see the schoolboy grudge revealed as a red herring in DH From mermaid_in_sb at yahoo.com Tue May 22 04:49:38 2007 From: mermaid_in_sb at yahoo.com (SB Mermaid) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <467200.20263.qm@web33110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169098 > Nate: > In few words, my theory is that Voldy was wrong about HP > being the one on the prophecy. This one would be in fact > Neville SBM: I used to subscribe to this theory, but after the speech DD gave Harry while they were in his (DD's) office about him absolutely being "the one", I gave up on it. However, I do think Neville will kill Bellatrix and also her husband (is he still alive) in revenge for his parents' torture. SBM From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue May 22 05:36:16 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 05:36:16 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169099 > Mike: > Yes, you are right of course, Quirrell did say that he tried to kill > Harry. But I don't see how that changes my assertion. There remains > the four points I brought up previously. zgirnius: Someone else answered the point about Dumbledore's quote about 'protecting' - it is in the context of Snape's activities all year. The others, I feel I did answer adequately. I have nothing to add. > Mike: And quite frankly, I still > find Quirrell's action a impotent attempt. zgirnius: And I, quite frankly, don't care. Perhaps any of 100 other people might have saved Harry instead that day. This does not alter the fact that only two people did, and one of them was Severus Snape. > Mike: > I'll go along with that motivation for Snape. Which means to me that > Snape is stuck in 'all the Marauders are evil' mode. zgirnius: So what? > Mike: > As Snape has no > proof for his assertion that Lupin is in cahoots with Sirius other > than they were friends at school together. zgirnius: *Of course* he has no hard proof. If he had that, he would have taken it to the authorities, and that would have been that. He has, by the critical evening, amassed circumstantial evidence that is convincing to him: 1) Black has an accomplice inside the castle. Considering a person's known associates as more likely to be such an accomplice compared to complete strangers (such as the actual culprit, the cat of Hermione Granger) is reasonable. 2) There is also the matter of the parchment that Snape finds on Harry after Harry's illicit trip to Hogsmeade. He suspects that it contains instructions about how to get into Hogsmeade without passing the Dementors, a reasonable guess given Harry has just done so. A guess, further, not in any way connected to any supposed irrational prejudice against the Marauders, since he makes the connection before the Marauders' nicknames enter the picture. He learns that the parchment in question was made by the Marauders, and Lupin lies to him about it. Where do you suppose Snape thinks Harry got the thing? *Directly from the manufacturers*, Snape supposes. Only one of whom has easy access to Harry - Lupin. 3) That it *is* a way to get into Hogsmeade is a shrewd guess that Snape confirms before he comes after Lupin in the climax of PoA - he sees it at work when he sees Lupin go into the tunnel. Enough to make following Lupin seem worth the trouble when he does, to me. > Mike: > How do you figure? How did he get out all those times when they were > the Marauders? Lupin would just move faster on all fours as a > werewolf. zgirnius: Canon is that he was able to get out because Peter the convenient little rat stopped the tree. In his transformed state, he loses his human consciousness and does not know how to deactivate the tree himself. If he could always get out by himself, why didn't he? Not to mention it makes Dumbledore an idiot - this is the protection he put in place when he permitted Lupin to attend the school. > Mike: > But canon shows that Snape fully intended to "drag the werewolf" out > himself. zgirnius: Canon shows what he threatened. I am not convinced he was sincere. His statements about what he was going to do escalated throughout the conversation. > Mike: > Besides, I called Snape stupid for being so hell-bent on catching > Lupin in a compromising situation that he didn't stop to think how he > was going to subdue a werewolf. zgirnius: You are ignoring my suggestion that he did not necessarily plan to go in after Lupin, but rather to watch the exit for the appearance (he hoped) of Black. Finding evidence that one or more students were already in there would have changed his plans. Once he did know, he really was stuck going in. But it was still not entirely a reckless suicide mission. Snape appears to have mastery of at least two spells that I would bet could handle a werewolf. > > zgirnius: > > Lupin especially, who in the excitement of the night forgot > > he had not taken his potion on *two* separate occasions. > > Mike: > I see one, what is two? zgirnius: 1) when he ran out of his office without stopping by to pick it up himself, and 2) after Snape reminded him, when he went with Sirius and the Trio out of the Shack instead of staying where he could transform without danger to anyone else. Mike: > But Lupin is irresponsible for not sitting in his office and waiting > for Snape to show up with his potion. Just let whatever's happening > happen, Lupin. Don't be bothered, remember, you're the wimpy do- > nothing of the Marauders. zgirnius: I am engaged in a defense of Snape. You need to find another customer if you want to read an attack on Lupin. I find it one of the great charms of the HP series that there are characters that I like, and find good, who are on the same side, and yet loathe and suspect each other, or inspire loathing and suspicion, on grounds I myself find reasonable. > Mike: > So originally, he might have intended to sit outside the Willow > throwing stones at it to see how far the Willow could hit them? Just > waiting for the both of them to emerge? zgirnius: Umm, that would be red-handed, would it not? If they emerged together? Also, I would think he expected Black to emerge sooner rather than later, since he had no reason to suspect Black had the means to survive unscathed in an enclosed space with a werewolf. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 05:48:40 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 05:48:40 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack was Re: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169100 > Betsy Hp: > Actually, Snape is the head of a house. So he's got greater > responsibility and therefore greater authority in some issues. > Plus, there's the seniority thing. Mike: OK, Head of House means you get to tie up and gag all those flunky, non-Head of House Professors. Got it. Sounds like he's Head of *Animal* House and the other Profs are pledges (that's pronounced with maximum spit a la Neidermeyer). > Betsy Hp: > Um, no it wasn't. Lupin *did* help out Sirius; he kept Sirius's > secrets. The only thing Snape was wrong about was Sirius being the > traitor. Lupin was *extremely* lucky there. Mike: Actively helping Sirius versus passively not revealing the secrets. Well, if not quite apples and oranges, then how about apples and crab- apples. "It seems -- almost impossible -- that Black could of entered the school without inside help. I did express my concerns when you appointed --" (Snape speaking, p.166, PoA) "You think a joke shop could supply him with such a thing? You don't think it more likely that he got it *directly from the manufacturers? * (Snape, p.288, PoA) "I've told the headmaster again and again that you're helping your old friend Black into the castle, Lupin, and here's the proof. Not even I dreamed you would have the nerve to use this old place as your hideout." (Snape again, p.359, PoA) Sirius being the traitor wasn't the only thing Snape was wrong about with regards to Lupin. Besides, Lupin thought Black was the traitor, too, right up until the Shack. So that wasn't the point of difference. What I was trying to convey , was how much Snape was wrong about *Lupin*. And he was wrong because he based all his assumptions on Marauder!Lupin. Snape is stuck on his grudge and that drives his opinion of Lupin. > Betsy HP: > What Snape's past gave him was a keen insight into the various > weaknesses of the Marauders. And he was correct about Lupin. > Lupin put his reputation above the safety of Harry and his loyalty > to Dumbledore. Mike: I'm not going to argue against weak!Lupin, as I said to Pippin, I agree with that position. But Snape's *keen* insight includes a bias that leads him to insightful comments like "a *tame* werewolf -", and "Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works." IOW, Snape brings a healthy bias along with his insight. > Betsy Hp: > Wait, is this in doubt? I've always assumed that the Patronus > messenger thing has been around since the first Order. Do you have > canon that suggests otherwise? Mike: Nope. Got any to suggest it was? I was under the impression that Dumbledore just started using it around GoF and taught the others around OotP. But who knows? > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I see. IMO, Snape barely had the situation under control when > suddenly the Trio turned on him. Plus, he would have needed to > take his wand off of Sirius in order to conjure the Patronus. A > worry that Lupin did not have. Mike: My read is that Snape has gone off the deep end by the time he ties Lupin and cows Black. So you're right, Snape had no real chance to fire off a Patronus, but it's because he's gone rabid and the kids see that, seperately and simultaneously. > Betsy Hp: > Honestly, I think Snape *did* want to catch Lupin in the act. I'm > quite sure he was frustrated that Dumbledore put so much trust in > Lupin. Especially as he watched (from Snape's pov) Lupin seduce > Harry to his side. > > I'm guessing that (in a sort of Prank redux) Snape wanted to catch > Lupin doing something so obviously wrong Dumbledore would be forced > to face the fact that Lupin really *is* bad. Just as Sirius had > been shown to be. Mike: Agreed. > Betsy Hp: > I'm guessing that Snape didn't stop to send a Patronus once he > stumbled upon the invisibility cloak because he wasn't sure exactly > what Lupin was up to with Harry in the Shack. (I don't think Snape > knew exactly what was going on. He expressed some surprise that > Sirius was actually there.) Mike: This is where it becomes hard. Some others are just as sure that Snape knew full well what he would find, at least as far as the Black/Lupin conspiracy. I tend to agree more with your reading, Betsy, in as much as I think Snape thought he would be catching Lupin at something but couldn't count on Black being there. > Betsy Hp: > Right, except Harry trusts Lupin. This whole scene began because > Snape *doesn't* trust Lupin. Imagine the scene redone, only Harry > bursts in on Snape doing an explanation soliloquy. Do you think > Harry would pause and listen, or do you think he'd wrap Snape up to > take to the authorities? Especially if he heard Snape admit to > killing Dumbledore? > > Honestly, I don't think Snape acts out of line here at all. > Everything he does makes perfect sense, IMO. Mike: Let's draw a more parallel hypothetical analogy, reverse Snape and Lupin. Have Snape be the one who saw Pettigrew on the map. Have Snape telling how he had infiltrated the DEs and that he was the one who knew Pettigrew was the traitor. And let's have Lupin know that Snape had been a DE. Would a suddenly revealed Lupin have bound and gagged Snape? Would Harry sit by and let it happen before he could find out who had betrayed the Order? Who had really betrayed his parents? Even if it was coming from Snape, I gotta believe Harry would want to know. Now, if Lupin did bind and gag Snape, would he have been out of line? After all, Lupin would know Snape was a DE and wouldn't have known Pettigrew was the traitor. > Betsy Hp: > That he doesn't take the opportunity to kill Sirius (and Lupin for > that matter) tells me that Snape is not blinded by thoughts of > revenge. Either that, or Snape isn't really all that bloodthristy > and is more interested in justice than vengence. Which points to a > man with a pretty strong sense of principle, IMO. "Vengence is very sweet, ... How I hoped I would be the one to catch you ..." "Up to the castle? ... I don't think we need to go that far. All I have to do is call the dementors once we get out of the Willow." "I'll drag the werewolf. Perhaps the dementors will have a kiss for him too --" Mike: Oh yeah, revenge wasn't on Snape's mind at all?! Judge, jury and executioner's aide-de-camp for Lupin points to a strong interest in justice?! Gag the werewolf, don't let him explain, they're all a bunch of lying traitors - that's a man of principle for ya?! > Betsy Hp: > I know! Oy, the humanity! Gosh, it just explains so much of > Snape's completely losing it later, IMO. He makes this horrible > mistake, does his best to correct it, and Sirius Black comes along > and screws the entire thing up. Mike: Yeah, damn that Sirius Black. All Snape does is make one little mistake in joining the Death Eaters, ... umm, spies and eavesdrops on Dumbledore - so two, two little mistakes, ... aaah, and delivers the partial prophesy to Voldemort to get the ball rolling downhill at the Potters - so three, three little mistakes. But if it weren't for that damn Black trying to keep his best friend alive, nothing would have come of it. Don't you just hate meddling best friends and Godfathers? > Betsy Hp: > Snape's moral authority comes from being a person who acts. Which > automatically puts him on a higher moral plane than Lupin, even if > Lupin is a good guy. If Snape had taken the view that his mistake > in his youth makes him unworthy of ever acting again, then yeah, > he'd be just as weak as Lupin and not much with the authority. Mike: So in the one case in canon where Lupin actually gets off his duff and does something, it counts for nothing, actually gets him in worse trouble. But Snape started out at minus 100 on the morality scale for his past transgressions, while Lupin's weak sister act only earns him a minus 10 or so. Lupin hasn't done anything that lead to the death of a man that had previously saved his life. Lupin hasn't joined forces with the most evil wizard of the century, so he hadn't needed to serve penitence for that past mistake. > Betsy HP: > But Snape also has the moral authority of being the only adult in > the room completely loyal to Dumbledore. You know, if the rest > doesn't cut it for you. Mike: Is that the same Dumbledore that Snape AKs three books later? Or perchance did you mean Aberforth? From xellina at gmail.com Tue May 22 08:54:54 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Natalia Flerova) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:54:54 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What makes LV so powerful? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463f9ec00705220154k6b820498j8cd3a55ff3c84bde@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169101 2007/5/20, Tandra : > This has been gnawing at me since I just finished the 6th book yet > again. I know LV hunts down power and finds out stuff that most other > wizards don't care to find out, but I don't get why he was so powerful > by the time DD met him in the orphanage. It seemed obvious to DD that > he wasn't an ordinary wizard, but where did all this power come from? > Because he was an heir of Slytherin? Is there anything that leads us > to believe that Slytherin was all that powerful? I just don't see why > he is all so powerful. Can anyone help me there? > > TKJ > > Cassy: Probably it has nothing to do with Slytherin (after all, his other descendants were not at all impressive). I think it is simply an innate talent, a result of very complex combination of different factors, not all of which are genetic. After all, we have Harry, who is very powerful as well (though we don't know how much of his abilities came from LV) and Hermione, who is both clever and able, though muggle-born. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue May 22 10:50:11 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 10:50:11 -0000 Subject: The Model of the Modern Major General? / Ethics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169102 > In: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169033 > Mike: > I was never under the impression that Fluffy was put there > to *kill* any intruders. Goddlefrood: Nor I, hence his name. Fluffy was a big furball, somewhat like his owner Rubeus. That a careless paw may have swiped Severus's leg is neither here nor there. Snape did not place himself in any physical danger in Philosopher's Stone, IMO. The carefully chosen words of Dumbledore at the beginning of term feast, those being as quoted by Mike in the above referred post, were little more than an exaggeration. Since when has anyone on this list taken anything at face value? Mr. Duplicity is not fond of being called a coward, that we do know, but does this go to his own opinion of himself or more to an opinion expressed to him by another? Perhaps that is something that should be considered. I have expressed an opinion before that it may coincide with Lord Voldemort's initial reaction to Snape when the latter crawled back to the former dripping with sycophancy and muzzled his way back into the Dark Lord's good graces. It also seems to me that there is some contamination creeping into this discussion from the medium-that-shall-not-be-named. Of the opinions expressed more recently on this thread, in fact Mike's are the ones with which I agree most closely, not perhaps entirely, but near enough. > In: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169035 > Leslie41: > Snape believes he's going into a confrontation with Lupin > and the man he thinks he's protecting, the outlaw and > dangerous Azkaban escapee, Sirius Black. Goddlefrood: Does he now? Told us this did he? I think not. Severus had the very clear intention, IMO, of being the one to *capture* Sirius, not necessarily by violent means. The Snape I divine from the point reached in canon in PoA is that he considered himself, perhaps quite reasonably, powerful enough to be able to deal with whatever obstacle he might find in his way at the Shack. Such obstacles would include Remus and, he may have hoped, Sirius too. Also he would have had the singular thought, IMO, that the time had come for his revenge for what had occurred proximate to the Shack around 20 years earlier and have been blinded to any potential dangers to *himself* by that thought. That he was hoist with his own petard in his assumption (his, not mine) that he may only have had Lupin to contend with is not an unreasonable interpretation of how the events in PoA unfolded. It is, however *not* what happened. That Severus had to deal with what he found on reaching the Shack is also something that may be safely extrapolated, his rage extended to both Lupin and Sirus, after all. Of his grudges against the Marauders in general his grudge against Sirius in particular was the strongest by far. It is quite clear from even a surface read that this latter is correct and sustainable on a second, third or umpteenth read through. When he came across Sirius as well in the Shack he may well have felt vindicated. He may also have felt at the point where he revealed himself in the Shack that he had the tools to deal with both Remus *and* Sirius. But for intervention by HRH this may indeed have been a valid feeling on his part. I am certain he arrived in the Shack, indeed in the bedroom itself, some minutes before he revealed himself and I quoted the relevant canon on another thread very recently. The relevant extract of where I feel he first started listening in is in: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169043 > The ghost of Goddlefrood past: > "Lupin broke off. There had been a loud creak behind him. The > bedroom door had opened of its own accord. All five of them > stared at it. Then Lupin strode towards it and looked out into > the landing. > 'No one there ...' > 'This place is haunted!' said Ron > 'It's not,' said Lupin, still looking at the door in a puzzled > way. 'The Shrieking Shack was never haunted ... the screams and > howls the villagers used to hear were made by me.'" > p. 258 - Bloomsbury Paperback Edition > My view is that this is Snape entering. It is before Remus > starts to explain about his school days and how he came to > Hogwarts, but after the exposition on the night of the > Potters' deaths. > Snape appears within the room from under the IC on p. 262. Back to the ghost of Goddlefrood present: Snape was certainly not going to listen to any further explanation, as he indeed did not do. He quite possibly felt that he had heard more than enough during the time in which he was present to confirm his prognosis that Lupin and Sirius were acting in tandem and even a likely danger to HRH from Severus's perspective, which was, remember, almost certainly clouded by his hatred of both the other adults present. > Leslie41: > It seems to me that Snape's critics often seem to view his > behavior with the knowledge and understanding that *they* > have of the other characters (taking Harry's perspective, > to [sic.] to speak), not the knowledge that Snape himself > has. Goddlefrood: It is an impression that could be easily formed. That is due to the rather odd notion that these books (each of which contain the nominative Harry Potter in their titles) are all written *from* Harry's PoV. The chapters that are not, and so far there have been few, although I expect at least 3, possibly 4, chapters not from Harry's PoV to be included in Deathly Hallows, are also *not* written from Snape's PoV so how is it possible to form an *accurate* picture of how Snape himself thinks? That opinions can be given, as I do above, in respect of his possible line of thought should hold no real contention and as this list is well aware there are ways of making out an argument for many different forms of Mr. Multiplicity. If there might be any pointers available that contradict the above paragraph I would be extremely pleased to read about them. The point I want to make is that all versions of Snape are subjective to the person writing those views, and to make a more objective assessment is the challenge that faces us all. To put it even more simply, each to their own. > In: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169038 > > Mike: > > Why do we think that Snape "save Harry's life" by performing > > the countercurse? > zgirnius: > Because Quirrell describes his actions as an attempt on > Harry's life, not an attempt to make himself a nuisance, > perhaps? Goddlefrood (part of the generic we of Mike's): This *we* does not think Snape saved Harry's life during the game in question. It is so unlikely that that particular attempt of the sadly deluded Professor Quirrell's would have succeeded that very little can be drawn from it, in my interpretation. Alla in a post earlier in the thread set this out rather well and her position in this regard is to be commended. I would personally compare it to Draco's attempts to kill DD in HBP (the cursed necklace and the poisoned mead). In other words the attempt to unseat Harry from his broom was perhaps one of the least successful attempts in history and may even merit a place in "The Book of Heroic Failures". He's not referred to as the sadly deluded Professor Quirrell by myself for no reason, you (generic) know. He quite clearly had a far higher opinion of himself than he merited and his mission, even if it could be described as such, ultimately failed. > In: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169060 > Leslie (less the 41): > The "logical approach" when discovering a murderer is to run > away and inform the authorities. If you're especially brave > and skilled, you subdue them and turn them over to the > authorities. Which is exactly what Snape tried to do. Goddlefrood: Not that I would wish to make any great claim for my experience in this area, but my working life suggests that in fact, when a situation is faced in which a murderer or any other type of viloent criminal is caught up with, logic rarely has a place in such states of affairs. It is mostly adrenaline that drives the reaction to such confrontations as dozens of anecdotes I could go into, but won't, would attest. I will, however give you my personal experience of such a situation. One evening, not so many years ago, I was confronted at a service station check out window (the kind where one stands outside while the server is safely ensconsed in a locked shop) by a man of lesser build than I who was wielding a kinfe and wanted to take some of my hard earned income. My first inclination was not to run away but to challenge this man, even though I rarely indulge in knife fights. Once he was on the ground my sense (call it logic) kicked in and asked my what I was doing. I froze giving my intended violent assailant the opportunity to escape. He is, as far as I know, still at large, having never seen him at the Court precincts, which I frequent. Logic was nowhere initially is the point, so why should Snape be given any credit for his actions? Adrenaline would fit the case in point just as well and many another wizard or witch finding themselves faced with a perceived to be notorious murderer would, IMNSVHO, have acted similarly to how Snape acted. What might be called bravery by some I consider, on reflection, to have been foolishness because the incident described above could easily have ended in my demise. It was not something I thought of at first instance, though, as I say. > In: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169065 > Anonymous (herinafter anon): > As for the use of lethal force, it certainly was appropriate > in Snape's case, as Black started toward him with "a roar of > rage". Though wandless, Black obviously indended harm. If a > known murderer heads toward me with a "roar of rage," and I > have a gun, I'll shoot, even if he doesn't. So would a cop, > most likely. Goddlefrood: Perhaps this is why the post was anonymous. Snape goes on to say rather shortly after the incidents described by anon that he would like a reason to be given to use violent force. All the above quote, and the material that follows it in anon's post, shows is that Severus has a *normal* reaction and not the overreaction which anon seems to have little problem with. If either a citizen or any member of the disciplined forces is leaning towards agreement with anon and ever finds themselves in the hypothetical situation which anon describes then be prepared to spend a good portion of your natural life in prison. Also be aware if you are an inhabitant of a country where the death penalty is still available that you would most probably face that penalty, that is if the knowledge that the person approaching you, no matter how notorious, were not similarly armed to yourself were not provable. I suppose perjury might be in order, but I could never advise such a course of action. IMNSVHO it is far from a normal reaction to use deadly force unless the situation merits its use, and remember that the legal test for such things is an objective more than a subjective one, although subjectivity can be taken into account. We do not know if the same standards would apply in the WW, but having said that, we can not know because the legal workings of the WW are far from clear. There is too little given in canon to form an adequate conclusion of what may have happened to Snape had he actually killed Sirius in the Shack, which he did not do anyway. I offer the opinion that it is far from certain that Snape would *not* have ended up in Azkaban had he killed Sirius. The standards of the WW should not be so far removed from those of the real world of the benighted isles. As I've stated before, while the US justice system may be an adequate one from which to form an opinion of how the legal system works in canon, it is a child of the parent and JKR is of the parent, as 'twere, while also being the parent of the HP books. She is unlikely to be too worried about the workings of legal systems outside of the original common law system, so why should we be concerned with what happens elsewhere than in limey land? For that particular aspect of the WW, anyway. It may come as a surprise to some, but let me tell you, that members of the Police force, other than at airports and for specially designated events for doing so, do *not* routinely carry firearms in Great Britain (which does not include Northern Ireland, which is a far different kettle of fish. Goddlefrood, having acted on instructions received ;-), and hoping the opinions expressed herein are taken as such. Also trying to keep morals and ethics rather separate, as the sub title I chose for this post may suggest. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 13:11:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:11:55 -0000 Subject: Was Ministry going to punish Snape if kills Sirius on site? WAS: On perfecti In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169103 Carol: > So thanks, Alla. You're right that Snape may have avoided a prison > sentence for taking justice into his own hands a la Lupin and Black, > but he also refrained from committing murder in front of three kids. Alla: Yep, precisely. He may have avoided a prison sentence for killing Sirius and Remus, **that is why** he refrained from committing a murder in the shack. That would be correct summary of my position. I agree - Snape exercised restraint, I am just saying that his restraint was "self serving" one. Carol: > Had it turned out that Black really was planning to kill Harry, I > think even the most ardent anti-Snapers would have to reluctantly call > Snape a hero. Alla: Good thing I am spared from calling him a hero then and instead can call him revenge seeking bastard. Carol: And even as it is, the kids owe him their lives for > taking them to the hospital wing when a werewolf was on the grounds. Alla: That's your opinion, Carol. Mine is that kids owe their life to Sirius Black if such mortal danger existed. From lauren1 at catliness.com Tue May 22 11:19:07 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:07 -0700 Subject: Harry without Dumbledore Message-ID: <109501c79c74$42486a90$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 169104 Hi, A concern I have with the upcoming DH is that if Dumbledore is really gone, how will Harry get the help he needs? So far, Dumbledore has always helped Harry. Especially if Harry does not go back to Hogwarts, so he can't go to what was Dumbledore's study to communicate with Dumbledore's portrait, I wonder how Harry will get the help he needs finding all of the Horcruxes and dealing with You-Know-Who? Thanks Lauren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Tue May 22 14:18:27 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:18:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169105 > zgirnius: > Neither would Snape know any intimate information about the > progression of their relationship! Unless Dumbledore did confide in Snape about Sirius, which you are supposing he would not, Snape would not be aware that Harry was corresponding with him in GoF, and that Sirius lived in the vicinity of Hogsmeade for a time and was visited by Harry. > > Neither would Snape be aware of the relationship as it developed > during Harry's time at 12 GP. Snape showed up only for Order meetings and did not socialize at all. Nor did he and Harry ever discuss Sirius. Snape could *speculate*, naturally. So could Peter, for that matter. Dana: You are forgetting two occasions where Snape witnessed the relationship between Harry and Sirius himself. One at the end of GoF when the Sirius in his animagus form set next to Harry's growling at Fudge for calling Harry a liar and the second is in the kitchen scene in OotP. Dana From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 22 14:23:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:23:15 -0000 Subject: FILK: My! Ginevra Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169106 My! Ginevra A Filk by Pippin To the tune of My Sharona, by The Knack Dedicated to all participants in Ginny threads, whatever ships they may sail (Canon note: Ginny's full name is given as Ginevra on Jo's website.) Ooh you won the Quidditch Cup, Quidditch Cup, Never even knew you could fly, Ginevra Ooh you get my broomstick up, my broomstick up, Thought you were supposed to be shy, Ginevra Never gonna stop, won't shut up, not normally, She's the one that Jo made, Jo made just for me, My! my! my! i yi woo, M M M My! Ginevra.... Hangin' with the basilisk, oh such a risk, Where'd you learn to tell all those lies, Ginevra? Making you a mystery, the diary Thought that you would be my demise, Ginevra Knew I'd never stop, give it up, such an evil mind Riddle took you down in the chamber of secret kind My! my! my! i yi woo, M M M My! Ginevra.... Are you gonna be with me, be with me? Is it just a matter of time, Ginevra? Are you my destiny, destiny? Or are you just a partner in crime, Ginevra? Gotta metaphor in my chest, it's an awful pest, Wish that Jo would give it up, it deserves a rest, My! my! my! i yi woo, M M M My! Ginevra... From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 14:22:56 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:22:56 -0000 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169107 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nathan_RJ" wrote: > > Hello, it's my first post on the list. > > I'd like to present a question and my theory about how Voldy dies. > > In few words, my theory is that Voldy was wrong about HP being the one > on the prophecy. This one would be in fact Neville - do not forget > Neville is son of famous Auror parents, and also has strong reasons to > kill LV. > > So, in my opinion, the end of DH will be: HP and LV discovering that > HP is really a (accidental) Horcrux, and HP will ask some of his > friends (Rony, or Hermione, or Ginny) to kill him as being the only > way to LV become mortal. Then Neville kills LV. Later, the love (in a > way that I do not suspect) brings HP back to life. > > And you? Do you also believe that Neville is the one? > > Rgds, > Nate TKJ I think that Neville will play a significant part in the downfall of LV. IDK if he will actually kill him but I think that he and Harry might do it together maybe or something like that. The prophecy could of applied to either of them, yes I know LV marked Harry as his equal when he chose to attack him, but I think that Neville cannot be taken out of the equation all together. From richp100uk at yahoo.com Tue May 22 14:31:16 2007 From: richp100uk at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:31:16 -0000 Subject: Harry without Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <109501c79c74$42486a90$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lauren Merryfield" wrote: > > Hi, > A concern I have with the upcoming DH is that if > Dumbledore is really gone, how will Harry get the help > he needs? So far, Dumbledore has always helped Harry. > > Especially if Harry does not go back to Hogwarts, so > he can't go to what was Dumbledore's study to > communicate with Dumbledore's portrait, I wonder how > Harry will get the help he needs finding all of the > Horcruxes and dealing with You-Know-Who? > Thanks > Lauren > Hi All, I'm a new member to the group and alot of what I've seen has gone over my head. On this post, there maybe more than one portrait of Dumbledore. For example it has been possible for Sirius' grandfather to go into his other portraits to see if Sirius was really at Orders HQ. So Dumbledore's portrait will be there as well. Richard From shmantzel at yahoo.com Tue May 22 14:58:30 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 07:58:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] FILK: My! Ginevra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <689642.45756.qm@web56506.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169109 Pippin: Ooh you won the Quidditch Cup, Quidditch Cup, Never even knew you could fly, Ginevra Ooh you get my broomstick up, my broomstick up, Thought you were supposed to be shy, Ginevra Never gonna stop, won't shut up, not normally, She's the one that Jo made, Jo made just for me, My! my! my! i yi woo, M M M My! Ginevra.... Dantzel: You get my broomstick up?!?!?! Those wizards are well endowed... haha. --------------------------------- Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 22 15:27:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:27:01 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack was Re: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169110 > Mike: > OK, Head of House means you get to tie up and gag all those flunky, > non-Head of House Professors. Pippin: You keep trying to posit that Snape and Lupin have equal authority to decide what to do with Sirius. But actually, they both must have orders from Dumbledore. The teachers have twice been told to search the castle for Black, and must therefore have some idea of what Dumbledore wants them to do if they find him. We don't know what those instructions were, but it's highly unlikely that they were "Sit down and tell three students, one of whom is seriously injured, your life story, while Black, who is known to be armed and dangerous, just sits there." Lupin was not acting like an innocent man. If Lupin indeed has evidence that Sirius is innocent, then he should be getting it to Dumbledore at once, not explaining it to Harry. Exactly what was Lupin expecting Harry to do, once he was convinced? Well, we know that, he expected Harry to witness an extra-legal execution. Seems to me Lupin's got no moral right to complain if he was bound and gagged in an effort to prevent that. OTOH, if there was no evidence, then Lupin should be treating Sirius as a dangerous outlaw. Snape doesn't know what Lupin is up to, but logic shows that Lupin is not behaving as Dumbledore's man. I'm not going to defend Snape for losing his temper or venting his prejudices against werewolves, but just like a paranoid person can have real enemies, even a prejudiced person can have legitimate concerns. Imagine what would have happened if Hagrid had found Sirius -- he'd have torn him limb from limb. McGonagall would at least have wanted Dumbledore informed at once. I don't think that either one of them would have been at all understanding if Lupin had insisted they were making a mistake, and accused them of pursuing their schoolday grudges (which they both had) against Sirius. I don't understand the minus one hundred on the morality scale. Snape was cleared of charges -- he'd earned his right to be considered no more a Death Eater than Albus Dumbledore. And no, I don't think Dumbledore was wrong about that. If he was wrong about that he was wrong about everything. Pippin From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 15:43:23 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:43:23 -0000 Subject: Snape can do nothing right. Was: Ministry going to punish Snape...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Carol: > > Had it turned out that Black really was planning to kill Harry, I > > think even the most ardent anti-Snapers would have to reluctantly > call > > Snape a hero. > > Alla: > > Good thing I am spared from calling him a hero then and instead can > call him revenge seeking bastard. > > > Carol: > And even as it is, the kids owe him their lives for > > taking them to the hospital wing when a werewolf was on the > grounds. > > > > Alla: > > That's your opinion, Carol. Mine is that kids owe their life to > Sirius Black if such mortal danger existed. > Leslie: Alla, your position about Snape is obviously rock-bound and immovable. But this brings up an issue with me and the Snape critics, which is that because of what I perceive as an unreasonable anti-Snape prejudice, Snape can NEVER do anything right. Snape's actions, even if they save people's lives, or put his own life in danger, are always somehow wrong or lessened or called into question because of his unpalatable personality. I freely admit he's an unpleasant person, a teacher with a very sadistic streak. But he is also very brave, and intelligent. He's an effective teacher. And when push comes to shove, when the stakes are high, he always ACTS properly. Those of us discussing the incident in the Shrieking Shack would likely freely admit that Sirius is brave and tries to save the kids by subduing a werewolf. Can't Snape be given ANY credit at all for what he does or doesn't do? My problem is that I think the Snape critics unreasonably hold Snape to a higher standard, while they give the Marauders and Harry and everyone else they happen to "like" a pass. Snape can do no right. The Marauders can do no wrong. While I again freely admit that Sirius acts to save the children, I also see Snape doing that as well. And I find the blind defense of Sirius and Remus ironic in light of the fact that Sirius and Remus have historically put far more children in danger than Snape has. Yes, Sirius is trying to protect the kids. But he also is the person who ripped the hell out of Ron's curtains, and scared everyone to death. He also played a trick on Snape that nearly killed him. With Lupin, and James and Peter, he willfully endangered the entire population of Hogwarts for years, by roaming about with a werewolf. Yes, Snape has done wrong. He has, according to Dumbledore, repented of it. Sirius still isn't sorry he nearly killed Snape. And the adult Lupin is still so self-serving that he keeps a very important fact to himself (that Sirius is an animagus) because he doesn't want to look bad. That's by his OWN admission. He's very "nice" but he doesn't DO the right thing. I like Sirius and Remus. But I'm not blind to their faults. Snape restrained himself from killing a man who was about to attack him. Sirius and Lupin were gleefully about to kill a man who was pleading for his life. Snape is not a very nice guy. And I don't like him. But he does the right thing. The facts don't lie. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 16:45:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:45:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's supposed involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > > > > Carol responds: > > > > As far as I can see, the only piece of information that Snape could > > have added to this wealth of knowledge and used to claim a share of > > the credit in Black's death to Bellatrix, who knew quite well who > > actually killed Black, is that he had seen Black at Hogwarts in > > Animagus form shortly before DD sent him to "return" to LV. > > Neri: > I don't think such information would be enough for Snape to claim a > share of the credit, not in front of Bella (who killed Black herself) > and Narcissa (Kreacher's contact woman). Moreover, Snape phrases his > words to Bella in a way that suggests a difference between his Vance > information and his Black information: > > "The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on > the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent capture > and murder of Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of > Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him off." > > The difference is in Bella's previous knowledge about these two pieces > of information: she could only guess about the first, but knew for > sure about the second, or Snape wouldn't be able to use "certainly". I > have to agree with Jen: it's implied that Snape's information was > important in disposing of Sirius and that the two sisters (or at least > Bella) already know this. > > > > And, again, there was no specific plot to kill Black. The plot > > was to lure Harry to the Mom under the *pretense* that Black had been > > captured. > > > > Neri: > We don't know that there wasn't a plot to kill Black. As I've pointed > out here before several times, the logical way for Voldemort to plan > his operation was to tell Snape to warn the Order a little too late, > so that they'd rush to the DoM to save Harry and be caught in an > ambush of either DEs or Aurors. If this is the way it was planned then > Snape would be able to claim later that his information helped in > disposing of Black without giving away too much too soon to the > reader. It may have been Snape's own secret plan to prevent Harry from > going to the DoM (in my theory because of the debt) while sending > instead Sirius and possibly some other Order members Snape isn't > exactly fond of to get caught or killed. > > > Neri > Carol responds: In which case, how do you explain that Snape specifically requested Black to remain at home and wait for Dumbledore? It's canon that Wormtail could and would have presented the information that Black was an Animagus (which presumably includes his exact appearance, which Snape has seen all of once and wormtail too many times to count). Black's being in the Order would be old news; Voldemort would know it from VW1. What else besides "Black was at Hogwarts in dog form" could Snape tell him? Maybe that he was sent to Lupin's to recruit "the old crowd" (most of whom probably still thought that he was the "murderin' traitor")? Snape could, in such a case, truthfully claim that he had provided information on Black. He could also, BTW, have named Emmeline Vance as a member of the reconstituted Order (which seems like the sort of information he would need to provide to maintain his cover and gain what passes for Voldie's trust) and claim (with some truth) that that information led to her capture and death. He need not have provided any more information than that. Bellatrix, remember, is on the outs with Voldie, and even if she weren't, she wouldn't dare to say to ask Voldemort if Snape's assertions are true. To ask such a question would imply that she believes Snape is lying to Voldemort. Such a statement would contradict Voldemort's view of himself as the world's greatest Legilimens, to whom no one can lie without detection. I think Bellatrix senses that Snape is telling her a mixture of partial truths and lies, and when he asks rhetorically, "You think he is mistaken [in believing me]? 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.) Bellatrix, of course, says nothing. To say "no" would mean that she believes Snape, which she doesn't. If she says "yes," she's admitting that Snape can "hoodwink" the Dark Lord through his superb Occlumency or by some other means. Snape, having won the point, changes the subject. Bellatrix, unable to go to the Dark Lord with her suspicions (especially after Snape makes sure that she's involved in the Unbreakable Vow and can't use it against her and Narcissa), works behind his back to thwart him, teaching Draco rudimentary Occlumency and (IMO) planting the idea in his mind that Snape is trying to steal his glory. But I see absolutely no reason why Bellatrix, who doubts virtually every explanation Snape gives her but has no way of confirming their truth or falsity, would "know" or believe that Snape in some way provided information that led to her dear cousin's unplanned death. What information could that be? Wormtail and Kreacher together provided everything Voldemort needed to know if he were indeed plotting Black's death, but why even bother? The poor guy can't go anywhere without being recognized. (Snape tells him that Lucius Malfoy saw him on Platform 9 3/4.) Whatever is the point of going after such a seemingly useless Order member? Now using Harry's affection for Black to trap *Harry* is another matter, but that's not what Snape is claiming to have had a hand in. In fact, when Bellatrix and Narcissa start flinging the blame around for the failure of that mission, he deflects the argument but stating that it's pointless to assign blame. (Exactly. If they start analyzing that fiasco too closely, they might figure out who sent the Order to rescue Harry and friends.) Carol, who thinks that we should stay with canon here, and canon blames Kreacher for revealing the Harry/Sirius relationship From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue May 22 17:02:28 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:02:28 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169113 > Betsy Hp: > This is an interesting theory, Jen... *But* (heh, you knew that was > coming) I have two big issues with it. Jen: I'm shocked, truly I am. LOL > Betsy Hp: > This is issue number one. I think you're selling house-elves short > in general and Kreacher in particular. I've always read Kreacher's > mad act as just that, an act. Just like every other house-elf > we've met in canon, Kreacher has figured out a way to express his > unhappiness and do pretty much as he wishes. He's arranged it so > he doesn't have to fake any genuine loyalty to people he sees as > desecrating his home. He's arranged it so he doesn't have to take > part in that desecration, and he's arranged it so he can protect > what he is able. And he ran to the "enemy" at the very first > opportunity. Jen: I went back through and read sections with Kreacher and have to agree he makes sense in all the things he says, that he doesn't seem confused. What I also didn't see from him is direct evidence that he is noticing the quality or depth of personal relationships. He makes assessments about the actions people in the house are taking or extrapolates out from information he has heard but doesn't appear to notice anything about how people relate to one another. Magpie mentioned the example of Sirius breaking his mother's heart and to me that example is one of many of him repeating information he's heard from Mrs. Black or others he respects. If Mrs. Black was anything as dramatic as her portrait appears to be, she likely enumerated all the ways Sirius broke her heart and disappointed her to anyone who was in listening range. There are numerous examples of Kreacher repeating information and considering what Mrs. Black would say to see him in his current situation, but I don't see an example of him connecting the dots about relationships between the humans around him. And when he might be able to see this, over Christmas Break when Sirius felt 'delight at having the house full again, and especially at having Harry back,' Kreacher isn't around to notice. > Betsy Hp: > Or, maybe Kreacher sees Hermione's sympathy as the DADA class saw > Umbridge's sympathy: an attempt to indoctrinate him away from his > personal beliefs and loyalties. I do think Hermione was sincere in > her pity (whereas I doubt Umbridge was all that sincere in hers), > but that overly kind, ignoring of stated beliefs, can come across > as pretty condesending when you're on the receiving end. Jen: I agree with everything here. My point was that Kreacher can't see distinctions enough to even tell Hermione is being condescending if she is. He evaluates her only from her blood status. He's just not showing much nuance! Carol: > Exactly. Voldemort knows as of the first chapter of GoF and probably > before that Wormtail is a rat Animagus ("You know that I can > disguise myself most effectively," Wormtail says). Surely, Wormtail > has told him the whole story of his escape from his former friends, > the dog Animagus and the werewolf. (If he didn't tell it > voluntarily, Voldemort, being a Legilimens and fond of the > Cruciatus Curse, would have forced the whole story out of him. > Moreover, he would have told Voldemort (perhaps when Harry was a > baby) that Black was Harry's godfather. Jen: It's always okay to speculate such a scenario and it could very well be true. The fact remains that we don't have Peter giving this information to Voldemort anywhere in the story and Snape himself says he passed information to Voldemort that helped dispose of Sirius Black. That may prove to be completely untrue but it's the only canon about the passing of information on Sirius. Carol: > Unlike Snape, who arrived late and then was knocked unconscious, > Wormtail heard the entire conversation between Lupin, Black, and HRH > in the Shrieking Shack and afterwards, including Black's offer to > let Harry live with him, which occurs while he is in human form > before his escape. And we can be pretty sure that Voldemort > obtained every scrap of information possible from him, and > Wormtail, no Occlumens, so far as we know, and terrified of > Voldemort yet having no place else to go, would have willingly told > him. Jen: Scabbers was squeaking and struggling to escape in rat form, even going so far as to bite Ron, and in human form Peter was begging. I don't read Scabbers or Peter sitting quietly and listening to the story as Snape was doing during the time he was in the shack, time that included the story about the animagus. And about Voldemort caring what went on in the shack - I can't see this. When Peter returns to him he is obsessively focused on how to obtain human form again and hatching the plot that will become part of his rebirthing. We know that from Crouch's explanation under Veritaserum. Voldemort isn't interested in Peter and his schoolboy friends or how Peter escaped; his only completely absorbing interest in Peter is that he finally has a servant to do his bidding and help him regain power. > Betsy Hp: > I agree with the second part of your statement, but totally > disagree with the first part. I think Snape's loyalty and the > reason Dumbledore trusts him completely comes from the fact that > both Snape and Dumbledore share pretty much the same beliefs. Jen: I went back to read the times Dumbledore talks about trusting Snape. The times I could find, in GOF, OOTP and HBP, the context is the same thing, something to the effect of Harry asking, how do you know he is loyal to us, to our side, to you, Dumbledore? And each time Dumbledore states his standard phrase. Given the way Dumbledore says what is essential to say and no more, my belief now is Dumbledore's answer is saying: I trust Severus Snape is loyal to me and not to Voldemort. That's all Dumbledore needs to know to trust Snape, that he is on Dumbledore's side and not Voldemort's and that he will never return to Voldemort. It doesn't mean he thinks Snape is a great guy, that he has unimpeachable morals, that he can't lie or make choices Dumbledore doesn't approve of or anything of that nature. DH may bring information to change my mind and more elaboration by Dumbledore in some post-humous form, but until then, Dumbledore's statement of trust refers to Snape's loyalty only given the context of how it is asked. Jen: > I could see Snape considering the 'disposal' of Black to be an act > for the greater good of the cause regardless of how Dumbledore > might view it. > Betsy Hp: > But his actions in the Shack in PoA prove this idea wrong. Snape > begs for a "reason" to take down Sirius. Which, IMO, shows just > how much like Dumbledore Snape already is. Jen: That's before Dumbledore let Snape down again by siding with the Marauders and Harry over him just like he did with the Prank. I don't have proof but do think that changed the scenario for Snape. zgirnius: > Neither would Snape know any intimate information about the > progression of their relationship! Neither would Snape be > aware of the relationship as it developed during Harry's time at 12 > GP. Snape showed up only for Order meetings and did not socialize > at all. Nor did he and Harry ever discuss Sirius. Snape could > *speculate*, naturally. So could Peter, for that matter. Or > Narcissa, with the aid of Kreacher. Or Kreacher might just be able > to tell. Jen: Dana already pointed this out, but I wanted to elaborate on the scene in the kitchen in GP. I believe that interaction would give Snape everything he needed to know about the relationship between Harry and Sirius; Snape himself remarked 'how touching' Sirius' concern was for Harry. And Harry breaking the two of them up was more reminescent of the brother aspect of their relationship than Sirius acting like the father, another bit that came up in the explanation about what Voldemort knew or had concluded. The incident also fueled Snape's rage and led him to up his taunting to a new level, implying that Sirius not only had to stay inside b/c of orders but that Sirius actually preferred it that way. Given what Snape knows of Sirius and his history of impulsive behavior, that was a sure-fire way to get to Sirius and possibly ensure he would leave the house given the proper motivation. And Snape knows what that proper motivation would be after their interaction that day: "If I hear you're using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time, you'll have me to answer to." (Occlumency, p. 520, Am. ed.) If Snape or anyone messes with Harry, they will have to answer to Sirius and he's not waiting around for them to show up at his door either. zgirnius: > I find bizarre the idea that Snape might believe that Sirius was the > traitor, and yet believe that Dumbledore still trusted him at the > end of GoF. Actually, I also find it bizarre that Snape would credit > Harry with a powerful attachment to the man who betrayed his > parents. Jen: Snape was given a second chance after joining Voldemort and knows Dumbledore believes in people reforming, and it's clear after the Shack that Snape believes Sirius can 'hoodwink' people to believe him (and that Harry, like his father, is too arrogant to see his mistake in trusting Sirius). But I don't think this scenario is the only one, that Snape believes Sirius is the traitor. There's also the possibility Snape simply believes Sirius is a danger to himself and others, that he was once a murderer and hasn't changed 'his spots' and that Sirius is capable of messing up Dumbledore's plan even if Dumbledore is too trusting to see it. That one actually fits Snape's characterization the more I think about it, imo. Jen From karlii26 at gmail.com Tue May 22 15:59:02 2007 From: karlii26 at gmail.com (karlii26) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:59:02 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's First Interview Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169114 I'd like to bring up a couple of points for Chapter 25. First, I agree with everyone, that Dumbledore did not think he'd hear anything substantive in this interview. In fact, he seemed inclined to dismiss it out-of-hand. Given this, I wonder why he even gave an interview? Probably to satisfy some requirement of the Governor's, in order to drop the subject from the curriculum. In any case, we have two divergent descriptions of what happened to the alleged eavesdropper. In OotP, chapter 37, we are told that the eavesdropper heard the first part about the baby born at the end of July, to parents who thrice defied Voldemort. Then that eavesdropper was thrown from the building. Later, in HBP, we see that Sibyll saw the uncouth barman (Aberforth, I presume)standing at the door with Snape. She "can't help but think" that he was after 'interview tips'. This smacks stongly of memory modification. Dumbledore tells Harry that he was never a very good Occlumens. Then he tells Harry that of course, Severus was in the employ of the Dark Lord when he heard the prophecy, and of course, he would run to tell him. Given that Voldemort can see into Harry's mind, even if he hasn't seemed to over the sixth year, it makes sense the Dumbledore still works to protect Snape. No where does Dumbledore state that Severus heard the first part of the prophecy at the Hog's Head, at the time it was made. The whole 'pushing and thrusting' scuffle sounds staged to me. Trelawney's take on the mannerisms of herself and Sev, sounds reversed to me. She seems pushy, Snape seems reserved. There is more than meets the eye about this. I also expect that Dumbledore and Snape have some sort of vow or bond between them. I don't think that Dumbledore is allowed to speak clearly on what makes him trust Snape so strongly. It strikes me also, given the way Dumbledore has with words, that it isn't a lie to say Snape was in LV's employ at the time. Technically, he still IS in his employ. It does not state that Snape was "loyal" to Voldemort, merely that he was in his employ. If Dumbledore sent Snape off with a bit of prophecy, to try to gain some advantage in the war, well, maybe we'll find that out in a few days, when bk7, comes out. As that time approaches, I think this is a topic worth revisiting, and will help us find some truths, even if we won't know what those are until July. (now isn't THAT an interesting twist?) karlii From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 17:33:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:33:47 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack was Re: On the perfection of moral virtues. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169115 Betsy Hp wrote: > > Actually, Snape is the head of a house. So he's got greater > > responsibility and therefore greater authority in some issues. > > Plus, there's the seniority thing. > Mike: > OK, Head of House means you get to tie up and gag all those flunky, non-Head of House Professors. Got it. Sounds like he's Head of *Animal* House and the other Profs are pledges . > Carol responds: Oh, Mike. You've already admitted that Snape is protecting Harry from SS/PS forward. In this instance, he finds Harry's Invisibility Cloak outside the entrance to the tunnel and knows him to be in the company of a werewolf about to transform, one he suspects of being in league with the would-be murderer who slashed up the painting of the Fat Lady and Ron's bedcurtains, and whom he knows can get into the Shrieking Shack, and he lacks the "moral authority" to enter the tunnel and protect Harry from one or both of these dangerous people? Don't forget that Snape and Dumbledore and everyone else believes that Harry is Black's intended victim and that Black was Voldemort's righthand man, the spy who betrayed the Potters and the murderer of thirteen people. I'd say that he's using the same "moral authority" that he used when he alone tried to counter Quirrell's broom hex. He's protecting the students, and, in particular, the Prophecy Boy. For the second time, he's attempting to prevent Harry's murder. It has nothing to do with the Head of a House having authority over other teachers. That's more like Umbridge's position as High Inquisitor. Nor does it have anything to do with a schoolboy grudge beyond his belief that both Black and Lupin are capable of murder and have been since their schoolboy days. It has everything to do with the very real danger presented by a werewolf he himself has seen in its transformed state and the presumed danger presented by the man he knows to be Lupin's former friend and has every reason to suspect is out to kill Harry. As others have mentioned, he also thinks that Lupin has given Harry a way to get into Hogsmeade (into the hands of Sirius Black) and that Lupin is letting Black into the castle. (He doesn't know when he rushes out that Black is an Animagus, and he never does learn, AFAIK, that Black's real accomplice is Crookshanks the Cat.) He hears Lupin talk about concealing critical information about his "murderer" accomplice and hears him say "Snape was right about me." Well, what would that mean to Snape? What has Snape been suspecting all year about Lupin? If "Snape is right about [Lupin]," wouldn't Snape take that to mean that Lupin--whom he knows has not taken his potion--is untrustworthy and dangerous and that he is the murderer's accomplice? As zgirnius pointed out, this discussion isn't about Lupin. It's about Snape, and what Snape would think, based on the available information about both Black and Lupin, was going on. (He is, of course, partly right and partly wrong. Lupin *is* about to transform into a terrible monster and Black *is* intending to murder someone. He just thinks, as HRH also did and to some degree still do, that the intended victim is Harry. Note that Harry, who has heard more of the story than Snape has, is still not persuaded at that point. The only reason that he and the others disarm Snape--not intending to knock him out, which is not the usual result of that spell--is to hear the rest of the story.) Snape says--and believes--that he has just saved their lives. And he does later save them by conjuring the stretchers. He could have just left the little wretches and the criminal for the werewolf and any returning Dementors to find. Instead, he overcomes his anger and resentment and presumably a splitting headache (he was knocked unconscious by a blow to the head and his head has also been allowed by Sirius Black to bump against the ceiling to the tunnel repeatedly) and takes the kids to safety and the "criminal" to the Minister of Magic. What good citizen, under the same circumstances and with the same information, wouldn't do the same? Carol, wondering why Mike would concede that Snape repeatedly tries to protect Harry but make an exception in this case From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 17:52:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:52:42 -0000 Subject: What makes LV so powerful? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169116 Tandra wrote: > > This has been gnawing at me since I just finished the 6th book yet again. I know LV hunts down power and finds out stuff that most other wizards don't care to find out, but I don't get why he was so powerful by the time DD met him in the orphanage. It seemed obvious to DD that he wasn't an ordinary wizard, but where did all this power come from? > Because he was an heir of Slytherin? Is there anything that leads us to believe that Slytherin was all that powerful? I just don't see why he is all so powerful. Can anyone help me there? > Carol responds: Slytherin was one of the four Founders of Hogwarts, in itself a great accomplishment. He was reputed to be one of the greatest wizards of his age, famous for speaking Parseltongue (a rare gift). But the real proof of his greatness as a (Dark) wizard is the construction of a hidden chamber that no one but his own heir can find and open and the hatching*, taming, and controlling of a Basilisk, which will only obey him or his heir. (Please don't think that I'm defending the idea of hiding a Basilisk in the castle to kill the "unworthy" Muggleborns!) I can certainly see why budding Dark Wizard Tom Riddle would be proud to be descended from him and eager to prove himself Slytherin's true heir, especially given the taint (his view!) of his Muggle heritage on his father's side. It's odd that the line disintegrated as it did and that we don't hear of any other great wizards, Dark or otherwise, from that line (maybe Grindelwald was one?), and I'm guessing that the Gaunt line became so degenerate that the kids didn't even attend Hogwarts. (They spoke Parseltongue, but there's no indication of a Parselmouth at Hogwarts within a dozen years or so of Tom's residence there.) But Tom wouldn't care about that. He would think it made him even more special: the great Slytherin's powers passed down to him a thousand years later, with his ability to control the Basilisk as proof. Carol, who suspects that Slytherin could also control animals and had powers similar to Tom's but knew he was a wizard because he was a pureblood and so concealed and controlled those powers that could lead others to suspect that he was a Dark wizard * I'm assuming that he hatched the Basilisk rather than buying it because it would be rather difficult to conceal a monstous snake and fairly easy for a Dark wizard who happened to be a Parselmouth to hatch it himself after building its place of concealment From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 18:08:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:08:14 -0000 Subject: Was Ministry going to punish Snape if kills Sirius on site? WAS: On perfecti In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169117 Carol earilier: > And even as it is, the kids owe him their lives for taking them to the hospital wing when a werewolf was on the grounds. Alla responded: > > That's your opinion, Carol. Mine is that kids owe their life to Sirius Black if such mortal danger existed. > Carol: How about owing their lives to both Snape and Black? Certainly, Black chased the werewolf off originally, but at the time I'm speaking of, Black was unconscious and the werewolf was still at large. Carol, who thinks that the wish to stay out of Azkaban is sensible rather than self-serving and wonders why it wasn't shared by Lupin, who was quite ready to commit murder for reasons not so different from Snape's From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 16:18:26 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:18:26 -0000 Subject: Snape can do nothing right. Was: Ministry going to punish Snape...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169118 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > But this brings up an issue with me and the Snape critics, which is > that because of what I perceive as an unreasonable anti-Snape > prejudice, Snape can NEVER do anything right. Snape's actions, even > if they save people's lives, or put his own life in danger, are > always somehow wrong or lessened or called into question because of > his unpalatable personality. I freely admit he's an unpleasant > person, a teacher with a very sadistic streak. But he is also very > brave, and intelligent. He's an effective teacher. And when push > comes to shove, when the stakes are high, he always ACTS properly. > Does he always act properly? Not to those of us who think very strongly that he is a constant abuser of children. Which brings up a point -- personality and action cannot be so easily separated. It is, in fact, perfectly appropriate to insist that Snape apologize for his personality and the way it leads him to interact with others, including what I'd say is his contemptible abusive behavior. And it is, in fact, perfectly appropriate to insist that, short of an apology, punishment is in order. Frankly, if JKR does go the way of "nice is not good" and "actions excuse an abusive personality" then I'd say the messages she has encoded in her books are -- unfortunate. So, in this instance, the issue isn't that Snape hasn't done anything good. Of course he has. The issue is that what he's done, at least for some anti-Snapers, is beside the point. His good actions, to continue with the line of thought you want to explore, are real, but in no way excuse his abuse of Harry and Neville, nor do they release him from punishment therefor. His status as DDM!, if DDM! he is and I wouldn't be surprised, is not, once again in the line of thought you are challenging, important or relevant. And if JKR attempts to say that they are -- well, once again, unfortunate. Now, I rather suspect that IS where she's going. It's very sad, but on the scale of Britney Spears and Donald Trump, not that of Darfur and lung cancer. So the issue in the end, at least for some of us, isn't that Snape can't do anything right. It's that what he does right is pretty much irrelevant to the moral issues at stake. Lupinlore, who observes that other characters, D-dore in particular, have the same problem From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 18:46:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:46:12 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169119 Carol earlier: > > Exactly. Voldemort knows as of the first chapter of GoF and probably before that Wormtail is a rat Animagus ("You know that I can disguise myself most effectively," Wormtail says). Surely, Wormtail has told him the whole story of his escape from his former friends, the dog Animagus and the werewolf. > Jen: It's always okay to speculate such a scenario and it could very well be true. The fact remains that we don't have Peter giving this information to Voldemort anywhere in the story and Snape himself says he passed information to Voldemort that helped dispose of Sirius Black. That may prove to be completely untrue but it's the only canon about the passing of information on Sirius. Carol: But we do have canon that Wormtail told the story of his escape(s) to Voldemort though, granted, we don't have the details. He tells his Death Eaters in the graveyard: "And then, not even a year ago, when I had almost abandoned hope, it happened at last . . . . a servant returned to me. Wormtail here, who had faked his own death to escape justice, was driven out of hiding by those he had once counted friends abd decided to return to his master" (GoF Am. ed. 855-55). So it's not speculation that Wormtail told his story to Voldemort. It's canon, as is Voldemort's knowledge of Wormtail's Animagus form. Black himself says in OoP that Wormtail will have told Voldemort about his (Black's) Animagus form. True, he's speculating, but he knows Wormtail well, and we also know from canon that Wormtail was passing information about the Order to Voldemort before Godric's Hollow. We know how much Wormtail knew about Black and the Potters; a great deal more than Snape ever knew. And the *only* bit of information we actually see in canon that Snape could have passed to Voldemort is seeing Black transform from a dog to a man in Hogwarts. I think the mere fact of telling Voldemort that Black was in England was sufficient to claim a share in Black's death (to the psycho murderer who might consider such a claim to be evidence of Snape's loyalty to her master if she weren't convinced that Snape couldn't be trusted). I suppose it's possible that Snape could have informed Lucius Malfoy of Black's Animagus form, but Snape is talking about passing information to Voldemort personally. It seems more likely that *Voldemort* passed on the information about Black's Animagus form to his Death Eaters (cf. Bellatrix's "I was fighting the Animagus Black," which is an odd way to refer to her cousin, however much she hates him). And Snape took care to inform Black that Malfoy had seen him and recognized him on Platform 9 3/4--his way of reminding Black of the danger he's in should he decide to leave 12 GP again. BTW, Jen, you're speculating, too, and the only canon I've seen is Snape's vague claim to a Death Eater who distrust him that he's provided useful information to Voldemort. In contrast, we have Dumbledore's assertion that Kreacher provided the information you're attributing to Snape. Carol, conceding that we're all speculating at this point, but thinking that canon supports some speculations more strongly than others From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue May 22 19:28:37 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:28:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705221228o49418379k48a7a1848ec38cf5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169120 JW: Why all this talk of killing when the author believes in the sanctity of life, and that murder destroys the soul? Lynda: Ah!...But not all taking of life is murder. A soldier in a war who kills an enemy is not a murderer. Neither is one who kills in self-defense or one who kills another to protect family, friends, or the society at large from one who is placing others in danger. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Tue May 22 19:44:24 2007 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <422932.51885.qm@web55111.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169121 Yippee! Jane Austen references! honeypi reasoned: The thing about Austen's Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax plot twist that made it so successful is there was just enough in canon, so that when the truth was revealed it was easy for Emma to connect the dots. [akh snips ruthlessly] Lynda responded: Oh, is that it? See, that was no surprise to me at all. [more callous snipping] akh adds, late in the game: Another SHIP shock, which for me was much more surprising, is when Harriet reveals her attachment to Mr. Knightly. Emma is completely nonplussed by it, and I believe the audience can reasonably share her astonishment. Again, however, once we know the truth we can see the sequence of events and believe that Harriet, who hangs on the fringes of society, would find much more to admire in someone who rescued her from a socially degrading situation than someone who rescued her from would-be assailants. Plus, her affection for Mr. Knightly was already in motion by the time Frank rescued her from the marauders. Adding that scenario, we widen the field of possible SHIP twists. It could be argued, of course, that we've already seen the Harriet/Knightly dynamic in book 6, when Tonks is revealed to be pining for Lupin rather than mourning her cousin, as many suspected. akh, who is still thinking about possible H/K equibalents in HP... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Tue May 22 19:47:51 2007 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:47:51 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's First Interview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169122 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karlii26" wrote: "karlii26": > No where does Dumbledore state that Severus heard the first part of > the prophecy at the Hog's Head, at the time it was made. "K": Actually he does. "That might, indeed, have been the more practical course," said Dumbledore, "except that Voldemort's information about the prophecy was incomplete. The Hog's Head Inn, which Sibyll chose for its cheapness, has long attracted, shall we say, a more interesting clientele than the Three Broomsticks. As you and your friends found out to your cost, and I to mine that night, it is a place where it is never safe to assume you are not being overheard. Of course, I had not dreamed, when I set out to meet Sibyll Trelawney, that I would hear anything worth overhearing. 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." Oop Ch 37 p.843 US "karlii26": > The whole 'pushing and thrusting' scuffle sounds staged to me. > Trelawney's take on the mannerisms of herself and Sev, sounds > reversed to me. She seems pushy, Snape seems reserved. "K": Dear Trelawney. I thought her description of herself was quite funny. :-) I don't find this part odd, though. I imagine there was some pushing and scuffling going on at first between Snape and Aberforth. I'm not sure why this would be questioned. "karlii26": > It strikes me also, given the way Dumbledore has with words, that it > isn't a lie to say Snape was in LV's employ at the time. > Technically, he still IS in his employ. It does not state that > Snape was "loyal" to Voldemort, merely that he was in his employ. "K": Dumbledore also states Voldemort was Snape's master. IMO, I think it's clear Snape was still working for Voldemort. Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to risk tranferring power to you -- again marking you as his equal. OoP p.843 Naturally, he hastend to tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master most deeply. HBP p.549 "karlii26": > If Dumbledore sent Snape off with a bit of prophecy, to try to gain > some advantage in the war, well, maybe we'll find that out in a few > days, when bk7, comes out. "K": Why would Dumbledore want Voldemort to know about the prophecy? If Voldemort never hears of it and no action is taken, the prophecy is worthless, isn't it? And why would Dumbledore, who knew the whole prophecy, put the lives of innocent people on the line and yet try to hide them? "karlii26": > As that time approaches, I think this is a topic worth revisiting... "K": I'd personally love to hear from Snape concerning the prophecy. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue May 22 19:33:45 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:33:45 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry without Dumbledore In-Reply-To: References: <109501c79c74$42486a90$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <2795713f0705221233p2a50f653oa3722bbcb2fda4b4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169123 Lauren: A concern I have with the upcoming DH is that if Dumbledore is really gone, how will Harry get the help he needs? So far, Dumbledore has always helped Harry. Lynda: Harry is no longer 11. He is also very self-reliant, due to his mistrust of adults, courtesy of the Dursleys. And, from some statements she's made, dead or alive, and I do think he's dead, Dumbledore is still around in some form. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue May 22 20:17:41 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:17:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <422932.51885.qm@web55111.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> <422932.51885.qm@web55111.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0705221317m37ea4e94vab77cbd068c80aa0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169124 akh: Adding that scenario, we widen the field of possible SHIP twists. It could be argued, of course, that we've already seen the Harriet/Knightly dynamic in book 6, when Tonks is revealed to be pining for Lupin rather than mourning her cousin, as many suspected. Lynda: I thought from fairly early in OOP that Tonks/Lupin was a possibility. I guessed pretty well from the text that she liked him and Lupin's generally fairly reticent, so anything was possible there, although I didn't get a sense of indifference from him at all. And I was fairly certain that the assertions from Hermione et al that Tonks was pining for Sirius were incorrect. As Ron (?--sorry--my copy of HBP is not at hand) remarks they didn't know each other all that well even if they were cousins. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 22 20:26:53 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry without Dumbledore Message-ID: <14117373.1179865613292.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169125 Lauren: >A concern I have with the upcoming DH is that if >Dumbledore is really gone, how will Harry get the help >he needs? So far, Dumbledore has always helped Harry. Lynda: >Harry is no longer 11. He is also very self-reliant, due to his mistrust of >adults, courtesy of the Dursleys. And, from some statements she's made, dead >or alive, and I do think he's dead, Dumbledore is still around in some form. Bart: And, he DOES have help. Professor Snape, when running away, gave Harry a set of instructions on what he needs to do to defeat Voldemort. If this is by accident, well, he still got them. However, whether or not Dumbledore expected not to survive, it is very hard to believe that he didn't have a backup plan. The only reason I can think of for not passing his Horcrux theories to others (and note that Ron and Hermione know it based on Dumbledore's explicit instructions for Harry to share the information with them, and Slughorn has almost certainly guessed), help will be available from OOP members, at least those whose brains have not been addled by being knocked unconscious too many times. Looking at this as a story instead of real life (always a good idea), and, as a strong adherent to the DDM!Snape theory because, although it makes less sense real life, it makes more sense as a story device, at least to me, I will make the following predictions (some of which have been mentioned before): 1) Snape will prove himself to be against Voldemort, making a move (I'll give 75-25 that it results in Snape's death) that, while it won't defeat Voldemort, it will give Harry an extra edge (like the old cop movie cliche of the supposedly dead cop shooting at the bad guy, missing, but giving the hero an extra bit of time through the distraction). 2) I suspect that even if ESE!Snape is true, the same thing will happen, although it may be inadvertent on Snape's part. 3) Peter will have an opportunity to stop Harry, but will not take advantage of it (either through choice, or hesitating). 4) Harry will NOT find all the Horcruxes personally. 5) I WAS going to make a "death list", but I think that deserves its own thread. Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue May 22 21:47:29 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 21:47:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169126 > Carol: > But we do have canon that Wormtail told the story of his escape(s) > to Voldemort though, granted, we don't have the details. He tells > his Death Eaters in the graveyard: > > "And then, not even a year ago, when I had almost abandoned hope, it > happened at last . . . . a servant returned to me. Wormtail here, > who had faked his own death to escape justice, was driven out of > hiding by those he had once counted friends abd decided to return > to his master" (GoF Am. ed. 855-55). So it's not speculation that > Wormtail told his story to Voldemort. It's canon, as is Voldemort's > knowledge of Wormtail's Animagus form. Jen: You're right, there is canon for Peter telling his side of the story about his escape from his friends. There's no mention of the details as you said and the context is important because Voldemort is elaborating on his return to power and how he'd almost given up hope on any of his DEs when Wormtail was forced out of hiding by his friends. The emphasis in the story is on what Voldemort finds important, that Peter returned to him when he was driven out of hiding. Carol: > Black himself says in OoP that Wormtail will have told Voldemort > about his (Black's) Animagus form. True, he's speculating, but he > knows Wormtail well, and we also know from canon that Wormtail was > passing information about the Order to Voldemort before Godric's > Hollow. We know how much Wormtail knew about Black and the Potters; > a great deal more than Snape ever knew. And the *only* bit of > information we actually see in canon that Snape could have passed > to Voldemort is seeing Black transform from a dog to a man in > Hogwarts. Jen: The speculation about Wormtail could very well be the way Voldemort learned Sirius was an animagus; I brought that up in a post as well. That's not information that Dumbledore credited Kreacher with passing to Narcissa. Snape said he passed information that helped dispose of Black in front of the woman whom Dumbledore credited with the passing information that led to the same death. Snape said this outside the awareness of the main POV character and there was no explanation within HBP to reconcile the different views. To me that's fertile ground for theorizing a way to reconcile the two pieces of information. Carol: > BTW, Jen, you're speculating, too, and the only canon I've seen is > Snape's vague claim to a Death Eater who distrust him that he's > provided useful information to Voldemort. In contrast, we have > Dumbledore's assertion that Kreacher provided the information you're > attributing to Snape. Carol, conceding that we're all > speculating at this point, but thinking that canon supports some > speculations more strongly than others. Jen: The reason behind this theory is in my paragraph above and perhaps should have been included in my initial post for clarification. You've given your opinion that you only see one piece of vague canon in all my posts, so I'll offer my opinion: I've provided direct quotes and paraphrases of canon in all of my posts, checked the books for accuracy before posting and re-read parts of the story when something was brought to my attention as an error. If I've sounded as if I'm presenting this theory as fact, which it's not, then it's worth saying that everything I've presented is my opinion and my interpretation of canon and there are points where I'm speculating and theorizing. Jen From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue May 22 22:07:52 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 22:07:52 -0000 Subject: Snape can do nothing right. Was: Ministry going to punish Snape...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169127 Lupinlore: Does he always act properly? Not to those of us who think very strongly that he is a constant abuser of children. Which brings up a point -- personality and action cannot be so easily separated. It is, in fact, perfectly appropriate to insist that Snape apologize for his personality and the way it leads him to interact with others, including what I'd say is his contemptible abusive behavior. And it is, in fact, perfectly appropriate to insist that, short of an apology, punishment is in order. Frankly, if JKR does go the way of "nice is not good" and "actions excuse an abusive personality" then I'd say the messages she has encoded in her books are -- unfortunate. Leslie: As to whether or not Snape is "abusive", that's a discussion that's far from settled and would take far too long to argue again here (plus I doubt either one of us would change our respective opinions). But your position neatly illustrates my point, which is that Snape critics believe he can do no right and the characters that are likable can do no wrong. You cede that Snape does good, but then declare that good "irrelevant" to "the moral issues at stake", effectively rendering his goodness nonexistent. You are entitled to believe what you like about Snape. However, if you want to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, and present an argument that is coherent and logical, you will demand the same treatment for those you like that you do for Snape. As you call yourself "Lupinlore" my guess is you will not, however. If people are to be called to account for "abusive" behavior, Black should have been expelled for the prank. Sirius and James should have been expelled for their abuse of Snape, and Lupin should have lost his status as prefect for allowing it to happen, and been declared a coward in front of everyone. If people are to be called to account for *dangerous* behavior, all of the Marauders should have been expelled and sent to some sort of wizard juvenile hall for carousing around with a werewolf and endangering Hogwarts. Adult Lupin must also be held accountable for selfish refusal to reveal Sirius was an animagus. But you never seem to call for that. Unless those who hate Snape and demand nothing less than his head on a platter apply equal judgments to the characters they like for similar or worse actions, their arguments about Snape will not be taken seriously, because they are not bolstered by an unbiased view of characters and events. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 22 23:04:48 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 23:04:48 -0000 Subject: Harry without Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <109501c79c74$42486a90$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169128 --- "Lauren Merryfield" wrote: > > Hi, > A concern I have with the upcoming DH is that if > Dumbledore is really gone, how will Harry get the help > he needs? So far, Dumbledore has always helped Harry. > > Especially if Harry does not go back to Hogwarts, so > he can't go to what was Dumbledore's study to > communicate with Dumbledore's portrait, I wonder how > Harry will get the help he needs finding all of the > Horcruxes and dealing with You-Know-Who? > Thanks > Lauren bboyminn: I think Bart has the right idea in general. True with Dumbledore gone one really huge asset is lost, and I think, ultimately, that is true for every fictional hero; in the end they must go it alone. Still Harry is not without resources. As I've said many times before, Harry has Bill Weasley to teach him and help him with Curse Breaking. Curse Breaking is difficult and dangerous, especially since you are dealing with unknown curses, probably very old and likely cast in long dead languages. Those are exactly the skills Dumbledore displayed in the Cave in HBP. Those are exactly the skills Harry will need to safely find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes, and Bill is the man to teach Harry those skills. Harry also has Remus Lupin and Mad-Eye Moody to help him the offensive and defensive curses, jinxes, and spells. Moody is one of the most famous and effective Aurors, though it irritates me to no end that now in retirement, he gets no respect. Certainly he has a wide range of skills to offer Harry. Remus, while somewhat shabby, still seems a very competent, knowledgeable, and skilled wizard; he certainly has something to offer Harry. Arthur Weasley (and a few other Order members) work for the Ministry, which should allow Harry inside information, and when the time is right, inside access to important Ministry actions and policies. So, while one very important man is lost, there are several people, who as a collective group, come close to Dumbledore. As to Harry not going back to Hogwarts...hog wash! There is a big difference between deciding not to continue his schooling and declaring never to set foot in Hogwarts again. Harry certainly has NOT declare to never enter Hogwarts again, he simply can't be bothered with school lessons. Certainly Harry will return to the school many times, and he certainly will have free access to Dumbledore's portrait when ever he needs it. If nothing else, Phineas can carry messages to and from Dumbledore. In addition, I suspect the Gang will come to Hogwarts to use the library when they need to. Personally, I am expecting Harry to revisit the Chamber of Secrets, as well as the Room of Requirements, and the blocked secret passage behind the mirror. The Chamber seems like a good place to hide a Horcrux, or if the school is attacked, seems like a good place to hide some students. True Dumbledore was a great loss, but what can we (or Harry) do, people die, and the rest of us have no choice but to muddle through and do the best we can. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From karlii26 at gmail.com Tue May 22 23:12:22 2007 From: karlii26 at gmail.com (karlii26) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 23:12:22 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's First Interview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169129 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karlii26" wrote: > > > "karlii26": > > > No where does Dumbledore state that Severus heard the first part of > > the prophecy at the Hog's Head, at the time it was made. > > > "K": > > Actually he does. > > > "That might, indeed, have been the more practical course," said > Dumbledore, "except that Voldemort's information about the prophecy > was incomplete. The Hog's Head Inn, which Sibyll chose for its > cheapness, has long attracted, shall we say, a more interesting > clientele than the Three Broomsticks. As you and your friends found > out to your cost, and I to mine that night, it is a place where it is > never safe to assume you are not being overheard. Of course, I had not > dreamed, when I set out to meet Sibyll Trelawney, that I would hear > anything worth overhearing. 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." > Oop Ch 37 p.843 US "karlii26": After reading HBP, where we are told that Snape was eavesdropping, and was shown to Sibyll, it is easy to make the inference that Dumbledore was talking about Snape in the excerpt from OotP. However, the passage in OotP does NOT state that Snape was the eavesdropper who was thrown out. In HBP, while Trelawney states that Snape was in a 'commotion' with the barkeep, she does not state that he overheard the prophecy. (I know, she doesn't even know she made one). Harry assumes that Snape is the one who told Voldemort the prophecy. Dumbledore tells Harry that he was never a very good Occlumens, and THEN proceeds to tell Harry that Severus was sorry, etc... Dumbledore does NOT state that Snape heard it on that day, in the Hog's Head, at the time Trelawney said it. I believe Snape took the prophecy to Voldy. I think DD was well aware of what was going on, when he did it. I think that once again, DD was telling Harry this story, bearing in mind that Voldy could glean the information straight from Harry's head, if he had a mind to. DD was protecting Snape's role as a spy. Like I said, I understand the inference, but I do not agree that it is a fact. There have been too many times, when we are led down paths of inference.. to have it tossed back in our faces at the end of the book. That said, I think that it is ok, to keep a step back from this, and not assume that we should take it at face value. From amylpark at comcast.net Tue May 22 23:02:48 2007 From: amylpark at comcast.net (Amy) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:02:48 -0500 Subject: Harry without Dumbledore Message-ID: <000601c79cc5$5151bc70$0201a8c0@D33769C1> No: HPFGUIDX 169130 Lauren wrote: A concern I have with the upcoming DH is that if Dumbledore is really gone, how will Harry get the help he needs? So far, Dumbledore has always helped Harry. Especially if Harry does not go back to Hogwarts, so he can't go to what was Dumbledore's study to communicate with Dumbledore's portrait, I wonder how Harry will get the help he needs finding all of the Horcruxes and dealing with You-Know-Who? Amy: In the OOTP when they are in the kitchen on the night Harry arrives, Bill states that DD doesn't care what they remove him from as long as they leave him on the chocolate frog cards. Could that be a way of DD communicating with Harry? In each book the cards have been mentioned strongly, and I can't help feel that they will play an important part of the last book. From caleksandrova at gmail.com Wed May 23 00:18:08 2007 From: caleksandrova at gmail.com (Karina Aleksandrova) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 00:18:08 -0000 Subject: Harry without Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <109501c79c74$42486a90$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169131 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lauren Merryfield" wrote: > > Hi, > A concern I have with the upcoming DH is that if > Dumbledore is really gone, how will Harry get the help > he needs? So far, Dumbledore has always helped Harry. Karina: I don't think so. Harry had help from his friends and did a bunch of stuff on his own also. Dumbledore primarily got involved only at the end of each semester explaining some of the things that happened. With exception of the sixth year, where he is actually working with Harry. Before then: Year 1 - Harry and friends figure out about the Philosopher's Stone on their own, and then work together to pass the tasks, and Harry fights Quirrel. Year 2 - Hermione figures out that the monster in the Chamber of Secrets is a basilisk, Harry guesses where the entrance to it is, and on his own fights the basilisk with help from Fawkes and Sorting Hat. Year 3 - Harry performs the Patronus Charm to fight off a hundred dementors. Year 4 - With help from his friends and non-friend (Crouch Jr.), Harry successfully competes in the Triwizard Tournament. He learns to throw off Imperius Curse, and fights Voldemort. Year 5 - Harry leads D.A., and some of the D.A. members help him in the fight in the Ministry. I think Harry has learned to rely on others, and will be able to use each of his friends' strengths when needed. Hermione will help with research, of course. I definitely think that Kreacher may know something useful. Aberforth is bound to play a role. The D.A. and OotP should also be able to help in some way, even if Harry doesn't tell anyone about Horcruxes. Lauren: > Especially if Harry does not go back to Hogwarts, so > he can't go to what was Dumbledore's study to > communicate with Dumbledore's portrait, I wonder how > Harry will get the help he needs finding all of the > Horcruxes and dealing with You-Know-Who? Karina: I agree with bboyminn that Harry will go to Hogwarts for the Room of Requirement and library and the Dumbledore's portrait, and possibly other things. He loves that place; he could make it a base of operations. However, I do think that Dumbledore's portrait isn't going to help him much. The portraits are a very faint imprint of the person that existed, and tend to repeat catchphrases (Sir Cadogan, Sirius' mom), though some portraits seem more alive than others (Phineas Nigel). [JK Rowling talked about portraits in this interview: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80] But perhaps Dumbledore left something for Harry after all. Dumbledore has stored his memories in Pensieve, and perhaps there are still things that Harry can learn from those memories. I've been wondering forever: When - oh when - will we learn about how Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald? and what are the twelve uses of dragon blood that Dumbledore discovered? Oh, and how will Dumbledore's scar in the shape of London Underground come into play, as JK Rowling said it will? Karina From BrwNeil at aol.com Wed May 23 00:46:45 2007 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 20:46:45 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169132 In a message dated 5/21/2007 11:39:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jnferr at gmail.com writes: montims: Sorry, but I DON'T agree. I see Harry as the eponymous hero of the stories. The remaining characters are friends, some better and longer lasting than others, but I do not recognise a heroine as well. The series isn't The Trio and..., it is Harry Potter and... I'm not trying to change the title, but simply pointing out the importance of Hermione to the story. A hero is defined as a man noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose; especially one who has risked or sacrificed his life. That certainly defines Harry. A heroine is the female counterpart of a hero; in literature the principal female character in a novel. That defines Hermione in the series thus far. Ron has been mainly just a friend. Other than the chess game in book one, he has done little more than provide comic relief. Hermione, on the other hand has been instrumental in helping Harry. In book one, she noticed the trap door, saved both Ron and Harry from the Devil's Snare and used logic to figure out the clues to the potions. Without Hermione's help in book two, Harry would have never located the Chamber of Secrets and saved Ginny. In book three, Hermione is by Harry's side every step of the way as he saves Buckbeak and Sirius. Without her help in book four Harry would have made a fool of himself in the very first task. She encourages Harry to start the DA and fights by his side in the Ministry in book five. In book six she is written totally out of character, but is still the principal female character. Ginny may have become the super witch and Harry's love, but by definition, Hermione is and always will be the heroine of the series. Neil ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 23 02:15:57 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 02:15:57 -0000 Subject: Snape Does the Odd Thing Right, but is Not a Nice Man Nevertheless. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169133 > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169110 > Pippin: > I don't understand the minus one hundred on the morality > scale. Snape was cleared of charges -- he'd earned his right > to be considered no more a Death Eater than Albus Dumbledore. > And no, I don't think Dumbledore was wrong about that. If > he was wrong about that he was wrong about everything. Goddlefrood: The reference is to something that occurs in the Hitchhiuker's Guide to the Galaxy series and is a favoured way of expression for one Zaphod Beeblebrox. The Pensieved Council of Magical Law sittings contain too little information about Snape to form an adequate conclusion as to *how* and *why* Severus was cleared. It goes to the matter of whether Dumbledore's trust was jusitified. I've said before that as far as Albus himself was concerned Snape's ostensible reason for repenting his ways was accepted and *good enough* for Albus. Whether that then equates to his being no less a Death Eater than Albus Dumbledore is a moot point. Snape *is* a Deatrh Eater whether or not he is DDM. No one leaves the Death Eaters and Snape has convinced Lord Voldemort that he remains loyal. Had he not done so he would probably be no more. In other words the statement of Albus's at the proceedings seen in the Pensieve proves nothing whatsoever. In many people's eyes in *canon*, and more particularly after that business on the tower, he is a Death Eater and a loyal one, so where does that then leave the above extract from Pippin? IMO, nowhere, that's where. Snape *has* done some things right. One is the brewing of and provision of the Wolfsbane Potion. He is also a good Potions teacher, he gets that right, not perhaps for all his students, but in general. He is also a somewhat convivial host when entertaining the Black sisters in Spinner's End. So he is also capable of quite civil social interaction. I would even go so far as to concede that he did good things in Philosopher's Stone, it still does not make him nice, and that is a view that I apprehend Mike is trying to impress on this thread. It certainly seemed clear enough to me. > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169111 > Leslie: > But this brings up an issue with me and the Snape critics, > which is that because of what I perceive as an unreasonable > anti-Snape prejudice, Snape can NEVER do anything right. > Snape's actions, even if they save people's lives, or put > his own life in danger, are always somehow wrong or lessened > or called into question because of his unpalatable > personality. Goddlefrood: I criticise Snape and the argument presented herein and elsewhere should make that clear enough. Do you see any unreasonable anti-Snape bias here? It actually appears that, and many's the time when this hypothesis has stood up, that the bias is rather the other way around. The perception held by our hypothetical individual is that their way of looking at things in terms of their disagreement with an argument must be *the* way of looking at things. All rather subjective, but of course that is human nature. The true skill in argument comes from being able to look at matters from multiple angles and appreciating the ideas of others, whether or not subjectively one would agree or disagree with them. A handy tip, perhaps. > Leslie again: > Snape is not a very nice guy. And I don't like him. But he does > the right thing. The facts don't lie. Goddlefrood: The facts are what you interpret them to be. They may differ with the interpretation of others. I just finished a three day hearing and the facts were presented. They are quite simple. The Court, using the above statement, would immediately find in favour of the claimant as the "facts don't lie". He may or he may not, he will decide the outcome based on his interpretation of the facts. That is his entitlement, and IMO, the entitlement of anyone on this or any other discussion forum. In other words, you'll have to do better than that to convince many here, good luck with that. Snape does not always do the right thing, that a perception that he tries to do the right thing from a certain viewpoint, which I for one do not share, is not one that should be difficult to appreciate, as I do appreciate the argument. I simply disagree with it for reasons set out in many and varied posts both here and elsewhere in cyberspace. As one example of a situation where Severus did not do the right thing, and because it is a matter that is currently under discussion in this thread, it is my view that he did not do the right thing in following Lupin into the Shack in PoA without notifying anybody else. Perhaps to his catalogue of character flaws we should add 'show pony'. I'll qualify all this with my usual Caveat, which is that I do hope that Harry will be assisted by Snape, whatever Snape's motives for doing so might be. If Severus is working contrary to Harry's stated aims then Harry will almost certainly fail in his aims, and that is an outcome to the series that would be unsatisfactory and most probably consign it to history rather more quickly than if it has a successful outcome for Harry's quest. > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169127 > Leslie: > But your position neatly illustrates my point, which is that > Snape critics believe he can do no right and the characters > that are likable can do no wrong. You cede that Snape does > good, but then declare that good "irrelevant" to "the moral > issues at stake", effectively rendering his goodness > nonexistent. Goddlefrood: Well, see above and I'll even dispense some further advice. Once a point has been made, and assuming the counter to that point is only to repeat the earlier point it is of more interest and advances a point of view better to simply say, well this is a matter upon which we disagree, and then move along to make a new point that might advance a discussion. I certainly do not agree that all the actions of the so-called good are right, and surely neither would anyone here. Each character has flaws. Albus withholds information, perhaps unnecessarily, Lupin has obvious character flaws that have been discussed ad nauseam, Sirius is far from the model upon which Harry should base his actions, IMO, and had issues with others that perhaps were unreasonable. The list could go on, but again it comes to the hypothetical person I referred to earlier herein, for which see above. > Leslie: > You are entitled to believe what you like about Snape. > However, if you want to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, > and present an argument that is coherent and logical, > you will demand the same treatment for those you like > that you do for Snape. As you call yourself "Lupinlore" > my guess is you will not, however. Goddlefrood: My final tip for the day is to say that attacking a person rarely advances a discussion. The idea might be one that is difficult to understand from a certain perspective, but the right to state the idea should cause no controversy. This not only includes arguments that might appear illogical. Once more I would say that logic is rather subjective. The simple fact, and this actually is one, remains that each person has their own ideas about certain characters. None of us will truly know, or be able to convince those with differing ideas, before the release of Deathly Hallows. There is too much ambiguity in the books for a firmer statement to be made. On a personal level I do not agree that Snape is a child abuser, but for no better reason than I have seen and experienced far worse. Severus is mild in comparison, but the more liberal minded person might disagree. Let them do so, it is their privilege. Goddlefrood, once more from the ethical viewpoint. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed May 23 03:00:01 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 23:00:01 EDT Subject: Dumbledore's and Ron's watches (Was: Harry can still contact Dumbled Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169134 >Carol So did DD time-travel to obtain the memories? I don't think so. Has he time-traveled for other reasons? Hard to say. Could he have been an invisible witness to his own death? Was that what he was doing when he sent Harry away to fetch the Invisibility Cloak that he'd already told Harry to keep with him at all times? I'd like to see him show up as a time-traveler to talk to Harry about Snape, to explain everything about the twoer scene and the argument in the forest that Harry and the readers need to know, and I can't think of a better way to do it. Nikkalmati This idea raises a question about time travel which I have not seen commented on here. Sure, it would be nice to think DD is strategically placed in the future waiting for Harry to come along so he can give him some advice. But, how can one time travel into the future? Several listees have brought out theories about time travel into the past such as we have seen in POA. One theory, which seems to fit the books, is that there is only one past and it cannot be changed. What about the future? Aren't there numerous even infinite numbers of futures? How would DD pick the right one? Does the person traveling into the future have the ability to freeze the future and make that particular one inevitable? Please scifi fans (or physicists)help out here. The subject must have come up.. Nikkalmati (who consulted Wells' The Time Machine and was spooked out by the horrible crustacean creatures in the light of the dying sun, but who found no answer to the possibility of numerous futures) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Wed May 23 02:59:48 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 02:59:48 -0000 Subject: What makes LV so powerful? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169135 Tandra: > This has been gnawing at me since I just finished the > 6th book yet again. I know LV hunts down power and > finds out stuff that most other wizards don't care > to find out, but I don't get why he was so powerful > by the time DD met him in the orphanage. It seemed > obvious to DD that he wasn't an ordinary wizard, but > where did all this power come from? Because he was > an heir of Slytherin? Is there anything that leads > us to believe that Slytherin was all that powerful? > I just don't see why he is all so powerful. Can > anyone help me there? houyhnhnm: If magical power is inherited, it seems like it would have suffered from the same kind of impairment from the Gaunts' inbreeding that many of their other traits obviously did. I would be more inclined to credit Voldemort's half blood status with his exceptional ability, if that is what he had. We have a lot of examples of hybrid vigor in the series. I think what set the eleven-year-old Tom Riddle apart, however, was not exceptional magical ability so much as a lack of innocence. Dumbledore said to Harry, "His powers, as you heard, were surprisingly well-developed for such a young wizard and--most interestingly and ominously of all--he had already discovered that he had some measure of control over them, and had begun to use them consciously. And as you saw, they were not the random experiments typical of young wizards: He was already using magic against other people, to frighten, to punish, to control." I think what Dumbledore was saying was that it was Tom Riddle's sociopathy that was precocious as much as his magical ability. At least that's the way I see Voldemort. I don't see him developing into this powerful evil Dark Wizard just because he was so fantastically talented above any one else of his generation. He may have been gifted, but it was the amorality, absence of any normal ability to form connections with other people, absence of normal inhibitions and a sense of right and wrong that enabled him to become Lord Voldemort. The ability to con people, to use them, to hurt them, completely untrammeled by any feelings of shame, guilt, or remorse, "talents" exhibited by criminals with no magical ability whatsoever. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 23 03:32:47 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 03:32:47 -0000 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705221228o49418379k48a7a1848ec38cf5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169136 JW: > Why all this talk of killing when the author believes in the sanctity > of life, and that murder destroys the soul? > > Lynda: > > Ah!...But not all taking of life is murder. JW: True, but I do not understand the relevency. There is every reason to believe that JKR, given her philosophies, would avoid killing if there was a clever way to eliminate LV. There is certainly no requirement to kill LV, and a fate worse than death (as foreshadowed by DD in OotP) might be a more appropriate punishment. As a point of comparison, can you find any evidence that DD killed Grindelwald(spelling?)? For example, DD's chocolate frog card indicates that DD *DESTROYED* the dark wizard in 1945. I can find no detail in narrative or interview to describe the confrontation. Unless I have overlooked this detail, I see no reason to ASSUME that JKR would have the character that represents wisdom, knowledge and love contradict her personal beliefs. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 23 06:03:50 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 06:03:50 -0000 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmwcfo" wrote: > > JW: > > Why all this talk of killing when the author believes in the > sanctity > > of life, and that murder destroys the soul? > > > > Lynda: > > > > Ah!...But not all taking of life is murder. > > JW: > True, but I do not understand the relevency. There is every reason > to believe that JKR, given her philosophies, would avoid killing if > there was a clever way to eliminate LV. There is certainly no > requirement to kill LV, and a fate worse than death (as foreshadowed > by DD in OotP) might be a more appropriate punishment. > > As a point of comparison, can you find any evidence that DD killed > Grindelwald(spelling?)? For example, DD's chocolate frog card > indicates that DD *DESTROYED* the dark wizard in 1945. I can find no > detail in narrative or interview to describe the confrontation. > Unless I have overlooked this detail, I see no reason to ASSUME that > JKR would have the character that represents wisdom, knowledge and > love contradict her personal beliefs. JW again: A kind elf has pointed out to me off-list that I mis-quoted the frog card described on pg 102 of US version of SS - the quote is DD DEFEATED (not destroyed) the dark wizard. Of course, that is even FURTHER from "killed" than "destroyed" would be. My point is still: Why think in terms of KILLING LV when we know that it is against the author's personal beliefs, and there are other, more appropriate ways of defeating the villain? One possibility is LV will find out that sometimes, life sucks. Or at least dementors do - and the wizard who wanted to spread his soul around could wind up with no soul at all. From xellina at gmail.com Wed May 23 07:17:34 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:17:34 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705221317m37ea4e94vab77cbd068c80aa0@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> <422932.51885.qm@web55111.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <2795713f0705221317m37ea4e94vab77cbd068c80aa0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463f9ec00705230017m5bc80a31wd4b0130e86dc3b2c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169138 2007/5/23, Lynda Cordova : > > > I thought from fairly early in OOP that Tonks/Lupin was a possibility. I > guessed pretty well from the text that she liked him and Lupin's generally > fairly reticent, so anything was possible there, although I didn't get a > sense of indifference from him at all. And I was fairly certain that the > assertions from Hermione et al that Tonks was pining for Sirius were > incorrect. As Ron (?--sorry--my copy of HBP is not at hand) remarks they > didn't know each other all that well even if they were cousins. > Cassy: Funny, I first came across this pairing in fanfics and thought this relationship to be rather strange and far-fetched. Imaging my astonishment when it became canon. I suppose, JRK just _had_ to fix Lupin with someone (if only to stop people thinking slash thoughts. ^_~) However, I never saw him particulary attached to Tonks, either in OOTP, or HBP. Frankly, in the hospital wing scene I couldn't help thinking that he only uses his werewolf condition as a reason to turn Tonks away, because he doesn't want to offend her by telling that he doesn't really like her. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mailsunipa at yahoo.co.in Wed May 23 05:22:58 2007 From: mailsunipa at yahoo.co.in (sunipa) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 05:22:58 -0000 Subject: Harry without Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169139 > > Lauren: > > Especially if Harry does not go back to Hogwarts, so > > he can't go to what was Dumbledore's study to > > communicate with Dumbledore's portrait, > Richard: > On this post, there maybe more than one portrait of > Dumbledore. (SNIP) > So Dumbledore's portrait will be there as well. Hi I am a new member in this group I agree with Richard and feel that there must be more than one portrait of Dumbledore. Moreover the letter he had left with the Dursleys when he had given Harry to them must contain something vital for Harry. I have also heard that Harry is the seventh Horcrux. I feel that Slughorn might prove to be a help to Harry Sunipa From freeqrunner at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 23 10:27:37 2007 From: freeqrunner at yahoo.co.uk (Finbar Ryan) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:27:37 -0000 Subject: Wormtail's silver hand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169140 Hi, newcomer here. Sorry to reply to an old topic, but the whole silver hand/werewolf connection actually only occurred to me a few days ago while I and my brother were engaged in a jokey speculation conversation. Anyway, I envisioned a scenario where Lupin and Greyback were the ones fighting, and Peter would lend aid to his old friend. Might be a little farfetched - it doesn't satisfy the life-debt, and having Pettigrew redeem himself before that seems... wrong. Unless, of course, Harry is also involved in the Lupin/Greyback struggle. Hm. - Freeq out From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 23 10:47:22 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:47:22 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169141 > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169076 > Carol: > Surely, Wormtail has told him the whole story of his escape > from his former friends, the dog Animagus and the werewolf. > (If he didn't tell it voluntarily, Voldemort, being a > Legilimens and fond of the Cruciatus Curse, would have forced > the whole story out of him.) Moreover, he would have told > Voldemort (perhaps when Harry was a baby) that Black was > Harry's godfather. > Unlike Snape, who arrived late and then was knocked unconscious, > Wormtail heard the entire conversation between Lupin, Black, > and HRH in the Shrieking Shack and afterwards, including > Black's offer to let Harry live with him, which occurs while > he is in human form before his escape. Goddlefrood: Why make these assumptions? (Not things of which I'm fond, as anyone who reads my posts could ascertain). As a matter of canon, of which I'm fond, we do not know exactly what Peter told LV, as I note is conceded in a later quoted portion. Peter is a character who is all too frequently underestimated. The rat is powerful enough to blast a street of Muggles, kill Cedric with little thought and remain in Animagus form for 12 years or so. Why then is he always given no credit whatever? He is clearly an able wizard, albeit a traitor. Why would he be incapable of resisting telling LV everything he knows, particularly because at the point where he is in locus parenti of LV he is hardly threatened by a wizard in foetal form who has yet to return to a body? Snape also is well aware of Sirius's furry little secret and he could quite easily have been the one to mention that to LV as well as Peter. Why not say that they *both* told LV? They would not be very good spies and informers if they hadn't, now would they? Another thing to keep in mind, of course, is that Snape's animosity towards Sirius is of gargantuan proportions. He would, IMO, waste no time in telling LV, especially if it would be to Black's detriment, as it actually was in that Sirius was house bound throughout OotP except for his sojourn at the DoM. Not only all that but also it should be remembered that it is Draco at King's Cross who indicates that Sirius's Animagus form is known. It would seem more likely that Snape was the informant of the Malfoys than Peter. As to the second paragraph quoted above I suggest that some contamination is creeping in from the medium that shall not be named. In that medium Snape does burst in suddenly in the Shack, however in the books he enters quite a little earlier. I set out why in a post earlier in this thread and have no intention of repeating that once more. What I will say, and with a good degree of certainty is that Snape was in the bedroom of the Shack for several minutes *before* he took off the Invisibility Cloak, thus revealing himself. This is between pps. 258 - 262 of the Bloomsbury Paperback Edition of the text. During those several minutes the company was discussing the development of the Animagi forms of the Marauders who assumed them. The above comments of my own apply equally to the events later on. Peter was concentrating, IMO, on manufacturing his own escape, that he may have overheard other matters in respect of Harry and Sirius's conversation outside the Whomping Willow is speculation. He possibly did, but it is equally valid to posit, as I and others do, that Snape informed LV of Harry's close ties to Sirius. A certain English actor who shall remain nameless has an awful lot to answer for, IMO. Snape is not a good man, he may assist Harry, but he is far from being virtuous and he *has* been LV's spy, otherwise he would not exist at the point in canon now reached. Whatever else transpires he's for the chopping block. > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169112 > Carol: > In which case, how do you explain that Snape specifically > requested Black to remain at home and wait for Dumbledore? > It's canon that Wormtail could and would have presented the > information that Black was an Animagus (which presumably > includes his exact appearance, which Snape has seen all of > once and wormtail too many times to count). Black's being > in the Order would be old news; Voldemort would know it > from VW1. Goddlefrood: Snape, as is his wont, was covering himself. It is only his own word we have for the matters raised in this quoted portion. He's not above lying as is easily ascertained from the known ignorance of his true loyalties by either Dumbledore, Lord Voldemort, or even both. Severus was certainly not above lying then, so why should it be taken as read that he was not lying about requesting Sirius to remain at home. Mr. Multiplicity is most definitely not above lying at Spinner's End either. My earlier comments on who told LV about Padfoot also refer. > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169119 > Carol: > But we do have canon that Wormtail told the story of his > escape(s) to Voldemort though, granted, we don't have the > details. He tells his Death Eaters in the graveyard: > "And then, not even a year ago, when I had almost abandoned > hope, it happened at last . . . . a servant returned to me. > Wormtail here, who had faked his own death to escape justice, > was driven out of hiding by those he had once counted friends > and decided to return to his master" (GoF Am. ed. 855-55). > So it's not speculation that Wormtail told his story to > Voldemort. It's canon, as is Voldemort's knowledge of > Wormtail's Animagus form. Goddlefrood: The problem with this is that Wormtail as a name was known to LV but we have nothing to go on as to when LV came to know Peter's nickname. Breaking down the above quoted material from GoF, firstly: "And then, not even a year ago, when I had almost abandoned hope, it happened at last . . . . a servant returned to me." This refers to Peter's return to LV, with me so far? Next: " Wormtail here, who had faked his own death to escape justice, was driven out of hiding by those he had once counted friends and decided to return to his master" Do you see any reference as to Peter telling LV about Sirius Black here? Was that not rather Jen's point. Snape is an equally valid informant for the Animagus information and Harry's fondness for Sirius whether he only ever saw Padfoot once or a million times. Seeing or hearing odf Sirius's Animagus form even once would be enough for Snape, who I credit with the intelligence to know someone becoming an Animagus when he sees it *just* once (while not accepting that Snape had only seen Sirius as Padfoot once and also repeating that Snape overheard the relevant portion of the converstion in the Shack). It would be enough for the vindictive Snape, and as far as Sirius is concerned Snape is vindictive, to tell LV, notwithstanding where Mr. Multiplicity's loyalties lie. Snape is no shining beacon to hold up as an example of bravery to anyone and even if he does turn out to be DDM, which I have severe doubts about, he will not, IMO, ever be looked upon as a hero by anyone in the *Wizarding World* no matter how superb an explanation is offered. Begrudging respect possibly, but little more than that. > Carol, conceding that we're all speculating at this point, > but thinking that canon supports some speculations more > strongly than others. Goddlefrood: Agreeing with Carol on this point and having presented another perfectly valid interpretation of canon. Also saying that Snape, while possibly lying, but as a surface reading of canon would support, took credit upon himself for aiding in getting rid of Sirius. From random832 at gmail.com Wed May 23 13:46:40 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:46:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney's First Interview In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705230646mf77bbc2p54763b085afc0228@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169142 > "K": > > Why would Dumbledore want Voldemort to know about the prophecy? If > Voldemort never hears of it and no action is taken, the prophecy is > worthless, isn't it? Dumbledore doesn't necessarily want a prophecy predicting (the possibility of) Voldemort's downfall to be worthless. The idea that, in essence, the Potters' and Longbottoms' lives are a risk DD is willing to take, was more popular before HBP than now, since it wasn't clear then that DD _wasn't_ intentionally being written that way (one of the reasons for some of the scenes in HBP clarifying that dumbledore is _not_ in fact a manipulative bastard) --Random832 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed May 23 14:29:02 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:29:02 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169143 > Goddlefrood: > The rat is powerful enough to blast a street of Muggles, kill > Cedric with little thought and remain in Animagus form for 12 > years or so. Why then is he always given no credit whatever? > He is clearly an able wizard, albeit a traitor. zgirnius: In my view, this last phrase is the key point. Would Peter *want* to resist? Who knows? If not, it would be a rather suspicious circumstance in Voldemort's eyes if at the end of GoF, the late- returning Snape could tell him considerably less than Peter about these same goings-on, despite his presence at Hogwarts with Dumbledore, who supposedly trusts him. > Goddlefrood: > Why not say that they *both* told LV? zgirnius: Yup. > Goddlefrood: > As to the second paragraph quoted above I suggest that some > contamination is creeping in from the medium that shall not > be named. In that medium Snape does burst in suddenly in the > Shack, however in the books he enters quite a little earlier. zgirnius: If you look in your copy of PoA to the place whence you extracted the quotes, you will be able to ascertain that Snape, according to you (and me!), arrived pages after the conversation between the Trio and Sirius, and later also Lupin, began. He thus came 'later'. > Goddlefrood: > The above comments of my own apply equally to the events later > on. Peter was concentrating, IMO, on manufacturing his own > escape, that he may have overheard other matters in respect of > Harry and Sirius's conversation outside the Whomping Willow is > speculation. zgirnius: Speaking of creeping contamination...that lovely scene, of Harry and Sirius speaking together with a view of the moonlit castle through the trees, looking like something out of a dream...happened, in slightly altered form, in the tunnel, in the book version. (I can see why the movie makers decided to change the venue...). > Goddlefrood: > A certain English actor who shall remain nameless has an awful > lot to answer for, IMO. zgirnius: J. K. Rowling, the author of "Hary Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" (most particularly, of "Spinner's End" and everyting from "The Seer Overheard" through "The Flight of the Prince" in that book), is to blame for my opinions on this matter. They were formed by my reading of that book, not by the Nameless One's performances, which I had already seen at that point. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 23 14:28:42 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:28:42 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What makes LV so powerful? Message-ID: <7565241.1179930522505.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169144 From: houyhnhnm102 >If magical power is inherited, it seems like it would >have suffered from the same kind of impairment from >the Gaunts' inbreeding that many of their other traits >obviously did. I would be more inclined to credit >Voldemort's half blood status with his exceptional >ability, if that is what he had. We have a lot of >examples of hybrid vigor in the series. Bart: Based on canon that there IS a genetic component to magical ability, and additional canon showing (albeit not telling) that it does not work according to the laws of genetics, the best theory I have heard (who came up with it?) was that there is a viral component to magical ability; meaning that there is a genetic component that makes one more or less susceptable to the virus, which is difficult to catch. Also meaning that there are probably a considerable number of Muggles with magical potential, who just never contracted the virus. I suspect that a combination of Muggle geneticists and magical Healers could figure out exactly what it is that determines magical power. However, a haphazard eugenics program can create defects in other genetic components; hence the Gaunts, who have powerful magical abilities, but a lack of sanity. Note that there is believed to be a genetic component in anti-social personality disorder, of which psychopathy is a subset, and it certainly afflicts the Gaunts to one degree or other. What makes Voldemort especially dangerous is that he does NOT have one of the major symptoms: he is unusually able to control his impulses in pursuit of a long-term goal. Of course, "unusally" is used here as relative to other psychopaths. There APPEARS to be a confidence factor in JKR's magic system. This shows up especially in Neville; in other cases, it is less certain whether confidence creates ability, or ability creates confidence. It's more than hinted at in the apparation lessons. Also Harry, who had endless trouble with accio, once he gets it, has got it in spades. And Voldemort has a huge amount of self-confidence, much of it related to his mental illness. Thinking this through, this may be a major part of why Voldemort wants to kill Harry, himself. His fear of Dumbledore might well be related to DD's ability to bring out little Tommy Riddle; note that while DD has no problem using the name, "Voldemort", he calls him "Tom" in the MoM; given the above theories, this could well have been a tactic to weaken Voldy. This also explains why Voldy would let someone else kill DD; DD is more than just a more powerful wizard; he also has the key to weakening Voldy. On the other hand, Voldy NEEDS to be the one to kill Harry, because his defeats at Harry's hands have hurt his self-confidence, and if someone else kills Harry, he will never be able to regain that part. OK, people, confirm or tear apart! Bart From kmrhapsody at gmail.com Wed May 23 13:06:02 2007 From: kmrhapsody at gmail.com (kmrhapsody) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 13:06:02 -0000 Subject: SHIP Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169145 PhoenixGod2000: > I think Ginny comes across incredibly poorly in books five and six. > The reason is she dumps Dean is just plain ugly and the way she and > Harry liplock in front of him is very cruel. kmrhapsody: To add to this fire, I must also say that her public diss of Hermione was just rotten. To effectively shun the one person who has bothered to notice and in her own way encourage the development of the "new beloved Ginny" for the purposes of getting some cool points with Harry was a pretty lousy move. That pretty much sealed the deal for me disliking Ginny altogether. Still, much like Hermione's oppungo move on Ron, we do know that individuals act that way towards one another. So it's not actually totally out of left field for either chararacter to treat one another in this manner. Speaking of which, that is also the reason why I am still on the fence on whether or not Hermione does have a crush on Ron, at the same level as Ron does for her. She is always rooting for the underdog and made many moves throughout the series to keep Ron in the fold and to minimize his feelings of alienation. In return, Ron treats her rather cruelly. She is never capable of doing anything right in his eyes and is always at odds with him. That is why I think she attacked him with the birds. I would have done the same. Still, once again, there are some rather shortsided boys who act as Ron does towards Hermione, so it's all par for the course as far as I can see. Admittingly, for most of the series, I expected a H/Hr pairing because it seems to make a lot of sense on a basic level. Still, if I were Hermione's friend, I would certainly be the person who disproves of her hooking up with Ron based on the history they have together. I just can't abide by cruelty. I don't see it as a necessary or endearing romantic trait. A little ribbing every now and again (in a spirit of fun) is normal. But I read several places, again and again, where the spirit of meanness outweighs any possibility of reading his actions towards her as an exaggerated teasing. PheonixGod2000: > Ginny is literally the least interesting choice she could have made > for Harry's LI--which I could have accept had it been written well. > But it just isn't. > Kmrhapsody: Yes, that was one of the many reasons why I threw the book across the room the first time that I read it. I really wasn't ready to accept all of the undeveloped bits and quite frankly expected more from JKR than just cram them in there so sloppily. To use her words, "It's done, isn't it?" Kmrhapsody who really has to go to work now. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 15:24:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:24:06 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169146 Goddlefrood: > > Agreeing with Carol on this point and having presented another > perfectly valid interpretation of canon. Also saying that Snape, > while possibly lying, but as a surface reading of canon would > support, took credit upon himself for aiding in getting rid of > Sirius. > Carol responds: The only problem is, there is no such plot in canon. The only plot is to get Harry to the MoM using a fake Sirius (a phony vision) as a decoy. Snape not only told Black *on page* that Malfoy had seen him at Platform 9 3/4 and that therefore the Death Eaters (and by extension Voldemort) knew of his Animagus form (which, in any case, had nothing to do with his death), but, according to Kreacher (DD's source of information) told Sirius Black to stay home and wait for Dumbledore. Kreacher would not have been waiting for DD, nor would he have talked to him, had he not been ordered to do so. 1) There is no plot in canon to kill Sirius Black, only to get *Harry* to the MoM. 2) There is no reason to kill Black, who is stuck in 12 GP and no threat to the DEs or Voldemort. 3) Snape canonically did everything he could to keep Black from coming to the MoM (it was Black's own decision to come). Yes, it's DD telling Harry, but DD's source is Kreacher, who has no reason to lie on this point, nor does he seem to have been able to lie at all to DD. 4) There was no guarantee that Black would be killed if he did come. Had he not been fighting recklessly on the dais in front of the Veil, he could not have been sent through it. 5) Snape certainly gave *some* information regarding Black, probably that he had seen him in Animagus form at Hogwarts just before his return, and he no doubt used that bit of information to claim a share in Black's death, but it really made no contribution to Black's death at all. Carol, who is presenting canon here but assumes that Goddlefrood knows the book well enough not to need page numbers for these points From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed May 23 15:57:49 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:57:49 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169147 > Carol responds: > 1) There is no plot in canon to kill Sirius Black, only to get *Harry* > to the MoM. wynnleaf One of the clearest signs of this is the actual fight at the Ministry. There is no sign of any greater degree of effort on the part of the Death Eaters to attack or kill Sirius than there is to attack Tonks, Lupin or the others. Sirius is quite obviously under *no greater threat* of attack than any other Order member present. Bellatrix may personally enjoy the idea of getting to kill Sirius, but no other death eater seems to have any specific agenda to see to his death. No, the focus is clearly on the prophecy and Harry. If there was any specific plot to kill Sirius (not even hinted at in canon, btw), then we would surely see some sort of *concerted* effort to attack him. But we don't see anything like that. No one except Bella pays any more attention to Sirius then they do the other Order members. In fact, Bella pays no *more* attention to fighting Sirius than any other DEs pay to other Order members, so we can't even see evidence that Bella cares any more about killing Sirius than other Death Eaters care about killing Lupin, Tonks, or anyone else. Carol > 2) There is no reason to kill Black, who is stuck in 12 GP and no > threat to the DEs or Voldemort. wynnleaf Absolutely. There seems to be some assumption that there was a "we hate Sirius" movement among the Death Eaters, motivating some sort of drive to kill him. Why? We know of no particular animosity that any DE has toward Sirius except possibly Bella. There's no real strategic advantage in killing Sirius, unless the DE's thought that killing him would open up Grimmauld Place to them. But even there, it's obvious that Sirius would have willed the place elsewhere (why leave it to Bella or Cissy, for goodness sake?!). Carol > 3) Snape canonically did everything he could to keep Black from coming > to the MoM (it was Black's own decision to come). Yes, it's DD telling > Harry, but DD's source is Kreacher, who has no reason to lie on this > point, nor does he seem to have been able to lie at all to DD. wynnleaf Further, there would have been several other Order members present when Snape contacted Grimmauld Place for the second time. So several other Order members knew, and likely later conveyed to Dumbledore, the fact that Snape told Sirius to stay put. Does anyone seriously think that Dumbledore wouldn't have "de-briefed" the rest of the Order members involved? Carol > 4) There was no guarantee that Black would be killed if he did come. > Had he not been fighting recklessly on the dais in front of the Veil, > he could not have been sent through it. wynnleaf A plot to kill Sirius would surely have included *how* to kill Sirius. So what was the Plan? Get him to the MOM and just naturally he would die? If they could only lure him there, he'd just convienently die in one-on-one combat? What kind of a Plan is that? The DEs weren't planning on Sirius falling through the Veil. Neither were they attempting to gang up on him 2 or 3 to one to bring him down. No, they treated him in the fight no differently from any other Order member, fighting mostly one on one with all of them. As far as I can tell, the *only* "hint" for any plan to kill Sirius is Snape's comment to Bella about being partially responsible for his death. Yet absolutely none of the evidence bears this out, because none of the evidence shows any plan to kill Sirius or any thing that Snape could have done to make Sirius' death any more likely than any other Order member at the MOM that night. wynnleaf From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 15:58:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:58:26 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169148 Carol earlier: > > The only problem is, there is no such plot in canon. The only plot is to get Harry to the MoM using a fake Sirius (a phony vision) as a > decoy. > 1) There is no plot in canon to kill Sirius Black, only to get *Harry* to the MoM. > > 2) There is no reason to kill Black, who is stuck in 12 GP and no > threat to the DEs or Voldemort. > > 3) Snape canonically did everything he could to keep Black from coming to the MoM (it was Black's own decision to come). > > 4) There was no guarantee that Black would be killed if he did come. Had he not been fighting recklessly on the dais in front of the Veil, he could not have been sent through it. > > 5) Snape certainly gave *some* information regarding Black, probably that he had seen him in Animagus form at Hogwarts just before his return, and he no doubt used that bit of information to claim a share in Black's death, but it really made no contribution to Black's death at all. Carol again: My apologies for adding to my own post, but I forgot to mention that any information that Snape could have provided on Black (that he'd seen him at Hogwarts in Animagus form, that he was hiding out at Order HQ [whose address he couldn't give because of the Fidelius Charm]) had no actual bearing on Black's death. The guilty parties were Bellatrix, who actually killed him; and Voldemort, the Malfoys, and Kreacher, who together set up and/or acted out the plot to get *Harry* to the MoM. In terms of *unintended* consequences, Harry is partially and accidentally responsible--not for Black's death per se but for going to the MoM in the first place--with the best of intentions, of course, but he should have listened to Hermione. Had he not fallen for the fake vision and gone to the MoM, Black would still be safely at 12 GP. (Harry would also have been responsible to some degree had any of his friends been killed, and he knows it.) Black, too, bears some unintended responsibility for his own death. He could not have been killed had he not chosen to ignore Snape and go to the MoM to save Harry--again, perfectly laudable. But he was also careless, laughing and taunting Cousin Bellatrix instead of paying attention to where he was, standing with his back to the Veil. As much as anything, it was Black's own reckless courage that killed him. Or perhaps he didn't know what the Veil was though that seems unlikely. Based on her triumphant scream, Bellatrix knew, so why wouldn't her cousin, "the Animagus Black"? Carol, noting again that nothing Snape could have told Voldemort made any real contribution to Black's death; Black was there *in spite of* Snape's warning (so far as we know), and his death was in no way inevitable even after he arrived From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 16:15:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:15:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169149 > Carol > > 2) There is no reason to kill Black, who is stuck in 12 GP and no > > threat to the DEs or Voldemort. > > wynnleaf > Absolutely. There seems to be some assumption that there was a "we > hate Sirius" movement among the Death Eaters, motivating some sort > of drive to kill him. Why? We know of no particular animosity that > any DE has toward Sirius except possibly Bella. There's no real > strategic advantage in killing Sirius, unless the DE's thought that > killing him would open up Grimmauld Place to them. But even there, > it's obvious that Sirius would have willed the place elsewhere (why > leave it to Bella or Cissy, for goodness sake?!). Alla: And still JKR remarked that there is a reason why Sirius had to die. Besides Harry has to go on alone reason. Now, maybe that reason would be Sirius helping Harry, but it could be any reason that Dung so nicely summarised in her post. And this reason maybe something we don't know yet, something why Bella and Narcissa or anybody else wanted Sirius dead. But even if DE did not have any such reason, which is surely possible. What matters to me is that *Snape* is likely to have such reason in my view. Nothing new is needed for that. Just Snape animosity and desire for revenge. Do I think Snape's animosity is arising to the level of wanting Sirius dead? Yes, I do think it is a possibility. JMO, Alla From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 23 16:18:15 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:18:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705230918x51b0594dm3818c1f86a2b0f75@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169150 JW: True, but I do not understand the relevency. There is every reason to believe that JKR, given her philosophies, would avoid killing if there was a clever way to eliminate LV. Lynda: I share the author's beliefs, concerning killing. However I still maintain that not all killing is murder and the defeat of Voldemort, it seems to me, will probably fall into this category. I may be wrong, but to me defeating LV equates to him being unable to return to power and since he continuously seeks immortality I think that means a removal from existence/death for him. Once again, I may be wrong. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 23 16:26:02 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:26:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00705230017m5bc80a31wd4b0130e86dc3b2c@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> <422932.51885.qm@web55111.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <2795713f0705221317m37ea4e94vab77cbd068c80aa0@mail.gmail.com> <463f9ec00705230017m5bc80a31wd4b0130e86dc3b2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0705230926m702b64b7ta78d71b75b167e32@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169151 Cassy: Funny, I first came across this pairing in fanfics and thought this relationship to be rather strange and far-fetched. Imaging my astonishment when it became canon. I suppose, JRK just _had_ to fix Lupin with someone (if only to stop people thinking slash thoughts. ^_~) However, I never saw him particulary attached to Tonks, either in OOTP, or HBP. Frankly, in the hospital wing scene I couldn't help thinking that he only uses his werewolf condition as a reason to turn Tonks away, because he doesn't want to offend her by telling that he doesn't really like her. Lynda: Interesting. I don't read HP fanfic so I never ran across that particular pairing there. As for not Lupin not being particularly attached to Tonks, I got the idea from HBP that he was trying to NOT show interest in her when he actually IS interested in her. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 16:36:30 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:36:30 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's First Interview In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50705230646mf77bbc2p54763b085afc0228@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169152 > "K": > > Why would Dumbledore want Voldemort to know about the prophecy? If > Voldemort never hears of it and no action is taken, the prophecy is > worthless, isn't it? Random832: > Dumbledore doesn't necessarily want a prophecy predicting (the > possibility of) Voldemort's downfall to be worthless. > > The idea that, in essence, the Potters' and Longbottoms' lives are a > risk DD is willing to take, was more popular before HBP than now, > since it wasn't clear then that DD _wasn't_ intentionally being > written that way (one of the reasons for some of the scenes in HBP > clarifying that dumbledore is _not_ in fact a manipulative bastard) Montavilla47: Random, can you point to those scenes in HBP that clarify DD as *not* a manipulative bastard? Because, I didn't think that he might be one until I saw that disgraceful scene with the Dursleys. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed May 23 16:50:53 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:50:53 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Neville's boggart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169153 > > wynnleaf: > > > Why does Lupin choose Neville for the first person in the boggart > lesson? > Ken: The implication from the text is that Lupin wanted to show confidence in Neville in the face of Severus' mocking of his competence. Neville badly needs someone to have confidence in him. Lupin is one of the few people in the WW who have enough sensitivity to mentor someone like Neville. I sincerely hope he doesn't turn out ESE! > wynnleaf: > > Later in POA, Harry asked Lupin why he didn't give Harry a chance to > tackle the boggart in class. Lupin claims that it's because he > assumed that Harry's boggart would be Voldemort (in fact, this *was* > Harry's first thought as well), and Lupin didn't think it a good > idea to have a boggart change into Voldemort right there in class. > > Before the rest of the books came out, that explanation made sense. > Now it doesn't. > > We now know that Lupin was a member of the Order at the time of the > Potter's deaths, *as well as* when Frank and Alice Longbottom were > crucioed into insanity. Ken: This is a long shot but I've read somewhere that Rowling reworked the story at some point and shifted things a bit. I don't know how valid that claim is or what it is based on. If it is true then perhaps Lupin hadn't been a member of the Order (which perhaps might not have existed) at the time PoA was written. Even if untrue I think there are reasons why Lupin's story can be believed. > wynnleaf: > > If Lupin *assumed* that Harry's boggart was Voldemort, shouldn't > have he assumed that Neville's boggart would relate to being > crucioed into insanity by death eaters? Yet Lupin chose Neville > *even before* asking what his greatest fear was. > Ken: I don't think I buy this line of reasoning. Lupin assumed that Harry's boggart would be Voldemort because Harry had actually faced Voledmort twice in the past two years. He is not going back to infant terrors in Harry's case and therefore probably not in Neville's either. I'd guess that Lupin already suspected that Snape and/or his gran would figure in Neville's boggart experience. > wynnleaf: > > Now one might think that Lupin's asking Neville to relate his > greatest fear lets Lupin off the hook, so to speak. But consider > the consequences of the situation if Neville had been forced to say, > in front of the whole class, "my greatest fear is being crucioed > into insanity by the Lestranges." Ken: Perhaps Lupin would not have pressed Neville on the issue if he had seemed reluctant. Lupin seems sensitive enough to me to have detected Neville's reticence and to have let Neville gracefully off the hook. Given the exchange that had just taken place with Snape, Lupin didn't have to be a genius detective like Sherlock Holmes (though I would prefer Monk!)to expect the answer he got from Neville. Ken From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 16:51:20 2007 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:51:20 -0000 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705230918x51b0594dm3818c1f86a2b0f75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169154 JW:One possibility is LV will find out that sometimes, life sucks. Or at least dementors do - and the wizard who wanted to spread his soul around could wind up with no soul at all. Janelle: I think that dementors playing a role in the defeat of Voldemort is very plausible, but at the same time, I really like the idea of Neville playing a role too. While Dumbledore makes it clear to Harry that Voldemort picked Harry, making him "The Chosen One", he also makes it clear that the prophecy itself holds very little weight: it only became true because Voldemort believed in it. This makes things a little complicated for the Neville theory, but it is still workable. On one level the prophecy is only important because Voldie thinks it is, meaning that neither Harry nor Neville had to be the Chosen One. If Voldie had left them both alone, neither would have the power to destroy him, of course, Voldie didn't know that part of the prophecy. But is it possible that Dumbledore only said that to Harry to make him feel better about it, and realize that he actually did want to kill Voldie and that he wouldn't be doing it only because he had to? Because, on another level, Dumbledore does classify it as a "true prediction" in POA when he tells Harry that Trelawny's count of true predictions is now at two. So let's assume that the prophecy is accurate and that it was only *activated* because Voldie believed it to be real. So what to make of all this? It has been argued here before that although Voldie chose Harry and "marked" him with the scar, Neville has also been marked, although less overtly. Neville has immense emotional scarring, evident in many scenes throughout the books, including the class in GOF where "Moody" teaches about the unforgivable curses. Although, as it was pointed out in a recent post, Voldie wasn't aiming at Neville when attacking his parents, nonetheless, he still "marked" Neville emotionally. It's like that paragraph in GOF (sorry I don't have my books handy) in which Harry, after seeing Neville's reaction to the unforgivables, thinks something along the lines of "It all comes back to Voldemort". So even though it was actually Bellatrix who was actually targeting Frank and Alice, it all comes back to Voldemort hurting Neville. So, in a way Voldie has "marked" both Harry and Neville. If this is the case, then either one of them could potentially destroy or kill or defeat Voldemort. It's just a matter of how. I like to think that in the end, everyone will be surprised. Dumbledore and Harry both interpreting the "marking" as something that Voldie did directly to Harry, but maybe not. It could be that both boys are equally qualified as being the destroyer of the Dark Lord. Sorry, this has gotten longer than I intended, to sum up, I think that Neville, an countless others have been "marked" by Voldie. Neville and Harry, both born as the seventh month dies, have equal chance at being the one to destroy Voldie in the end. If Neville steps up to do the deed, Voldie's last moments will be filled with the horrible thought that he had chosen incorrectly. I'm not sure if that all made sense, but I'd be happy to try to clarify if anyone has questions. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed May 23 16:51:39 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:51:39 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169155 > > wynnleaf > > Absolutely. There seems to be some assumption that there was a "we > > hate Sirius" movement among the Death Eaters, motivating some sort > > of drive to kill him. Why? We know of no particular animosity > that > > any DE has toward Sirius except possibly Bella. There's no real > > strategic advantage in killing Sirius, unless the DE's thought that > > killing him would open up Grimmauld Place to them. But even there, > > it's obvious that Sirius would have willed the place elsewhere (why > > leave it to Bella or Cissy, for goodness sake?!). > > > > Alla: > > And still JKR remarked that there is a reason why Sirius had to die. > Besides Harry has to go on alone reason. Now, maybe that reason would > be Sirius helping Harry, but it could be any reason that Dung so > nicely summarised in her post. > > And this reason maybe something we don't know yet, something why > Bella and Narcissa or anybody else wanted Sirius dead. > > But even if DE did not have any such reason, which is surely possible. > > What matters to me is that *Snape* is likely to have such reason in > my view. > > Nothing new is needed for that. Just Snape animosity and desire for > revenge. Do I think Snape's animosity is arising to the level of > wanting Sirius dead? Yes, I do think it is a possibility. Magpie: That quote of JKR's is intriguing, but the fact remains that whether Snape wanted Sirius dead or not, Sirius didn't die via pre-meditated murder. His death was a total fluke--he wasn't even hit by a deadly spell. If he hadn't been standing in the right place in the right room at the right moment, he wouldn't be dead at all. So it's very hard (I'd say impossible) to really work out any plot to kill Sirius at all. Perhaps if there was someone else in the room who secretly threw a deadly curse at him at the same moment so that we only think he died from falling through the veil (*cough*Pippin*cough*), but even in that case that would be that person deciding at that moment to use the opportunity to kill. Based on the account of Sirius everyone takes as true in canon, where he died by falling through the veil after being hit by a stunning spell from Bellatrix, Sirius' death was an accident. Even Bellatrix may not have been literally trying to kill him at that specific moment because she wasn't using a deadly spell. So Snape could have been sitting at Hogwarts wishing Sirius were dead as much as he wanted; Sirius didn't die as a result of it. (Though personally, I tend to continue to think Quirrell's thoughts on Snape apply to Sirius as well as Harry--he hated him, but he never wanted him dead. Not an unusual distinction in HP canon.) -m From lealess at yahoo.com Wed May 23 17:06:24 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:06:24 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169156 > And this reason maybe something we don't know yet, something why > Bella and Narcissa or anybody else wanted Sirius dead. > > But even if DE did not have any such reason, which is surely > possible. > > What matters to me is that *Snape* is likely to have such reason in > my view. > > Nothing new is needed for that. Just Snape animosity and desire for > revenge. Do I think Snape's animosity is arising to the level of > wanting Sirius dead? Yes, I do think it is a possibility. > > JMO, > > Alla > Many people could have had reason for wanting to see Black gone. Peter Pettigrew sought out Voldemort presumably for protection from Black's vengeance. Pettigrew probably relayed the information about Black's Animagus form to Voldemort, leaving Snape with nothing to do but confirm the information. Pettigrew had reason to want Black dead. A traitor in the midst of the Order could have wanted Black dead, for any number of reasons: his influence on Harry, for one, or his knowledge of the traitor which could eventually expose the deception. Kreature, though bound to serve Black, probably wanted him dead. For that matter, Molly Weasley was in conflict with Black. I doubt she wanted to see him dead, though, but in the wild world of speculation why not? Even Dumbledore seemed less than enamored of Black, and was able to criticize Black even after Black was dead. So, why lay the blame on Snape for Black's death? Because he took advantage of the death to strengthen his case with Bellatrix at Spinner's End? Those were only convenient words. Snape presumably did what he was supposed to do, and if Black was headstrong and reckless enough to disregard Snape's advice, then it's on Black's head that he died for it. Snape may have had many opportunities to lure Black out in the open and assure his death. Black was easily provoked, after all. Snape seems to not have lured Black to his death, so it seems that even if Snape has some residual animosity towards Black, he did not deliberately contribute to his death. lealess From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 23 17:01:58 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 13:01:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Neville kill Voldy? Message-ID: <969714.1179939718249.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169157 From: jmwcfo >Of course, that is even FURTHER from "killed" than "destroyed" would >be. My point is still: Why think in terms of KILLING LV when we >know that it is against the author's personal beliefs, and there are >other, more appropriate ways of defeating the villain? Killing human beings is against the author's beliefs, or at least the principles displayed in the books. However, note that many small (mice, frogs, spiders) creatures are treated horribly without a pang of conscience, particularly in Transfiguration Class (that used to be DD's specialty, right?). Voldemort has been described as irredeemable. Let's examine why. First of all, he is clearly portrayed as a psychopath. Among other things, it means he has no conscience. Well, that makes him a candidate for St. Mungo's, NOT for a free trip across the Rainbow Bridge. However, his mental illness essentially keeps him from being able to access his soul. One may deduce that this is the reason why he was so willing to create 7 horcruxes; unlike well people, he really cannot tell the difference as to whether or not he has a soul. The point is that, as soon as he created his first horcrux, he ceased to exist as a human being. Now he is simply a soulless monster, and any chance he had of being cured is long gone. Or, to put it another way, Tommy Riddle died when Lord Voldemort created his first horcrux. Killing Voldy is just finishing the job. Bart From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 17:11:29 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:11:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169158 Magpie: > So Snape could have been sitting at Hogwarts wishing Sirius were > dead as much as he wanted; Sirius didn't die as a result of it. > (Though personally, I tend to continue to think Quirrell's thoughts > on Snape apply to Sirius as well as Harry--he hated him, but he > never wanted him dead. Not an unusual distinction in HP canon.) > I agree. What, exactly, would Snape gain by Sirius's death? Sirius was stuck in 12 Grimauld Place. Convenient for the occasional taunting, but not in Snape's face enough to really annoy. Short of death, Sirius was being amply punished for any sins by having to live in such a dreadful place. It would be much more satisfying to know that was happening than to kill him off. An ESE!Snape would recall that the Ministry is busy wasting their energies trying to find Sirius and ignoring V's return. A DDM!Snape would know by OotP that the real culprit and spy was Wormtail and not Padfoot. Whether he's ESE or DDM, Snape already has one dead Marauder to hate. As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working for you?" Not well. Far better to hate someone alive, who can occasionally acknowledge and return that hatred, than to be stuck hating someone dead. Montavilla47 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 17:15:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:15:41 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169159 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > Kreature, though bound to serve Black, probably wanted him dead. For > that matter, Molly Weasley was in conflict with Black. I doubt she > wanted to see him dead, though, but in the wild world of speculation > why not? Even Dumbledore seemed less than enamored of Black, and > was able to criticize Black even after Black was dead. > > So, why lay the blame on Snape for Black's death? Alla: I think that the original theory ( I mean, Jen's post) has a lot of canon and speculation too obviously. Sure, whether any of the DE wants Sirius dead or not IS speculation, but I was pointing that JKR does specifically stated that the reason is there whatever that is. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169032 I am reposting the link, because I think it is really far from being wild speculation. That Snape was involved in Sirius death that is. I would call it very canon rooted speculation at least :) The ultimate conclusion of it is speculation but support IMO is there. JMO, Alla From dragondancer357 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 17:30:42 2007 From: dragondancer357 at yahoo.com (Anna) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:30:42 -0000 Subject: SHIP Hermione fancies Ron Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169160 Howdy all. I've been rereading HBP and thinking about all the what Jo calls "anvil-sized clues" she's put into all the books about Ron and Hermione liking each other romantically. Yes, I get it. I understand why he would like her, but I just don't understand why SHE likes HIM. I mean, it's obvious that she -does- even though she says he has "the emotional range of a teaspoon", he's not very quick, he has a fast temper. To me, the Harry/Hermione ship actually makes more sense -- not that I'm on it! So, does anyone know what Hermione sees in Ron? Anna, pondering From MAIA226 at aol.com Wed May 23 15:41:09 2007 From: MAIA226 at aol.com (Sonya) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:41:09 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169161 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > The basic problem in Quidditch is that there are just too damned > > many points for catching the Golden Snitch. < Leaverish: > I disagree. As someone else has already said, I think that > concentrating on the seeker (in real wizarding life, not in a card > game) would mean you'll loose the game as the other team would > easily score enough points to counteract the snitch (unless their > seeker was extremely lucky). > > However, it occured to me that JKR could have made the game MUCH > more interesting IMO if she made the team who catched the snitch > LOOSE points instead of gain points. I like the suggestion of losing points for the team that catches the the Golden Snitch. Perhaps JKR was trying to keep the rules of this wacky game somewhat simple as not to confuse/frustrate the readers. After all, she had to describe it in a way that was easy to visualize and comprehend for an audience that didn't have the benefit of observing an actual game in order to pick up on how it would actually be played. - Sonya From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 23 17:47:53 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:47:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP Hermione fancies Ron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705231047v48e04dc5ja9d47a8775bb6b03@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169162 Anna: I just don't understand why SHE likes HIM. I mean, it's obvious that she -does- even though she says he has "the emotional range of a teaspoon", he's not very quick, he has a fast temper. To me, the Harry/Hermione ship actually makes more sense -- not that I'm on it! So, does anyone know what Hermione sees in Ron? Lynda: I think she just sees Ron and likes him. Its very realistic if you think about it. Many, many couples that I know are people that make me say what does he/her see in him/her? And yet they work. Better than some of the "Oh their perfect together" couples. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceeeff at gmail.com Wed May 23 16:48:39 2007 From: ceeeff at gmail.com (Charmed Force) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:48:39 -0000 Subject: The Effect of the Prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169163 I will fully admit that I am definitely a skimmer, and I tend to be very selfish and insensitive and completely incapable of understanding why people focus so much on one point, so I guess I need help figuring this out. What's the big deal with the second half of the Prophecy? I mean, really, we already knew it was kill or be killed. The first part: "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 and the Dark Lord shall mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not " The second part: "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies " Once Voldemort marked Harry as his equal, I assumed one would have to kill the other. I never thought that it could be anyone else. Not just because Harry is the main character and Voldemort attempts to kill him almost every year, but because Voldemort is supposedly one of the most powerful wizards out there and is only afraid of Dumbledore, yet he marked Harry as his EQUAL. That screams out to me that only Harry or Dumbledore would have the power to defeat Voldemort, and as Dumbledore had yet to do it and was openly pushing Harry toward that task, I assumed that meant Harry is the only one who can defeat Voldemort. >From posts I've read here and at other boards and lists, it seems that people are caught up in that one part of the Prophecy that was hidden from Harry until the end of OotP. Was there something I missed or am currently missing that would make that last bit so critical and important? Charmed Force From jnferr at gmail.com Wed May 23 18:27:36 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 13:27:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Effect of the Prophecy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705231127k5f9075d2ve9abdd20cdb0cf8d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169164 Charmed Force wrote: > I will fully admit that I am definitely a skimmer, and I tend to be > very selfish and insensitive and completely incapable of understanding > why people focus so much on one point, so I guess I need help figuring > this out. > > What's the big deal with the second half of the Prophecy? I mean, > really, we already knew it was kill or be killed. > > The first part: > "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?and > the Dark Lord shall mark him as his equal, but he will have power the > Dark Lord knows not?" > > The second part: > "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live > while the other survives?the one with the power to vanquish the Dark > Lord will be born as the seventh month dies?" montims: I think the controversy arises because it isn't clear who "either...other" and "neither...either" are... LV has evidently skewed the prophecy by taking action, but the original meaning is amiguous... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marshsundeen at hotmail.com Wed May 23 18:02:47 2007 From: marshsundeen at hotmail.com (marshallsundeen) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:02:47 -0000 Subject: SHIP Hermione fancies Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169165 Anna: > Howdy all. I've been rereading HBP and thinking about all the what > Jo calls "anvil-sized clues" she's put into all the books about Ron > and Hermione liking each other romantically. Yes, I get it. I > understand why he would like her, but I just don't understand why SHE > likes HIM. I mean, it's obvious that she -does- even though she says > he has "the emotional range of a teaspoon", he's not very quick, he > has a fast temper. To me, the Harry/Hermione ship actually makes > more sense -- not that I'm on it! So, does anyone know what Hermione > sees in Ron? Bobbi: Hello. I think the relationship of Ron and Hermione is a case of opposites attract. As Harry discovered, when he and Ron were not speaking, being Hermione's best friend can be a little dull. Hermione lives in the library. Ron brings out laughter and some fun for Hermione. Hermione does suffer from a lack of self-confidence and Ron's admiration of her is appreciated. Ron speaks harsher than he actually feels and Hermione knows since seeing him with his family that he is actually a caring individual. Bobbi From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed May 23 18:46:52 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:46:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169166 > Carol responds: > > The only problem is, there is no such plot in canon. The only plot > is to get Harry to the MoM using a fake Sirius (a phony vision) as a > decoy. > 5) Snape certainly gave *some* information regarding Black, probably > that he had seen him in Animagus form at Hogwarts just before his > return, and he no doubt used that bit of information to claim a > share in Black's death, but it really made no contribution to > Black's death at all. Jen: Threads take on a life on their own once initial thoughts are proposed, but I wanted to say that my initial post wasn't intended as theorizing a plot by the DE's and Voldemort to kill Sirius. Others have researched the night at the DOM far more than I have and could probably make a case for it. I was proposing more of a personal thing between Snape and Sirius, where Snape 'accidentally' let slip information that Voldemort used in his plot to lure Harry to the MOM. Snape has control of information and how it's presented and a spy must pass information to be credible. Snape knew quite a few things by the middle part of the year in OOTP about Sirius, like that Sirius was in London, that he'd stayed in London even after his animagus disguise was found out and that he was ordered to remain at GP by Dumbledore. Now these are all things Kreacher knows as well but we don't know specifically what Kreacher has been ordered to keep secret re: the Order, so it's difficult to say what part of that information he would be able to pass. Nevertheless, LV's plot hinges on it being credible that Sirius is trapped in the bowels of the DOM and that Harry, trapped at Hogwarts with almost all access to outside information limited, can check and find it believable Sirius really has gone missing from Order headquarters. The other idea I mentioned was that Kreacher was not the one to pass all the relational information about Sirius & Harry that Dumbledore credited to Kreacher at the end of OOTP. Besides not demonstrating that kind of insight into the relationships of the humans around him in my opinion (post #169113), Kreacher was also not around at Christmas to witness Sirius when he was out of his blue period and showing more affection to those around him, including Harry. So Dumbledore did obtain correct information from Kreacher, found it to be true via Legilimency, but he was incorrect to think all the information moved from Kreacher to Narcissa rather than some of the information moving in the direction of Narcissa to Kreacher in my opinion. If that's the case, then Narcissa got her information from Voldemort. I'm particularly interested now in a piece of information that Kreacher reported which can only be second-hand: "Kreacher's information made [Voldemort] realize the one person whom you would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black." (The Lost Prophecy Chapter, p. 831, Am. Ed.) In one post I mentioned Snape having access to more information than Kreacher because of the fight with Sirius in GP when Kreacher was missing. For example, Snape learned that Sirius was protective of Harry and vice versa and that Sirius would be willing to leave GP if Snape (or perhaps anyone) messed with Harry. That last bit wasn't integral to Voldemort's plot but it could have been important information to Snape. To borrow from my post yesterday, this theory is an attempt to answer a certain area of canon: Snape said he passed information that helped dispose of Black in front of the woman whom Dumbledore credited with the passing of information that led to the same death. Snape said this outside the awareness of the main POV character and there was no explanation within HBP to reconcile the different views. To me that's fertile ground for theorizing a way to reconcile the two pieces of information. Jen From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed May 23 18:56:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:56:17 -0000 Subject: SHIP Hermione fancies Ron/Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169167 Anna: > Howdy all. I've been rereading HBP and thinking about all the what Jo > calls "anvil-sized clues" she's put into all the books about Ron and > Hermione liking each other romantically. Yes, I get it. I understand why > he would like her, but I just don't understand why SHE likes HIM. I mean, > it's obvious that she -does- even though she says he has "the emotional > range of a teaspoon", he's not very quick, he has a fast temper. To me, > the Harry/Hermione ship actually makes more sense -- not that I'm on it! > So, does anyone know what Hermione sees in Ron? Magpie: Besides the "she does because JKR says so!" answer, I would say the one real hint about that comes when Ron reads Percy's letter to him and throws it in the fire or whatever he does. Iirc, Hermione has a significant reaction to that, and I thought that was the idea, that Hermione likes Ron because of his reaction to letters like that. Granted, I have question either way. I don't agree with the idea that one of them is really any crueller than the other to the other one. I sort of feel like Ron would be happier with a regular girl like Lavender since Hermione can't really hide it when she thinks he doesn't have what it takes. But it is what it is. I just can't help but not see them as a divorced couple. Not in the sense that I say "it will never work!" but just that in my mind when I imagine them in the future, I easily see them as exes. I don't think it's just from many fanfics where they've been done well that way. I must see something in the relationship that makes me think that's where it's headed. Jen: If that's the case, then Narcissa got her information from Voldemort. I'm particularly interested now in a piece of information that Kreacher reported which can only be second-hand: "Kreacher's information made [Voldemort] realize the one person whom you would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black." (The Lost Prophecy Chapter, p. 831, Am. Ed.) Magpie: That part actually makes sense to me. Kreacher doesn't have to be telling Voldemort that Harry really loves Harry etc. He could just show up and have Narcissa or whomever ask him questions that he can answer, questions that lead Voldemort to the conclusion of how Harry feels about Sirius. Iow, it's not Kreacher's plan to lure Harry using Siirus, it's the plan Voldemort comes up with after hearing Kreacher talk about life at Grimmauld Place outside of confidential Order business. There are a lot of things Kreacher could say that would give a hint to what the relationships there were like without Kreacher having to draw the conclusion himself. -m From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 19:05:04 2007 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:05:04 -0000 Subject: Rubies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169168 When the book covers came out there was a lot of speculation as to where the scene on the cover of the British children's edition takes place. Gringotts was one place thrown out there that seemed to have a lot of merit. The other day I reread the chapter in which Harry visits Gringotts for the first time and two things jumped out at me. One, discussed here already, is when Griphook tells Harry that if anyone other than a Gringotts goblin tried to open the high security vaults, they would be sucked inside and trapped. Now, it has been debated whether the trio is being pulled forward or backward in the picture, but going with the theory that it is a Gringotts vault, let's just say that they could be in the process of being sucked into Gryffindor's vault. The thing that got me really excited though was that while Harry stood with Hagrid at the counter, looking around, he saw a goblin weighing *really big rubies*. Ring a bell?! A possible clue hidden in the early chapters of the first book that would become important in the last? Also, it looks in the picture as though Harry has some injuries on his arm, burns from a dragon perhaps? While typing this out, I had another thought. I've always been a big fan of the theory that there is a horcrux hidden at the beginning of each book (SS: ??, COS: diary, POA:??, GOF: Nagini?, OOP: locket, HBP: ring). It's been mentioned that the single wand in the window of Olivander's could have belonged to Rowena Ravenclaw and could be a horcrux. If not, is it possible that maybe these rubies are one? Or something else that we see at Gringotts? I'd love to hear thoughts on both of these ideas! Janelle From ceeeff at gmail.com Wed May 23 18:56:22 2007 From: ceeeff at gmail.com (Charmed Force) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:56:22 -0000 Subject: The Effect of the Prophecy In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705231127k5f9075d2ve9abdd20cdb0cf8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169169 > > The second part: > > "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live > > while the other survives...the one with the power to vanquish the > > Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies." > > > montims: > I think the controversy arises because it isn't clear who > "either...other" and "neither...either" are... LV has evidently > skewed the prophecy by taking action, but the original meaning is > amiguous... > But it doesn't seem that ambiguous to me. Either the one with the power or the dark lord must die at the hand of the other, meaning one of them has to kill the other one. Neither the dark lord nor the one with the power can live while the other survives. It just seems like so many people are caught up in the Prophecy that they aren't seeing the simplicity of it. Perhaps reading too far into it and trying to find clues and create theories in places where it is so cut-and-dried. ~ CF (aka CharmedForce) From jnferr at gmail.com Wed May 23 19:25:38 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:25:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Effect of the Prophecy In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40705231127k5f9075d2ve9abdd20cdb0cf8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40705231225l1a911a19h8aee2e5f2259881b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169170 Charmed Force wrote: > > > > The second part: > > > "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live > > > while the other survives...the one with the power to vanquish the > > > Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies." > > > > > > montims: > > I think the controversy arises because it isn't clear who > > "either...other" and "neither...either" are... LV has evidently > > skewed the prophecy by taking action, but the original meaning is > > amiguous... > > > > But it doesn't seem that ambiguous to me. Either the one with the > power or the dark lord must die at the hand of the other, meaning one > of them has to kill the other one. Neither the dark lord nor the one > with the power can live while the other survives. montims: Snape must die at the hand of Remus? Neville must die at the hand of LV? JKR says she wrote the prophecy very carefully. It doesn't follow that "neither" and "either" and "other" are the Dark Lord and Harry, just because the preceding and succeeding lines may be. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 19:31:12 2007 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:31:12 -0000 Subject: The Effect of the Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169171 Charmed Force: What's the big deal with the second half of the Prophecy? I mean, really, we already knew it was kill or be killed. The first part: "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 and the Dark Lord shall mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not " The second part: "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies " Janelle: I'm going to disagree with your division of the prophecy here. Although I don't have my books with me and can't check exactly, I'm pretty sure that the prophecy is divided like this: The first part: "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... The second part: "and the Dark Lord shall mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other...." Harry learns the entire thing at the end of OOP, but is told that Voldemort only ever heard the first part. Voldemort didn't hear the part about marking the chosen one as his equal and is desperate to hear it now (during OOP) to figure out why he couldn't kill Harry the first time he tried. Harry knows that it is kill or be killed, but Voldemort doesn't, at least not officially from the prophecy. All he knows is that the one with the power to vanquish him approaches, which he interpreted to mean Harry. And so Voldemort sets out to kill Harry, not knowing that he must mark Harry in order for him to become his equal. If Voldie hadn't marked Harry, Harry never would have had the power to vanquish him. So the second half of the prophecy is a big deal because of the way it affected Voldie's actions, not Harry's. From marshsundeen at hotmail.com Wed May 23 19:32:59 2007 From: marshsundeen at hotmail.com (marshallsundeen) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:32:59 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705230926m702b64b7ta78d71b75b167e32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169172 > Cassy: > Funny, I first came across this pairing in fanfics and thought this > relationship to be rather strange and far-fetched. Imaging my > astonishment when it became canon. I suppose, JRK just _had_ to fix > Lupin with someone (if only to stop people thinking slash thoughts. > ^_~) However, I never saw him particulary attached to Tonks, either > in OOTP, or HBP. Frankly, in the hospital wing scene I couldn't > help thinking that he only uses his werewolf condition as a reason > to turn Tonks away, because he doesn't want to offend her by > telling that he doesn't really like her. > > Lynda: > > Interesting. I don't read HP fanfic so I never ran across that > particular pairing there. As for not Lupin not being particularly > attached to Tonks, I got the idea from HBP that he was trying to > NOT show interest in her when he actually IS interested in her. Bobbi: We have to remember that except for Chapter 1, "The Other Minister" and Chapter 2, "Spinner's End" in HBP, we only see things from Harry's point of view. Harry did not suspect they were a couple, and so we were not given any information about that either. It sounds as if lots of conversations were being had between Lupin and Tonks that we were just not privy to. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 23 19:41:44 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:41:44 -0000 Subject: Rubies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169173 > Janelle: > When the book covers came out there was a lot of speculation as to > where the scene on the cover of the British children's edition takes > place. Gringotts was one place thrown out there that seemed to have > a lot of merit. > > The other day I reread the chapter in which Harry visits Gringotts > for the first time and two things jumped out at me. One, discussed > here already, is when Griphook tells Harry that if anyone other than > a Gringotts goblin tried to open the high security vaults, they would > be sucked inside and trapped... going > with the theory that it is a Gringotts vault, let's just say that > they could be in the process of being sucked into Gryffindor's vault. > > Harry ... saw a goblin > weighing *really big rubies*. Ring a bell?! A possible clue hidden > in the early chapters of the first book that would become important > in the last? > I've always been a big > fan of the theory that there is a horcrux hidden at the beginning of > each book (SS: ??, COS: diary, POA:??, GOF: Nagini?, OOP: locket, > HBP: ring). It's been mentioned that the single wand in the window > of Olivander's could have belonged to Rowena Ravenclaw and could be a > horcrux. If not, is it possible that maybe these rubies are one? Or > something else that we see at Gringotts? > > I'd love to hear thoughts on both of these ideas! > > Janelle JW: I have always been suspicious of the wand, because it is so conspicuously displayed, and never explained. It also fits well with the theme of the tarot symbols. Nevertheless, applying your idea qualifies HP to be a horcrux, as he is certainly introduced early in SS. Further, there are huge issues here. How would LV obtain the rubies (GG's treasure, perhaps?) or the wand long enough to implant a bit-o'-soul into them? Would he be willing to relinquish the relics back to Gringotts (well protected) and Ollivander (no apparant protection) once they were horcruxed? However, I am completely unaware of the conjectures concerning horcrux exposure early in each book. Could anybody kindly furnish some discussion references? This idea resonates as the type of "hidden in plain sight" clue that JKR often delivers. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed May 23 19:53:48 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:53:48 -0000 Subject: The Effect of the Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169174 --- "Charmed Force" wrote: > > ... > > What's the big deal with the second half of the > Prophecy? I mean, really, we already knew it was kill > or be killed. > > > The first part: > "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 and the Dark Lord shall > mark him as his equal, but he will have power the > Dark Lord knows not " > > > The second part: > "and either must die at the hand of the other for > neither can live while the other survives the one > with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born > as the seventh month dies " > > bboyminn: Actually, you've divided it wrong. Voldemort doesn't know about the '...mark him as his equal...". Dumbledore and Harry discuss this very issue after Dumbledore reveals the Prophesy to Harry. What Voldemort knows - "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..." That is enough to determine who the 'Prophecy Boy' is. What we know - "...and the Dark Lord shall mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives...the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..." So, Voldemort only knows enough to determine who the kids are (Harry and/or Neville), but nothing beyond that. Several people have commented that they couldn't see why Voldemort even cared about the Prophecy because it really doesn't tell him much...no secret ways to defeat Harry, etc.... But /we/ say that because we've heard it all; Voldemort has not. He doesn't know what it does or doesn't say, that therefore in his mind, it /could/ possibly say something the might be of benefit to him. > Charmed Force: > > Once Voldemort marked Harry as his equal, I assumed > one would have to kill the other. I never thought that > it could be anyone else. ... > bboyminn: That is the most straight forward interpretation of the Prophecy, but the Prophecy is intentionally vague. So, we don't know for sure. For example (though not a really good one) - " and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives..." On the assumption that three people are potentially involved (Harry, Neville, and Voldemort), why couldn't this be a valid interpretation - '...and either Harry or Voldemort must die at the hand of Neville for neither Harry or Voldemort can live while Neville survives...' ...or change 'either' to 'Harry and Neville' and 'other' to 'Voldemort', or 'either' becomes 'Neville and Voldemort' and 'other' becomes 'Harry'. Those are probably not right, but they are fair interpretations, and there in lies the problem. Many interpretations are possible, one interpretation is more likely, but which one is right? Well, that is the whole joy of 'Prophecy', you don't know exactly how to interpret them until after-the-fact, when all the details are known, and even then it is sometimes somewhat ambiguous. Are you making the facts fit the Prophecy or does the Prophecy fit that facts? > Charmed Force: > From posts I've read here and at other boards and lists, > it seems that people are caught up in that one part of > the Prophecy that was hidden from Harry until the end of > OotP. Was there something I missed or am currently > missing that would make that last bit so critical and > important? > > > Charmed Force bboyminn: We are generally not so concerned with the hidden portion because we know what is says. But, it is a mystery to Voldemort, and it /could/ contain an important clue. For all Voldemort knows the Prophecy says the he is vulnerable at the Full Moon, and Harry is vulnerable at the New Moon, and the balance in between those times shifts according to which lunar event they are closest to. Half way between New and Full, they are of equal power. Again, that's not true, but not having heard the Prophecy, Voldemort doesn't know that, and that is exactly the kind of 'loophole' Voldemort was hoping to find. Also, the second half contains the most important and ambiguous line '... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives...'. That in itself is self-contradictory since both are living now while the other survives. I've often speculated that 'death' is the key. Perhaps, at the death of one, the other becomes vulnerable. So, if Harry could experience technical death, Neville or someone could kill Voldemort, then Harry could be brought back to life. Keep in mind that I am speaking of /technical/ death not literal irreversible death. People /technically' die all the time and are brought back in real life. Don't know how much that helps, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 20:17:38 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 20:17:38 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169175 Carol earlier: > > > 2) There is no reason to kill Black, who is stuck in 12 GP and no threat to the DEs or Voldemort. > > wynnleaf responded: > > Absolutely. There seems to be some assumption that there was a "we hate Sirius" movement among the Death Eaters, motivating some sort of drive to kill him. Why? We know of no particular animosity that any DE has toward Sirius except possibly Bella. There's no real strategic advantage in killing Sirius, unless the DE's thought that killing him would open up Grimmauld Place to them. But even there, it's obvious that Sirius would have willed the place elsewhere (why leave it to Bella or Cissy, for goodness sake?!). > > > > Alla: > > And still JKR remarked that there is a reason why Sirius had to die. Besides Harry has to go on alone reason. Now, maybe that reason would be Sirius helping Harry, but it could be any reason that Dung so > nicely summarised in her post. > > And this reason maybe something we don't know yet, something why Bella and Narcissa or anybody else wanted Sirius dead. > > But even if DE did not have any such reason, which is surely possible. > > What matters to me is that *Snape* is likely to have such reason in my view. > > Nothing new is needed for that. Just Snape animosity and desire for revenge. Do I think Snape's animosity is arising to the level of wanting Sirius dead? Yes, I do think it is a possibility. Carol responds: First, let me clarify. I meant that the DEs and Voldemort have no particular reason to kill Sirius Black, who poses no danger to them as long as he stays in 12 GP. Other Order members, say Lupin or Moody, would surely be more dangerous to them and to LV simply because they were out actively working for the Order. So why even worry about a man who's wanted by the Aurors and can't even leave the house? I didn't mean to imply that *JKR* "killed" him for no reason. Of course, in that sense, he had to die, and not only for various thematic reasons but for some reason related to the plot of Book 7. But *Snape's* "need" for Sirius Black to die is different from *JKR's* reasons why he has to die, which is what she's talking about in that interview. If Snape really wanted Black dead, he had the opportunity to kill him in PoA and didn't take it. He also could have kept quiet about Lucius Malfoy seeing Black on Platform 9 3/4 and need not have told Black to remain at home because DD was coming. Canon says that Black *chose* to go despite Snape's advice (which, being Harry's godfather, he would not have heeded even if snape were his friend). As I've already stated, there is no canonical plot to kill Sirius Black, and no known reason for the DEs to kill him in particular. (See upthread for those arguments, which I won't repeat here.) In terms of plot, one reason why Black died was to give Harry a scapegoat to blame for Black's death (a new reason for hating Snape, in other words) before he was given stronger and more legitimate reasons. The tension between them needs to be at its highest pitch before the confrontation in DH. What would it add to make him actually partly guilty of Black's death. Nothing that I can see. Instead we have an invalid reason for hating Snape replaced by two good reasons (the eavesdropping and DD's death), which will be more than enough to overcome in terms of forgiveness and working together. Add a real share in Black's death (which I've already demonstrated, convincingly, IMO, to be almost accidental) and you have an insurmountable obstacle. Harry may be a good guy, but he doesn't have superhuman powers of forgiveness. But the main reason, in terms of Black himself, probably centers around the Veil. Harry will go back to the DoM and either he or Voldie or both will go through the way, I'll bet you galleons on it. And I do think it's likely that Sirius Black will help Harry return from behind the Veil, perhaps lending him his body for the return trip. IOW, Harry will survive, but Black is dead and won't return. (At least, Harry and his friends would be able to give him a funeral.) At any rate, we know that JKR has a plot-related reason why Sirius Black had to die, but I'm guessing that it has to do with the Veil and a moment of temporary reunion. Maybe Harry will see Dumbledore there as well. But much as I like Snape-related plots, I don't think he'll have anything to do with this one. BTW, I saw no indication that Narcissa (in "Spinner's End") cared one way or the other about her cousin Sirius Black's death. She was rather preoccupied with Draco's predicament (and with defending her husband when Bellatrix blamed him for the MoM fiasco). And I noted that Bellatrix showed much the same reaction to disabling her niece, Tonks. with that mysterious green spell that she showed to sending her dear cousin through the Veil: "Harry saw Tonks fall from halfway up the stone steps, her limp form toppling from stone seat to stone seat, and Bellatrix, triumphant, running back toward the fray" (OoP Am. ed. 803). When she sends Sirius through the Veil, she reacts with a "triumphant scream" (806)--she's triumphing over her own family members both times. Carol, wondering what that green spell was and why, if it was an AK, it didn't kill Tonks From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed May 23 21:39:08 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:39:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0705230926m702b64b7ta78d71b75b167e32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0705231439k11933f01s79fdeadb5cb0ff6d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169176 Bobbi: We have to remember that except for Chapter 1, "The Other Minister" and Chapter 2, "Spinner's End" in HBP, we only see things from Harry's point of view. Harry did not suspect they were a couple, and so we were not given any information about that either. It sounds as if lots of conversations were being had between Lupin and Tonks that we were just not privy to. Lynda: I hadn't forgotten that. I drew my conclusions from OOP. Tonks is more fumbling than usual whenever Lupin's around and they're together pretty often--casually--throughout the book as well. The rest I get from HBP. Apparently, unknown to Harry, both Tonks and Lupin have been talking to each other, as well as to Arthur and Molly Weasley. As for Lupin's lack of interest in Tonks, the bubble-gum pink hair at DD's funeral says a lot, I would guess. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 21:38:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 21:38:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169177 Carol earlier: > > > > The only problem is, there is no such plot in canon. The only plot is to get Harry to the MoM using a fake Sirius (a phony vision) as a decoy. > > > 5) Snape certainly gave *some* information regarding Black, probably that he had seen him in Animagus form at Hogwarts just before his return, and he no doubt used that bit of information to claim a share in Black's death, but it really made no contribution to Black's death at all. > > Jen responded: > Threads take on a life on their own once initial thoughts are proposed, but I wanted to say that my initial post wasn't intended as theorizing a plot by the DE's and Voldemort to kill Sirius. Carol again: Good. I'm glad we agree that there wasn't one! Jen: > I was proposing more of a personal thing between Snape and Sirius, where Snape 'accidentally' let slip information that Voldemort used in his plot to lure Harry to the MOM. Carol: As I said, he almost certainly would have indicated that he had seen Black in Animagus form at Hogwarts and may also have indicated that Black was hiding at Order HQ, which he could not reveal if he wanted to. No harm was caused by revealing that information, especially since he told Black that he'd been seen by Lucius Malfoy. All Black had to do was stay at 12 GP and he couldn't be harmed. So the crucial information, used in the plot to lure Harry to the MoM, would be Harry's attachment to Black, which canon says came from Kreacher. Voldemort orignially thought that Harry knew about the Prophecy and that just knowing about the Prophecy orb in the DoM would be enough to lure him there. That's what the Occlumency lessons were all about--stopping him from having that dream. It's only when Voldie realized that something more was needed that Kreacher's information became important and he, the Malfoys, and Voldemort worked out their plot. It's Kreacher, after all, who injures Buckbeak and laughs when he lies to Harry saying (prophetically) that "master" won't come back from the Ministry, where he hasn't even gone and has, at that point, no reason to go. > Jen: > So Dumbledore did obtain correct information from Kreacher, found it to be true via Legilimency, but he was incorrect to think all the information moved from Kreacher to Narcissa rather than some of the information moving in the direction of Narcissa to Kreacher in my opinion. If that's the case, then Narcissa got her information from Voldemort. Carol: You mean, *if your theory is correct*, he wasn't aware that some of the information moved from Kreacher to Narcissa rather than the other way around, right But surely, we're getting too technical here and JKR wouldn't expect her readers to think in such detail about the mechanics of the information transmission? (I think that Narcissa, not being a DE herself so far as we know, would have received her information about Voldemort's plans from Lucius, who may or may not have been present when she interviewed Kreacher, but I don't think it matters in terms of the overall plot.) Nor do I think she expects us to note Kreacher's powers of observation (except that, as Fred tells Hermione, he knows exactly what he's doing). *And*, unlike Snape, whose loyalties we don't know, Kreacher's are solidly with the Blacks (other than Sirius) and their Malfoy connections (including Draco, as we see in HBP). Jen: I'm particularly interested now in a piece of information that Kreacher reported which can only be second-hand: "Kreacher's information made [Voldemort] realize the one person whom you would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black." (The Lost Prophecy Chapter, p. 831, Am. Ed.) Carol: So the information comes from Kreacher but the inference is Voldemort's. No Snape in sight. > Jen: > In one post I mentioned Snape having access to more information than Kreacher because of the fight with Sirius in GP when Kreacher was missing. For example, Snape learned that Sirius was protective of Harry and vice versa and that Sirius would be willing to leave GP if Snape (or perhaps anyone) messed with Harry. That last bit wasn't integral to Voldemort's plot but it could have been important information to Snape. Carol: So you think that Snape would confess to, say, Lucius, "Black tried to prevent me from giving Occlumency lessons to the Potter boy and undermine his trust in me?" I don't think that Snape would be so unwise as to mention those lessons in the hearing of any DE, much less Voldemort himself. But don't you see that you're looking for things that Snape could have done and things he could have said and reasons he could have had when, in fact, we already have canon for Kreacher as the source of the information? To speculate in my turn, I don't think that *Narcissa* (or Lucius) would have confided anything to Kreacher, a mere house-elf (and a filthy one at that). We have canon for the Malfoy attitude toward house-elves. Surely, they would have asked *him* for information (or he'd have volunteered it out of loyalty to the family) and then given him orders (from Voldemort) that he'd be happy to carry out (injure Buckbeak to keep Black away from the fireplace so Harry couldn't check on him). What more do we need to know? Jen: > To borrow from my post yesterday, this theory is an attempt to answer a certain area of canon: Snape said he passed information that helped dispose of Black in front of the woman whom Dumbledore credited with the passing of information that led to the same death. Snape said this outside the awareness of the main POV character and there was no explanation within HBP to reconcile the different views. To me that's fertile ground for theorizing a way to reconcile the two pieces of information. Carol: Fertile ground for speculation, certainly, but much more simply explained as "information" that Bella couldn't prove or disprove to convince her of his loyalty to Voldemort. No need for long explanations or theorizing. It's the way Snape works--undetectable lies and half-truths from the master Occlumens. If Snape had really provided valuable information regarding the relationship between Black and his godson, a much more impressive claim than the vague (and provably false) statement that his information helped lead to Black's death, he would have said something along the lines of, "I provided the Dark Lord with the information about Sirius Black that enabled him to lure Harry Potter to the Ministry of Magic." Surely, that's more important to LV (and Bellatrix) than having (supposedly) providing information that helped lead to Black's death, which Snape is (unrealistically) claiming? Anyway, Jen, I'm glad you're not claiming that Snape was involved in a plot to kill Sirius Black. But we're dealing with (DDM) *Snape* here, the man who sent the Order to the MoM and stopped the ring Horcrux from killing Dumbledore. He has to suppress and distort information, to give reasons that will ring true to the DEs even if they're not his real reasons (cf. his reasons for stopping the Crucio at the end of the book). He has to pass as a loyal DE, and it seems to me that he's making only vague claims that Bellatrix has no way of disproving but does not find convincing. Surely, if he could make a specific claim of having aided in the plot to trap Harry Potter, he would have done so, even if the help was, as you speculate, inadvertent? Carol, holding to her own simpler interpretation as consistent with both canon and Snape's modus operandi but agreeing that Snape's statements in "Spinner's End" are subject to multiple interpretations From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed May 23 21:46:00 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 21:46:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's supposed involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169178 > Carol responds: > In which case, how do you explain that Snape specifically requested > Black to remain at home and wait for Dumbledore? Neri: Really, after Snape goading Sirius about being a coward and staying at home the whole year, his "request" from Sirius to remain at home at such a moment was the best way to ensure that Sirius will go to the DoM. > Carol: > What else besides "Black was at Hogwarts in dog form" could Snape tell > him? Maybe that he was sent to Lupin's to recruit "the old crowd" > (most of whom probably still thought that he was the "murderin' > traitor")? Snape could, in such a case, truthfully claim that he had > provided information on Black. Neri: I'm not sure you understand my point here. It's not necessary at all that Snape's information was specifically about Black. Snape doesn't say so himself. What he says to Bella is that his information "certainly helped in disposing of Black", not that it was *about* Black. So if the information was, for example, necessary to set up the DoM operation, and the only positive (from the DEs point of view) result of the DoM operation was disposing of Black, then after the event Snape can rightly claim that his information helped in disposing of Black. Or, alternatively, if Snape was specifically ordered to send the Order members to the DoM so they get killed or captured, then by doing so he's helping in disposing of Black. > Carol: > He could also, BTW, have named Emmeline > Vance as a member of the reconstituted Order (which seems like the > sort of information he would need to provide to maintain his cover and > gain what passes for Voldie's trust) and claim (with some truth) that > that information led to her capture and death. He need not have > provided any more information than that. Neri: In that case I'd say his claim is correct. His information did lead to Vance's capture and murder. Oops > Carol: > Bellatrix, remember, is on the outs with Voldie, and even if she > weren't, she wouldn't dare to say to ask Voldemort if Snape's > assertions are true. Neri: I don't see why wouldn't Bella ask Voldy "was Snape's information helpful in disposing of Black? He told me that it was". This doesn't imply that Snape is lying to Voldy, it only implies that he's lying to Bella. Bella can also ask other DEs, and in fact Snape challenges her to do just that. And Bella knows the DoM operation closely (and so does her sister) because she took part in it before she was on the out with Voldy. And Snape's "certainly" suggests that Bella has enough information to assess the truth of this particular claim herself. > Carol, who thinks that we should stay with canon here, and canon > blames Kreacher for revealing the Harry/Sirius relationship > Neri: Umm, why ever should we stay with canon here? Haven't Snape killing Dumbledore in the end of the last book raised a few doubts regarding his loyalty? And since then JKR didn't have time to revisit his part in MoM battle. Isn't it time for reassessment? And lets admit it, Kreacher has always been a rather lousy mystery villain, especially in comparison with Quirrellmort in SS/PS, Diary!Tom in CoS, Scabbers!Peter in PoA and Crouch!Moody in GoF. I don't know any reader who was really surprised when it turned out Kreacher was the bad guy. After OotP I think most of us just assumed that JKR was losing her touch in regard to villains and mystery plots. But shouldn't we consider the possibility that she actually got sneakier, and Kreacher was in fact more of a red herring than the real villain? Neri From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 21:59:32 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 21:59:32 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169179 > >>Jen: I went back through and read sections with Kreacher and > have to agree he makes sense in all the things he says, that he > doesn't seem confused. Betsy Hp: Yay! > >>Jen: > What I also didn't see from him is direct evidence that he is > noticing the quality or depth of personal relationships. He makes > assessments about the actions people in the house are taking or > extrapolates out from information he has heard but doesn't appear > to notice anything about how people relate to one another. Magpie > mentioned the example of Sirius breaking his mother's heart and to > me that example is one of many of him repeating information he's > heard from Mrs. Black or others he respects. If Mrs. Black was > anything as dramatic as her portrait appears to be, she likely > enumerated all the ways Sirius broke her heart and disappointed her > to anyone who was in listening range. > Betsy Hp: Now this is interesting, and I'm not sure I'll change any minds here, because I think it all comes down to interpertation of canon rather than canon itself, but I read this very differently. I actually see Kreacher's statement that Sirius broke Mrs. Black's heart as him figuring out the true pain, the real feelings Mrs. Black actually hid beneath her rage. But that's because I read Mrs. Black as less of a Tennessee Williams' version of the mad matriarch, sweet and smothering as rotting perfume, and more of a cold, calculating, appearance before feelings type. Less, "why don't you love me the most?!?" and more, "why do you let your base heart guide you?", if that makes sense. And I feel like Mrs. Black would hate more than anything, anyone finding out that Sirius's leaving actually *hurt* her. So the fact that Kreacher picked up on it, that he zeroed in on the real reason for all of Mrs. Black's rage tells me that he's actually very good at seeing the actual emotion behind someone's actions. > >>Jen: > > My point was that Kreacher can't see distinctions enough to even > tell Hermione is being condescending if she is. He evaluates her > only from her blood status. He's just not showing much nuance! Betsy Hp: The nuance I see him showing is knowing exactly how to hurt Hermione the most: dismiss all of her efforts as the ignorant prattling of stupid mudblood. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I think Snape's loyalty and the reason Dumbledore trusts him > > completely comes from the fact that both Snape and Dumbledore > > share pretty much the same beliefs. > >>Jen: I went back to read the times Dumbledore talks about > trusting Snape. The times I could find, in GOF, OOTP and HBP, the > context is the same thing, something to the effect of Harry asking, > how do you know he is loyal to us, to our side, to you, > Dumbledore? And each time Dumbledore states his standard phrase. > Given the way Dumbledore says what is essential to say and no more, > my belief now is Dumbledore's answer is saying: I trust Severus > Snape is loyal to me and not to Voldemort. Betsy Hp: Right. And Dumbledore trusts (completely! ) Snape's loyalty *because* he recognizes that he and Snape share the same beliefs, while Snape and Voldemort do not. > >> Jen: > That's all Dumbledore needs to know to trust Snape, that he is on > Dumbledore's side and not Voldemort's and that he will never return > to Voldemort. It doesn't mean he thinks Snape is a great guy, that > he has unimpeachable morals, that he can't lie or make choices > Dumbledore doesn't approve of or anything of that nature. Betsy Hp: But it's more than knowing what side Snape is on, it's knowing that Snape is trustworthy. *Completely* trustworthy. So actually, I *do* think Dumbledore thinks Snape is a great guy with a strong sense of morals who won't lie to Dumbledore and will try his damnedest to make the right choices. I do agree that Dumbledore doesn't think Snape unimpeachable or incapable of making mistakes. I fully believe Dumbledore realizes Snape is human, just as Dumbledore realizes that he, himself, is human. And I don't think (nor do I think that Dumbledore thinks) that Snape is a clone or drone of Dumbledore. But I do think they share the same basic beliefs and so Dumbledore trusts Snape because he trusts Snape's moral foundation. The place from which Snape makes his choices, if you will. > >>Jen: > DH may bring information to change my mind and more elaboration by > Dumbledore in some post-humous form, but until then, Dumbledore's > statement of trust refers to Snape's loyalty only given the context > of how it is asked. Betsy Hp: That Dumbledore answers the question *beyond* the scope of the question suggests to me (oh, heck, it leaves me smugly certain ) that Dumbledore actually does trust Snape... well... completely. > >>Jen: ...I wanted to elaborate on the scene in the kitchen > in GP. > > The incident also fueled Snape's rage and led him to up his > taunting to a new level... Betsy Hp: Okay, this is really fascinating to me, because again, I read the kitchen scene completely differently. Snape doesn't seem at all enraged in this scene to me. On the contrary, Snape seems very much in control. Sirius is the one who escalates, first with physical intimidation, then drawing his wand, his voice rising with every statement. Snape, on the other hand, speaks more and more softly, and while he certainly acts defensively (pulling his own wand) and while he very much taunts Sirius, Snape is not emotional. The emotion, despite Sirius's best efforts, is all Sirius's. [An aside: I love, love, love this scene. So very, very, much. ::thinks about Snape for a while::] > >>Jen: > > There's also the possibility Snape simply believes Sirius is a > danger to himself and others, that he was once a murderer and > hasn't changed 'his spots' and that Sirius is capable of messing up > Dumbledore's plan even if Dumbledore is too trusting to see it. > That one actually fits Snape's characterization the more I think > about it, imo. Betsy Hp: Gosh, to me that actually goes completely *against* Snape's characterization. For some reason I just don't see Snape acting like such a lone wolf. While I can see Snape throwing horrible fits in Dubmledore's study when he disagreed with Dumbledore, I just cannot see Snape deciding to take matters into his own hands. Again, it's a bit of a fine line, because I don't see Snape as Dumbledore's mindless drone. But I do think that once Dumbledore put his foot down (ie, "Lupin *will* be the new DADA professor") Snape would acquiesce. Not *gracefully* of course. There'd be tons of mutterings and/or acid asides, but Snape would still do as Dumbledore wished. The ones who'd most likely strike out on their own; the ones who actually *did* strike out on their own were the Marauders. But Snape? No, I'm pretty sure Snape was, and is, Dumbledore's man through and through. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 22:15:17 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:15:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169180 Betsy Hp: > Again, it's a bit of a fine line, because I don't see Snape as > Dumbledore's mindless drone. But I do think that once Dumbledore put > his foot down (ie, "Lupin *will* be the new DADA professor") Snape > would acquiesce. Not *gracefully* of course. There'd be tons of > mutterings and/or acid asides, but Snape would still do as Dumbledore > wished. > Alla: But he didn't acqueiesce, did he? Cool word :) I mean, first chance and he did strike about Lupin's condition. I see Snape as nursing his resentment, muttering I WILL prove to you Dumbledore that I am right, sort of waiting out for his chance, but certainly not abandoning his desire to do as he wants, etc. IMO of course. Neri: After OotP I think most of us just assumed > that JKR was losing her touch in regard to villains and mystery plots. > But shouldn't we consider the possibility that she actually got > sneakier, and Kreacher was in fact more of a red herring than the real > villain? Alla: Oh my goodness ? YES, YES. I was like ? prophecy, that's it? Kreacher as a villain? It is not like I ever thought of him as good guy, so he went extra mile, LOL. Ummm, certainly another villain would be nice as always. Loved loved your post, Neri. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 23 22:35:12 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:35:12 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169181 > > Goddlefrood: > > Peter was concentrating, IMO, on manufacturing his own > > escape, that he may have overheard other matters in > > respect of Harry and Sirius's conversation outside the > > Whomping Willow is speculation. > zgirnius: > Speaking of creeping contamination...that lovely scene, of > Harry and Sirius speaking together with a view of the moonlit > castle through the trees, looking like something out of a > dream...happened, in slightly altered form, in the tunnel, > in the book version. (I can see why the movie makers decided > to change the venue...). Goddlefrood now: I pwerhaps should have been more clear in my earlier. Subtlety has always been something I try for. I'm well acquainted with where the conversation took place in the book ;-), the post to which I responded appeared to me to have contamination from another, nameless, medium. I'll try again: > > that he may have overheard other matters in respect of Harry > > and Sirius's conversation outside the Whomping Willow is > > speculation. Being more explicit than this above the meaning is that any mention of a conversation outside the Whomping Willow must be speculation due to its having taken place elsewhere ;-) Further to this and referring to both my earlier post and others in this thread later than where I now choose to respond I want to add that Snape can not be excused for all he has done. This applies whomsoever's side he is on. Any explanation for Snape's actions that on their face appear to contravene his being DDM will have to be extraordinarily good to convince this old recalcitrant that they were in any way justified. The other matter that I have always found perplexing in respect of OotP is that I do not accept that LV spent the entire year plotting to get hold of the Prophecy. He must have had other things going on, which I for one apprehend we will find out about in DH. Goddlefrood, who may consider being less occluded in future, but then again, may not. From ida3 at planet.nl Wed May 23 22:39:14 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:39:14 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the Shrieking Shack (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169182 > Carol responds: > Oh, Mike. You've already admitted that Snape is protecting Harry > from SS/PS forward. In this instance, he finds Harry's Invisibility > Cloak outside the entrance to the tunnel and knows him to be in the > company of a werewolf about to transform, one he suspects of being > in league with the would-be murderer who slashed up the painting of > the Fat Lady and Ron's bedcurtains, and whom he knows can get into > the Shrieking Shack, and he lacks the "moral authority" to enter > the tunnel and protect Harry from one or both of these dangerous > people? Don't forget that Snape and Dumbledore and everyone else > believes that Harry is Black's intended victim and that Black was > Voldemort's righthand man, the spy who betrayed the Potters and the > murderer of thirteen people. Dana: Snape assumes that Lupin is helping Sirius Black and this while Sirius Black is accused of killing the Potters and Pettigrew, who were Lupin's friends, so on what basis does Snape assume that Lupin was the only remaining friend that Black had? Snape was already accusing Lupin BEFORE Sirius slashed the painting and BEFORE he caught Harry with the map. And again if Snape was so concerned about this soon to transform werewolf then why did he take his mighty time to listen in on the conversation and not rush in and take these 3 students away from this serious threat to their lives or why when he had control over the situation did he want to drag this soon to be werewolf out of the shack and risk Lupin transforming in a confined space like the tunnel were no one could have gone anywhere to get to safety? Snape again, just like in PS, put Harry at risk by not going to the proper authority BEFORE he even knew Harry was present in the shack. He does not know for certain that Black even is in the shack, it is again just an assumption. What if Lupin was just so fed up with Snape's taunts about taking the potion that he instead chose to not take it and go to the shack to safely transform there? If Lupin had killed Snape in a situation like that would it then be Lupin's fault or Snape's, for being so stupid to follow him in on a hunch, that was directed by a schoolboy grudge and not on any logic that Lupin would actually still be friends enough with Black to help him trying to kill Harry. Snape with his assumptions actually accuses Lupin for being somehow involved in the Potters death too because if their death's wasn't enough for Lupin to never want to talk to Sirius ever again and why he never tried to get him out of Azkaban for 12 years, then he must already have been Sirius accomplish for that too because why else does Lupin want to help Sirius kill Harry? (Well Pippin would have a blast if this would proof to be true but I doubt that JKR was going for this) So you say that it is okay for Snape to hunt down Lupin based on the speculative information that he comes across over the course of the year? Him even being in the proximity of willow to even notice Harry invisibility cloak without alerting DD makes him wrong, very wrong because it is not Snape's authority to be judge, jury and executioner for either one of them but especially not Lupin. And as we see he did the same thing in PS where he found it upon himself to address Quirrell while him wanting the stone had nothing to do with Snape and it was not Snape's authority to question Quirrell's loyalties or even accuse him of anything. I never read any description in canon that said that Severus Snape had a blinking Sheriff (of Nottingham) badge on his robes, that gives him the authority to hunt down potential or wanted criminals. He again had no authority to even question Quirrel's loyalties and should have reported his suspicions to DD. The troll alone could have killed three students that Snape could have done nothing about and Snape's actions in these events already indicate that he was on to Quirrell, yet he did nothing but meddle in things that were not his concern. And just for the record why would Snape not know it was Quirrell hexing the broom? First there is no canon that indicates that outside spectators came to watch the match and if JKR had wanted to make the reader believe it could have been anyone besides directing us to Snape then she would have included this in canon. So besides Quirrell, Snape was working with the other teachers for 10 years so why would he expect them to suddenly to want to kill Harry? And if so then him suspecting Quirrell wanting to steal the stone makes no sense either as that too could have been any of the other teachers but of course it is besides the point because if he had done what he was supposed to have done and report Quirrell to DD then the hexing broom event would not have occurred at all. So again Snape put people in harms way unnecessary just because he wanted to be the only hero on the block which prevented him from seeking the proper way of how to deal with such things. And this makes his rescue attempt of Harry irrelevant because he was the cause of Harry being in danger in the first place by not going to DD instead and the same goes for PoA because Snape took matters into his own hands once again. Carol: > Nor does it have anything to do with a schoolboy grudge > beyond his belief that both Black and Lupin are capable of murder > and have been since their schoolboy days. It has everything to do > with the very real danger presented by a werewolf he himself has > seen in its transformed state and the presumed danger presented by > the man he knows to be Lupin's former friend and has every reason > to suspect is out to kill Harry. Dana: Again on what basis does Snape conclude that Lupin would still be a friend to Sirius after him being accused of killing his other friends of which one saved him from becoming guilty of attacking Snape? Is that logical or was there any proof for this at the moment Lupin became a teacher at Hogwarts that supported this claim? Remember that Sirius did not go after Pettigrew but it was said that Pettigrew went after Sirius so Lupin being alive did not mean Sirius spared him because he considered him still to be his most important friend. Snape has witnessed the dynamic of the marauders for 7 years and knew that Sirius and James were like brothers so by what logical thinking process, did Snape conclude that Sirius was capable of betraying James but was still big buddies with Lupin. Or even what indication did Snape even have that got him the idea that Lupin hated Harry enough to want to aid Sirius? Carol: > As others have mentioned, he also thinks that Lupin has given Harry a way to get into Hogsmeade (into the hands of Sirius Black) and that > Lupin is letting Black into the castle. (He doesn't know when he > rushes out that Black is an Animagus, and he never does learn, > AFAIK,that Black's real accomplice is Crookshanks the Cat.) He > hears Lupin talk about concealing critical information about > his "murderer" accomplice and hears him say "Snape was right about > me." Well, what would that mean to Snape? What has Snape been > suspecting all year about Lupin? If "Snape is right about [Lupin]," > wouldn't Snape take that to mean that Lupin--whom he knows has not > taken his potion--is untrustworthy and dangerous and that he is the > murderer's accomplice? Dana: Snape did not have any supporting evidence that it was Lupin either that let Sirius Black into the castle and if he knew who "the manufactures" of the map were then he could also deduce that Sirius knew his way around Hogwarts without Lupin's help. Also is it logical for Lupin to send Harry to Hogsmeade where there were so many wizards and witches that could have detected Sirius being present and raise the alarm before Sirius could even lift his wand? Who says the place wasn't already swamped with auror's? We know the Dementor's were pretty close and Sirius might have been able to pass them by without being noticed but he surely would not have gone unnoticed if he wandered around Hogsmeade waiting for Harry to show up. All other things you pull in as evidence are already after Snape acts on his assumptions and then taking his mighty time listening in on a supposed murderous lunatic and his accomplice that could turn into a werewolf at any second and are therefore irrelevant to account for his previous wrongful actions. Snape hearing Lupin say "Snape was right" would not change anything about the supposed fact that Lupin was about to transform into a werewolf and the threat this posed to Harry and his friends. Lupin already told the story about Sirius being an animagus and why Lupin did not want to tell DD about it and that he made himself believe it was Dark Arts that Sirius used to enter the castle so maybe it is just me but why would Snape selectively use what he hears as evidence (which he of course indeed does) but disregard the rest of Lupin's statements that clearly indicates that he did not help Sirius into the castle but that he just omitted information. Lupin's admission of guilt of not telling DD is by no means proof that Lupin helped Sirius at all and if Snape believes this part of Lupin's statement then why not the rest of it? Snape is listening in on the conversation from the moment Lupin begins to tell about him being a werewolf and how he came to Hogwarts and the reason his friends became animagi for him and them making the map together. He even mentions their nicknames while Snape is listening. Snape hears Lupin tell that Peter's animagus form was so small that it made him able to pass the willow and touch the knob and that both Sirius and James were such large animals that they could keep a werewolf in check. Still all that he hears is not enough to deduce that the story, about Peter still being alive and being a rat in his animagus form, while he could have noticed a rat being present in their company and even while Sirius specifically states that he'll come quietly as long as Ron brings his rat, might indeed be true. Yet you claim that Lupin's statement was enough evidence for Snape to make his final judgment and feed the both of them to the Dementor's. While what Lupin really states had actually nothing to do with him admitting he was helping Black, just that he did not tell DD everything he knew but as we see Snape is there instead of going to DD to tell him everything he knows like Lupin forgetting his potion. To be honest with you if Snape had not intervened Lupin would probably have been back in time to take his potion and be a safe werewolf and that is also probably the reason why Lupin walked out with the rest of them because he lost track of time and as we see in OotP it takes a very long time for the sun to really set, so Snape made matters worse by messing with things. Carol: > As zgirnius pointed out, this discussion isn't about Lupin. It's > about Snape, and what Snape would think, based on the available > information about both Black and Lupin, was going on. (He is, of > course, partly right and partly wrong. Lupin *is* about to > transform into a terrible monster and Black *is* intending to > murder someone. He just thinks, as HRH also did and to some degree > still do, that the intended victim is Harry. Note that Harry, who > has heard more of the story than Snape has, is still not persuaded > at that point. The only reason that he and the others disarm Snape-- > not intending to knock him out, which is not the usual result of > that spell--is to hear the rest of the story.) Dana: This discussion as everything to do with Lupin and the assumption Snape made about him that led him to his actions. Again Snape did not know when he went after Lupin that HRH were even there and this action alone was already morally wrong because he convicted Lupin on circumstantial evidence and what does he care if Lupin is going to tear Sirius Black to pieces? Good riddance right? So why was it any of his business to go after Lupin in the first place? Because seeing Lupin go to the shack would not cause Lupin to be a threat to anyone as he would be safely hidden behind the willow if he did transform. So what need was there for Snape to act at all? Sirius would not be able to release werewolf Lupin if he transformed in his presents so no threat there either. He did not go after Lupin because he thought he was going to transform at any minute, he went after Lupin because he wanted to proof DD wrong at all costs and get his revenge on the marauders playing a trick on him and him not wanting to believe that Lupin had not been in on the joke. He did not go to apprehend a suspected murderer and his accomplice that were supposedly after Harry, he went in there so he could finally proof to DD that he was wrong about the marauders almost 20 years ago and that Snape could finally have the last word. If he really had cared about justice being served then he would have come to different conclusions after listening to Lupin telling his story for more then 10 minutes, seeing that the three kids were armed while both Lupin and Sirius had no wand in hand or indeed even seeing and hearing a rat squeaking frantically to get away. If justice was the only thing on his mind then why not let Lupin finish his story, he had already been listening to it without interfering for MORE THEN 10 MINUTES. Why the sudden rush? Maybe because he did not want to listen because he did not want to let anything get in his way of getting his revenge? Certainly not something annoying like the truth. The kids did not take Snape out just to hear the rest of the story because they would have allowed Snape taking them all to the castle if he had been reasonable and not threaten Sirius and Lupin from ever being able to tell their story to DD. Hermione tries to reason with Snape and is yelled at, Harry tries to reason with Snape and is threatened to be removed forcefully if he doesn't step aside and let Snape do his thing. All three of them had already agreed to hear Lupin out before Snape intervenes and only Snape's unreasonable behavior made them decide simultaneously to disarm him. They did not do that just because they liked Lupin's story telling, they did that because they already decided that that is was only fair to have Lupin tell Sirius's story after he discovered Peter was alive and not killed by Sirius. If Snape had said: "it is for DD to decide what happens to Sirius and Lupin", then they all would have come quietly. Snape specifically states that he is not going to bring Sirius to the castle but that he will call the Dementor's as soon as they leave the willow. So the kids decide that if they do not act now (and each decides this individually without so much looking at each other and even Hermione does so) then Sirius only chance to be proven innocent if he indeed is, will be lost forever. If three kids think that Snape is so deranged that they feel they have to act to prevent Snape from feeding these two men to the Dementor's, then it is saying something about Snape's mental state at that particular time and it goes way beyond him merely wanting justice to be served, well at least not in relation to the Potters or Peter's death that is. Because essentially their death's is as much Snape's fault as it would be Sirius's (in this case Peter of course) because neither laid a hand on the Potters themselves and both provided LV with information that made him go after the Potters. We never see Snape tell DD, did you forget Sirius was the SK and therefore the only one that could have betrayed them. No, he tells DD to remember that Sirius wanted to kill HIM at age 16. And of course as we see who says Snape could have prevented the Dementor's giving Harry a little kiss too or even risk the Dementor's coming close to these three students? Yet that is what he states he is going to do. And maybe it is just me but it was no hollow threat. Carol: > Instead, he overcomes his anger and resentment and presumably a > splitting headache (he was knocked unconscious by a blow to the > head and his head has also been allowed by Sirius Black to bump against the ceiling to the tunnel repeatedly) and takes the kids to safety and the "criminal" to the Minister of Magic. What good citizen, under the same circumstances and with thesame information, wouldn't do the same? Dana: To bad that being knocked unconscious and his head being bumped against the ceiling, did not knock some sense into him and when he is talking to Fudge there does not seem to be any kind of headage preventing him from rushing things along instead of going to bed and let DD take care of the rest. Snape just witnessed the Dementor's wanting to kiss Harry so calling them back to have Sirius soul sucked would also mean that he would risk them trying to kiss Harry again and that would have been a little hard to explain to DD. Him bringing everyone to the castle probably had nothing to do with him overcoming his anger and as we see he actually doesn't because as soon as his hands are free, he tries to rush Sirius getting soul sucked before DD can intervene. Again if Snape was all about justice being served then listening to DD's hints would have been enough but that is just the problem because Snape wanted to proof DD wrong at all costs and when he couldn't, he wanted to get Sirius soul sucked so him being proven innocent later, would not matter one way or the other. And only for this action alone I could never ever see Snape as one of the good guys again or consider him acting morally appropriate because Sirius never had a trail (and Snape could have known this) and therefore he had every right to be heard and it was not up to Snape to make a final judgment on the basis of what he assumed to be true. He was disloyal to DD for over stepping his decision about Lupin and Snape truly wanted to have a man's life taken just because he was convinced that he was entitled to make such a judgment because Sirius played a joke on him 20 years ago. Snape deliberately omits information to Fudge about what he did hear in the Shack and the one thing that Sirius indeed could proof and that he was an animagus which would have made the story about Wormtail being a rat animagus believable, after all even if Snape did not see Pettigrew himself he did see a rat that is no longer in Ron's possession. If Snape had done so then he could have given merit to Harry and Hermione's story and later Lupin's and Ron's and even if this had not been enough for Fudge to chance his mind then at least it would have been fair but Snape doesn't, he even deliberately seeds more doubt about their story by lying to Fudge they were put under a spell. Snape knew very well from observing the scene that they were not under any spell because they were the once holding the wands. It is interesting to note that DD also knew Lupin was loose on the grounds but that he still found it safe enough for Hermione and Harry to go through the events for a second time. Lupin was no were to be seen and did not even come when he could have such easy pray in all of them. Sirius had already taken care of Lupin enough for him to take flight. Snape doesn't even know why Lupin is not there because he was unconscious during these events so he doesn't even know if Lupin might be still in the shack or actually loose on the grounds. (Just a side note: It is interesting that JKR sneaked, Sirius making up for the prank, by us, right then and there,. Sirius prevents Lupin from harming anyone that night and he saved Snape's life at the same time, funny really funny) And to answer your question about what a good citizen would have done, they would have notified either DD or the MoM that they had a suspicion about Sirius Black's whereabouts and if they still decided to go in and check it out themselves then a good citizen would have reacted just like the three kids reacted and let the man tell his story before placing any judgment. And if we want to drag Lupin's actions in, to compare them to Snape's, then Lupin had every reason to assume that things might go very wrong if he didn't act right away because Lupin did witness Sirius colliding with the kids and he did witness Sirius disappearing with Ron and Peter into the tunnel leading to the shack and then saw Harry and Hermione follow and even if Lupin decided that Peter showing up on the map was seeding doubt about Sirius involvement in killing the Potters and thus him not going after Harry, he knows that Sirius can be rash. But as we see Lupin when he comes in immediately takes action to make sure no one can be harmed by removing the wands. And only after Peter admits he is guilty of betraying the Potters, does he indeed led himself get carried away by wanting to play executioner but still he listens to reason when Harry intervenes. Snape never does, not even when DD hints there is enough merit to Sirius's story to take actions because of it. In my country a person is innocent until proven guilty and assumptions are not evidence of guilt. 4 people tried to persuade Snape to just take a moment and listen but in Snape's world only his own judgment of things count and that makes Snape a very dangerous man indeed. A man driven by his hatred and his urge to seek revenge and who has compartmentalized his moral sense to such an extent that he doesn't even know he still has it when it doesn't serve his own personal needs. A man that does not trust the judgment of the only man that prevented him from going to Azkaban. A man that keeps everybody of Snape's back by not revealing what Snape had done that supposedly caused him so much remorse. A man that listened to Snape's story and gave him a chance while his association with LV would have been enough for a life time in prison (and DD does this twice as we see in GoF, first after LV's downfall and second when Karkaroff mentions Snape's name). But when it is asked of him to just take a moment to listen he does not have to do what others did for him because what Sirius did to him at age 16 was enough to make him pay for it with his life. It is interesting though that Snape using his moral authority to go after Lupin without him actually posing a threat to anyone if he transformed in the shack and Snape does not know until he gets there that Harry (or Sirius) is even there. While these same arguments are used to clear Snape from any blame for losing Harry out of his sight for 4 to 6 hours because it wasn't Snape's responsibility and Snape supposedly could not have known Umbridge was a serious threat to Harry's safety while she tried to remove him from Hogwarts twice (she was at the trial and if DD had not brought in a witness then Harry would have lost his case). Not even when she just told Snape she caught Harry red-handed with his head in her fireplace which would be enough reason to kick Harry's butt to the curve so fast he wouldn't know what hit him. What makes Umbridge, who actually was a threat to Harry all year, different from Lupin? Oh yes, I forgot there was no schoolboy grudge that motivated Snape to convict Umbridge by her mere presence. Her attempts to remove Harry, which caused DD's removal instead, was not enough evidence that she was out to get Harry and remove him from Hogwarts. Which actually would pose a threat to Harry and would provide him every opportunity to find a way to the DoM or even LV being able to get to him, if no Order Member was ready to get him to safety. While a map in Harry's possession WAS supposedly enough evidence to conclude Lupin wanted to hand Harry over to Sirius? Makes real sense to me, pardon my natural sarcastic take on this reasoning. JMHO Dana From wileras at gmail.com Wed May 23 22:44:17 2007 From: wileras at gmail.com (wileras01) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:44:17 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169183 > Neri: > The thing is, if Snape was using Sectumsempra under full control here > only for the purpose of nicking James, then he was doing a very stupid > thing. He got absolutely no advantage out of it. It would be like > fighting someone with a needle: you're almost sure to draw some blood, > but at maximum you'd manage to anger your opponent even more, and > hardly stop him. Any common hex (or indeed Levicorpus) would have done > Snape more good at that point. Snape wasted his one shot at James > *and* risked exposing his secret Dark invention for no gain at all. This seems to me to be one of the more important parts of the scene. In my opinion, it opens the scene up to a few interesting interpretations. To be fair my interest in this moment does rely on the assumption that Snape was actively trying to do more harm to James than was accomplished. However, given the situation Snape was in and the variety of other spells he had at his disposal, I would conclude it's a fair assumption. Now none of the characters have a significant reaction to the spell. They, however, do not have the reader's knowledge of the potential damage the spell can cause. The reader, once the true danger of the spell is revealed, can go back and examine this scene and understand how close James was to dying. Aimed a little lower and that slight cut could have opened James throat killing him well before medical aid could have arrived. We know from the title this memory is important. Also given how little we get to see of the events from the marauder days we have to figure that each detail in this memory is important. It seems to me to be very odd to include this spell along with Levicorpus, if the use of both in the scene isn't significant. So here we have Snape using Sectumsempra and missing. Depending on your view of Snap's current character I can see this easily leading to the chapters title. If Snape is truly repentant then he could look on this incident as a time where he could very easily have killed James and regret what could have happened. However, if Snape's hatred of James is really as deep as we see in the current novels then perhaps his worst memory is that in this instance, where he could have gotten rid of James himself, he missed. Leaving aside the ramifications he would have received had he killed James it does seem like something he could regret. Overall it seems likely to me that what makes this Snape's worst memory is tied to the spell that we see Harry so regret using later in the novel. The reinforcing of a parallel theme in wishing the spell had not been used seems too likely to me to be overlooked. Whether he regrets using it at all, as Harry does, or using it and wasting his chance is a larger question. Jared From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 23 22:56:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:56:25 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169184 > Carol responds: > The only problem is, Goddlefrood: First of all let me thank you, imitation is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery. > Carol: > 1) There is no plot in canon to kill Sirius Black, only to > get *Harry* to the MoM. Goddlefrood: Should my post to which this reply referred be checked I do not believe you will find that I said there was a plot to kill Sirius. Even the sig line of that post does not make such a claim, I wonder why, therefore, this is brought in. The plot was actually to get the Prophecy, but that Harry was also a target is not something with which I would disagree. > Carol: > 2) There is no reason to kill Black. Goddlefrood: With reference to the above comments, I would agree, but that would not necessarily stop Severus hoping for Black's death. Snape is far from the knight in shining armour that he is depicted as by many a DDM Snaper (to use, for once, an expression I'd rather not). > Carol: > 3) Snape canonically did everything he could to keep Black from > coming to the MoM. Goddlefrood: Of course, but it is also Snape's word that has to be taken on what he had done. It comes to us second hand through Dumbledore, as noted by Carol, but my earlier point was only that Snape is clearly an accomplished liar. He also detests Sirius and others have stated that there is a good reason for Sirius's death, including JKR herself. That is at least sugeestive that the literal interpretation of events should be treated with some caution. > Carol: > 4) There was no guarantee that Black would be killed if he > did come. Goddlefrood: Naturally, but then he was rather reckless in the way he engaged Bellatrix and overconfident also, perhaps as noted in a snipped portion from Carol. That Bellatrix was more complicit than any other is accepted, but ultimate blame, as in just about anything bad going on in the WW should be laid squarely at Lord Voldemort's door. > 5) Snape certainly gave *some* information regarding Black, > probably that he had seen him in Animagus form at Hogwarts > just before his return, and he no doubt used that bit of > information to claim a share in Black's death, but it really > made no contribution to Black's death at all. Goddlefrood: Leaving this part in its entirety as it actually starts off by agreeing with a point I made earlier. By telling Lord Voldemort of Sirius's Animagus form Snape effectively condemned Sirius to 12 Grimmaud Place. When a situation arose in which his Godson was in danger there would be no earthly reason to suppose that Sirius would sit tight while other Order members took care of it. Snape was the wrong person to be telling Sirius anything to Sirius's benefit, as Neri has also pointed out. Red rags and bulls spring to mind. > Carol, who is presenting canon here but assumes that > Goddlefrood knows the book well enough not to need page > numbers for these points. Goddlefrood: Well enough to know that other media are irrelevant, yes ;-) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 22:58:20 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:58:20 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: My $.02 on the ships in the book :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169185 > >>Neil: > I'm not trying to change the title, but simply pointing out the > importance of Hermione to the story. A hero is defined as a man > noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose; especially one > who has risked or sacrificed his life. That certainly defines > Harry. A heroine is the female counterpart of a hero; in > literature the principal female character in a novel. That > defines Hermione in the series thus far. Betsy Hp: As far as being a "hero", yes, Harry fits that definition. As does Hermione and Ron. But as for being the "literary hero" while Harry also fits that description, Hermione does not. Hermione is the ranking female character, yes. She does not *equal* Harry though, as far as her importance to the story. Hermione's equal, in those terms, is Ron. Neither Hermione nor Ron shape the story; they support the hero (Harry) while *he* shapes the story. The Potter series does not have a female protagonist. Hermione is just a supporting role. She's an *important* supporting role, just as important as Ron, but it's still a supporting role. > >>Neil: > Ron has been mainly just a friend. Other than the chess game in > book one, he has done little more than provide comic relief. Betsy Hp: Oh, I'd say he's been a bit more important than that. He's also Harry's emotional support. > >>Neil: > Hermione, on the other hand has been instrumental in helping Harry. > In book one, she noticed the trap door, saved both Ron and Harry > from the Devil's Snare and used logic to figure out the clues to > the potions. Betsy Hp: Ron gave Hermione the extra nudge she needed to defeat the Devil's Snare. And Ron defeated the chess set. So Ron's presence was just as important as Hermione's. > >>Neil: > Without Hermione's help in book two, Harry would have never > located the Chamber of Secrets and saved Ginny. Betsy Hp: Ron was by Harry's side as they confronted the giant spiders, and Ron was by Harry's side when Harry made his way to the Chamber. > >>Neil: > In book three, Hermione is by Harry's side every step of the way as > he saves Buckbeak and Sirius. Betsy Hp: But it was still Harry that did the saving. This is Hermione's chance to catch up to Ron from the last book. She's not really outdoing Ron. > >>Neil: > Without her help in book four Harry would have made a fool of > himself in the very first task. Betsy Hp: And it was in GoF that we learn how important Ron is to Harry. Ron is very much Harry's emotional support in a way Hermione just cannot match. Though she makes up for it with her intellectual support. (Again, Ron and Hermione are equals here.) > >>Neil: > She encourages Harry to start the DA and fights by his side in the > Ministry in book five. Betsy Hp: Yet, without Ron's support, Harry would have ignored Hermione's idea. Again, both Ron and Hermione are of equal importance to Harry's well being. > >>Neil: > In book six she is written totally out of character, but is still > the principal female character. Betsy Hp: I don't know, a girl able to leave a classmate with what appears to be a permanent facial brand strikes me as the sort of girl able to send birds at someone's face. And again, Hermione is the principle *female* character, but her actual character level goes only as high as Ron, no higher. Ron and Hermione were involved in similar things (teenage romance), while Harry was involved in something completely different (war with Voldemort). > >>Neil: > Ginny may have become the super witch and Harry's love, but by > definition, Hermione is and always will be the heroine of the > series. Betsy Hp: Oh, Hermione is still the ranking female character; that's even established at the end of HBP when Ginny is left behind. However, Hermione is *not* the heroine of the series. Not in the way I think you mean it, anyway. (I'm not saying Hermione hasn't been heroic.) The Potter series does not have a female heroine or protagonist. Now, of course none of the above precludes JKR from writing Hermione as Harry's main squeeze. Especially since the thrust of the story isn't about Harry falling in love. As I think Ginny illustrates, there's no need for the protagonist's love interest to be of equal importance to the story. She can be, and apparently is, a reward for a job well done. The happily ever after, if you will. Honestly, IMO, if this *was* supposed to be a story about Harry falling in love, the closest character to fit that bill (equally shaping the story) would be Draco Malfoy, merely because of his role as Harry's shadow. Draco would be the Darcy to Harry's Elizabeth. But JKR is not writing that sort of story. Betsy Hp From nerdie55 at yahoo.com Wed May 23 22:57:46 2007 From: nerdie55 at yahoo.com (nerdie55) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:57:46 -0000 Subject: Is Neville going to die? (Or Ginny? Or Molly?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169186 Neville's grandmother never thought him good enough to be her grandson. Perhaps he will die to show his courage and she will mourn him? Molly has this clock she always watches in fear. Harry saw through her eyes how all the male members of her family died. Perhaps Ginny, who was not thought of, will die in the end? Or Molly herself, because she never feared for herself, only for her family. I like to see everyone happy and having long lives but that is certainly not going to happen. Nerdie55 From ceeeff at gmail.com Wed May 23 23:28:41 2007 From: ceeeff at gmail.com (Charmed Force) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:28:41 -0000 Subject: The Effect of the Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169187 bboyminn wrote: > I've often speculated that 'death' is the key. > Perhaps, at the death of one, the other becomes > vulnerable. So, if Harry could experience technical > death, Neville or someone could kill Voldemort, then > Harry could be brought back to life. Keep in mind > that I am speaking of /technical/ death not literal > irreversible death. People /technically' die all the > time and are brought back in real life. I actually read a fanfic recently where Snape fatally stabbed Harry during the final confrontation, and once Hermione declared Harry gone, they were able to kill Voldemort. At that point, they used CPR to bring Harry back to life since he really had been dead for less than a minute. It was the first time I had heard of that approach to getting around the Prophecy, but I thought it did have merit in some form. The only concern I would have then would be who kills Voldemort when Harry dies? Thank you for correcting the division I had posted wrong. And I was skipping over the obvious- I knew Voldemort only received the first part, but it didn't sink in until I heard your arguments. I can see how that statement could be construed as ambiguous, but if there were others involved in the prophecy, wouldn't those names be attached to the sphere when it rested in the Department of Mysteries? Or if the names were unknown, wouldn't it say "Unknown Wizard" or what not? ~Charmed Force~ From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu May 24 01:26:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 01:26:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169188 > Betsy Hp: > > > Again, it's a bit of a fine line, because I don't see Snape as > > Dumbledore's mindless drone. But I do think that once Dumbledore > put > > his foot down (ie, "Lupin *will* be the new DADA professor") Snape > > would acquiesce. Not *gracefully* of course. There'd be tons > of > > mutterings and/or acid asides, but Snape would still do as > Dumbledore > > wished. > > > > Alla: > > But he didn't acqueiesce, did he? Cool word :) I mean, first chance > and he did strike about Lupin's condition. zgirnius: He did acquiesce. Both by cooperating, and by not sabotaging the hiring. He made the potion Lupin would need to be safe all year. Despite knowing before the school year started who was going to be hired, and knowing that someone was a werewolf, he did not (for example) write to all the Slytherin parents with his concerms, etc. He still argued about it, naturally, but BetsyHP concedes as much. His actions, what he *did*, were to acquiesce. Retaining a desire to prove Dumbledore wrong is not a failure to acquiesce, it is having a mind of one's own. Dumbledore did not convince him hiring Lupin was a good idea; Snape went along with it anyway because Dumbledore is the boss. Snape only acted on his desire once he was convinced he had the proof he needed that Dumbledore was wrong. In my opinion, naturally, but I do think he was quite sincere at the end of the book. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 01:33:31 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 01:33:31 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169189 > >>Betsy Hp: > > *My* issue with quidditch is the lack of any sort of bench. > > > >>Catlady: > "Reserve" players *are* allowed. In GoF, Oliver Wood tell Harry that > "he had just been signed to the Puddlemere United reserve team." > > Lots of canon in PS/SS. Lee Jordan's commentary mentions "Alicia > Spinnet, a good find of Oliver Wood's, last year only a reserve". > When advised not to play in the match that Snape will referee, "I > can't," said Harry. "There isn't a reserve Seeker. If I back out, > Gryffindor can't play at all." > > It doesn't make much sense to me that Harry's team doesn't have > *any* reserves. > > It appears that substitutes are allowed for non-injured players, > just not for injured players. > Betsy Hp: Thanks for the canon, Catlady. So both substitutions and reserves *are* a part of Quidditch. Hmm, this means there are two ways of dealing with the fact that Harry doesn't have either during his tenor as team captain. The first is from within the text, as I think Steve Bboyminn tries to do: > >>bboyminn: > > > > All I am saying is that more players complicates > > practice and dilutes the captains time and attention. > > Some captains might not mind, and feel having the > > reserves always at the ready is a bonus. Other captain, > > like Harry and Wood, might want to concentrate on the > > main team, and merely keep in mind who would work for > > a substitute. Betsy Hp: But, based on team sports in general, this is an odd tack to take. For good reason as Ken points out: > >>Ken: > That is all true but there are compensating advantages to wasting > time on the B team. > > So developing talent on your B team is critical to your long term > success and from the Hogwarts staff's point of view it is an > important skill for budding young leaders like Quidditch captains > to learn. Secondly, as someone who played team sports in his small > town Wisconsin high school, I am completely baffled as to how you > even hold a practice without a B team to scrimmage against. > Betsy Hp: So we're running the risk of painting Harry as a crap quidditch captain. Which I don't think JKR wants us to do; and I don't think the story (despite the pesky details ) ultimately supports. Which leaves the meta (I think I'm using that word correctly?) route. JKR dreamed up the fun idea of quidditch but wasn't all that into sports nor all that worried about nit-picky details (scoring, etc.). She saw some cool thematic aspects quidditch could be used to illustrate, drew some broad-strokes (the mentions of reserves and substitutions Catlady pointed out) to attach the sport to real life games, and bob's your uncle. But, by the time HBP came around JKR was fairly bored with quidditch (as she's said a time or two I believe) and about ready to let it go. So she kind of faked her way through Harry's term as captain, leaving Harry (or JKR) looking a bit foolish to anyone who thinks about it too hard. I think JKR was more interested in the thematic stuff than the actual sport stuff, which isn't necessarily a bad thing and certainly JKR's choice. It bothers me a bit, especially in rereads, because I love details. Plus, I kind of like sports stories. But while I don't think JKR ever takes advantage of it (frankly, her whole take on competitive sports and fair play strikes me as odd) the existance of quidditch does add a nice flavor to her world. > >>Leaverish: > > > > However, it occured to me that JKR could have made the game MUCH > > more interesting IMO if she made the team who catched the snitch > > LOOSE points instead of gain points. > >>Sonya: > I like the suggestion of losing points for the team that catches the > the Golden Snitch. Betsy Hp: It'd certainly figure into the sort of wacky, illogical wizard mindset. And I totally agree that it'd make for a much more interesting game. However, since the game is used thematically I'm afraid such a scoring method would heavily foreshadow Harry dying when he defeated Voldemort. So for that reason I'm glad the Seeker who grabs the snitch is so all mighty and victorious. > >>Sonya: > Perhaps JKR was trying to keep the rules of this wacky game somewhat > simple as not to confuse/frustrate the readers. > Betsy Hp: The thing is though, it's not the broad-strokes of the game, it's the details. So, in general, the rules are fine (catch Snitch, end game) but the details doesn't stand up to scrutiny (odd imbalance of scoring). Honestly, I think it comes down to JKR just not being all that sporty herself. (This is when someone informs me JKR was the captain of her soccer team or something. ) Betsy Hp From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Thu May 24 03:14:29 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 03:14:29 -0000 Subject: SHIP Hermione fancies Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169190 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anna" wrote: >snip> I just don't understand why SHE likes HIM. I mean, > it's obvious that she -does- even though she says he has "the emotional range of a teaspoon", he's not very quick, he has a fast temper. To me, the Harry/Hermione ship actually makes more sense -- not that I'm on it! > So, does anyone know what Hermione sees in Ron? > > Anna, pondering Dondee: IMO it is all about chemistry. Ron and Hermione would not be nearly as snippy with each other if they weren't feeling some physical tension between each other. And have you noticed how Hermione is always touching and kissing (on the cheek) Harry? That's because Harry is *safe*. Ron does not make Hermione feel safe, he makes her feel all wiggily inside. She probably can't explain herself why she likes him, which is probably another reason why she gets annoyed with him. What she is really annoyed with is how he makes her feel - something our beloved control-freak-Hermione can't control. JMO ;) Cheers, Dondee From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu May 24 03:18:35 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 20:18:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Effect of the Prophecy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705232018o6b775ef5r5116afa590b7235f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169191 montims: I think the controversy arises because it isn't clear who "either...other" and "neither...either" are... LV has evidently skewed the prophecy by taking action, but the original meaning is amiguous... Lynda: Considering the books I'm reading I think its clear who and what the prophecy is referring to. And its not Donald and Daffy Duck! Just my take on that bit of obcurity... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu May 24 04:17:52 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 04:17:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169192 > Jen: I went back through and read sections with Kreacher and have > to agree he makes sense in all the things he says, that he doesn't > seem confused. > Betsy Hp: > Yay! Jen: Hehe, figured you'd like that one. ;) Betsy: > But that's because I read Mrs. Black as less of a Tennessee > Williams' version of the mad matriarch, sweet and smothering as > rotting perfume, and more of a cold, calculating, appearance before > feelings type. Less, "why don't you love me the most?!?" and > more, "why do you let your base heart guide you?", if that makes > sense. And I feel like Mrs. Black would hate more than anything, > anyone finding out that Sirius's leaving actually *hurt* her. > So the fact that Kreacher picked up on it, that he zeroed in on the > real reason for all of Mrs. Black's rage tells me that he's > actually very good at seeing the actual emotion behind someone's > actions. Jen: Sirius *did* say his mother had no heart.:) Still, if Kreacher was showing insight with Mrs. Black and not repeating what he'd heard, he wasn't showing examples of the same ability with the others whom he hadn't known very long or had an interest in relating to because of the circumstances. > Betsy Hp: > Okay, this is really fascinating to me, because again, I read the > kitchen scene completely differently. Snape doesn't seem at all > enraged in this scene to me. On the contrary, Snape seems very much > in control. > > Sirius is the one who escalates, first with physical intimidation, > then drawing his wand, his voice rising with every statement. > Snape, on the other hand, speaks more and more softly, and while > he certainly acts defensively (pulling his own wand) and while he > very much taunts Sirius, Snape is not emotional. The emotion, > despite Sirius's best efforts, is all Sirius's. Jen: Yes...I'm not sure. The book says Snape was 'calculating.' I suppose it's because when Snape starts whispering is when he seems the most dangerous to me? His snap at the end of POA with the yelling, shrieking and spit flying should have struck me as Snape at his angriest, but the going quiet deal impresses me as Snape at his scariest. (Yes, scary, I know that's hard for someone who loves the character to imagine but he can be very chilling to me. ) Actually, in rating all the scenes, I'd have to say his moment in the dungeon with Harry where he's both out of control *and* quiet would be my 10-out-of 10 scary Snape moment. Heh. So yeah, the scene in the kitchen ranks below that one and above the spit flying in POA. Even he would probably agree that moment in POA was 'weak' because he was wearing his heart on his sleeve. He's not effective when he's out of control and very effective when he has mastery of himself. (Oh, and I snipped out the part about loyalty because I know we won't agree about it right *now*. I mean, if JKR hits me over the head with an anvil in DH then I won't be one to hang onto treasured theories.) Betsy: > [An aside: I love, love, love this scene. So very, very, > much. ::thinks about Snape for a while::] Jen: He's a scary man Betsy, *scary*. > Betsy Hp: > Gosh, to me that actually goes completely *against* Snape's > characterization. For some reason I just don't see Snape acting > like such a lone wolf. The ones who'd most likely strike out > on their own; the ones who actually *did* strike out on their own > were the Marauders. But Snape? No, I'm pretty sure Snape was, and > is, Dumbledore's man through and through. Jen: This one here is the parting of the ways I'm afraid, not because I don't agree the Marauders have acted on their own plenty but because I see Snape doing that as well: Going after Quirrell by himself? Running to the Shrieking Shack without alerting Dumbledore? Informing the Slytherins about Lupin without talking to Dumbledore first? Not sending a Patronus to Dumbledore the minute Harry appeared to have had the vision of Sirius? Possibly the UV? I know Snape needing to send a patronus to Dumbledore is not canon but I've never understood this action on Snape's part. They've worked the whole *year* to make sure Harry isn't lured to the MOM and what does Snape do when he discovers Harry has had a vision that might lure him to the MOM? He ensures for himself that Sirius is alive and safe at Grimmauld and then when Harry never returns from the trip into the forest, "Professor Snape grew worried that [Harry] still believed Sirius to be a captive of Lord Voldemort's." Well, DUH, because Snape never bothered to tell *Harry* that Sirius was okay. That one defies logic for me, first that Snape didn't do anything and second that Dumbledore didn't find that decision lacking judgement. Magpie: > That part actually makes sense to me. Kreacher doesn't have to be > telling Voldemort that Harry really loves Harry etc. He could just > show up and have Narcissa or whomever ask him questions that he can > answer, questions that lead Voldemort to the conclusion of how Harry > feels about Sirius. Iow, it's not Kreacher's plan to lure Harry > using Siirus, it's the plan Voldemort comes up with after hearing > Kreacher talk about life at Grimmauld Place outside of confidential > Order business. There are a lot of things Kreacher could say that > would give a hint to what the relationships there were like without > Kreacher having to draw the conclusion himself. Jen: Well, I would spin it a little different and say that Voldemort was checking out the information he received from Snape for accuracy and to see if Kreacher had learned any additional information that could be useful if his memory was prodded. Whether Snape was lying when he said he passed information on Sirius remains to be seen, but I find it at least somewhat interesting the point was made outside Harry's awareness. The way JKR has worked it so far, conversations pertinent to Harry outside his earshot make their back to him one way or another and this one will need an explanation should it get back to Harry. Jen before: > So Dumbledore did obtain correct information from Kreacher, found it > to be true via Legilimency, but he was incorrect to think all the > information moved from Kreacher to Narcissa rather than some of the > information moving in the direction of Narcissa to Kreacher in my > opinion. If that's the case, then Narcissa got her information from > Voldemort. Carol: > You mean, *if your theory is correct*, he wasn't aware that some of > the information moved from Kreacher to Narcissa rather than the > other way around, right . Jen: I believe it's time to agree to disagree on this thread, Carol. I made a disclaimer in my last post that I wasn't stating this theory as fact, that it included speculation (and the above was in the original theory) and I included "If that's the case" and "in my opinion" in the paragraph above mostly in anticipation of what you might say. I'm not jumping through any more hoops. Jen From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu May 24 06:29:21 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 06:29:21 -0000 Subject: The Effect of the Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169193 --- "Charmed Force" wrote: > > ... > > I can see how that statement could be construed as > ambiguous, but if there were others involved in the > prophecy, wouldn't those names be attached to the > sphere when it rested in the Department of Mysteries? > Or if the names were unknown, wouldn't it say "Unknown > Wizard" or what not? > > > ~Charmed Force~ > bboyminn: The people at the Ministry, and in the Hall of Prophecies, are just like us readers, we and they assume the obvious, that Harry is 'The One'. But the Prophecy doesn't give Harry by name, it only implies Harry, and circumstances seem to support that implication. However, the people at the Hall of Prophecies don't realize that they are in a book that is likely to have many plot twists and turns before the story is resolved. So, they aren't able to assume anything other than the obvious implication. However, we as readers can analyze the story at a much deeper level because we know it is a story controlled by an author. Certainly there /are/ going to be plot twists and turns, but exactly where they twist and turn we don't know. The Prophecy seems like one very big ambiguous place for a plot twist to occur. Maybe Neville kills Voldemort, or maybe Neville creates a circumstance that allows Harry to kill Voldemort, or maybe Neville has to die (techincal or otherwise) for Harry to be able to vanquish Voldemort. Or perhaps Voldemort is not truly killed at all, instead neutralized in someway; loses his magic power, is somehow doomed to a spectral existence in which he can never recover a body but at the same time never dies, or some other likely or unlikely twist. We do know the Prophecy is important to the story, but HOW is it important? Since we don't know, that opens the door to all kinds of wild speculation. For what it's worth. Steve/boyminn From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 06:41:51 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 06:41:51 -0000 Subject: The Model of the Modern Major General? / Ethics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169194 Leslie41: > Snape believes he's going into a confrontation with Lupin > and the man he thinks he's protecting, the outlaw and > dangerous Azkaban escapee, Sirius Black. Goddlefrood: Does he now? Told us this did he? I think not. Severus had the very clear intention, IMO, of being the one to *capture* Sirius, not necessarily by violent means. Leslie41: Yes, he says "how I hoped I'd be the one to catch you," so I intuit from that that he believes there's a possibility he was following Lupin to Black's hideout. And of course he's thinking about revenge, especially after he has just heard Black admit that he doesn't have any remorse about the prank. What do you think Black and Lupin are thinking of when they're aiming their wands at Peter Pettigrew? Reforming him? Goddlefrood: Of his grudges against the Marauders in general his grudge against Sirius in particular was the strongest by far. It is quite clear from even a surface read that this latter is correct and sustainable on a second, third or umpteenth read through. Leslie41: Yes, of course Snape's grudge is still strong. With good reason. See above. He has just heard Black discuss playing a deadly prank on him, and (unlike Lupin) Black bears no regret for his past actions. "Served him right" he says. So Snape is not the only one holding a grudge. And Sirius, canonically, has far less reason. I will just comment that I totally agree with you on when Snape begins to overhear Lupin and Black's conversation. Goodlefrood: Snape was certainly not going to listen to any further explanation, as he indeed did not do. He quite possibly felt that he had heard more than enough during the time in which he was present to confirm his prognosis that Lupin and Sirius were acting in tandem and even a likely danger to HRH from Severus's perspective, which was, remember, almost certainly clouded by his hatred of both the other adults present. Leslie41: Again, why shouldn't it be? Aren't Black's and Lupin's actions clouded by their hatred? Snape stops *himself* from killing Black. Harry has to stop Black and Lupin, who exhibit at least as much or more glee at the thought of killing Pettigrew, who is pleading for his life. > Leslie41: > It seems to me that Snape's critics often seem to view his > behavior with the knowledge and understanding that *they* > have of the other characters (taking Harry's perspective, > to [sic.] to speak), not the knowledge that Snape himself > has. Goddlefrood: It is an impression that could be easily formed. That is due to the rather odd notion that these books (each of which contain the nominative Harry Potter in their titles) are all written *from* Harry's PoV. The chapters that are not, and so far there have been few, although I expect at least 3, possibly 4, chapters not from Harry's PoV to be included in Deathly Hallows, are also *not* written from Snape's PoV so how is it possible to form an *accurate* picture of how Snape himself thinks? Leslie41: >From internal, canonical evidence. Namely, from what the character says, and more importantly (especially in Snape's case) what the character does. The same way we would analyze the actions of a character like Beowulf, as we never get inside the head of that hero at all. Goddlefrood: That opinions can be given, as I do above, in respect of his possible line of thought should hold no real contention and as this list is well aware there are ways of making out an argument for many different forms of Mr. Multiplicity. Leslie41: And I would assert, as I have in the past, that the opinions against Snape are biased and hypocritical, because his actions and the actions of the "popular" characters are not held in equal weight. Snape critics make demands of him that are not made of other characters, and blame him where no or little blame is warranted. Lupin didn't take his potion? Don't blame Lupin. Come up with ten reasons to blame Snape. Etc. Goddlefrood: If there might be any pointers available that contradict the above paragraph I would be extremely pleased to read about them. The point I want to make is that all versions of Snape are subjective to the person writing those views, and to make a more objective assessment is the challenge that faces us all. To put it even more simply, each to their own. Leslie41: With flavors of ice cream, perhaps, but not with reasoned argument. Reasoned argument must be unbiased and supported with facts. > Leslie (less the 41): > The "logical approach" when discovering a murderer is to run > away and inform the authorities. If you're especially brave > and skilled, you subdue them and turn them over to the > authorities. Which is exactly what Snape tried to do. Goddlefrood: Not that I would wish to make any great claim for my experience in this area, but my working life suggests that in fact, when a situation is faced in which a murderer or any other type of viloent criminal is caught up with, logic rarely has a place in such states of affairs. Leslie41: That's evading the issue. Whether or not Snape was feeling perfectly logical, he acted logically. Goddlefrood: It is mostly adrenaline that drives the reaction to such confrontations as dozens of anecdotes I could go into, but won't, would attest. I will, however give you my personal experience of such a situation. One evening, not so many years ago, I was confronted at a service station check out window (the kind where one stands outside while the server is safely ensconsed in a locked shop) by a man of lesser build than I who was wielding a kinfe and wanted to take some of my hard earned income. My first inclination was not to run away but to challenge this man, even though I rarely indulge in knife fights. Once he was on the ground my sense (call it logic) kicked in and asked my what I was doing. I froze giving my intended violent assailant the opportunity to escape. He is, as far as I know, still at large, having never seen him at the Court precincts, which I frequent. Logic was nowhere initially is the point, so why should Snape be given any credit for his actions? Adrenaline would fit the case in point just as well and many another wizard or witch finding themselves faced with a perceived to be notorious murderer would, IMNSVHO, have acted similarly to how Snape acted. Leslie41: Well, it doesn't surprise me that you don't want to give Snape credit for his actions. It doesn't surprise me at all. It's one of the hallmarks of those that hate Snape that they cannot give him credit for anything. And your experience, truthfully, is irrelevant. It's Snape's experience that counts. By using your experience to "prove" that Snape acted illogically in his situations you are demonstrating a logical fallacy: the false analogy. > Anonymous (herinafter anon): > As for the use of lethal force, it certainly was appropriate > in Snape's case, as Black started toward him with "a roar of > rage". Though wandless, Black obviously indended harm. If a > known murderer heads toward me with a "roar of rage," and I > have a gun, I'll shoot, even if he doesn't. So would a cop, > most likely. Goddlefrood: Perhaps this is why the post was anonymous. Snape goes on to say rather shortly after the incidents described by anon that he would like a reason to be given to use violent force. Leslie41: You are quoting me there. If it was not attributed in the original post that is likely my mistake. I understand you're reasoning here, but there's a subtlety here I think you're overlooking. *Snape* saying "give me a reason" doesn't mean he doesn't already have one. Goddlefrood: If either a citizen or any member of the disciplined forces is leaning towards agreement with anon and ever finds themselves in the hypothetical situation which anon describes then be prepared to spend a good portion of your natural life in prison. Leslie41: So, you'd have us believe that if a murderer is lunging towards me with a look of rage on his face, and I shoot him, *I'M* the one who's going to prison? Yeah. That makes an awful lot of sense. Goddlefrood: Also be aware if you are an inhabitant of a country where the death penalty is still available that you would most probably face that penalty, that is if the knowledge that the person approaching you, no matter how notorious, were not similarly armed to yourself were not provable. I suppose perjury might be in order, but I could never advise such a course of action. Leslie41: Oh, if I shoot a known psychopath lunging towards me with an intent to do bodily harm that's going to get *ME* the death penalty? What am I supposed to do? Drop the gun and wrestle with him? Did you know that sometimes even a couple of gunshots won't stop a crazy person if they want to hurt you? Goddlefrood: IMNSVHO it is far from a normal reaction to use deadly force unless the situation merits its use, and remember that the legal test for such things is an objective more than a subjective one, although subjectivity can be taken into account. Leslie41: I'd really like to know on what occasion I'd be allowed to use deadly force without getting the death penalty. No, on second thought, don't answer. You'd probably suggest that I have to toss a gun to the psycho to "even things up". From xellina at gmail.com Thu May 24 07:23:36 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:23:36 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Neville going to die? (Or Ginny? Or Molly?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463f9ec00705240023r16390d49qd50a4b03acca9abe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169195 2007/5/24, nerdie55 : Neville's grandmother never thought him good enough to be her > grandson. Perhaps he will die to show his courage and she will mourn him? > > Molly has this clock she always watches in fear. Harry saw through her > eyes how all the male members of her family died. Perhaps Ginny, who > was not thought of, will die in the end? Or Molly herself, because she > never feared for herself, only for her family. > > I like to see everyone happy and having long lives but that is > certainly not going to happen. > Cassy: I don't think Ginny will die; JRK can't be THAT cruel to poor Harry, who already lost so many people who he cares about. Now, Neville is a more likely victim, unless Harry is going to die instead. (I believe at least one of the "prophecy boys" has to survive). As for Molly, I'm not quite sure. Somehow Arthur's death seems more likely to me, though seeing Molly dead would have greater emotional impact, both on characters and readers [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From xellina at gmail.com Thu May 24 07:30:17 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:30:17 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705230926m702b64b7ta78d71b75b167e32@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> <422932.51885.qm@web55111.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <2795713f0705221317m37ea4e94vab77cbd068c80aa0@mail.gmail.com> <463f9ec00705230017m5bc80a31wd4b0130e86dc3b2c@mail.gmail.com> <2795713f0705230926m702b64b7ta78d71b75b167e32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463f9ec00705240030x107f1135m5d83bdbfb426f513@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169196 2007/5/23, Lynda Cordova : > > > Interesting. I don't read HP fanfic so I never ran across that particular > pairing there. As for not Lupin not being particularly attached to Tonks, > I > got the idea from HBP that he was trying to NOT show interest in her when > he > actually IS interested in her. > > > . > > > Cassy: To be honest, I haven't read HBP very thoroughly, and I don't recall Lupin and Tonks being in one place together except for the last conversation in the hospital. Maybe you could pointsuch scenes to me? However, I remember Lupin being told off by Molly essentially for making Tonks miserable, but he chose not to understand her hints [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu May 24 09:48:02 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:48:02 -0000 Subject: The Model of the Modern Major General? / Ethics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169197 > Goddlefrood: > Does he now? Told us this did he? I think not. Severus had > the very clear intention, IMO, of being the one to *capture* > Sirius, not necessarily by violent means. > Leslie41: > Yes, he says "how I hoped I'd be the one to catch you," so I > intuit from that that he believes there's a possibility he > was following Lupin to Black's hideout. Goddlefrood: Perhaps the difference between "capture" and "catch" escapes you, this looks rather like disagreement for its own sake rather than for any better reason. I also apprehend that my post to which the above quote responds was not read very carefully. Let's take a closer look: > Such obstacles would include Remus and, he may have hoped, > Sirius too. (from #169102) Is there a difference between this and what is quoted above from the post to which this now replies? This may be answered by neutral third parties. Agreement with the basic matter stated leads to criticism for little reason and from an inethical point of view. More's the pity because I argue for a living, I rarely try to pass that on to others, but it also seems that no regard has been taken of post #169133, which expanded substantially on the counter argument. > Leslie41: > What do you think Black and Lupin are thinking of when they're > aiming their wands at Peter Pettigrew? Reforming him? Goddlefrood: I doubt they have any thought for the price of fish. Again the follow up post was likely not read. I criticise equally where merited. I have pointed out many flaws in diverse characters in canon. No one is by any means depicted as perfect. > Leslie41: > Black bears no regret for his past actions. "Served him > right" he says. So Snape is not the only one holding a > grudge. And Sirius, canonically, has far less reason. Goddlefrood: Sirius and Severus were never bosom chums, I'll grant you, but I have mentioned this before. Very recently I stated that Sirius could be seen as being unreasonable in some of the continued grudges he holds, including the one to Snape by implication. The matter that will possibly enlighten us all about why Sirius bore a grudge is partly his continued mistrust of Severus, which is easily divined from GoF: 'Sirius and Snape were eying each other with the utmost loathing.' - p.618, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition. A matter reinforced by JKR in an interview: " Q: What made Sirius decide to send Snape to the Willow? JK Rowling replies -> Because Sirius loathed Snape (and the feeling was entirely mutual). You'll find out more about this in due course." From: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm Suggestive of a grudge borne by Sirius since before the prank during their schooldays together. It is not unreasonable to suggest, as I now do, that Sirius justifiably loathed Severus, not perhaps to the extent of justifying wanting him dead, which the prank also suggests, but a deep seated hatred nevertheless. Deathly Hallows should resolve this puzzle and might well give a reason, albeit perhaps thought unreasonable by some, that Sirius hated Severus. Severus's grudge against Sirius is clear as day and I trust needs no further elucidation. > Leslie41: > I will just comment that I totally agree with you on when > Snape begins to overhear Lupin and Black's conversation. Goddlefrood: On that and several other matters it seems. > Leslie41: > Aren't Black's and Lupin's actions clouded by their hatred? > Snape stops *himself* from killing Black. Goddlefrood: Well, of course they are, they know at that point that Peter betrayed the Potters to Lord Voldemort. Snape is confronting an unarmed man, whatever he may think of that man. He should be congratulated perhaps. As quoted from canon by the poster this replies to "How I hoped I'd be the one to catch you". Sirius did not lunge towards Severus but "started" towards him, he held himself back due to Snape's pointing a wand between his eyes. Had Sirus lunged towards him then Snape would have been justified in using further force, possibly even deadly force. Catch, not kill. Severus clearly states he wants to hand Sirius over to the Dementors. That his judgment was clouded by his hatred is also a matter on which there appears to be concurrence, it's all becoming rather dull and repetitive, in other words. > Leslie41: > From internal, canonical evidence. Namely, from what the > character says, and more importantly (especially in Snape's > case) what the character does. Goddlefrood: True, but it does not mean it is *accurate*, it is still an *impression* whether or not a person thinks Snape is good or bad. That hardly seems a matter of controversy, but then many insist on having it their own way. It's plain that few, if any of my posts on Severus over the years had been read. Another matter that often leads to a better argument is research. Would that be biased and hypocritical to suggest? > Leslie41: > Snape critics make demands of him that are not made of other characters, and blame him where no or little blame is warranted. Lupin didn't take his potion? Don't blame Lupin. Come up with ten reasons to blame Snape. Etc. Goddlefrood: Not that this is taken personally but once more I would have to disagree with this. Many Snape critics do see that a good argument can be made out to the effect that Snape is the paragon of virtue, that they then choose to disagree with those arguments does not mean they are biassed for its own sake. In my time on this list and elsewhere I would apprehend that there are no characters who have escaped criticism by me to a greater or lesser degree and I'm also quite certain that I show no particular disfavour to Snape. I have actually argued for his being on the good side at times, and could prove that quite easily. References on request. > Leslie41: > With flavors of ice cream, perhaps, but not with reasoned > argument. Reasoned argument must be unbiased and supported > with facts. Goddlefrood: Had I listened to this kind of advice when I was a much younger man I would have been eaten for breakfast on a regular basis in my professional life. There is often bias in all but the least convincing arguments, but wishing to keep this within acceptable parameters, I will make no further comment. Is this an example that some are holding up to? If so never try to practice law is all the advice I could dispense. > Leslie41: > That's evading the issue. Whether or not Snape was feeling > perfectly logical, he acted logically. Goddlefrood: To you perhaps, but how logical was his tirade, for instance? He acted within accepted moral standards, rather than logically. Although the distinction is a fine one it is important that it be made, just in case my logic is thought illogical. Morals were rather the point of the thread, rather than any logical considerations. > Leslie41: > Well, it doesn't surprise me that you don't want to give > Snape credit for his actions. It doesn't surprise me at > all. Goddlefrood: It doesn't surprise you? As I said in #169133 a personal attack rarely advances an argument, and your argument is very far from being advanced, so it does not surprise me in return that you resort to such base and unnecessary tactics. > Leslie41: > It's one of the hallmarks of those that hate Snape that they > cannot give him credit for anything. Goddlefrood: I have not said I hate Snape, I have argued from the position of criticism of him, but not for its own sake. I have credited him when credit has been due. I note that from an earlier post from the poster to whom I now respond again that an opinion was expressed that Snape was not nice. He isn't, it does not mean I hate him. When I note a weak argument I attack the argument, if that has been taken personally by you Leslie41, then it is not my intention to wound. Had you taken it that way then it is rather more your interpretation of events, rather than a fact. > Leslie41: > And your experience, truthfully, is irrelevant. It's Snape's > experience that counts. Goddlefrood: He did not act ilogically, he acted as would be expected. That is a point I noted in #169102, your interpretation of that is different from my own. > > Anonymous (herinafter anon): > > As for the use of lethal force, it certainly was appropriate > > in Snape's case, as Black started toward him with "a roar of > > rage". Though wandless, Black obviously indended harm. If a > > known murderer heads toward me with a "roar of rage," and I > > have a gun, I'll shoot, even if he doesn't. So would a cop, > > most likely. > Goddlefrood: > Perhaps this is why the post was anonymous. Snape goes on to > say rather shortly after the incidents described by anon that > he would like a reason to be given to use violent force. > Leslie41: > You are quoting me there. Goddlefrood: Was it you? That was unclear as there was no attribution or signature on that earlier post, thank you for acknowledging it. > leslie41: > There's a subtlety here I think you're overlooking. > *Snape* saying "give me a reason" doesn't mean he doesn't > already have one. Goddlefrood: So subtle that it was not mentioned. You criticise for bringing personal opinions and experience into a post, but what have we hereinabove? A personal opinion. Were you, Leslie41, in the same position as Snape then you would not have hesitated to kill Sirius, is that what was being said? Lucky you to have never been in any even remotely similar positions. > Leslie41: > So, you'd have us believe that if a murderer is lunging towards > me with a look of rage on his face, and I shoot him, *I'M* the > one who's going to prison? > Yeah. That makes an awful lot of sense. Goddlefrood: The law does not make sense. I have to explain that last statement to people almost daily. Law does at times follow logic, but the situation decribed above would not be one of them. So, yes, you may end up in prison if you choose to act on your impression, if the impression was not deemed *reasonable*, and even then you may end up behind bars, albeit for the lesser offence of manslaughter. A member of the disciplined forces would need to be even more certain than a civilian to use deadly force. The law's the law, think it illogical, I do. > Leslie41: > Oh, if I shoot a known psychopath lunging towards me with an > intent to do bodily harm that's going to get *ME* the death > penalty? Goddlefrood: No, but that is not what I said, if you care to look. If you have no *reasonable* ground for believing that your life is in danger then you would be in severe trouble and as you clearly live in a country with the death penalty, I'd suggest you got your facts very straight if you ever found yourself in such a situation. On the other hand if your belief *is* reasonable from an objective standpoint then you would probably be fine and the over embellishment contained in your example would be such a situation. Sarcasm hardly becomes. While it may sometimes be said that it is the highest form of intelligence, it is also said to be the lowest form of wit. > Leslie41: > I'd really like to know on what occasion I'd be allowed to use > deadly force without getting the death penalty. No, on second > thought, don't answer. You'd probably suggest that I have to > toss a gun to the psycho to "even things up". Goddlefrood: This is pure inanity and further correspondence would be accepted off list where this kind of insult belongs. It is unbecoming, uncouth and unacceptable. It also shows a degree of desperation and, just to tie it into the subtitle, it is also unethical. From random832 at gmail.com Thu May 24 11:58:12 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:58:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney's First Interview In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50705230646mf77bbc2p54763b085afc0228@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50705240458k4394140fk384c55b1864e1e0a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169198 On 5/23/07, montavilla47 wrote: > > "K": > > > > Why would Dumbledore want Voldemort to know about the prophecy? If > > Voldemort never hears of it and no action is taken, the prophecy is > > worthless, isn't it? > > Random832: > > Dumbledore doesn't necessarily want a prophecy predicting (the > > possibility of) Voldemort's downfall to be worthless. > > > > The idea that, in essence, the Potters' and Longbottoms' lives are a > > risk DD is willing to take, was more popular before HBP than now, > > since it wasn't clear then that DD _wasn't_ intentionally being > > written that way (one of the reasons for some of the scenes in HBP > > clarifying that dumbledore is _not_ in fact a manipulative bastard) > > Montavilla47: > Random, can you point to those scenes in HBP that clarify DD as > *not* a manipulative bastard? Because, I didn't think that he > might be one until I saw that disgraceful scene with the Dursleys. Well, you have to look at authorial intent - JKR's characterization of dumbledore has always been clumsy, and that makes anything tend to look forced. The scene you're referring to was intended to portray him as caring about Harry whereas post-OOTP, a large segment of the fan community (evidenced by an entire genre of fanfiction) had theories such as DD having put him with the dursleys to break his will, etc. From lauren1 at catliness.com Thu May 24 07:44:52 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 00:44:52 -0700 Subject: Could Sirius Still Be Alive? Message-ID: <07e601c79df1$e08dff70$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 169199 Hi, Sirius slipped through a veil but I wonder if he died or just is lost, maybe to find his way back? Thanks Lauren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu May 24 12:56:16 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 05:56:16 -0700 Subject: not giving Snape credit? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169200 Leslie41: Well, it doesn't surprise me that you don't want to give Snape credit for his actions. It doesn't surprise me at all. It's one of the hallmarks of those that hate Snape that they cannot give him credit for anything. Sherry: I am an extreme Snape critic, and I admit it freely. However, though I detested him and thought him sadistic in his treatment of his students, particularly Harry and Neville, and I believed that a man who can hate a child on sight from the mere fact of that child's father's identity, was the most immature person and questioned why such a person should be a teacher, I still believed, until HBP, that Snape was on Dumbledore's side, a good moral lesson that someone doesn't have to be nice to still fight for the right. However, I'm sorry, murdering Dumbledore changed all that for me. I'm one who cannot accept any spin on that event. I don't believe in murdering your general, leader and mentor, the only one who wholeheartedly believed in and supported you. I've not yet heard *any* explanation for it that makes it work for me. I don't believe in murder for the so-called greater good. Once JKR said DD is definitely dead, she took away any lingering doubt for me. Anyway, I don't believe that *all* Snape critics *never* give or at least gave him any credit. But the events of HBP shed a different light on all his previous actions. I cannot separate them. I don't know if Snape is pure evil, if he just chose the coward's way on the tower and will regret it in DH or whatever. But now, no, I can't credit him with any positive actions for anything in the past, because I don't know what his motives were, or even what the thinking behind anything of his was. Sherry From random832 at gmail.com Thu May 24 13:16:53 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (random832) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:16:53 -0000 Subject: Misc. responses, some quite old Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169201 I'm cleaning out my "drafts" folder - here's various responses that i'd written but either simply forgot to send, didn't feel were substantial enough on their own to be worth wasting a post on, or that otherwise slipped through the cracks. These are the ones that on a second look I think are still worth posting. > Charles: > Last but not least, IMNSHO, Marietta got what she deserved. It was > not over the top, nor overly cruel. She betrayed the DA. Not only was > it a broken promise, but she knew that she was going to get many of > her friends expelled and possibly criminally prosecuted by what she > knows is an unjust government. AFAIC, having the word "sneak" across > her face is a light punishment, considering what could have happened > to the rest of the DA. Random832: This issue is a key disconnect between people who like Hermione (or are indifferent) and people who go out of their way to find a reason to dislike her. In discussions of this, everyone goes on and on about how Marietta is "Permanently Disfigured" etc - when really - it's just a word. on her face. Like how in Snow Crash, Raven has "Poor Impulse Control" on his face, Marietta has "Sneak" on hers. > > Random832: > > Right or wrong, "dark magic" is defined in the books as specific > > spells or types of spells, not as "the intention of the wizard using > > it". And I think it's presented as being that there is something > > deeply wrong with that way of classification. > > Potioncat: > Actually, I think it's the other way around. I think JKR is saying that > some acts are Dark regardless of the intention and that those Dark Arts > have a negative effect on the person performing them. Random832: Except that the voice she's saying it with is that of the ministry - not really the right place to put it if she's actually intending to say that this is a position to be agreed with. > Neri: > As several other members pointed out, there isn't a substantial > disagreement between Trelawney's and Dumbledore's stories. Random832: DD's is that Snape is ejected midway through the prophecy, Trelawney's is that he was there at (after) the end of it. > Mariya: > To comment on what was said about Ron proforming the spell on > Scabbers on the HE, it's not that the spell was false it's probabaly > a working spell. Random832: But how many spells do we see actually used in the form of rhyming couplets? Also, remember that he got this "spell" from the twins. michelle: (of the DH title) > Perhaps not the actual words of the spell but perhaps the English > translation of Avada Kedavera? Random832: No. The english translation of AK is "I destroy as I speak". Shelley: > Personally, none of the mistakes you talk about make any difference to the > plot. Plus, the year 1993 isn't in canon anyway, so I feel the fans are > being a bit misleading by trying to match Harry up with actual years to > determine how old he would be for this year, 2007, or to line Harry's first > years in the books up with our calendar years to see just which days that > Halloween or Christmas would fall on. Random832: Um... "which days that halloween or christmas would fall on" - are you suggesting that there are years in which they do not fall on October 31 and December 25? It's not like it's Easter we're talking about. My point was, Christmas is 55 days after halloween. Full moons are 29.5 days apart, so the one in December has to be 59 days after the one in October, no matter WHAT year it is. (1993, incidentally, isn't as terribly bad a fit for halloween/christmas as some other years might be, with full moons on Oct 30 and Dec 28) And that was just one example - the two mondays in a row really is another example, even if it was fixed later. I'm convinced the "missing 24 hours" in PS is probably a mistake rather than a huge mystery, though I may be proven wrong. Shelley: > I don't buy for a second that he > thought "an innocent childhood" would make Harry's task any easier; Random832: I don't agree with him, but I do believe he thought that. We're told the conclusion he arrives at for what "the power the dark lord knows not" is. > Pippin: > Dark Mark or not, Snape had been pardoned by Dumbledore, Head > of the Wizengamot, and cleared by the Ministry of Magic. He had as > much moral authority as any other wizard on Dumbledore's side. > > It's Lupin who > tries to subvert justice, who doesn't want Sirius taken in > even before Snape says anything about dementors. Random832: I think this is a key disconnect between fan expectations and the reality as it is in the books. A lot of people want to give Wizards in general too much credit as far as recognizing how broken their justice system is, i.e. OF COURSE lupin's right for not wanting him taken into the authorities, he didn't get a trial the first time around. But as far as I know, no-one, not Harry, not even Sirius himself, questions that he was not given a trial. That's just the way things go, seems to be their attitude. leslie41: > Yes, Snape has done wrong. He has, according to Dumbledore, repented > of it. Sirius still isn't sorry he nearly killed Snape. And the > adult Lupin is still so self-serving that he keeps a very important > fact to himself (that Sirius is an animagus) because he doesn't want > to look bad. That's by his OWN admission. He's very "nice" but he > doesn't DO the right thing. Random832: I think you've hit Remus's biggest character flaw right on the head. In a choice between, as DD has phrased it, what is right and what is easy, he chooses what is easy. --Random832 From heidi at heidi8.com Thu May 24 13:31:25 2007 From: heidi at heidi8.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:31:25 -0400 Subject: Deadline for Applications for FictionAlley's Katie O'Brien Scholarship: Next Week! Message-ID: <5913e6f80705240631v50d2c1fak49f8e9c94c0dc096@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169202 Hi! I'm posting this with the permission of the HPfGU mods - I'm a longtime member of HPfGU and currently assist the mod squad on copyright and trademark issues when they come up. I'm posting this on behalf of FictionAlley with a reminder - the deadline for the 2007-2008 Katie O'Brien Scholarships for Writing, Art and Community Service is only a week away! You can go to http://www.fictionalley.org/scholarship/ for more information or to submit your application. In March of 2005, one of FictionAlley's longtime writers lost her battle with leukemia. Even while she was in the hospital fighting against her illness, she continued to find strength as she wrote her story, assisted by her father, Dave O'Brien. As her father said, "Katie always wanted to be a writer, and she used this forum [FictionAlley] to fulfill her dreams. Correspondence with those who read and enjoyed her story sustained her even during the worst of times." Katie finished writing her story six days before she died; her father continued to upload those chapters onto FictionAlley through the spring. When we at FictionAlley learned that Katie had passed away, we realised that the best way we, as a site, could honor her memory would be to provide other writers, as well as artists and those who give back to the community, with some help in making their dreams come true. With the permission of Katie's family, we have established three annual scholarship awards of $500 ? the Katie O'Brien Memorial Scholarships for Writing, Art and Community Service. The scholarship funds can be used for tuition and/or books and materials. Last year, FAWC awarded three $500 scholarships (the winners' entries can be found on http://www.fictionalley.org/scholarship/ ) and will do the same this year, and for the 2008-2009 school year. We are close to funding three $500 scholarships for the 2009-2010 school year, and are accepting contributions and selling wristbands at http://www.fictionalley.org/wristbands.html, as well as at Sectus and Prophecy later this summer. Any questions can be asked on FA's Suggestions & Questions forum at http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=4 Thanks for reading - and we hope that those of you who are eligible apply! Best, Heidi for FictionAlley http://www.fictionalley.org CREATIVITY IS MAGIC! From bartl at sprynet.com Thu May 24 14:13:07 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:13:07 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: DH: Longshot theories Message-ID: <15886746.1180015987692.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169203 Bart: OK, I'm going to open the discussion of longshot theories for things that will happen in DH. What I mean are events which are not likely, but you can find the kind of "obvious in hindsight" foreshadowing in the canon that JKR commonly uses. I'll start the ball rolling by repeating MY longshot prediction that the "Deathly Hallows" refer to cries from beyond the veil, including Sirius' (whose body went there with him). Here's another: Canon has shown Percy to be obsessed with obeying the rules imposed by authority. Notice that he breaks off from his family when they, themselves, defy the Ministry of Magic. Although we are told more than shown, Molly appears to be a bit of a control freak herself. Also, perhaps Percy was made to feel responsible for Fred & George (being the next older brother), but that's pure conjecture, with no canon support, although F&G's behavior could be seen as a revolt against following rules, combined with a strong sense of right and wrong. Longshot prediction: Percy will die, heroically, BECAUSE of his obsession with following the rules. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Thu May 24 14:25:49 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:25:49 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] not giving Snape credit? Message-ID: <11859706.1180016749972.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169204 Sherry: >who cannot accept any spin on that event. I don't believe in murdering your >general, leader and mentor, the only one who wholeheartedly believed in and >supported you. I've not yet heard *any* explanation for it that makes it >work for me. I don't believe in murder for the so-called greater good. >Once JKR said DD is definitely dead, she took away any lingering doubt for >me. Bart: Have you considered this one: Dumbledore should have died when he tried to break the curse on the ring. Only quick thinking and action managed to, temporarily, keep death at bay, but it could only slow down death. Between this and the potion he drank in the cavern, Dumbledore was going to be dead within an hour or so. Dumbledore had previously extracted a promise from Snape: "If I am going to die anyway, kill me, so at least my death will help cement your position and further the cause." Snape did not murder Dumbledore as much as he pulled the plug on a terminal patient for whom the life support system was on the verge of failing, at the patient's request. Also given this, he had no problem taking the Unbreakable Vow, because he knew that he was eventually going to be the one to "pull the plug" on Dumbledore. In this scenario, Snape had three choices: 1) Kill Dumbledore (or remove the life support system he created, under the guise of an AK spell). 2) Let someone else kill Dumbledore, killing Snape in the process (for failing to fulfill the unbreakable vow). 3) Break his cover, probably die in a battle with the Death Eaters, and Dumbledore dies anyway. Note that in all 3 scenarios, Dumbledore dies. Do you really find it unforgivable for Snape (on Dumbledore's request) took the path which would best help achieve DD's goals? Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu May 24 14:41:02 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:41:02 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169205 > > Charles: > > Last but not least, IMNSHO, Marietta got what she deserved. It was > > not over the top, nor overly cruel. She betrayed the DA. Not only was > > it a broken promise, but she knew that she was going to get many of > > her friends expelled and possibly criminally prosecuted by what she > > knows is an unjust government. AFAIC, having the word "sneak" across > > her face is a light punishment, considering what could have happened > > to the rest of the DA. > > Random832: > This issue is a key disconnect between people who like Hermione (or > are indifferent) and people who go out of their way to find a reason > to dislike her. In discussions of this, everyone goes on and on about > how Marietta is "Permanently Disfigured" etc - when really - it's just > a word. on her face. Like how in Snow Crash, Raven has "Poor Impulse > Control" on his face, Marietta has "Sneak" on hers. Magpie: I think it's unfair to claim that those who disagree with someone else must be "looking for a reason" to dislike Hermione. (I could just as easily say that those who think this is okay are just looking for a reason to excuse Hermione of anything--and that would be just as wrong. You don't know what's in my head and can't say my reaction is less honest than yours.) That isn't the case at all, in my experience, anyway. It's not a disconnect between people who hate Hermione and everyone else, it's a disconnect between those who like the SNEAK hex and think it's deserved and those who find it disturbing and OTT given the situation. I am truly disturbed by Marietta still walking around with word on her face in pustules--and who cares if it's "just a word??" Who wants a word written on their face in oozing pustules? Or even a single pustule? As far as we know she is permenantly disfigured. I don't think that's an exaggeration. It just seems like the truth. Marking people in this way used to be, iirc, a common form of barbaric punishment. If it was no big deal there would be no reason to do it. It actually is an act I would normally expect to be the kind of act that defined the bad guys in a story. > > Potioncat: > > Actually, I think it's the other way around. I think JKR is saying that > > some acts are Dark regardless of the intention and that those Dark Arts > > have a negative effect on the person performing them. > > Random832: > Except that the voice she's saying it with is that of the ministry - > not really the right place to put it if she's actually intending to > say that this is a position to be agreed with. Magpie: Isn't she also saying in with Dumbledore and McGonagall? One of the first things she says to him is that he's "too noble" to use the same magic as Voldemort, and certainly things like Horcruxes don't seem like they'd be considered good in any situation. -m From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 15:10:28 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:10:28 -0000 Subject: The Model of the Modern Major General? / Ethics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169206 > Leslie41: > Snape believes he's going into a confrontation with Lupin > and the man he thinks he's protecting, the outlaw and > dangerous Azkaban escapee, Sirius Black. > Goddlefrood: > Does he now? Told us this did he? I think not. Severus had > the very clear intention, IMO, of being the one to *capture* > Sirius, not necessarily by violent means. > Leslie41: > Yes, he says "how I hoped I'd be the one to catch you," so I > intuit from that that he believes there's a possibility he > was following Lupin to Black's hideout. Goddlefrood: Perhaps the difference between "capture" and "catch" escapes you, this looks rather like disagreement for its own sake rather than for any better reason. I also apprehend that my post to which the above quote responds was not read very carefully. Let's take a closer look: > Such obstacles would include Remus and, he may have hoped, > Sirius too. (from #169102) Is there a difference between this and what is quoted above from the post to which this now replies? This may be answered by neutral third parties. Agreement with the basic matter stated leads to criticism for little reason and from an inethical point of view. More's the pity because I argue for a living, I rarely try to pass that on to others, but it also seems that no regard has been taken of post #169133, which expanded substantially on the counter argument. Leslie41: I will quote back to you now my assertion and your response: > Leslie41: > Snape believes he's going into a confrontation with Lupin and the > man he thinks he's protecting, the outlaw and dangerous Azkaban > escapee, Sirius Black. > Goddlefrood: > Does he now? Told us this did he? I think not. Severus had the very > clear intention, IMO, of being the one to *capture* Sirius, not > necessarily by violent means. The Snape I divine from the point > reached in canon in PoA is that he considered himself, perhaps > quite reasonably, powerful enough to be able to deal with whatever > obstacle he might find in his way at the Shack. Such obstacles > would include Remus and, he may have hoped, Sirius too. Also he > would have had the singular thought, IMO, that the time had come > for his revenge for what had occurred proximate to the Shack around > 20 years earlier and have been blinded to any potential dangers to > *himself* by that thought. Leslie41: As you can see from your response, you are contradicting yourself. You say "I think not" and then "Such obstacles would include Remus and, he may have hoped, Sirius too." Perhaps you are trying to have it both ways. I'm not sure here whether you agree or not, but the most forceful part of your statement comes at the beginning, so I assumed you were trying to disagree with my statement that Snape thought Sirius would be at the shack. You can see how I might have believed that, I'm sure. Goddlefrod: Agreement with the basic matter stated leads to criticism for little reason and from an inethical point of view. More's the pity because I argue for a living, I rarely try to pass that on to others, but it also seems that no regard has been taken of post #169133, which expanded substantially on the counter argument. Leslie41: I hardly think it's "inethical" for me to respond to your outright "I think not" in response to my point. I read your post. I don't think it "expands substantially" on the issue of whether or not Snape believes Sirius was in the shack. Counter argument to what? Clarify. You may argue for a living but I teach argument for a living. I get paid to read arguments all day, every day. Yours, may I say, is not entirely clear. And that's not an ad hominem attack, by the way. Nor is it "inethical" (the actual word is unethical). > Leslie41: > What do you think Black and Lupin are thinking of when they're > aiming their wands at Peter Pettigrew? Reforming him? Goddlefrood: I doubt they have any thought for the price of fish. Again the follow up post was likely not read. I criticise equally where merited. I have pointed out many flaws in diverse characters in canon. No one is by any means depicted as perfect. Leslie41: Agreed. > Leslie41: > Black bears no regret for his past actions. "Served him right" he > says. So Snape is not the only one holding agrudge. And Sirius, > canonically, has far less reason. Goddlefrood: Sirius and Severus were never bosom chums, I'll grant you, but I have mentioned this before. Very recently I stated that Sirius could be seen as being unreasonable in some of the continued grudges he holds, including the one to Snape by implication. The matter that will possibly enlighten us all about why Sirius bore a grudge is partly his continued mistrust of Severus, which is easily divined from GoF: 'Sirius and Snape were eying each other with the utmost loathing.' - p.618, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition. A matter reinforced by JKR in an interview: " Q: What made Sirius decide to send Snape to the Willow? JK Rowling replies -> Because Sirius loathed Snape (and the feeling was entirely mutual). You'll find out more about this in due course." From: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm Suggestive of a grudge borne by Sirius since before the prank during their schooldays together. It is not unreasonable to suggest, as I now do, that Sirius justifiably loathed Severus, not perhaps to the extent of justifying wanting him dead, which the prank also suggests, but a deep seated hatred nevertheless. Deathly Hallows should resolve this puzzle and might well give a reason, albeit perhaps thought unreasonable by some, that Sirius hated Severus. Severus's grudge against Sirius is clear as day and I trust needs no further elucidation. Leslie41: Unfortunately, you have no actual *evidence* for this claim (though you certainly present a lot of hopeful, unfounded speculation), so it is "unreasonable" to suggest that. You are basing your claim on a hint that something more serious *might* be there. Lots of things "might" be the case. You have no hard evidence that Snape ever did anything to Sirius other than what Sirius' himself cites, that Snape was "sneaking around .trying to find out what we were up to .hoping to get us expelled." (PoA 356). These are extremely vague assertions, and also extremely subjective in that they impute an intent in Snape where none might have existed, at least initially. What is more likely is that the beautiful, rich Sirius Black tried and did make life very difficult for the ugly and poor Snape. But I don't state that as fact either. I just assume that because those are usually the reasons why a rich, good-looking teenager attacks a poor, ugly one. What is fact is that James and Sirius attacked Snape when he was minding his own business, and then Sirius played a prank that could have killed him. That is actual *evidence.* So yes, I think you're grasping at straws here because you'd like to believe, with no proof, that Sirius "had a good reason" for doing those things to Snape. There's no evidence in canon that he did. > Leslie41: > Aren't Black's and Lupin's actions clouded by their hatred? Snape > stops *himself* from killing Black. Goddlefrood: Well, of course they are, they know at that point that Peter betrayed the Potters to Lord Voldemort. Snape is confronting an unarmed man, whatever he may think of that man. He should be congratulated perhaps. As quoted from canon by the poster this replies to "How I hoped I'd be the one to catch you". Sirius did not lunge towards Severus but "started" towards him, he held himself back due to Snape's pointing a wand between his eyes. Had Sirus lunged towards him then Snape would have been justified in using further force, possibly even deadly force. Catch, not kill. Severus clearly states he wants to hand Sirius over to the Dementors. That his judgment was clouded by his hatred is also a matter on which there appears to be concurrence, it's all becoming rather dull and repetitive, in other words. Leslie41: You forgot the part about "starting" towards Snape "with a roar of rage." Sirius is not moseying. And he's not heading towards LUPIN to help him. He's headed towards Snape with the intent to take his wand and likely hurt him. Snape has every reason to believe him in that Sirius has attempted to hurt him in the past, and succeeded at hurting him. "You should have left him to me " Sirius says to Harry after the trio stun Snape. > Leslie41: > From internal, canonical evidence. Namely, from what the character > says, and more importantly (especially in Snape's case) what the > character does. Goddlefrood: True, but it does not mean it is *accurate*, it is still an *impression* whether or not a person thinks Snape is good or bad. That hardly seems a matter of controversy, but then many insist on having it their own way. It's plain that few, if any of my posts on Severus over the years had been read. Another matter that often leads to a better argument is research. Would that be biased and hypocritical to suggest? Leslie41: It is not "biased and hypocritical" to suggest that. However it seems more than a little narcissistic. But I will ask your pardon, as I most surely haven't memorized all of your posts on Snape "over the years" and I haven't thoroughly researched your particular point of view. > Leslie41: > Well, it doesn't surprise me that you don't want to give Snape > credit for his actions. It doesn't surprise me at all. Goddlefrood: It doesn't surprise you? As I said in #169133 a personal attack rarely advances an argument, and your argument is very far from being advanced, so it does not surprise me in return that you resort to such base and unnecessary tactics. Leslie41: Another "personal attack" coming. You seem awfully touchy for a lawyer. In my opinion, of course. Goddlefrood: Were you, Leslie41, in the same position as Snape then you would not have hesitated to kill Sirius, is that what was being said? Lucky you to have never been in any even remotely similar positions. Leslie41: Actually, I have. On what basis do you make the assumption that I haven't? And, I would ask, do you make such baseless assumptions in court? Perhaps you are the one who needs to do more research. A few years ago (when I was single and living alone), I woke up with a strange man in my apartment. The same man (an exhibitionist/peeping tom) who had been peering through my windows for months and masturbating naked against them as well. I did not have a gun. I chased him out. And lucky for *me* he did not have a gun or attempt to hurt me. But if I had had a gun, would I have been justified in shooting him as he came towards me? You decide. I know for a fact that I might have been questioned, but I most certainly would not have been sent to jail. Now, aside from the exhibitionism and the sexual depravity, that man had never actually tried to *hurt* me. Sirius had a history of trying to hurt Snape. > Leslie41: > Oh, if I shoot a known psychopath lunging towards me with an intent > to do bodily harm that's going to get *ME* the death penalty? Goddlefrood: No, but that is not what I said, if you care to look. If you have no *reasonable* ground for believing that your life is in danger then you would be in severe trouble and as you clearly live in a country with the death penalty, I'd suggest you got your facts very straight if you ever found yourself in such a situation. On the other hand if your belief *is* reasonable from an objective standpoint then you would probably be fine and the over embellishment contained in your example would be such a situation. Leslie41: See my own experience cited above and decide for yourself whether or not I would have been convicted for murder or manslaughter. Goddlefrod: Sarcasm hardly becomes. While it may sometimes be said that it is the highest form of intelligence, it is also said to be the lowest form of wit. Leslie41: I find sarcasm very becoming. And amusing. But since it you are so very, very bothered by it, in order to avoid any further accusations that I am being "uncouth," I will hold off on it from now on. From mestrenathanrj at gmail.com Thu May 24 15:15:41 2007 From: mestrenathanrj at gmail.com (Nathan_RJ) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:15:41 -0000 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169207 jelly92784 wrote: > So what to make of all this? It has been argued here before that > although Voldie chose Harry and "marked" him with the scar, Neville > has also been marked, although less overtly. Neville has immense > emotional scarring, evident in many scenes throughout the books, > including the class in GOF where "Moody" teaches about the > unforgivable curses. Although, as it was pointed out in a recent > post, Voldie wasn't aiming at Neville when attacking his parents, > nonetheless, he still "marked" Neville emotionally. It's like that > paragraph in GOF (sorry I don't have my books handy) in which > Harry, after seeing Neville's reaction to the unforgivables, thinks > something along the lines of "It all comes back to Voldemort". So > even though it was actually Bellatrix who was actually targeting > Frank and Alice, it all comes back to Voldemort hurting Neville. > So, in a way Voldie has "marked" both Harry and Neville. > > If this is the case, then either one of them could potentially > destroy or kill or defeat Voldemort. It's just a matter of how. I > like to think that in the end, everyone will be surprised. > Dumbledore and Harry both interpreting the "marking" as something > that Voldie did directly to Harry, but maybe not. It could be that > both boys are equally qualified as being the destroyer of the Dark > Lord. Nate: The most important thing to me, considering the above, is that the only written interpretation we have from the prophecy is the DD one. And what no more tells here, but took my attention by the time I read HBP, is that when DD finally finishes all his explanation of the prophecy to Harry, he says "I have already proved that I can make mistakes as any other." To me, this is the most important clue that Jo give us, that a part of DD's interpretation is wrong. I do not believe that his interpretation it totally wrong, but I believe that a small part of it is wrong. And my bet is that, in the last minute, all of us will discover that the "one" of the prophecy is not HP, but Neville. > JW: > Why all this talk of killing when the author believes in the > sanctity of life, and that murder destroys the soul? It's funny to hear that: it seems people are taking more attention in what Jo says than what she writes. Remember: in all HP series, TONS of people have already died - even by the hand of HP himself. Death does not seem to be a problem to the writer. She writes a lot about it. Regards, Nate From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu May 24 16:20:22 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:20:22 -0000 Subject: not giving Snape credit? In-Reply-To: <11859706.1180016749972.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169208 > Sherry: > >who cannot accept any spin on that event. I don't believe in murdering your > >general, leader and mentor, the only one who wholeheartedly believed in and > >supported you. I've not yet heard *any* explanation for it that makes it > >work for me. I don't believe in murder for the so-called greater good. > >Once JKR said DD is definitely dead, she took away any lingering doubt for > >me. > > Bart: > Have you considered this one: Dumbledore should have died when he tried to break the curse on the ring. Only quick thinking and action managed to, temporarily, keep death at bay, but it could only slow down death. Between this and the potion he drank in the cavern, Dumbledore was going to be dead within an hour or so. Dumbledore had previously extracted a promise from Snape: "If I am going to die anyway, kill me, so at least my death will help cement your position and further the cause." Snape did not murder Dumbledore as much as he pulled the plug on a terminal patient for whom the life support system was on the verge of failing, at the patient's request. Also given this, he had no problem taking the Unbreakable Vow, because he knew that he was eventually going to be the one to "pull the plug" on Dumbledore. > > In this scenario, Snape had three choices: > 1) Kill Dumbledore (or remove the life support system he created, under the guise of an AK spell). > 2) Let someone else kill Dumbledore, killing Snape in the process (for failing to fulfill the unbreakable vow). > 3) Break his cover, probably die in a battle with the Death Eaters, and Dumbledore dies anyway. > > Note that in all 3 scenarios, Dumbledore dies. Do you really find it unforgivable for Snape (on Dumbledore's request) took the path which would best help achieve DD's goals? > > Bart JW: While I do not believe in DDM!Snape, I believe Bart has summarized his speculation on DD's strategy quite nicely. To further Bart's interpretation, I paraphrase Snape in Spinner's End: I think in the end *he* means me to do it ... but *he* is determined that Draco attempt it first. In the context of the Spinner's End conversation, "he" refers to LV. However, an alternative interpretation is that, in Snape's mind, "he" could refer to DD. This would assume that Snape had prior knowledge of LV's plan (as Snape claims), and that Bart's hypothetical conversation between DD and Snape had already occured. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 16:21:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:21:34 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists (and movie contamination note) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169209 "wileras01" wrote: > Now none of the characters have a significant reaction to the spell. They, however, do not have the reader's knowledge of the potential damage the spell can cause. The reader, once the true danger of the spell is revealed, can go back and examine this scene and understand how close James was to dying. Aimed a little lower and that slight cut could have opened James throat killing him well before medical aid could have arrived. > > We know from the title this memory is important. Also given how little we get to see of the events from the marauder days we have to figure that each detail in this memory is important. It seems to me to be very odd to include this spell along with Levicorpus, if the use of both in the scene isn't significant. > > So here we have Snape using Sectumsempra and missing. Depending on your view of Snap's current character I can see this easily leading to the chapters title. Carol responds: Funny how differently readers react to and interpret scenes in canon. First, with regard to the chapter title, I don't quite trust it since the narrator is generally limited to Harry's pov. Snape placed *three* memories in the Pensieve. How can the limited omniscient narrator, who has yet to enter Snape's mind, know that that particular memory is the worst of the three? (Worse than confronting a werewolf? Worse than finding that the Potters have been killed despite his efforts, assuming DDM!Snape? Worse than anything he did and regrets as a DE or being tortured at some point by Voldemort, if that happened?) Maybe the humiliation of having his own spell used against him in front of the whole fifth-year class, complete with Lily's intervention and whatever happened afterwards, really is his worst memory, but I don't trust that title any more than I trust "Snape Victorious" in HBP. IMO, they both reflect Harry's perspective, which may or may not be accurate. More important, I really don't think that the cutting hex Severus used on James is the full-fledged Sectumsempra, and I certainly don't think that he "missed." *If* it was Sectumsempra, it was tightly controlled and limited. Had he aimed at the throat as you suggest, James would have died and Severus would have been at least expelled and probably sent to Azkaban, sixteen years old notwithstanding. The bystanders and James himself are unconcerned because James is not suffering or bleeding uncontrollably. He's still his (IMO) arrogant, bullying self without a change in his behavior, aside from trying to defend his behavior by saying that he bullies Severus "because he exists," throughout the scene. There's no sign that he even needs to go to the hospital wing, or, if he does, there's nothing wrong with him that Madam Pomfrey (no Dark Arts expert) can't cure with a wave of her wand. I think that in a fair match, Severus could have more than held his own, especially given the invented spells he had up his sleeve, and we see that he already had quick reflexes (just not quick enough to deal with two people who already had their wands out). But the Sectumsempra spell is labeled "for enemies," implying that his enemies had done something really terrible to deserve such revenge, so it seems to me that he probably invented it in his sixth year after the so-called Prank, when he *really* had reason to hate Sirius Black, at least. Even if he had already invented Sectumsempra, AFAWK no one but Severus himself knew the countercurse, which does not appear in the margins of the Potions book and perhaps had not yet been invented or discovered. But Sectumsempra ("cut always") is a Dark spell that results in a cut that can't be healed with a simple wave of the wand like the nonverbal spell DD uses to heal his own knife wound. I think we'd have heard about it if Severus had to use that counterspell on James, or if James had a permanent gash on his face, whether or not the bleeding stopped. I really don't think that James was close to dying, nor that Severus's use of the cutting spell he did use has anything to do with why that spell is his worst memory, if indeed it is. What we do see in HBP is his resentment of James and friends for using his own spells against him. BTW, despite explanations I've seen onlist, I still wonder how James learned Levicorpus and Liberacorpus, which are nonverbal, and how he could have known them in fifth year when they were written in a sixth-year Potions book. (It makes sense for Sectumsempra to be in that book since the so-called Prank occurred in sixth year, but not for Levicorpus and its countercurse to be there.) At any rate, Sectumsempra would certainly have been developed later than the schoolboy hexes elsewhere in the book, after he had real reason to hate the Marauders. Carol, just presenting an alternate view P.S. Aside to Goddlefrood regarding "movie contamination" in a different post/thread: I see the sequence of events, meaning what Snape witnessed, exactly as you do, having also read the chapter carefully. I was a bit surprised at your suggestion of movie contamination and realized that it must apply to Peter and what he could have overheard. I was not picturing the scene as it occurs in the film, with the Harry/Sirius conversation outside the tunnel. I was merely pointing out that Wormtail was in human form and fully conscious at that point and might have overheard the conversation, whereas Snape, being unconscious, could not have overheard. However, as I conceded offlist, it's likely that he was preoccupied with his own predicament and wasn't paying much attention to Harry. OTOH, the fact that Lupin transformed into a werewolf and that Black is a dog Animagus is material to the story that we know he told Voldemort; he could not have escaped had they not both transformed. (Please, if you accuse me of movie contamination, be specific, so I can defend myself!) Thanks, Carol From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 24 17:22:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:22:15 -0000 Subject: FILK: Hexes Are A Girl's Best Friend Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169210 Hexes Are a Girl's Best Friend A Filk by Pippin (Predicting that at least one ship will hit the rocks in DH) To the tune of "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" Dedicated to CMC ENTER Fleur, Tonks, the former Mrs. Zabini and Hermione FLEUR and TONKS: A slap in the face may be quite temperamental But hexes are a girl's best friend Good looks have their place but they're just incidental When a man's a beast, he only wants to have a feast Potions stale and love charms fail And a cad is a cad in the end But when things go pear-shaped A wand beats a were-shape Hexes are a girl's best friend (The FORMER MRS. ZABINI) There may come a time when a wizard adores you But hexes are girl's best friend You may feel inclined to do all he implores you But get your price, and no more nice Get his gold, and leave him cold For there's more where he came from, girlfriend A life of bereavement can be an achievement Hexes are a girl's best friend (HERMIONE ) When Ronald B Weasley is making me queasy Hexes are a girls best friend I'll give him the birds if he makes me uneasy With that Lavender, I've had enough of her If he's true, then I'll be too and we'll live happily to The End But don't mess with witches Cause we can be ... vicious Hexes, hexes! Not to be sexist But hexes are a girl's best friend From bartl at sprynet.com Thu May 24 17:59:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:59:47 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta Message-ID: <9775160.1180029587528.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169211 From: sistermagpie >I am truly disturbed by Marietta still walking around with word on >her face in pustules--and who cares if it's "just a word??" Who >wants a word written on their face in oozing pustules? Or even a >single pustule? As far as we know she is permenantly disfigured. I >don't think that's an exaggeration. It just seems like the truth. >Marking people in this way used to be, iirc, a common form of >barbaric punishment. If it was no big deal there would be no reason >to do it. It actually is an act I would normally expect to be the >kind of act that defined the bad guys in a story. Bart: I'm disturbed too. But I have a hard time believing that Hermoine COULD find and cast a spell that strong, that nobody could break it. On the other hand, I DO know of a case where students cast a bit of magic which nobody seemed able to break; Fred & George's swamp. However once Umby the Pink was gone, suddenly the magic didn't seem quite as powerful. Now, let's look at Marietta. Frankly, I DO feel a bit sorry for her; it was very clearly shown that she was more or less dragged in by Cho. She absolutely did not take it as seriously as the rest of the members. So, one can see her being the weak link. However, consider the consequences of her actions; it caused Dumbledore to become a wanted wizard, tossed from the school. MAJOR LEAP OF LOGIC: I think that whoever her parents took her to, or even possibly her parents, decided that she should live with it a mite longer for the lesson to set in. Bart From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 19:05:35 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:05:35 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169212 Charles: > > > Last but not least, IMNSHO, Marietta got what she deserved. It > was > > > not over the top, nor overly cruel. She betrayed the DA. Not > only was > > > it a broken promise, but she knew that she was going to get many > of > > > her friends expelled and possibly criminally prosecuted by what > she > > > knows is an unjust government. AFAIC, having the word "sneak" > across > > > her face is a light punishment, considering what could have > happened > > > to the rest of the DA. > > > > Random832: > > This issue is a key disconnect between people who like Hermione (or > > are indifferent) and people who go out of their way to find a > reason > > to dislike her. In discussions of this, everyone goes on and on > about > > how Marietta is "Permanently Disfigured" etc - when really - it's > just > > a word. on her face. Like how in Snow Crash, Raven has "Poor > Impulse > > Control" on his face, Marietta has "Sneak" on hers. > > Magpie: > I think it's unfair to claim that those who disagree with someone > else must be "looking for a reason" to dislike Hermione. (I could > just as easily say that those who think this is okay are just > looking for a reason to excuse Hermione of anything--and that would > be just as wrong. You don't know what's in my head and can't say my > reaction is less honest than yours.) That isn't the case at all, in > my experience, anyway. It's not a disconnect between people who hate > Hermione and everyone else, it's a disconnect between those who like > the SNEAK hex and think it's deserved and those who find it > disturbing and OTT given the situation. > Montavilla47: I'd just like to agree with this. However, I can tell you what was in *my* head regarding Hermione and Marietta. I was fine with the "punishment" in OotP. It seemed like a clever idea. I was a bit less fine with it when it turned out that Marietta was still marked on the train ride home. It seemed a bit OTT, as Magpie says, since they had already identified Marietta as the sneak. What was truly disturbing to me was Harry's gleeful reaction to seeing that Marietta was *still* disfigured in HBP. The parallel between her oozing pustules and the type of atrocities that are regularly (and rightly) condemned by human rights organizations--such as facial branding or disfigurement with acid--is too close for me to think that JKR endorses Hermione's actions. I still like Hermione as a character. I don't want bad things to happen to her. I don't necessarily want her to "get her comeuppance." But, part of liking her is wanting her to realize that her clever ideas can be hurtful. I'd like her start mixing some genuine wisdom and humanity in with that cleverness. Montavilla47 From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu May 24 20:32:04 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:32:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00705240030x107f1135m5d83bdbfb426f513@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> <422932.51885.qm@web55111.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <2795713f0705221317m37ea4e94vab77cbd068c80aa0@mail.gmail.com> <463f9ec00705230017m5bc80a31wd4b0130e86dc3b2c@mail.gmail.com> <2795713f0705230926m702b64b7ta78d71b75b167e32@mail.gmail.com> <463f9ec00705240030x107f1135m5d83bdbfb426f513@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0705241332t2730cb8cu11c72cba163113a9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169213 Cassy: To be honest, I haven't read HBP very thoroughly, and I don't recall Lupin and Tonks being in one place together except for the last conversation in the hospital. Maybe you could pointsuch scenes to me? However, I remember Lupin being told off by Molly essentially for making Tonks miserable, but he chose not to understand her hints Lynda: Its in OOP that they're together more, at headquarters, taking the kids back to Hogwarts, etc. She's always more nervous and clumsy around him and there is a time or two when they have apparently been alone or almost alone together when the kids come downstairs. Grimmwauld Place wasn't the greatest place in the world for private conversations after all. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu May 24 21:19:49 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:19:49 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta In-Reply-To: <9775160.1180029587528.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169214 > Bart: > I'm disturbed too. But I have a hard time believing that Hermoine COULD find and cast a spell that strong, that nobody could break it. On the other hand, I DO know of a case where students cast a bit of magic which nobody seemed able to break; Fred & George's swamp. However once Umby the Pink was gone, suddenly the magic didn't seem quite as powerful. > > Now, let's look at Marietta. Frankly, I DO feel a bit sorry for her; it was very clearly shown that she was more or less dragged in by Cho. She absolutely did not take it as seriously as the rest of the members. So, one can see her being the weak link. However, consider the consequences of her actions; it caused Dumbledore to become a wanted wizard, tossed from the school. MAJOR LEAP OF LOGIC: I think that whoever her parents took her to, or even possibly her parents, decided that she should live with it a mite longer for the lesson to set in. Magpie: I have a hard time believing that, given that part of the reason given for Marietta siding with the Ministry was that her mother worked there so she thought she was doing the right thing. (And really, how much longer is a "mite longer" since she's starting a new school year with them?) It seems a little too much saying that the whole world really agrees with the heroes even if they do something mean to their own children. A parent might agree that their child did something wrong, but I doubt they'd get behind some other student doing that kind of punishing. Besides which, while I totally support the risk the students took with the DA because there was a good reason behind it, I think it's odd when it all comes down to Marietta making this happen when the whole point was that the Trio and then the other students were taking a conscious risk with the DA. Dumbledore's thrown out to protect Harry and crew who have intentionally gone around the official school rules. I just feel like if I were in the DA, no matter how justified I felt in taking the risk and having the club, I'd still feel responsible for that risk that I knowingly took. Although it's a very different situation since the DA had good intentions in mind, it still seems too much like saying it's Harry's fault that Lucius Malfoy went to jail for breaking into the MoM. Of that if MWPP had gotten expelled for their werewolf jaunts because Snape told on them, Snape would have gotten them unfairly expelled and it would be all his fault. Just to be clear, I'm not blaming the DA--I know Umbridge is the bad guy here and I don't think they deserved to be expelled for starting the group. It just seems a little wonky to me to have the kids do this thing, but then put the consequences all on someone else. It seems to keep them from owning the action entirely, so that the stakes are high for Marietta but not when it comes to their own actions. (Especially since the way they went about it, imo, courted disaster that didn't require villains.) -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 21:58:01 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:58:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169215 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Okay, this is really fascinating to me, because again, I read the > > kitchen scene completely differently. Snape doesn't seem at all > > enraged in this scene to me. On the contrary, Snape seems very > > much in control. > > > >>Jen: Yes...I'm not sure. The book says Snape was 'calculating.' > I suppose it's because when Snape starts whispering is when he > seems the most dangerous to me? His snap at the end of POA with > the yelling, shrieking and spit flying should have struck me as > Snape at his angriest, but the going quiet deal impresses me as > Snape at his scariest. (Yes, scary, I know that's hard for someone > who loves the character to imagine but he can be very chilling to > me. ) Betsy Hp: Are you kidding me?!? It's Snape at his scariest when I most want to drag him off and do unspeakable things to him... (oh, um... too much information?) I completely agree that Snape is in his dangerous mode in the kitchen. Not in a "mad man who's going to snap at any moment" sort of way, but very much able to handle anything Sirius might think to throw at him. Fully alert, fully focused; absolutely capable, absolutely in command. (Mmmm, Snape) But the big thing for me is, Snape is not escalating things here. He's taunting Sirius, yes. But the emotional fury all comes from Sirius. In many ways it's like Snape is toying with a child. Which is why I have a hard time buying that Snape, after this scene, sees Sirius as any sort of threat. This scene proves to Snape, I think, that Snape is the stronger man. Sirius has gone from campus golden boy to a rather pathetic man. There's nothing there to threaten Snape anymore, and I think Snape sees that. > >>Jen: He's a scary man Betsy, *scary*. Betsy Hp: I know, Jen. ::sigh:: I know. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Gosh, to me that actually goes completely *against* Snape's > > characterization. For some reason I just don't see Snape acting > > like such a lone wolf. The ones who'd most likely strike > > out on their own; the ones who actually *did* strike out on their > > own were the Marauders. But Snape? No, I'm pretty sure Snape > > was, and is, Dumbledore's man through and through. > >>Jen: This one here is the parting of the ways I'm afraid, not > because I don't agree the Marauders have acted on their own plenty > but because I see Snape doing that as well: Going after Quirrell > by himself? Betsy Hp: I think this one is under contention. I tend to think Dumbledore knew about Snape's suspicions as soon as Snape had them. So while Snape went after Quirrell alone, I don't think he did it against orders. Actually, he may have been *following* orders. > >>Jen: > Running to the Shrieking Shack without alerting Dumbledore? Betsy Hp: He was on a fact finding mission. Honestly, this goes towards that fine line I talked about earlier: Snape is Dumbldore's man, but not his drone. Lupin is a professor, Snape is not happy about it, but he follows Dumbledore's orders (doesn't spill the political beans, creates the requested potion, etc.). But when Snape sees Lupin off doing something weird, he takes it upon himself to figure out what that something weird is. He already knows Dumbledore doesn't share his suspicions. So Snape's going to try and find proof that he is actually right on this one. And then bring that proof right to Dumbledore, I'm sure. > >>Jen: > Informing the Slytherins about Lupin without talking to Dumbledore > first? Betsy Hp: Why would Snape need to talk to Dumbledore here? Or, more importantly, how do we know Snape *hasn't* talked to Dumbledore? Not that I think Dumbledore would have agreed to Snape informing his students that one of their professors is a werewolf. But Snape may already be aware that Dumbledore is letting Lupin go. (I know, Dumbledore firing Lupin is not a fact, but evidence has been shown to be there, and I like it. Cannot remember who made that post however, sorry.) > >>Jen: > Not sending a Patronus to Dumbledore the minute Harry appeared to > have had the vision of Sirius? Possibly the UV? > I know Snape needing to send a patronus to Dumbledore is not canon > but I've never understood this action on Snape's part. > Betsy Hp: Perhaps Dumbledore (who is in hiding) has asked for communication to be kept at a minimum? Whatever the reason, Snape acts as Dumbledore's man as far as we can see. He checks on Harry's story, he checks on Harry, and when he feels he needs assistence, he goes to the Order. And he makes sure Dumbledore is informed. Again, I feel Snape is completely loyal to Dumbledore and has the same beliefs. I do not think Snape is Dumbledore's drone and needs to ask Dumbledore what choice to make everytime one is put in front of him. I don't know why Snape chose to take the UV, but I'm betting it was for a reason he thought would best support Dumbledore's plans. And I bet Dumbledore learned about it as soon as Snape could get to him. > >>Alla: > But he didn't acquiesce, did he? Cool word :) > Betsy Hp: Isn't it? And it sounds as beautiful as it reads. Very unlike "melancholy", which looks beautiful but sounds like some sort of evil fruit/vegetable hybrid. A tiny piece of my innocence died the day I heard "melancholy" spoken out loud. Oh, and what zgirnius said to everything else. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 24 21:59:58 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:59:58 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169216 > What was truly disturbing to me was Harry's gleeful reaction to > seeing that Marietta was *still* disfigured in HBP. The parallel > between her oozing pustules and the type of atrocities that > are regularly (and rightly) condemned by human rights > organizations--such as facial branding or disfigurement with > acid--is too close for me to think that JKR endorses Hermione's > actions. Pippin: Especially since there's such an obvious parallel with Umbridge's scarring of Harry. Hermione certainly wasn't okay with the Ministry having that kind of power! I admire Hermione's principles, her courage, and her good intentions. I often admire her actions, but not in this case. As often happens with young witches and wizards in Rowling's story, she got carried away with her cleverness and let her powers run away with her. While I think Harry and Hermione already realize that this is not something that only happens to "bad" wizards, I think they have yet to realize that it could happen to them. Pippin From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu May 24 22:26:49 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:26:49 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169217 > Betsy Hp: > Are you kidding me?!? It's Snape at his scariest when I most want to > drag him off and do unspeakable things to him... (oh, um... too much > information?) I really, really don't understand the attraction to Snape. I mean, I get the bad boy thing, because I have a bad girl thing :) but aren't they supposed to be devastatingly handsome bad boys and not someone who doesn't shower on a regular basis? > But the big thing for me is, Snape is not escalating things here. > He's taunting Sirius, yes. But the emotional fury all comes from > Sirius. In many ways it's like Snape is toying with a child. Which > is why I have a hard time buying that Snape, after this scene, sees > Sirius as any sort of threat. This scene proves to Snape, I think, > that Snape is the stronger man. Sirius has gone from campus golden > boy to a rather pathetic man. There's nothing there to threaten > Snape anymore, and I think Snape sees that. I will agree that Snape is more in control in this scene and not on the verge of anger ant exploding, but I do't like the Snape as the stronger man bit. I think that proves just how small, petty, and evils Snape can be. Sirius is an escapee from the worlds worst prison, wrongfully accused, and is now locked away a second time. Snape meanwhile, has lived a pretty good life, while actually being a criminal, and never sent away to where he probably belongs. Sirius held it together for fifteen long years, held it because of love for Harry and loyalty to his dead friends. Sirius may be broken (although a characterization I don't like from OOTP, it does fit) but I don't think he should ever be characterized as pathetic. Snape on the other hand... phoenixgod2000, who wishes this could be longer but has to run off for stupid work! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 22:34:13 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:34:13 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta/Willy Widdershins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169218 Magpie wrote: > I have a hard time believing that, given that part of the reason given for Marietta siding with the Ministry was that her mother worked there so she thought she was doing the right thing. (And really, how much longer is a "mite longer" since she's starting a new school year with them?) It seems a little too much saying that the whole world really agrees with the heroes even if they do something mean to their own children. A parent might agree that their child did something wrong, but I doubt they'd get behind some other student doing that kind of punishing. > > Just to be clear, I'm not blaming the DA--I know Umbridge is the bad guy here and I don't think they deserved to be expelled for starting the group. It just seems a little wonky to me to have the kids do this thing, but then put the consequences all on someone else. It seems to keep them from owning the action entirely, so that the stakes are high for Marietta but not when it comes to their own actions. (Especially since the way they went about it, imo, courted disaster that didn't require villains.) Carol responds: Essentially, I agree with Magpie here. Certainly, Marietta's mother would have supported her daughter's action and taken her to St. Mungo's. Apparently, there's no countercurse to Hemione's jinx (just as the only countercurse to Severus Snape's Sectumsempra seems to be one that he invented himself, probably some time after he invented the curse). If St. Mungo's can't heal the pustules, it's because they don't know what caused them, IMO. (Neither, of course, does Marietta, especially since she's also had her memory, erm, adjusted. Umbridge, FWIW, attempted to find a counterjinx and failed; it's unclear whether she consulted Madam Pomfrey and most unlikely that she consulted the one wizard who might have been able to figure it out: Severus Snape.) FWIW< I'm not quite sure that all of the students were participating for noble reasons; to me, they seem like neutral or personal reasons (Cho is there because she likes Harry, Zacharias because he wants to know what really happened with Voldemort, and most of the fifth years because Umbridge is teaching them nothing and they want to pass their exams). The Twins are there as much to have a good time and learn some new spells as to provide moral support to Harry. Probably, HRH are the only ones (along with Neville and possibly Luna and Ernie) who actually think they'll be fighting Voldemort. They have no reason, yet, to believe he's really back. DD told them virtually nothing the previous year, and the Daily Prophet has contradicted him for months, with no supporting evidence from Harry's/DD's side. That aside, I agree that all of them know what they're doing, which is essentially going behind Umbridge's back and defy the Ministry. Too bad Marietta, who has already presumably passed her OWls and whose mother works for the MoM, was dragged to that first meeting at all! (I do like the fact that the "bad kid" was not a Slytherin this time around, but that's the only thing I like about the whole business, in particular Hermione's underhand tactics.) However wrong Marietta's behavior was, she could not have anticipated Dumbledore's action. She wasn't trying to get the headmaster in trouble; she was just reporting a group of rule-breakers who, as Magpie says, new quite well that they were breaking the rules. The difference between Marietta and the others is that they thought those rules deserved to be broken; Marietta, the Percy of this little group, didn't. I should add that the idea of horrific disfiguration is canonical and goes beyond heavy makeup or a balaclava to cover the pustules. The narrator's description makes not only her humiliation but extent of the disfigurement itself crystal clear: "Marietta gave a wail and pulled the neck of her robes right up to her eyes, but not before the whole room had seen that her face was *horribly disfigured* by a series of close-set purpustules that had spread across her nose and cheeks to form the word 'SNEAK'" (OoP Am. ed. 612). It would have been one thing to let her go around like that for a week or two, but it seems to be permanent. Not only is she being punished far beyond the most unpleasant and demeaning school detentions (*other than* the sadistic Umbridge's horrible quill), but the whole thing is meaningless now that her memory has been altered. Unless Cho has told her what she did, she doesn't even know why she's being punished, and even then, she doesn't remember. But to the point of my post, finally. We've forgotten a bad guy here. Marietta could have simply left the group with no consequences after the first meeting, even with Hermione's jinx on the parchment, if Willy Widdershins, wrapped in bandages from head to foot after his misadventure with the Muggle toilets, hadn't spied on the group and reported them to Umbridge. At that point, they had technically done nothing wrong (other than taking DADA lessons into their own hands as a "study group" because they rightly considered Umbridge's lessons worthless rubbish). As Dumbledore points out, Umbridge did not post her decrees "banning all students societies" until two days later, after Willy reported the meeting to Umbridge (Mundungus, with presumably better intentions, having done the same to DD) (614-15). No rule broken, nothing for Marietta to report--and no fear that she would be in trouble herself for participating in an illegal student group. Carol, noting that "Widdershins" means "in a left-handed, wrong, or contrary direction" (no offense to lefties intended!) and wondering whether Wrong-Way Willy will make any more minor mischief in DH (alliteration only partially intentional!) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 22:49:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:49:39 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169219 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > I will agree that Snape is more in control in this scene and not on > the verge of anger ant exploding, but I do't like the Snape as the > stronger man bit. I think that proves just how small, petty, and > evils Snape can be. Sirius is an escapee from the worlds worst > prison, wrongfully accused, and is now locked away a second time. > Snape meanwhile, has lived a pretty good life, while actually being > a criminal, and never sent away to where he probably belongs. > > Sirius held it together for fifteen long years, held it because of > love for Harry and loyalty to his dead friends. Sirius may be > broken (although a characterization I don't like from OOTP, it does > fit) but I don't think he should ever be characterized as pathetic. > > Snape on the other hand... Alla: Heee, sure, I buy that. But to me Snape's pettiness, evillness and overall, please die Snape reaction is more shown in what he does to Harry and Neville. It is like how lower you can sink then to torment child whom you already hurt so much, you bastard. But I digress. I used to think that Snape and Sirius have pretty good chemistry, taunts and all. Never mind my mind of the slasher, heheeh. I loved shaking hands scene in GoF ( that is where I still had hopes for something very different of Snape variety) and I loved this one as well - chemistry wise, heheh. Not that I have any respect for Snape here of course, but it sure gives food for imagination, mine anyways From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu May 24 22:49:03 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:49:03 -0000 Subject: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: <15886746.1180015987692.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169220 --- Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > OK, I'm going to open the discussion of longshot > theories for ... DH. ... > > I'll start ... the "Deathly Hallows" refer to cries > from beyond the veil, including Sirius' (whose body > went there with him). > > Here's another: Canon has shown Percy to be obsessed > with obeying the rules imposed by authority. ... > Longshot prediction: Percy will die, heroically, > BECAUSE of his obsession with following the rules. > > Bart > bboyminn: Prediction 1 - How many times in the series have we heard that Voldemort never attack Hogwarts because he feared Dumbledore? Well, Dumbledore's gone now, that doesn't bode well for Hogwarts. I say Hogwarts will be attacked, and Harry will have to come to the rescue, but I think that will be a side plot, not the climax of the story. Prediction 2 - Somehow the 'blocked secret passage behind the mirror' will come into play in the Hogwarts rescue plot as well might the Chamber of Secrets. Prediction 3 - I predict the Deathly Hallows are significant magical objects belonging to the Four Founders, some of which happen to be Horcruxes, but the Horcrux aspect is irrelevant to the 'Hallows' aspect and further irrelevant to the power they hold when combined. "Object of Power" Theory. Prediction 4 - Harry will go behind the Veil with Voldemort. The Veil is just too prominent not to ultimately be significant. "Behind the Veil and Back" Theory. Prediction 4a - Sirius will return from behind the Veil with Harry. Though I haven't worked out whether Sirius survives the journey or not. Prediction 5 - Harry will certainly move into the Black House. I know he said he never wanted to go there again, but practical considerations will make him change his mind. Prediction 6 - This is really a long shot, but... Harry will not have all the Horcruxes before his last encounter with Voldemort, but it won't matter. Without realizing it, Harry will have some other way to defeat Voldemort. Possibly tying into my elaborate 'Objects of Power' theory. Prediction 7 - As much as I have sympathy and understanding for Percy, I suspect he might just be forced into a situation where he heroically gives his life and proves his worth. It could easily occur as you suggest, in some way relating to Percy's love of the rule, or it could be Percy breaking character and making some colossal break with the formal rules that lead to his heroic end. Prediction 8 - The locked Room of Love in the Department of Mysteries will not be as significant as reader are predicting, and may not enter the story at all. Prediction 9 - This is very thin, but I can picture Draco coming to live at the Black House. I predict an uneasy peace between Harry and Snape, that leads Snape to turn Draco over to Harry for safe keeping. More a feeling than anything I've worked out in detail. Prediction 10 - A huge aspect of the story, relating to Prediction 9, will be the mystery of how Snape gets Harry to trust him again. Prediction 11 - Through a long series of events, Petunia will show Harry Dumbledore's original letter, and may even have some other possessions of Lily and James to show Harry. Harry need information, and his greatest source of information, Dumbledore, is now gone. I predict this sharing between Petunia and Harry will be one way for the author to move the story forward while filling in some of the missing backstory. Hope 1 - I hope that Ron and Hermoine do spend time at the Dursley's; the comic potential is just too great to pass up. I also predict that if Hope 1 comes true that Harry, Ron, and Hermione will wisely and cautiously spend most of their free time at Mrs. Figgs, and away from Petunia, Vernon, and Dudley which will suit them just fine. Hope 2 - I hope Privet Drive is attacked, so that the Dursleys have to seek refuge with Harry at the Black House. Again, the comic potential is just too sweet. The problem with Predictions is that it's possible to have too many of them. In just my suggestions alone there is more than enough story to fill a book, and yet the key and critical aspects of the story still haven't been addressed. Hopefully JKR is better at writing than I am at predicting. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Thu May 24 22:55:50 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 18:55:50 EDT Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169221 Jen: I'm particularly interested now in a piece of information that Kreacher reported which can only be second-hand: "Kreacher's information made [Voldemort] realize the one person whom you would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black." (The Lost Prophecy Chapter, p. 831, Am. Ed.) Carol: So the information comes from Kreacher but the inference is Voldemort's. No Snape in sight. > Jen: > In one post I mentioned Snape having access to more information than Kreacher because of the fight with Sirius in GP when Kreacher was missing. For example, Snape learned that Sirius was protective of Harry and vice versa and that Sirius would be willing to leave GP if Snape (or perhaps anyone) messed with Harry. That last bit wasn't integral to Voldemort's plot but it could have been important information to Snape. Julie: I'm not sure why anyone thinks this information is some closely held secret from Voldemort. Sirius is Harry's godfather. Until Harry was 15 mos old no doubt Sirius was very much in his life. Peter, for one, would know that at least on Sirius's part the connection to Harry was very strong, basically like family. There's no reason to doubt that Peter wouldn't have told Voldemort this, and he knew from the Shrieking Shack that Harry went from wanting to kill Sirius to believing his story, in effect accepting Sirius back into his life. And there's also no reason to doubt Kreacher would have reported either freely or if asked directly that Sirius and Harry had a very close relationship, so why wouldn't Sirius be protective of Harry and vice versa? BTW, Dumbledore also knew Voldemort had information from Peter and had every reason to assume Voldemort could deduce through spys known and unknown that Sirius and Harry had resumed their original relationship as godfather/godson. So why not tell Snape he's free to pass on information that Sirius and Harry have become close, that Sirius is protective of Harry? Both assume it won't make any difference as Sirius is safely hiding at GP. And on the night in question add that neither believes there is any way for Harry to leave Hogwarts, since they certainly couldn't deduce that Thestrals would coincidentally show up right when Harry needed them. Yes, it backfired, and in the aftermath Snape was able to make use of the incident to pad his cover in front of Bella and Narcissa. But I don't see that there is any information Snape gave away that Voldemort couldn't have gotten from other sources, from Peter, to Kreacher, to students of DEs who might pass on school gossip to their parents. Thus I don't see any logical way to conclude that Snape somehow engineered a plot against Sirius that wasn't already in Voldemort's mind as a plot against Harry which just happened to bring down Sirius during its execution. That is, not unless Snape turns out to be the real villain in DH, who engineered all the various plots that he's been accused of by those who want him to be evil. In which case the long heralded Harry-Voldemort confrontation will be nothing more than filler, as Snape will prove to be the brilliant evil tactician (sp?) and Voldemort nothing more than an ineffective stooge who mindlessly aided all Snape's masterful plans. And that's the main reason I don't buy Evil-Without-One-Shred-Of-Deceny Snape. (That reason, and bigger-stooge-than-Voldemort Dumbledore.) Because then UnrelentlesslyEvil!Snape takes over the story. While the irony might be amusing (Snape haters getting exactly what they *don't* want, a Snape who ends as a bigger presence than Harry), I don't see it happening. Julie, who'd be thrilled if a DDM!Snape got a lot of page time, but knowing this flavor of Snape while critical to the outcome isn't the flavor of Snape who would swamp the story with his presence. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Thu May 24 23:34:48 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:34:48 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169222 Jen: > Besides not demonstrating that kind of insight > into the relationships of the humans around him in > my opinion (post #169113), Kreacher was also not > around at Christmas to witness Sirius when he was > out of his blue period and showing more affection > to those around him, including Harry. houyhnhnm: I can see your point that Kreacher would not understand tenderness or affection. Jealosy is something I think he would understand, though. He had ample opportunity to observe the jealosy between Molly and Sirius over Harry during the month Harry was at GP before the beginning of the school year. "He's not your son," Sirius said quietly. "He's as good as," said Mrs. weasley fiercely. "Who else has he got?" "He's got me!" Kreacher hadn't been introduced to readers at that point, but he was around. In fact he was around pretty much anywhere he wanted to be except in the bedrooms of those who, like Ron, thought to lock their doors at night. One can imagine that, over a nearly one month period, there were many more such scenes of tension betwen Molly and Sirius than were shown in the book. Kreacher would have been able to observe most or all of them and draw his own conclusions. He could have been around, lurking out of sight, when Harry asked Sirius if he could come back and live with him. He could have been around when Sirius insisted on accompanying the party to platform nine and three-quarters. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 23:32:37 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:32:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169223 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > I really, really don't understand the attraction to Snape. I mean, > I get the bad boy thing, because I have a bad girl thing :) but > aren't they supposed to be devastatingly handsome bad boys and not > someone who doesn't shower on a regular basis? Handsomeness and showering have nothing to do with it, most likely. It has to do with intelligence, capability, talent, and a masterful sense of control. Or, more succinctly, Snape is "cool". He is at his most unattractive when he loses his cool. He is at his most attractive when he keeps it. When he does, he has complete control over whatever situation he's in. Plus, well, there's that British actor, and the movie interpretation that puts him in a ridiculous frock coat with innumerable buttons that the real Snape would never tolerate. The real Snape wears robes. Only robes. Snape is actually supposed to look more like Wormtongue from LotR. My guess is if he appeared like that in the movies, far less women would be salivating over him. > I think that proves just how small, petty, and > evils Snape can be. Sirius is an escapee from the worlds worst > prison, wrongfully accused, and is now locked away a second time. > Snape meanwhile, has lived a pretty good life, while actually being > a criminal, and never sent away to where he probably belongs. Well, I understand that point. And I certainly don't think Snape deserves major points here for being a great guy. It's not a very kind thing to do. But I understand Snape's motivations. He's witnessed Dumbledore protect Black yet again. And Black, you might recall, has absolutely no regret over the prank. None whatsoever. Snape knows this. So do I grant Snape the leeway to taunt Sirius without judging him too harshly? Yeah, I do. And Snape, lest we forget, is doing some very dangerous spying for Dumbledore. I'd hardly call spying on the Death Eaters "a pretty good life." It's his job. And it's probably the most dangerous one in the wizarding world besides Dumbledore's. > Sirius held it together for fifteen long years, held it because of > love for Harry and loyalty to his dead friends. Sirius may be > broken (although a characterization I don't like from OOTP, it does > fit) but I don't think he should ever be characterized as pathetic. But I think he is, and it's not a slur on his character to say so. He's in sad shape, and I feel for him. It's through no fault of his own, though. He's been through hell. > Snape on the other hand... Snape, I would grant, is often pathetic as well. I don't mean the scornful, disgusted sort of definition of the word with either of these men. But they make me sad sometimes. And sometimes I feel sorry for them. Snape, in the incident in the pensieve, comes off as extremely pathetic. And his inability to put the past behind him (something Sirius is also guilty of) renders him pathetic as well. Again, none of that makes Snape any less admirable or brilliant or capable. It's part of who he is. He's extremely complicated. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu May 24 23:47:28 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:47:28 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169224 --- "pippin_999" wrote: > > > What was truly disturbing to me was Harry's gleeful > > reaction to seeing that Marietta was *still* > > disfigured in HBP. The parallel between her oozing > > pustules and the type of atrocities that are > > regularly (and rightly) condemned by human rights > > organizations--such as facial branding or > > disfigurement with acid--is too close for me to > > think that JKR endorses Hermione's actions. > > Pippin: > Especially since there's such an obvious parallel > with Umbridge's scarring of Harry. Hermione certainly > wasn't okay with the Ministry having that kind of > power! > > I admire Hermione's principles, her courage, and > her good intentions. I often admire her actions, but > not in this case. ..., she got carried away with her > cleverness and let her powers run away with her. > While I think Harry and Hermione already realize that > this is not something that only happens to "bad" > wizards, I think they have yet to realize that it > could happen to them. > > Pippin > bboyminn: Two parallel threads going on now about this subject. I think to some extent I agree with both Carol and Pippin. First, I think those making a case against Hermione's actions are grossly overstating themselves. Though that is actually very common, it's a way of highlighting a point. But none the less, I think they are exaggerating the event. However, I do agree that Hermione got carried away. I think she was right to protect the group from traitors, but I think she let the punishment go on a little too long. Though, I think she had plenty of things to distract her in HBP. Also, the series isn't over yet, Marietta's 'disfigurement' is only permanent if Hermione continues to let it go on. Personally, I feel that in the next book, friend and not-so-friend alike must band together against Voldemort. In this stead, Hermione will realize that in the fight against Voldemort, Marietta and her mother are their allies, and Hermione will lift the curse. So, Marietta suffers a little, but it's not like she was beat with an ugly stick. She has acne that is exacerbated by the fact that it has taken on a clear and specific shape. But it doesn't stop her from functioning. She isn't in any way crippled, just embarrassed as she should be. She'll get over it. She will especially get over it when (as I predict) Hermione realizes that NOW they are all allies and lifts the curse. So, my main point is, don't lock yourself into a judgment when the story hasn't fully played out. Let's see what Hermione does next before we condemn her. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From celizwh at intergate.com Fri May 25 00:10:33 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 00:10:33 -0000 Subject: What makes LV so powerful? In-Reply-To: <7565241.1179930522505.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169225 Bart: > Based on canon that there IS a genetic component to > magical ability, and additional canon showing (albeit > not telling) that it does not work according to the > laws of genetics, the best theory I have heard (who > came up with it?) was that there is a viral component > to magical ability; meaning that there is a genetic > component that makes one more or less susceptable to > the virus, which is difficult to catch houyhnhnm: I do know the canon. The reason I wrote "if" is because the transmission of magical ability clearly does not follow the rules of classic Mendelian single-locus inheritance. I'm afraid I don't have enough confidence in Ms. Rowling's level of scientific literacy to make it interesting to speculate. I do like the virus theory. Bart: > Thinking this through, this may be a major part of why > Voldemort wants to kill Harry, himself. His fear of > Dumbledore might well be related to DD's ability to > bring out little Tommy Riddle; note that while DD has > no problem using the name, "Voldemort", he calls him > "Tom" in the MoM; given the above theories, this could > well have been a tactic to weaken Voldy. houyhnhnm: Kind of like the power of the ancient Irish satirists to weaken an opponent through ridicule. A superficial Google search suggests that a belief in the magical power of satire existed in many cultures. If it holds in the Potterverse as well, it makes the Snape!boggart incident seem a little more sinister. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri May 25 00:25:23 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) Message-ID: <380-22007552502523562@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169226 > > What was truly disturbing to me was Harry's gleeful > > reaction to seeing that Marietta was *still* > > disfigured in HBP. The parallel between her oozing > > pustules and the type of atrocities that are > > regularly (and rightly) condemned by human rights > > organizations--such as facial branding or > > disfigurement with acid--is too close for me to > > think that JKR endorses Hermione's actions. > > Pippin: > Especially since there's such an obvious parallel > with Umbridge's scarring of Harry. Hermione certainly > wasn't okay with the Ministry having that kind of > power! > > I admire Hermione's principles, her courage, and > her good intentions. I often admire her actions, but > not in this case. ..., she got carried away with her > cleverness and let her powers run away with her. > While I think Harry and Hermione already realize that > this is not something that only happens to "bad" > wizards, I think they have yet to realize that it > could happen to them. > > Pippin > bboyminn: Two parallel threads going on now about this subject. I think to some extent I agree with both Carol and Pippin. First, I think those making a case against Hermione's actions are grossly overstating themselves. Though that is actually very common, it's a way of highlighting a point. But none the less, I think they are exaggerating the event. However, I do agree that Hermione got carried away. I think she was right to protect the group from traitors, but I think she let the punishment go on a little too long. Though, I think she had plenty of things to distract her in HBP. Magpie: What's being exaggerated, exactly? Because there's been canon provided for exactly what people are saying is going on. Leaving aside the fact that Hermione's hex didn't "protect" the group from anyone or anything (only punished the traitor after the fact) I think saying she's just let the punishment go on "a little too long" is an understatement--it's been over a year based on what we know now. I'm also not sure what all these great distractions Hermione had are supposed to be in HBP. She was worried Ron wouldn't make the Quidditch team? She was angry he was snogging Lavender? She didn't know which guy to ask to the party to make Ron jealous? These made it impossible for it ever to cross her mind that oh yeah, that girl from last year is still walking around with pustules on her face? Steve: Also, the series isn't over yet, Marietta's 'disfigurement' is only permanent if Hermione continues to let it go on. Personally, I feel that in the next book, friend and not-so-friend alike must band together against Voldemort. In this stead, Hermione will realize that in the fight against Voldemort, Marietta and her mother are their allies, and Hermione will lift the curse. Magpie: Not sure why you put 'disfigurement' in quotes when she is disfigured. It also seems a little disingenuous to essentially say we can't say it's permanent because we can't yet say that Hermione won't undo it. If she does undo it then sure it will only have been a long punishment and not a permanent one, but given the author's making sure to remind us it's still there a book later it seems implied that it's permanent unless something intervenes, much like Harry's own scars. I'm already surprised that Hermione can live with herself, personally. What keeps her going on this punishment, I wonder? Steve: So, Marietta suffers a little, but it's not like she was beat with an ugly stick. She has acne that is exacerbated by the fact that it has taken on a clear and specific shape. But it doesn't stop her from functioning. She isn't in any way crippled, just embarrassed as she should be. She'll get over it. She will especially get over it when (as I predict) Hermione realizes that NOW they are all allies and lifts the curse. Magpie: So ias long as she can continue to function her suffering should be dismissed as "a little?" (So much for all Harry's suffering, then.) I wouldn't dismiss the suffering somebody goes through when they have regular acne, particularly disfiguring acne. It certainly does, imo, equate to being "hit with an ugly stick"--and the students in canon agree, imo, which is why Eloise Midgen is trying to hex hers off and it's the main thing we know about the character. Marietta, as Carol quoted, has been "horribly disfigured by a series of close-set purpustules that had spread across her nose and cheeks." Yes she's embarassed--embarassment can be painful. Why is Hermione inflicting it on someone every day? Marietta's not supposed to just "get over it." She's supposed to be humiliated and stared at and repulsive to others. Steve: So, my main point is, don't lock yourself into a judgment when the story hasn't fully played out. Let's see what Hermione does next before we condemn her. Magpie: If Hermione lifts the curse in the next book I will certainly change my judgment from her being a person cruel enough to to disfigure someone for a lifetime to someone cruel enough to disfigure someone for a couple of years. She's already crossed a line of cruelty for me in this situation. Of course I hope this will be addressed as well. It reminds me of the Vanishing Cabinet. I found the reactions to that by the Gryffindors creepy as well and hoped it was being alluded to so often because it would come up later and it did--"he could have died" Draco throws in while telling the Slytherin version of the story, sounding a lot like Snape. That's one of the main things I hope comes out in book VII--not just that Hermione will just "realize they're allies" and so take away the hex to get what she wants, but that there might be something said about some of the attitudes towards other people in the books. - From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 01:19:54 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 01:19:54 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169227 > bboyminn: > > Also, the series isn't over yet, Marietta's > 'disfigurement' is only permanent if Hermione continues > to let it go on. Personally, I feel that in the next > book, friend and not-so-friend alike must band together > against Voldemort. In this stead, Hermione will realize > that in the fight against Voldemort, Marietta and her > mother are their allies, and Hermione will lift the > curse. Montavilla47: If I were Marietta or her mother, I would find it very hard to want to ally with the girl who condemned Marietta to more than a year of disfigurement. There's really a nice parallel with Harry's scars from Umbridge. Theoretically, they are now on the same side, but Harry's still angry about it, and he refuses to play ball with the entire Ministry about it. Why shouldn't Marietta (and her friend Cho) likewise refuse to ally with Harry when he allows his female sidekick to punish and humiliate people for following their beliefs? > bboyminn: > So, Marietta suffers a little, but it's not like she was > beat with an ugly stick. She has acne that is exacerbated > by the fact that it has taken on a clear and specific > shape. But it doesn't stop her from functioning. She isn't > in any way crippled, just embarrassed as she should be. > She'll get over it. She will especially get over it when > (as I predict) Hermione realizes that NOW they are all > allies and lifts the curse. Montavilla47: I'm wondering what you think will bring about this change of heart. Do you think it will be a change of heart on Hermione's part--as she realizes that anyone who isn't on Voldemort's side is worthy of a pustule-free face? Or do you think that the change of heart will come from Marietta and that Hermione will then lift the curse because Marietta has come round? Right now, there seem to be three different factions in this war: Voldemort's side, the Ministry's side, and Dumbledore's side. > bboyminn: > So, my main point is, don't lock yourself into a judgment > when the story hasn't fully played out. Let's see what > Hermione does next before we condemn her. > Montavilla47: I agree with that. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 25 01:37:55 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:37:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta/Willy Widdershins In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46563DF3.5030608@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169228 justcarol67 wrote: > Carol, noting that "Widdershins" means "in a left-handed, wrong, or > contrary direction" (no offense to lefties intended!) and wondering > whether Wrong-Way Willy will make any more minor mischief in DH > (alliteration only partially intentional!) I think left-handed people are pretty sinister. As for myself, I'm pretty dextrous. As for Widdershins, I'm still shocked that nobody in the Wizarding World calls their kid, "Almighty", or "Genius", or something like that, instead of something like "Dung". Bart From kat7555 at yahoo.com Thu May 24 23:38:32 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:38:32 -0000 Subject: Could Sirius Still Be Alive? In-Reply-To: <07e601c79df1$e08dff70$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169229 Lauren wrote: > Sirius slipped through a veil but I wonder if he died or just is > lost, maybe to find his way back? Unfortunately Sirius is dead. JK Rowling stated that she cried when she killed him off. I also think Sirius would have found a way to contact Harry if he were alive. I'd love see some type of reunion between the two of them similar to characters in Greek mythology meeting in Hades. Kathy Kulesza From random832 at fastmail.us Fri May 25 01:49:04 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 01:49:04 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta/Willy Widdershins In-Reply-To: <46563DF3.5030608@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169230 > Bart: > As for Widdershins, I'm still shocked that nobody in the Wizarding World > calls their kid, "Almighty", or "Genius", or something like that, > instead of something like "Dung". Random832: To be fair, it's short for "Mundungus", which means "Tobacco" (and, as for this thread - i'm almost sorry i brought it up, i almost didn't post that one since i'd changed my opinion; there's apparently a lot of pent-up conflict) --Random832 From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 25 03:49:06 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 03:49:06 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169231 Jen: > > To borrow from my post yesterday, this theory is an attempt to answer > a certain area of canon: Snape said he passed information that > helped dispose of Black in front of the woman whom Dumbledore > credited with the passing of information that led to the same death. > Snape said this outside the awareness of the main POV character and > there was no explanation within HBP to reconcile the different > views. To me that's fertile ground for theorizing a way to reconcile > the two pieces of information. > Pippin: But how would Narcissa make the connection? Kreacher passed her information about *Harry*. She wouldn't know about Harry's theory that Snape's taunting made Sirius go to the MoM, so why should she connect Sirius's death with what Kreacher told her? If Snape had claimed it was his information that got *Harry* to the MoM, that would be a different story. But as neither Narcissa not Bella presumably knows anything about how Sirius happened to turn up with the other Order members, they wouldn't be in a position to challenge Snape. As for Kreacher's information about Harry, that would not be hard to get. First, Sirius is the only adult Harry writes to. Second, Harry is, as we know, not very good at hiding his feelings. Harry has no trouble recognizing looks of devotion from House Elves, so they can't be very different from human ones. Kreacher would only have to see them together. It has always made sense to me that Snape was allowed to tell Voldemort that Sirius was in London, hidden by the Secret Keeper spell. Otherwise, considering the fanatical grudge which Wormtail would have reported Snape still bore against Sirius, it would have been hard for Snape to explain to Voldemort why he hadn't hunted down Sirius and killed him already. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri May 25 06:10:34 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 06:10:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169232 > Pippin: > But how would Narcissa make the connection? Kreacher passed > her information about *Harry*. She wouldn't know about Harry's > theory that Snape's taunting made Sirius go to the MoM, so why > should she connect Sirius's death with what Kreacher told her? > > If Snape had claimed it was his information that got *Harry* to > the MoM, that would be a different story. But as neither Narcissa > not Bella presumably knows anything about how Sirius happened > to turn up with the other Order members, they wouldn't be in > a position to challenge Snape. Jen: Maybe I'm thick but isn't that blowing his cover if he's on the up and up? He's saying he passed information to help dispose of Black but Black wasn't actually supposed to be at the MOM. Order members weren't supposed to be there. When Harry tried to contact Sirius only Kreacher was around, so there was likely a plan to plant the vision when no one else was present at GP except Sirius and he was to be occupied with Buckbeak. And Harry was supposed to be at Hogwarts with no Order members around except Snape to know when he left the premises. So isn't Snape saying he had something to do with getting Sirius to the DOM by making that claim? Jen From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 25 06:40:53 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 06:40:53 -0000 Subject: Willy Widdershins In-Reply-To: <46563DF3.5030608@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169233 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: justcarol67: > > Carol, noting that "Widdershins" means "in a left-handed, wrong, or > > contrary direction" (no offense to lefties intended!) and wondering > > whether Wrong-Way Willy will make any more minor mischief in DH > > (alliteration only partially intentional!) > > I think left-handed people are pretty sinister. As for myself, I'm > pretty dextrous. Bart: > As for Widdershins, I'm still shocked that nobody in the Wizarding World > calls their kid, "Almighty", or "Genius", or something like that, > instead of something like "Dung". Geoff: In its origins, "widdershins" is not specifically left-handed. It's basically a Scots word - with JKR now living in Scotland and things like "Grimmauld' flying around, that figures :-). My dictionary defines it as: adverb chiefly Scottish in a direction contrary to the sun's course (or anticlockwise) considered as unlucky. Origin - High German wider 'against' + sin 'direction'; the second element was associated with Scots sin 'sun'. Perhaps it just suggests that Willy is a bit contrary. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri May 25 06:48:33 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 06:48:33 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169234 > Betsy Hp: > Are you kidding me?!? It's Snape at his scariest when I most want > to drag him off and do unspeakable things to him... (oh, um... too > much information?) Jen: YES! *snicker* > > I completely agree that Snape is in his dangerous mode in the > kitchen. Not in a "mad man who's going to snap at any moment" sort > of way, but very much able to handle anything Sirius might think to > throw at him. Fully alert, fully focused; absolutely capable, > absolutely in command. (Mmmm, Snape) Jen: I'm going to be mean here and snip out all your fine arguments because really, there's not much more I can add or subtract from everything that's been said on the thread. And your thought above inspired me to try to start a "What I like about the character of Snape" thread. :) I can be open-minded, I *can*. I'm going to give some moments where I've enjoyed Snape as a character and admired the job Rowling has done in creating him: 1) Number 1 for me will always be his speech during the first Occlumency lesson: "Then you will find yourself easy prey for the Dark Lord!...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!" Vulnerable!Snape. Most of the times I really connect with the character are when he's not being all swoopy and sneering and definitely not scary Snape, but when he offers something of himself. At least that's my understanding, that he's perhaps unknowingly giving Harry insight into what made him 'easy prey' for Voldemort. 2) Pensieve Scene: A moment of identifying with him, feeling compassion, and wondering if Rowling might be going somewhere other than what I'd thought was when young Severus had pink bubbles coming out his mouth and was turned upside down to show his grey skivvies. I felt like I was back in high school, not because I was ever bullied, but because it's so easy to remember how mortifying that would have been at that age. 3) That moment on the tower when he bursts through the ramparts, taking in the scene, and Dumbledore first speaks his name. He walks forward and pushes Malfoy out of the way, the DEs drop back. I wish that moment could be suspended in time. I thought he was going to somehow set everything right, keep Dumbledore alive, work a miracle and finally come out as being on Dumbledore's side. (I'm not saying Snape didn't do all those other things even if it appears to the contrary, but I really thought *in that suspended moment* that DD was about to be saved from a violent death even if he died from other causes at the end of the story.) Okay, *whew* don't want to stretch myself too much this first time. I'd love to hear about other moments people connect with for whatever reason. Jen From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Fri May 25 06:32:13 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 06:32:13 -0000 Subject: Lupin in the shrieking shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169235 > Neri: > My take on this has always been that both Lupin and Snape didn't > remember that this was to be a full moon night. .......> Both Snape and Lupin don't behave in the Shack as if a transformation > is due any moment, although Lupin forgetting his potion comes up in > the conversation. > > > Neri > I don't quite agree with you there. Lupin dreaded transforming into a werewolf and feared the full moon more than anything - as the shape of his boggart shows in POA. Moreover he was a teacher at a school with hundreds of pupils none of whom knew he was a werewolf. His safety and their's and his ability to hold on to his job meant that he had to remember exactly when the full moon was, take his potion carefully every night for a week like an antibiotic and then withdraw to his room in plenty of time for the transformation. The only reason I can think of that he forgot was that he had received such a tremendous shock when he saw the Marauders map and realised that several things he had believed for 13 years were not true i.e.that Peter Pettigrew was not dead as he had believed and thus his old friend Sirius Black whom he had thought for so long had betrayed James and Lily and killed Pettigrew might not be guilty. Remember that Lupin had not seen Sirius Black for 13 years before he burst into the Shrieking Shack but that he treated him immediately as a friend and disarmed Harry before he could harm Black. He had obviously worked out the whole story before he got there. He must have been in a state of shock and that in itself would have driven everything else out of his head. As for Snape, he went to the shrieking shack knowing that HP and co were there (invisibility cloak) with Lupin and that Lupin had not taken his potion. He probably went there to give HP and co an earful and send them back to the castle and bring Lupin back while it was still safe to do so. But suddenly and unexpectedly he is confronted by a person he loathes possibly more than Harry, a man who nearly had him killed while he was in school...and whom he firmly believes is a murderer. Reason enough to forget everything else, and of course, Harry and co knock him out with their combined spells before he has a chance to gather his thoughts. Sylvia. From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 05:59:23 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 05:59:23 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169236 Bart: I'm disturbed too. But I have a hard time believing that Hermione COULD find and cast a spell that strong, that nobody could break it. TKJ: I don't doubt that Hermione would come up with a spell that no one could break besides her. This is Hermione we are talking about. If Snape could do it why not her? Bart: Now, let's look at Marietta. Frankly, I DO feel a bit sorry for her; it was very clearly shown that she was more or less dragged in by Cho. She absolutely did not take it as seriously as the rest of the members. So, one can see her being the weak link. TKJ: I feel nothing for her. She got what she deserved as far as I'm concerned. This group was something bigger than her. She didn't take the time to notice that. She ran to tattle and got EXACTLY what she deserved. She should have kept her mouth shut if not for the group then for Cho who was supposedly her friend. IDK about you, but I wouldn't go and give out information that would get my friends in trouble. Maybe I'm heartless, but I definitely don't feel bad for her at all... From amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk Fri May 25 07:02:44 2007 From: amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk (AmanitaMuscaria) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 07:02:44 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169237 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > What was truly disturbing to me was Harry's gleeful reaction to > > seeing that Marietta was *still* disfigured in HBP. The parallel > > between her oozing pustules and the type of atrocities that > > are regularly (and rightly) condemned by human rights > > organizations--such as facial branding or disfigurement with > > acid--is too close for me to think that JKR endorses Hermione's > > actions. > > Pippin: > Especially since there's such an obvious parallel with Umbridge's > scarring of Harry. Hermione certainly wasn't okay with the Ministry > having that kind of power! > > I admire Hermione's principles, her courage, and her good intentions. > I often admire her actions, but not in this case. As often happens > with young witches and wizards in Rowling's story, she got carried > away with her cleverness and let her powers run away with her. > While I think Harry and Hermione already realize that this is not something > that only happens to "bad" wizards, I think they have yet to realize > that it could happen to them. > > Pippin > AmanitaMuscaria now - Does no one think that maybe there's something that _Marietta_ needs to do to break the curse? I thought once we discovered that it was still active in HBP, that the solution was for her to go to the DA and tell them what she did and why. I think the wizarding world is harsh, and things aren't meant to be fair, or easily curable, necessarily. Witness the Ministry wizard at the World Cup in GoF who had 'had those horns for a while now' or some such quote. Cheers, AM From ida3 at planet.nl Fri May 25 08:52:44 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:52:44 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169238 > Jen: I'm going to be mean here and snip out all your fine arguments because really, there's not much more I can add or subtract from everything that's been said on the thread. And your thought above inspired me to try to start a "What I like about the character of Snape" thread. :) I can be open-minded, I *can*. I'm going to give some moments where I've enjoyed Snape as a character and admired the job Rowling has done in creating him: Dana: The only moment I liked about Snape is when Harry and Ron speculated about why Snape is absent from the feast at the beginning of CoS. "Maybe he's ill!" said Ron hopefully. "Maybe he's left," said Harry, "because he missed out on the Defence Against Dark Arts job again!" "Or he might have been sacked!" said Ron enthusiastically. "I mean, everyone hates him -" "Or maybe," said a very cold voice right behind them, "he's waiting to hear why you two didn't arrive on the school train." (Not a quote from the book directly so no page numbers) I thought it would have made a funny scene for the movie and wondered why they did not use it. Of course I was still movie contaminated in my perception of Snape's character and liked him from that but that soon changed. ;o) After that not any scene in the book registered in my memory as a good Snape moment. I really thought that JKR was going for the humours but charismatic sarcasm with Snape but to me Snape used it to really hurt the people around him and not to cause humorous relieve or be funny to anyone but himself. So this is actually the only scene in which I could see the humour of it. Well I could mention numerous moments that I thought funny but they are negative for Snape so will restrain myself (Hospital wing and losing it, come to mind, just a precious Snape moment, just precious ;o)) JMHO From lauren1 at catliness.com Fri May 25 05:56:41 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:56:41 -0700 Subject: DH: Longshot theories References: Message-ID: <06dd01c79ea3$d3e422b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 169239 1:Harry decides to be an ordinary boy and finds a way to transfer his wizardness to Voldemort, who becomes a good person without Harry having to die. 2:It's all been a dream and Harry has been in a coma for years and dreamed the whole thing. Thanks Lauren, who really doesn't want Harry to die. From xellina at gmail.com Fri May 25 11:01:20 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:01:20 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: <06dd01c79ea3$d3e422b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> References: <06dd01c79ea3$d3e422b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <463f9ec00705250401x41e25081ie96d422fa3d1f7a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169240 2007/5/25, Lauren Merryfield : > > 1:Harry decides to be an ordinary boy and finds a way to transfer his > wizardness to Voldemort, who becomes a good person without Harry having to > die. > > 2:It's all been a dream and Harry has been in a coma for years and dreamed > the whole thing. > Cassy: Let's take it one step further: in the epilogue we find out that Harry is in fact crazy and is having dellusions while being kept in a mental institution. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miamibarb at comcast.net Fri May 25 11:10:13 2007 From: miamibarb at comcast.net (ivogun) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:10:13 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169241 Barbara: I read something else into Marietta's punishment. She is given a bad case of acne-- a magical, over-the-top, type of acne, but nevertheless acne. And like most magical things, it is an exaggerated form of the muggle version. In many ways her acne seems to mirror the real version. Marietta's attempts to cover her pustules in the same way many of us try to do. I think acne sufferers can find some solace. ( I have adult acne--roseacea.) Also in the same way that muggle doctor's struggle a bit to manage muggle acne, the healers are having trouble controlling Marietta's magical version. I don't think we are meant to believe that Marietta will be permanently disfigured, for we learn via Tonks that wizards can alter there appearance via transformation. Most likely Marietta will learn how to alter her face and out-grow her condition. Hopefully though Marietta and others will learn to take oaths seriously. In the next book oath taking (and breaking) becomes a life and death matter. Prof. Snape (who should know better!) has gotten himself in a mess by making an oath. What I find amusing is that Hermione came up with this curse. It's the ultimate teenage curse--bad acne. She could have come up with something much worse. I believe that Hermione was attempting to find deterrent that was meaningful but not hideous. It wasn't much of a deterrent though. From whtwitch91 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 11:30:38 2007 From: whtwitch91 at yahoo.com (whtwitch91) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:30:38 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (Was: Misc responses, some quite old) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169242 ,I think that the wizarding world is harsh, and things aren't meant to be fair, or easily curable, necessarily.> Yes, I agree. Marietta brought the curse down upon herself by bad behavior. I suspect that it is beyond Hermione's power to lift the curse, and that Marietta herself must perform some act that will redeem herself and remove the curse. In reading the many quotes of Jo Rowling about book 7 I seem to remember a statement that Ravenclaw will have its day. I believe that one that day marietta will perform some noble act and the disfigurement will vanish. Sue , the Jersey girl, hurrying off to work From richp100uk at yahoo.com Fri May 25 11:10:20 2007 From: richp100uk at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:10:20 -0000 Subject: Harry without Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169243 Sunipa: > I have also heard that Harry is the seventh Horcrux. I feel > that Slughorn might prove to be a help to Harry Hi, I disagree concerning Harry being the 7th Horcrux. In TGOF Voldemort tries to kill Harry, so he would be destroying one of his own Horcruxes! Richard From snorkack at jippii.fi Fri May 25 11:32:53 2007 From: snorkack at jippii.fi (tassgurka) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:32:53 -0000 Subject: alternative title Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169244 The swedish HP publisher, Tiden f?rlag, reveals their translation of the title for HP7, "Harry Potter och d?dsrelikerna" (Harry Potter and the Relics of Death). This alternative title was given to translators by JK herself, as DH is very difficult to translate. Thoughts on the alternative title? Are relics "only" referring to the horcruxes (locket, cup)? Kati From xellina at gmail.com Fri May 25 13:36:20 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:36:20 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] alternative title In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463f9ec00705250636l7eb749eawc717a08dab209154@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169245 2007/5/25, tassgurka : > > The swedish HP publisher, Tiden f?rlag, reveals their translation of > the title for HP7, "Harry Potter och d?dsrelikerna" (Harry Potter and > the Relics of Death). This alternative title was given to translators > by JK herself, as DH is very difficult to translate. Thoughts on the > alternative title? Are relics "only" referring to the horcruxes > (locket, cup)? > Cassy: For me "relics of death" is some items that Death owns. Like a scythe, you know? Or, according to Terry Pratchett, a cup with "best granddad in the world" inscription. Anyway, I suppose, it kinda kills my pet theory that DH has something to do with Hogwarts graveyard. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri May 25 12:55:31 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 06:55:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] alternative title References: Message-ID: <009401c79ecb$fab40540$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 169246 Kati wrote: The swedish HP publisher, Tiden frlag, reveals their translation of the title for HP7, "Harry Potter och ddsrelikerna" (Harry Potter and the Relics of Death). This alternative title was given to translators by JK herself, as DH is very difficult to translate. Thoughts on the alternative title? Are relics "only" referring to the horcruxes (locket, cup)? Shelley now: I don't think this title is only referring to Horcruxes. If they were, then why not simply put "Horcruxes" in the title itself, instead of this cryptic language? Instead, I think they are other "instruments of death" that we will see, in that Lord Voldemort was obsessed with that whole "capturing life or soul" for use later. We see in the graveyard scene LV using a bone of his father- I think this is significant because there is still life in that bone- dried DNA and red blood cells stored within the dried marrow within the center. I think LV had many years to do significant research into grave digging to see how to extract life from the graveyards, so that he could make use of it to make spells to cheat death, even if the life one would lead would be a "Frankenstein" type life- bits and pieces of life from various sources, even if the end product meant that very little of the new living material was once the real "you". Even if some of the spells require some "fresh bits of life", again as we see in that graveyard scene with Wormtail's hand and Harry's blood, still there would be great advantage to the Dark Lord to keep himself alive, and perhaps his loyal followers too, if he had perfected the technique for later. I see him as sort of a "Jack Kevorkian"- a studier of death and things surrounding it. People have often kidded about "capturing youth and bottling some of it for use later in life", and I can really see Lord Voldemort taking this idea seriously- capturing the life of that of his victims that he would torture for information, so that their deaths could be of some use to him later. I don't think the only items that we will see to capture death are "horcruxes", for those are only the items that split his own soul, but rather, I think there are many vessels still containing the "life" of others he had murdered. Maybe one of those vessels even contain bits of life from Lilly and James, for LV was at his height of power at the time of those murders. If the process was automatically triggered, then it would have gone off even if LV himself had been killed. I think we will see Harry stumble upon a rather gruesome "lab" or "experimentation" location hidden somewhere in his quest to get all the Horcruxes, a lab with "death relics" all in various stages of effectiveness- from those that others had created long, long ago in their studies, to new ones that LV had been experimenting with. Shelley From xellina at gmail.com Fri May 25 13:40:39 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:40:39 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [SHIP] Twist in Emma by Austen - Will it be Significant to DH? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705241332t2730cb8cu11c72cba163113a9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0705192231o71f76a9esdcfcf2be6ff08514@mail.gmail.com> <422932.51885.qm@web55111.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <2795713f0705221317m37ea4e94vab77cbd068c80aa0@mail.gmail.com> <463f9ec00705230017m5bc80a31wd4b0130e86dc3b2c@mail.gmail.com> <2795713f0705230926m702b64b7ta78d71b75b167e32@mail.gmail.com> <463f9ec00705240030x107f1135m5d83bdbfb426f513@mail.gmail.com> <2795713f0705241332t2730cb8cu11c72cba163113a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463f9ec00705250640t16229f2hb7149bc9c3f6dc42@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169247 2007/5/25, Lynda Cordova : > > > Lynda: > > Its in OOP that they're [Lupin and Tonks] together more, at headquarters, > taking the kids back > to Hogwarts, etc. She's always more nervous and clumsy around him and > there > is a time or two when they have apparently been alone or almost alone > together when the kids come downstairs. Grimmwauld Place wasn't the > greatest > place in the world for private conversations after all. > Cassy: Oh, it's just that in OOP there's so many people hang around, like Dung and Shaklebolt (I don't have a book at hand and don't really recall his proper name). It was hard for me to track them all. Anyway, I never thought of Tonks in terms of her being paired with any of older men, so I didn't ay attention. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cdayr at yahoo.com Fri May 25 14:40:12 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:40:12 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169248 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Jen: I'm going to be mean here and snip out all your fine arguments > because really, there's not much more I can add or subtract from > everything that's been said on the thread. And your thought above > inspired me to try to start a "What I like about the character of > Snape" thread. :) I can be open-minded, I *can*. I'm going to give > some moments where I've enjoyed Snape as a character and admired the > job Rowling has done in creating him: > > 1) Number 1 for me will always be his speech during the first > Occlumency lesson: "Then you will find yourself easy prey for the > Dark Lord!...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!" > > Vulnerable!Snape. Most of the times I really connect with the > character are when he's not being all swoopy and sneering and > definitely not scary Snape, but when he offers something of himself. > At least that's my understanding, that he's perhaps unknowingly > giving Harry insight into what made him 'easy prey' for Voldemort. > > 2) Pensieve Scene: A moment of identifying with him, feeling > compassion, and wondering if Rowling might be going somewhere other > than what I'd thought was when young Severus had pink bubbles coming > out his mouth and was turned upside down to show his grey skivvies. I > felt like I was back in high school, not because I was ever bullied, > but because it's so easy to remember how mortifying that would have > been at that age. > > 3) That moment on the tower when he bursts through the ramparts, > taking in the scene, and Dumbledore first speaks his name. He walks > forward and pushes Malfoy out of the way, the DEs drop back. I wish > that moment could be suspended in time. I thought he was going to > somehow set everything right, keep Dumbledore alive, work a miracle > and finally come out as being on Dumbledore's side. (I'm not saying > Snape didn't do all those other things even if it appears to the > contrary, but I really thought *in that suspended moment* that DD was > about to be saved from a violent death even if he died from other > causes at the end of the story.) > > Okay, *whew* don't want to stretch myself too much this first time. > I'd love to hear about other moments people connect with for whatever > reason. > > Jen > Celia: I second all of the above as top Snape characterizations. Your description of wanting to suspend the moment on the Tower in time actually gave me a little lump in the throat- so true! I'll add a couple of my favorite Snape moments that give a little insight, even though they are very pretty brief. 1. I've always been intrigued by the fact that he is sitting alone in the staff room at the start of the boggart lesson in PoA. "The staffroom, a long, paneled room full of old, mismatched chairs, was empty except for one teacher. Professor Snape was sitting in a low armchair, and he looked around as the class filed in." (Am.ED. PB 132) To me this is one of the first indications we have of a larger life for Snape- he hangs out in the staff room? Does he have friends in the staff? Is he lonely and hoping someone will come in- just not Lupin and his class? It is a very small moment, but I've always found it to be a fascinating development in his character. 2. Similarly, the Snape/Fake!Moody/egg/Filch/Harry-under-the cloak stairs scene in GoF has the startling vision of "non-teacher" Snape in his gray nightshirt. Another glimpse of Vulnerable!Snape maybe, Jen? Confused, and not in control, and outmatched by Fake! Moody, seizing his pained Dark Mark arm, and tuning a "nasty brick color, the vein in his temple pusing more rapidly." (471) I love love love Snape in cool control, as discussed up thread, but this scene gives the opposite view, a Snape that doesn't know what is going on and can't maneuver properly to find out. I think it is a very important scene for making him a multi-dimensional character. 3. Betsy had already made the case for the fabulous Sirius and Snape kitchen scene in OotP, which has so many little wonderful character moments for both, so I'll just add that when Snape's voice gets "quietly waspish," (518) it's time to be worried. Celia From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 15:02:17 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:02:17 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169249 Jen: > I'm going to be mean here and snip out all your fine arguments > because really, there's not much more I can add or subtract from > everything that's been said on the thread. And your thought above > inspired me to try to start a "What I like about the character of > Snape" thread. :) I can be open-minded, I *can*. I'm going to give > some moments where I've enjoyed Snape as a character and admired the > job Rowling has done in creating him: Montavilla47: My favorite Snape moments: 1) The Hospital Wing scene in GoF. This is the moment that turned me not only into a Snape fan, but a rabid HP fan as well. It starts with Snape showing that Dark Mark to Fudge, but there's also the forced handshake, and Snape's black glittery eyes as he goes off to what seems his inevitable doom. (OT: This was the moment that kicked the series from a schoolboy tale into something big. I was disappointed the first time I read OotP, mainly because I expected that we'd move more out into the WW. Instead, we stayed claustraphobically in 12 Grimauld Place and Hogwarts for almost the entire book!) 2) The Hospital Wing scene in PoA. It's so over the top that Snape seems to have charged in from straight from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." What a contrast to Snape's normal controlled behavior! I can't help sharing Dumbledore's amusement. 3) The Occlumency lessons. I could read those pages over and over again, especially the first lesson. I think both of them are making as hard as they can to work together, but there's so little understanding between them! Harry never seems to read Snape correctly and completely misses that he's being complemented. And Snape has so many preconceptions about Harry that he even begin to reach him. 4) Snape kicking Gilderoy Lockhart's butt in the Dueling Club. Go Snape! 5) Snape kicking Harry's butt in the post-tower flight. Take that, Chosen One! 6) Snape healing Draco in the bathroom. What an amazing and unexpected image. I keep thinking of the Pieta when I read about that passage. 7) The First Potions lesson. It immediately makes Potions seem like the most interesting class at Hogwarts, doesn't it? That, despite the fact that the lessons are actually duller to describe than Transfiguration with the tea cups trying to escape, or CoMC with the innerestin' critters. Last but far from least: 8) Snape questioning Harry about the Potions book. "I know what a nickname is!" Montavilla47 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri May 25 15:11:27 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:11:27 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169250 > AmanitaMuscaria now - Does no one think that maybe there's something > that _Marietta_ needs to do to break the curse? > I thought once we discovered that it was still active in HBP, that > the solution was for her to go to the DA and tell them what she did > and why. > I think the wizarding world is harsh, and things aren't meant to be > fair, or easily curable, necessarily. > Witness the Ministry wizard at the World Cup in GoF who had 'had > those horns for a while now' or some such quote. Magpie: I don't see why anybody should think that--least of all Marietta, who has been memory charmed as well. Hermione gives no such indication. She just says anybody who tells on her study group will be punished and that's what happened. Why would Marietta need to go to the DA (which no longer even really exists) and tell them what she did and why? Everybody knows that. This isn't the case of the WW being harsh, it's Hermione being harsh and not giving it a second thought for all we see. She doesn't seem to be waiting for Marietta to do or say anything. She's moved on. And who says Marietta thinks she was wrong? LIke it or not not everyone by default thinks Hermione is right about everything. Even within canon we've got an example of a DA member not siding with Hermione over the curse. Barbara: I read something else into Marietta's punishment. She is given a bad case of acne-- a magical, over-the-top, type of acne, but nevertheless acne. And like most magical things, it is an exaggerated form of the muggle version. In many ways her acne seems to mirror the real version. Marietta's attempts to cover her pustules in the same way many of us try to do. I think acne sufferers can find some solace. ( I have adult acne--roseacea.) Also in the same way that muggle doctor's struggle a bit to manage muggle acne, the healers are having trouble controlling Marietta's magical version. Magpie: I think we all know what Marietta has been given, since it's described: "her face was horribly disfigured by a series of close-set purpustules that had spread across her nose and cheeks to form the word 'SNEAK'." Yes, it's a form of acne. I'm not sure why that makes a difference. Acne is not a pleasant thing to have, especially in severe forms. It's not surprising JKR has never given her heroes a bit of it that we know of. Barbara: I don't think we are meant to believe that Marietta will be permanently disfigured, for we learn via Tonks that wizards can alter there appearance via transformation. Most likely Marietta will learn how to alter her face and out-grow her condition. Magpie: I don't understand why I should think this at all, when canon suggests the opposite. If we'd never heard of Marietta after OotP I probably would have assumed it had worn off. Instead Rowling is sure to tell me the girl's still having to cover herself in the next book. That to me pretty clearly says I should assume it will continue throughout the books unless I hear differently. This isn't regular acne, obviously, so why should I think she would outgrow it? And Tonks is a special case. There's no indication that Wizards can just "alter" their faces. Eloise Midgen tries to hex her pimples off. And also, obviously, I think Hermione needs to learn something here, so for me it's not just about how Marietta can get over it. I think it's more of a problem that Hermione is still skipping through life handing out punishments to people without a thought to the consequences, just as many people on the good side do. Barbara: Hopefully though Marietta and others will learn to take oaths seriously. In the next book oath taking (and breaking) becomes a life and death matter. Prof. Snape (who should know better!) has gotten himself in a mess by making an oath. Magpie: I think Hermione's the main person who needs to learn to take oaths seriously actually, and learn when she's done something stupid, which imo she did with Marietta. She presented her club as a study club at a time before Umbridge had even made her decree, and said that signing the parchment was agreeing not to tell anybody. Snape's Vow, by contrast, was made with Snape's full knowledge of what he was getting into and how serious it was. It was presented as an oath and he knew the punishment. Hermione was playing at what Snape was doing for real. Barbara: What I find amusing is that Hermione came up with this curse. It's the ultimate teenage curse--bad acne. She could have come up with something much worse. I believe that Hermione was attempting to find deterrent that was meaningful but not hideous. It wasn't much of a deterrent though. Magpie: Yes, it wasn't any kind of a deterrant--though I don't see how it's not hideous. Skin diseases aren't too aesthetically pleasing. James could have thought of something worse to do to Snape in the pensieve than pantsing him--that doesn't make it less of a cruel, humiliating thing to do. (It's ironic that there aren't too many worse things ever done from one student to another that weren't something our heroes did that could have been "much worse.") I can't imagine what Book VI would have been like if somebody had pulled a curse like this on Hermione. Sue: Yes, I agree. Marietta brought the curse down upon herself by bad behavior. I suspect that it is beyond Hermione's power to lift the curse, and that Marietta herself must perform some act that will redeem herself and remove the curse. In reading the many quotes of Jo Rowling about book 7 I seem to remember a statement that Ravenclaw will have its day. I believe that one that day marietta will perform some noble act and the disfigurement will vanish. Magpie: Is Hermione a god who gets to curse people forever until they've done some act to appease her and the universe? If I were her I'd be fearing Ravenclaw getting its day. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 25 15:17:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:17:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius Message-ID: <261021.1180106240887.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169251 From: pippin_999 >If Snape had claimed it was his information that got *Harry* to >the MoM, that would be a different story. But as neither Narcissa >not Bella presumably knows anything about how Sirius happened >to turn up with the other Order members, they wouldn't be in >a position to challenge Snape. Bart: OK, for the sake of this discussion, I am going to assume that Snape is really working for OOP, and pretending to be working for the DE's. This assumption is mainly to avoid REALLY complex sentences which don't assume one or the other. So, the DDM's can read it as is, and the ESE's can just switch things around. Being a double agent is difficult, but so is having one. In order for a double agent to operate effectively, he has to give regular and useful information to his enemies, which means that his handlers have to make sacrifices, hopefully to get increased value. In the case of Snape (using the above mentioned assumptions), he knows a lot more than he's telling. He has a lot of info about the OOP's, but is only giving a limited subset to the DE's, while the DE's are thinking that he's only giving up the information they authorize to the OOP's, while he's giving everything. And, certainly, the DE's are going to give him false info that he's not supposed to turn over, so that they can trace it if he does (I'm not sure the OOP's are doing this, because DD does at least claim to trust him. Depends on HOW DD knew, which I can safely say we ALL hope is addressed in Book 7). Now, there are two mistakes Snape can make. He can pass information to the OOP's which they can trace to him, or he can give information to the DE's which is more valuable than the OOP's knew. In both cases, his skills as a leglimens and an occlumens are both key. If he makes the first kind of mistake, the result is simple. He's a walking dead man. Yes, the DE's may string him along a bit more, and give him false information that is going to be truly devastating to the OOP's, if believed and followed up upon (as they did with Harry when Voldy found out about HIS spying). If he makes the second kind of mistake, he needs to do some acting. Because, once the milk is spilled, it is to his advantage to not only take credit for spilling the milk, but bragging about it. Because if he passes information which the OOP would never allowed him to give (except by mistake), the cloud of the disastrous result has a silver lining of making him more credible to the DE's as a double agent. So, certainly, he would brag to Trixie and Cissy about the biggest blunders, in a calm sort of "I meant to do that! I meant to do that!" way. Which of course means that his claims are completely compatible with what he would say as DDM. And, as I've mentioned before, it is NOT compatible with his being ESE, as there is no explanation as to why he sicced the OOP on the battle of the DoM. Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri May 25 15:23:42 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:23:42 -0000 Subject: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00705250401x41e25081ie96d422fa3d1f7a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169252 --- "Cassy Ferris" wrote: > > 2007/5/25, Lauren Merryfield : > > > > 1:Harry decides to be an ordinary boy and finds a > > way to transfer his wizardness to Voldemort, who > > becomes a good person without Harry having to > > die. > > > > 2:It's all been a dream and Harry has been in a coma > > for years and dreamed the whole thing. > > > > > > > > > Cassy: Let's take it one step further: in the epilogue > we find out that Harry is in fact crazy and is having > dellusions while being kept in a mental institution. bboyminn: Or... or... Harry has spend all his time in the cupboard under the stair writing, and on the day when Harry turns 17 and Vernon kicks him out, Harry dutifully packs up his manuscript titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" and heads off to make his way in the big city of London as an author. ..or not. Steve/bboyminn > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri May 25 15:39:22 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:39:22 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169253 wynnleaf It's interesting that to make Hermione's decision "okay" readers generally have to add to canon some extra aspect to it that isn't even hinted at in canon. 1. The pustules will wear off. Not only is this not hinted at, the mention of the hex continuing in HBP is more of a clue that the hex *isn't* going to just wear off. 2. Marietta has to "do something," presumably showing some sort of contrition, and then the hex will wear off. Another imagined idea that has nothing to do with canon. We are given no indication that there's anything Marietta can do. Hermione doesn't appear to be waiting for any response from Marietta. And Marietta has now lost her memory of the events anyway, so it's rather a stretch to think she can feel sorry for something she can't much recall. 3. The hex is really just acne. Another distortion of the clear point in canon that her face was "horribly disfigured." Most sufferers of acne aren't "horribly disfigured." And most acne is certainly not permanent. 4. The hex can be fixed by other adults, but they haven't done that yet because they feel Marietta should continue to be punished a bit longer. Once again, this flies in the face of canon where we're told that others weren't able to cure the hex. We have canon evidence that Marietta's mother would likely have supported her and would, therefore, likely have done whatever possible to get the hex reversed. Why the extra-canon alternatives? If we look solely at canon, we see a permanent and "horribly disfiguring" hex on a girl who cannot really recall the circumstances that caused it to occur. We've got Hermione unconcerned with this state of affairs and going on about her life. And we see Harry satisfied with the state of affairs. If we don't put in any non-canon additions to make the whole thing prettier, it's really a very ugly situation. wynnleaf From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 25 15:52:22 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:52:22 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta Message-ID: <10590379.1180108342064.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169254 From: Tandra Bart: >I'm disturbed too. But I have a hard time believing that >Hermione COULD find and cast a spell that strong, that nobody >could break it. TKJ: > >I don't doubt that Hermione would come up with a spell that no >one could break besides her. This is Hermione we are talking >about. If Snape could do it why not her? Bart: Because Snape is an original and creative thinker, and Hermione, although a great researcher and a quick study, is not; note that she even puts down Fred & George's works (like the stuff in the skiving snackboxes) until she sees how successful their store is in HPB, and then, only reluctantly. And, in HPB, even though she sees Sluggy praising originality, she still doggedly insists in doing things "by the book." At most, I believe she got the spell from a very obscure source. TKJ: >I feel nothing for her. She got what she deserved as far as I'm >concerned. This group was something bigger than her. She didn't >take the time to notice that. She ran to tattle and got EXACTLY >what she deserved. She should have kept her mouth shut if not >for the group then for Cho who was supposedly her friend. IDK >about you, but I wouldn't go and give out information that >would get my friends in trouble. > >Maybe I'm heartless, but I definitely don't feel bad for her >at all... Bart: Like many here, the problem I see is not that it happened in the first place, or even that she still had the marks on her face for the trip home. It's that the next semester, after the war (between Hogwarts and the Ministry) is over, she is still being punished for her part. And if Hermione can help get rid of it, well, I can BARELY see Dumbledore too preoccupied to take note of it, but I find it impossible to believe that Minnie the Cat hasn't told Hermione that enough is enough. I think I've mentioned before, there is something in literature I, for lack of a better term, call "the bad writing clue". That means that if you see what looks like bad writing from an otherwise good writer, chances are that it's really a major clue to at least one mystery within the book. JKR is a strange combination; she is incredibly good at hiding clues in plain sight, but this means that she encourages people like us to go through the books with a fine-toothed comb, and assume that any inconsistency is a "bad writing clue", rather than just plain bad writing. Bart Bart From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri May 25 16:04:57 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:04:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: not giving Snape credit? In-Reply-To: References: <11859706.1180016749972.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2795713f0705250904u5d86e263x31583f6235532fd4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169255 Sherry: I believed that a man who can hate a child on sight from the mere fact of that child's father's identity, was the most immature person and questioned why such a person should be a teacher, I still believed, until HBP, that Snape was on Dumbledore's side, a good moral lesson that someone doesn't have to be nice to still fight for the right. However, I'm sorry, murdering Dumbledore changed all that for me. I'm one who cannot accept any spin on that event. Lynda: I would agree with you wholeheartedly...if it were not that the final chapter of the story is not yet known to we readers and that the circumstances surrounding Dumbledore's death are mysterious enough to scream "possible/probable frame up occuring here!! Possible/probable frame up occuring here!!" I'm not saying Snape is DDM, but neither am I yet going to say he is ESE. I simply reserve my judgment on this topic. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri May 25 17:01:31 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:01:31 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: <380-22007552502523562@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169256 All those crying over Marietta's acne should remember that if this was real life and a secret underground organization had discover one of their own members had betrayed them to the fascist enemy that traitor would be very lucked indeed to survive with her life. This is no longer kid stuff, this is life and death, and there is no reason to except our literary heroes would fit in comfortably with Saturday morning cartoon morality. Eggplant From celizwh at intergate.com Fri May 25 17:14:35 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:14:35 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169257 Jen: > And your thought above inspired me to try to start a "What > I like about the character of Snape" thread. > [...] > I'd love to hear about other moments people connect > with for whatever reason. houyhnhnm: The coolest Snape scene has got to be when he rescues Draco in the bathroom, but one of my favorite minor Snape moments was when Snape caught Harry returning from Hogsmeade. "What was your head doing in Hogsmeade? Your head does not have permission to be in Hogsmeade; no part of your body has permission to be in Hogsmeade." (or something like that. I don't have the books with me.) I just thought it was funny. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri May 25 17:16:25 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:16:25 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > All those crying over Marietta's acne should remember that if this was > real life and a secret underground organization had discover one of > their own members had betrayed them to the fascist enemy that traitor > would be very lucked indeed to survive with her life. This is no > longer kid stuff, this is life and death, and there is no reason to > except our literary heroes would fit in comfortably with Saturday > morning cartoon morality. > > Eggplant > Hickengruendler: Marietta, first and foremost, is still a student. She didn't subscribe to any kind of war group, but to a student organisation, which was still allowed, once she signed the parchment. We also learn, that she is worried about he rmother. I do not really like the mean-spirited little snot, and I don't agree with what she did, simply because she could just have stopped going to the meeting instead of ratting them all out. But I do find the punishment really, really harsh, particularly that it was still on her face months later. I did not read it that way, she was disfigured forever, in fact, I thought her using the heavy makeup (in contrast to the Balaclava) in HBP was an indice, that it vanished slowly, but I still find it over the top. Umbridge got away easier than Marietta (though I hope this will change in book 7). From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 25 17:17:30 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:17:30 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) Message-ID: <23675522.1180113450414.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169259 From: wynnleaf >4. The hex can be fixed by other adults, but they haven't done that >yet because they feel Marietta should continue to be punished a bit >longer. Once again, this flies in the face of canon where we're told >that others weren't able to cure the hex. We have canon evidence that >Marietta's mother would likely have supported her and would, >therefore, likely have done whatever possible to get the hex reversed. That was based on the in-canon indications of Hermione's lack of originality in spellcasting, which makes it HIGHLY unlikely that she could come up with a spell that experts can't undo. Therefore we have it in canon that: A) Hermione cast the spell. B) Nobody HAS undone the spell. C) It is highly unlikely that nobody CAN undo the spell. Therefore, if people can, but people don't, it is likely that people won't. Bart From lealess at yahoo.com Fri May 25 17:16:58 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:16:58 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169260 > Jen: Maybe I'm thick but isn't that blowing his cover if he's on > the up and up? He's saying he passed information to help dispose > of Black but Black wasn't actually supposed to be at the MOM. Order > members weren't supposed to be there. When Harry tried to contact > Sirius only Kreacher was around, so there was likely a plan to > plant the vision when no one else was present at GP except Sirius > and he was to be occupied with Buckbeak. And Harry was supposed to > be at Hogwarts with no Order members around except Snape to know > when he left the premises. So isn't Snape saying he had something > to dowith getting Sirius to the DOM by making that claim? > > Jen > Voldemort was in and out of Harry's head all that year. Couldn't that have been how he learned of Harry's regard for Sirius Black, through images gleaned from Harry's mind? After all, Voldemort was able to transmit fabricated images directly to Harry, so why couldn't the transmission work in reverse? Wasn't Voldemort able to discern Harry's desire to recover his parents in front of the Mirror of Erised? (I hope that isn't movie contamination; I rarely have the books with me.) Voldemort is skilled at recognizing what he considers weaknesses in others, love especially, and using that against them. I still maintain that Snape verbally used the demise of Black to bolster his case with Bellatrix, but he really had no active role in either informing Voldemort of Harry's special regard for his godfather, nor did he assure that Black went to the MOM. Who was going to contradict Snape's story that he did have a role? As to the relationship, he may have just confirmed what Pettigrew told Voldemort, or what Voldemort himself perceived in Harry's mind. And if he told a story of *having* to call the Order in at the latest possible moment to keep his cover, presumably there were no witnesses, with Black dead, to contradict a claim that he assured Black went to the MOM. What does Snape have to fear if he takes credit for helping to finish off Black? It's all gain. He can claim involvement and tweak Bellatrix at the same time. Hoping I'm on topic now, lealess From ohmareeba at yahoo.com Fri May 25 15:06:27 2007 From: ohmareeba at yahoo.com (Marie Benson) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:06:27 -0000 Subject: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00705250401x41e25081ie96d422fa3d1f7a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169261 Lauren: > > 2:It's all been a dream and Harry has been in a coma for years and dreamed > > the whole thing. > Cassy: Let's take it one step further: in the epilogue we find out > that Harry is in fact crazy and is having delusions while being kept > in a mental institution. Marie: I've been lurking a while and have enjoyed all the discussions, predictions and theories, but I have to say this, if JKR makes it all a dream a la Dallas and the Bobby in the shower thing (oh wow I'm dating myself), I'll be siriusly unhappy!!! I do think she's smarter than that and will take a much higher road to finish the saga. From djmitt at pa.net Fri May 25 17:05:38 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:05:38 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a Vampire? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169262 I'm pretty new to this group so, I don't know if this possibility was ever explored. I was rereading OOTP and HBP when it hit me that Snape could be a vampire. He is always described as pale, with beady eyes. His classroom is in the dungeon where it is always dark and he doesn't like light. If fact, if you think about, it he is hardly out during the day. It is mostly at night that he is doing his dasterdly deeds. In the HBP at Spinner's End, JK describes the Cissy as pale also but not so much as Bella and they drink a toast with Snape with blood red wine..Maybe Mrs Malfoy is a vampire also or the whole family. They are always descibed as very pale. Just some thoughts Donna From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri May 25 17:28:48 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:28:48 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: <23675522.1180113450414.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169263 Bart: > > That was based on the in-canon indications of Hermione's lack of originality in spellcasting, which makes it HIGHLY unlikely that she could come up with a spell that experts can't undo. Therefore we have it in canon that: > > A) Hermione cast the spell. > B) Nobody HAS undone the spell. > C) It is highly unlikely that nobody CAN undo the spell. > > Therefore, if people can, but people don't, it is likely that people won't. Finwitch: I think I can think of at least one person who *could* have, and would have - undone the spell: Dumbledore. Of course, as events had it, Dumbledore *had* to leave, so no healing for now. Fawkes' tears might work (but the bird won't do it). Anyway, do you suppose Marietta has been healed by now, even though she wasn't mentioned again? Maybe she took to reading quietly in the library and found the cure (along with improving her grades). Finwitch From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri May 25 17:34:56 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:34:56 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169264 "hickengruendler" wrote: > she is worried about he mother. I don't care. Explaining why someone committed an evil act does not make that act one bit less evil. > I don't agree with what she did, simply > because she could just have stopped going > to the meeting instead of ratting them all out. She ratted them out to someone more than willing to commit torture and murder. This is not a playground argument, this is life and death. > I still find it over the top. In a real world situation a bullet in the brain would not have been over the top. Eggplant From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri May 25 17:36:03 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:36:03 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: <23675522.1180113450414.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169265 > > From: wynnleaf > >4. The hex can be fixed by other adults, but they haven't done that > >yet because they feel Marietta should continue to be punished a bit > >longer. Once again, this flies in the face of canon where we're told > >that others weren't able to cure the hex. We have canon evidence that > >Marietta's mother would likely have supported her and would, > >therefore, likely have done whatever possible to get the hex reversed. > Bart: > That was based on the in-canon indications of Hermione's lack of originality in spellcasting, which makes it HIGHLY unlikely that she could come up with a spell that experts can't undo. Therefore we have it in canon that: > > A) Hermione cast the spell. > B) Nobody HAS undone the spell. > C) It is highly unlikely that nobody CAN undo the spell. > > Therefore, if people can, but people don't, it is likely that people won't. > wynnleaf The reader knows that Marietta's pustules are due to a hex on the list of names that she signed. As far as I know, no characters other than the Trio have the slightest idea of what caused Marietta's hex. In fact, Marietta herself, because of having her memory alerted, probably doesn't even remember signing the list, much less have any clue that her pustules came from a spell associated with the club's membership list. As far as the adult characters know, Marietta's face broke out in the pustules at the time she went to talk to Umbridge. They have no explanation as to why the pustules appeared. None of the adults have been told anything about the hex, its origins, what Marietta did to "commit herself" to some sort of magical contract, or even that the hex is somehow associated with a magical contract (albeit a hidden contract that not even the signers were aware of). When Montague was injured and Pomfrey and others seemed unable to reverse the damage to him, Hermione wondered if they should tell the adults about what happened to Montague, thinking that such information might help in curing him. While the Trio, including Hermione, decided against that action, that scene does provide evidence that the source of a magical injury may be necessary in curing its effects. And clearly, Hermione is *aware* that such knowledge may be necessary. Yet Hermione has not offered to provide such information regarding Marietta's hex. Not surprising. If she was willing to let her friends talk her into supressing info that could help Montague's possible brain injuries, it's not surprising that she wouldn't help Marietta either -- even though Hermione was the originator of Marietta's hex. As regards whether the hex is one invented by Hermione, I agree, Bart, that it's probably not created by her. Hermione is very bright, but that's not the same as being very creative. We haven't really seen examples of Hermione being highly original or creative, and instead, she seems suspicious of anything that's not been "validated" through publication -- a rather immature approach to learning, imo, particularly for a very bright kid. wynnleaf From bartl at sprynet.com Fri May 25 17:39:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:39:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta Message-ID: <13813324.1180114761147.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169266 From: hickengruendler >Umbridge got >away easier than Marietta (though I hope this will change in book 7). Bart: I'm not so sure how easily Umbridge got away. Rumor has it that she screams every time anybody in the Ministry votes "Nay!" on a proposal. Bart From fiziwig at yahoo.com Fri May 25 17:51:24 2007 From: fiziwig at yahoo.com (Gary) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:51:24 -0000 Subject: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00705250401x41e25081ie96d422fa3d1f7a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169267 > Cassy: Let's take it one step further: in the epilogue we find out that > Harry is in fact crazy and is having dellusions while being kept in a mental > institution. Gary: Here's the most obvious big surprise: In DH Voldy gets killed in the first two pages, whereupon we discover that he was just a figurehead for the TRUE prince of evil, who has remained hidden in the shadows pulling all the strings. Yes, the true evil uber-wizard, the real puppet master is none other than (cue fanfare) Vernon Dursley. This shocking revelation sets up the premise for the next 7 books in the series. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri May 25 18:11:48 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 18:11:48 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169268 > > Betsy Hp: > > Are you kidding me?!? It's Snape at his scariest when I most want > to > > drag him off and do unspeakable things to him... (oh, um... too > much > > information?) phoenixgod > I really, really don't understand the attraction to Snape. I mean, I > get the bad boy thing, because I have a bad girl thing :) but aren't > they supposed to be devastatingly handsome bad boys and not someone > who doesn't shower on a regular basis? wynnleaf Well, knowing people who have extremely oily skin and not the greatest teeth, I know for a fact it doesn't necessarily mean they don't have good hygene. In fact, as much as Snape seems interested in keeping the potions labs clean, I'd guess he *does* "shower on a regular basis." We're certainly never told he smells bad. phoenixgod > > But the big thing for me is, Snape is not escalating things here. > > He's taunting Sirius, yes. But the emotional fury all comes from > > Sirius. In many ways it's like Snape is toying with a child. > Which > > is why I have a hard time buying that Snape, after this scene, > sees > > Sirius as any sort of threat. This scene proves to Snape, I > think, > > that Snape is the stronger man. Sirius has gone from campus > golden > > boy to a rather pathetic man. There's nothing there to threaten > > Snape anymore, and I think Snape sees that. > > I will agree that Snape is more in control in this scene and not on > the verge of anger ant exploding, but I do't like the Snape as the > stronger man bit. I think that proves just how small, petty, and > evils Snape can be. Sirius is an escapee from the worlds worst > prison, wrongfully accused, and is now locked away a second time. > Snape meanwhile, has lived a pretty good life, while actually being > a criminal, and never sent away to where he probably belongs. > > Sirius held it together for fifteen long years, held it because of > love for Harry and loyalty to his dead friends. Sirius may be > broken (although a characterization I don't like from OOTP, it does > fit) but I don't think he should ever be characterized as pathetic. > > Snape on the other hand... wynnleaf Snape should be considering Sirius' state of mind after 12 years in Azkaban (although by the kitchen incident, Sirius had been out for 2 1/2 years). But Sirius has always managed to do and say things to prove how much he detests Snape for existing. Practically the first thing Snape heard Sirius say about him in the Shrieking Shack was that the prank that almost killed Snape "served him right." And this after having nothing to do with Snape for over a dozen years. By OOTP, Snape is living an extremely stressful life, what with a full-time teaching load, acting as head of house to kids that include Death Eater's children who can carry tales about Snape to their parents, working as a spy in Voldemort's camp, not to mention the general stress that year of dealing with Umbridge. Snape's life *is* at risk practically 24/7, or at least the threat of exposure is always there. When Snape goes to Grimmauld Place, we don't know who generally starts any unpleasantness between Sirius and Snape. In the kitchen scene, it's my opinion that Sirius' opening remark about Snape not "giving orders" in "my house" is not only very rude, but also intended to provoke Snape. Sirius starts the confrontation. It was also Sirius that drew his wand first. We don't know if Sirius usually started any of their verbal confrontations at Grimmauld Place, but since this is the only example we've got, it seems very possible that Sirius *did* try to provoke Snape regularly. Further, we get a bit of evidence that Sirius was drinking fairly often. Combine a very edgy Sirius, who is drinking too much and intentionally trying to provoke, with Snape who is living under a high degree of stress anyway, and now has to come and go to Grimmauld Place where someone who (in Snape's opinion) is unrepentent about having tried to kill him and is still trying to provoke him --- well, you're just *bound* to get confrontations. I don't exactly blame *either* of the two. In some ways, the bigger problem was, in my opinion, Dumbledore mishandling the whole situation. Note that Dumbledore didn't seem to have told Sirius ahead of time about the occlumency lessons. I tend to think Dumbledore probably considered Sirius a "loose canon" and therefore didn't trust him as much. I don't mean Dumbledore distrusted him as one would distrust a traitor, but as one would distrust someone who you couldn't count on to be responsible, follow orders, or avoid reckless actions. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 25 18:40:24 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 18:40:24 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169269 > Jen: Maybe I'm thick but isn't that blowing his cover if he's on the > up and up? He's saying he passed information to help dispose of > Black but Black wasn't actually supposed to be at the MOM. > members weren't supposed to be there. So isn't Snape saying he had something to do with getting Sirius to the DOM by making that claim? Pippin: The point I was trying to make is that "helped dispose" need not have anything to do with getting Black to the DOM. We, the readers, are primed to think so by Harry's accusations, which we find like bookends a few chapters before and after Spinner's End. But to Narcissa and Bella, Snape might simply be taking credit for disposing of Black as a threat, by keeping him bottled up in Order HQ until Bella got a chance to finish him. There is an irony in that the information Snape gave to the *Order* may have resulted in Sirius's death. But Snape is talking about what he told Voldemort and presumably Voldemort doesn't know how the Order discovered that Harry had gone to the Ministry. (Of course Traitor!Lupin could have told him, and if so, Snape is alive only because Voldemort isn't sure whether he can believe Lupin or not.) Dumbledore's instructions to Sirius in GoF were to lie low at Lupin's. Dumbledore clearly thought it was no longer safe for Sirius to hide in the vicinity of Hogwarts. And it certainly wouldn't be if Snape had instructions to tell Voldemort that he'd just seen Sirius in the Hospital Wing! Jen: And Harry was supposed to be at Hogwarts with no Order members around except Snape to know when he left the premises. Pippin: This is speculation, and there's canon against it. Voldemort had been sending Harry visions of the DOM for months in hopes that they would lure him to the prophecy, without concern that Order members were present at Hogwarts. Voldemort showed in CoS that he knew Harry would not be deterred from pursuing a mystery, and that he believed Harry would be able to bypass adult interference just as he had done. Pippin From muellem at bc.edu Fri May 25 19:02:53 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:02:53 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a Vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169270 > Donna wrote: > I'm pretty new to this group so, I don't know if this possibility was > ever explored. > > I was rereading OOTP and HBP when it hit me that Snape could be a > vampire. He is always described as pale, with beady eyes. His > classroom is in the dungeon where it is always dark and he doesn't like > light. If fact, if you think about, it he is hardly out during the > day. It is mostly at night that he is doing his dasterdly deeds. > colebiancardi: first off, welcome to the group!! well, JKR did remark when asked this question "I don't think so". As vampires cannot be out in the daylight, and Snape does roam around both day and night, I think that debunks that theory. And to answer your question if this was ever explored - yes, yes and more yes'es....ad nauseam, in fact :) > Donna: > In the HBP at Spinner's End, JK describes the Cissy as pale also but > not so much as Bella and they drink a toast with Snape with blood red > wine..Maybe Mrs Malfoy is a vampire also or the whole family. They are > always descibed as very pale. > colebiancardi: I drink blood-red wine(yum!) & I am very pale - does that make me a vampyre? As the Malfoys are seen in the daylight, I think that also debunks the vampire theory as well. but hey, maybe I am not up to date & hip with the latest in vampyre news - is there a new breed that can tolerate the daylight? colebiancardi From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 19:16:20 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:16:20 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > All those crying over Marietta's acne should remember that if this was > real life and a secret underground organization had discover one of > their own members had betrayed them to the fascist enemy that traitor > would be very lucked indeed to survive with her life. This is no > longer kid stuff, this is life and death, and there is no reason to > except our literary heroes would fit in comfortably with Saturday > morning cartoon morality. > > Eggplant > But Eggplant, it was kid stuff. They were kids at school holding a secret study group. Most of the D.A. weren't joining up to because they wanted to take down a fascist organization. They were joining up because they wanted better grades. If this was real life and a girl got horribly disfigured by other students, there would be News at 11, reports on the dangers of secret study groups and their link to Satanism, and civil law suits. I know Umbridge was horrible and the students were forced to take desperate measures. But in HBP, the Ministry is supposed to be merely incompetent. *Not* the enemy. If the Ministry and Dumbledore's Army are on the same side, why is a person who sided with the Ministry still being punished? Montavilla47 From random832 at fastmail.us Fri May 25 19:23:53 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:23:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: <23675522.1180113450414.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <23675522.1180113450414.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1180121033.418.1191846177@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169272 Bart: > Therefore we have it in canon that: > > A) Hermione cast the spell. > B) Nobody HAS undone the spell. > C) It is highly unlikely that nobody CAN undo the spell. > > Therefore, if people can, but people don't, it is likely that people > won't. A theory: Perhaps you are in fact correct that "nobody CAN undo the spell" - specifically, "NOBODY can undo the spell". It can be trivially shown that it is possible to cast a curse on someone without being able to undo it yourself, see Harry's sectumsempra. So, then, why do we assume that Hermione has simply _chosen_ to leave Marietta disfigured? It's possible that she's not "moved on" as some here have said, but is ignoring it to avoid facing her own guilt and sense of failure at being unable to reverse it. --Random832 -- random832 at fastmail.us From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri May 25 19:43:53 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:43:53 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169273 Eggplant: > She ratted them out to someone more than willing to commit torture and > murder. Hickengruendler: Marietta didn't know this. Definitely not about the Dementors, about which even Fudge didn't know, much less a student, and I think she didn't know about Umbridge's detentions either. At least Harry kept them as a secret from anyone but Ron and Hermione, therefore I don't think Marietta could have known. All the decrees, which allowed torture, where only passed once Umbridge became Headmistress, therefore after Marietta's betrayal. I do agree that it quite nasty from marietta, to betray everyone, including Cho, like that, (especially since she knew, that the group was harmless and did not plan to overthrow the government or anything). But one could easily argue, that she didn't realise how grave the situation was. Eggplant: > > In a real world situation a bullet in the brain would not have been > over the top. > Hickengruendler: The DA was still a study group in a school, not a secret group in Second World War. Sadly, shootings in schools happen way to often, but luckily they are not the rule yet. What I find so disturbing about the hex, more than the acne itself, is that Marietta's sins are basically brandished on her face, at the very least for several months. I find the symbolism behind this pretty worrysome. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 20:01:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 20:01:51 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: <23675522.1180113450414.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169274 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > From: wynnleaf > >4. The hex can be fixed by other adults, but they haven't done that > >yet because they feel Marietta should continue to be punished a bit > >longer. Once again, this flies in the face of canon where we're told > >that others weren't able to cure the hex. We have canon evidence that > >Marietta's mother would likely have supported her and would, > >therefore, likely have done whatever possible to get the hex reversed. > > That was based on the in-canon indications of Hermione's lack of originality in spellcasting, which makes it HIGHLY unlikely that she could come up with a spell that experts can't undo. Therefore we have it in canon that: > > A) Hermione cast the spell. > B) Nobody HAS undone the spell. > C) It is highly unlikely that nobody CAN undo the spell. > > Therefore, if people can, but people don't, it is likely that people won't. > > Bart > Carol responds: I can see it as *remotely* possible (but cruel and irresponsible, IMO) for the adults at Hogwarts to choose not to remove the spell if they could do so, but it seems unlikely. Marietta's discovery of her "purpustules" (to quote my typo) and her subsequent public humiliation were surely sufficient. (And note that DD is as protective of Marietta as of Harry in the scene in his office. He sharply reprimands Umbridge for shaking one of his students. He hasn't stopped caring about her simply because she made a serious mistake in judgment that placed some of his favorite students in danger of expulsion.) Also, it is not the job of a student, even a prefect, to hand out punishments other than detentions. Just as McGonagall disapproved of Fake!Moody using Transfiguration to punish a student, I think DD would disapprove of any form of magic being used to punish a student, especially one student punishing another. Unfortunately, the circumstances prevented him from caling Hermione to his office and having a good talk with her. But setting aside what the Hogwarts staff and faculty could or should have done, surely, Marietta's mother would have taken her to St. Mungo's, which has a section for spell-induced injuries. The Healers at St. Mungo's wouldn't know or care what a teenage girl did to "deserve" her disfiguring punishment. They would do everything possible to heal her because that's their job. If they failed to heal her, it must have been because they couldn't, not because they refused to try to help her. It's possible that they would need to see the jinxed parchment to determine the spell that was placed on it (much as Snape seems to have done with the cursed opal necklace and Flitwick tried to do with the supposedly jinxed Firebolt), but since Marietta can't produce the parchment, there's probably nothing they can do to help her. Carol, noting that "purpustules" in her quote upthread should, of course, read "purple pustules" (but I kind of like my typo; at least it's colorful!) From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 19:23:57 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:23:57 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a Vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > I'm pretty new to this group so, I don't know if this possibility >was ever explored. > > I was rereading OOTP and HBP when it hit me that Snape could be a > vampire. Ryan: JKR shot that one down a while ago. ". . . it's when people devote hours of their time to proving that Snape is vampire that I feel it's time to step in, because there's really nothing in the canon that supports that." from http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:tlcinterviews/jkrhbp2 From ceeeff at gmail.com Fri May 25 18:58:27 2007 From: ceeeff at gmail.com (Charmed Force) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 18:58:27 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a Vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > I'm pretty new to this group so, I don't know if this possibility was > ever explored. > > I was rereading OOTP and HBP when it hit me that Snape could be a > vampire. He is always described as pale, with beady eyes. His > classroom is in the dungeon where it is always dark and he doesn't like > light. If fact, if you think about, it he is hardly out during the > day. It is mostly at night that he is doing his dasterdly deeds. > CF: He refereed the Quidditch match in broad daylight. He also sat in the stands during the Quidditch match when Quirrel was hexing Harry's broom. It is well documented in the books that he does go out in the direct sun, which is an immediate contraindication of vampirism. > In the HBP at Spinner's End, JK describes the Cissy as pale also but > not so much as Bella and they drink a toast with Snape with blood red > wine..Maybe Mrs Malfoy is a vampire also or the whole family. They are > always descibed as very pale. CF: JKR has also said that she pictures Flitwick simply as a very short man, although in the movies he is depicted dwarfed and to the point where it is assumed he has goblin blood in him somewhere. Noting the "upper class" as being pale is actually a very historical reference. It has only been in the last few decades that tanning has been popular. Before that, it was desired to have the palest skin possible, for being darker and tanned demonstrated the time spent outside, and the only reason to be out in the sun like that is if you are working. If you are outside working, then you are obviously not wealthy enough to be considered upper class. Lucius and Draco are described as pale, as are all of the Purebloods that I can think of. The only notable exception is Blaise Zabini, who is black I believe. ~CF~ From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 25 20:04:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 20:04:42 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169277 Eggplant: > All those crying over Marietta's acne should remember that if this was > real life and a secret underground organization had discover one of > their own members had betrayed them to the fascist enemy that traitor > would be very lucked indeed to survive with her life. This is no > longer kid stuff, this is life and death, and there is no reason to > except our literary heroes would fit in comfortably with Saturday > morning cartoon morality. Pippin: I was on jury duty the other day, and the judge stressed that no matter how serious the charges were, everyone entered the courtroom "wrapped in a cloak of innocence". She also pointed out that this was not universally recognized, and there were plenty of places in the world where the police could decide that you were guilty. However, as both Ron and Hermione were outraged to hear that Sirius had been sentenced without trial, it seems the presumption of innocence is a right that Hermione cherishes -- or used to. Hermione disregarded Marietta's rights, and did so not in some kind of ticking bomb scenario, but with no more thought than she would discard the wrapper on a Chocolate Frog. I don't think JKR considers human rights a matter of Saturday morning cartoon morality. I'm sure Amnesty International doesn't. I have no use at all for fascist collaborators and I'm sure JKR doesn't either, but her point is, IMO, that if they don't have rights then nobody does. Pippin From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Fri May 25 20:06:54 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 20:06:54 -0000 Subject: DH: Longshot theories/alternative title In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00705250401x41e25081ie96d422fa3d1f7a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169278 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cassy Ferris" wrote: > Let's take it one step further: in the epilogue we find out that > Harry is in fact crazy and is having dellusions while being kept > in a mental institution. Ann: I vaguely remember JKR mentioning in an interview that someone assumed this from reading PS. So if it's obvious from Book 1, I hardly think it counts as a long shot . *Shakes head* Some people, though... what a daft idea. In message 169244 Kati wrote: > The swedish HP publisher, Tiden f?rlag, reveals their translation > of the title for HP7, "Harry Potter och d?dsrelikerna" (Harry > Potter and the Relics of Death). This alternative title was given > to translators by JK herself, as DH is very difficult to translate. > Thoughts on the alternative title? Are relics "only" referring to > the horcruxes (locket, cup)? Ann: I think this compiles as "relics associated with death", so yes, I expect it'll be the Horcruxes. Not only are they used to stave off death, I'm expecting four of them will be closely associated with dead people. I think "deathly hallows" will turn out to have at least a double meaning, though I'm not quite sure what. Ann From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 20:15:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 20:15:42 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169279 Eggplant wrote:> > She ratted them out to someone more than willing to commit torture and murder. This is not a playground argument, this is life and death. > > > I still find it over the top. > > In a real world situation a bullet in the brain would not have been > over the top. Carol responds: But how could Marietta know that Umbridge was willing to "commit torture and murder"? She couldn't know about Harry's detentions, which he kept quiet even from Dumbledore, nor could she haave known that Umbridge tried to use Veritaserum on him. She had not yet tried to Crucio Harry, which was not done in Marietta's presence, anyway, nor had she yet confessed to sending the Dementors, which, I'm guessing is what you mean by "murder." At most, she could have gotten her fellow students expelled, and since DD was still at Hogwarts, that wouldn't have, and didn't, happen, though I concede that she was willing to have it happen. (She may have thought that they deserved it for breaking the rules and opposing the MoM. She was, after all, indoctrinated. Maybe she even believed that Umbridge was a kind-hearted woman who was trying to protect the students and improve the system at Hogwarts, as she claimed. I understand your dislike of Marietta and your feeling that she deserved her punishment, but it's not fair to credit her with knowledge that she could not possibly have, including proof of Voldemort's return, which is not really what the DA was about for most of its members, anyway. (Most of them wanted to learn DADA to pass their OWLs.) It wasn't a matter of life and death. At most, it was a matter of finishing their education. (And it was never that, really. Imagine Dumbledore permanently ousted by Umbridge. Impossible.) Carol, unaware of any school in the world that would put a bullet through a student's brain for any reason whatever From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Fri May 25 20:17:15 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 22:17:15 +0200 Subject: Is Snape a Vampire? References: Message-ID: <011901c79f09$b0320a60$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 169280 Charmed Force wrote: > CF: > JKR has also said that she pictures Flitwick simply as a very short > man, although in the movies he is depicted dwarfed and to the point > where it is assumed he has goblin blood in him somewhere. Miles: Well, this comes from JKR herself, as far as we can believe the HP Lexicon article on Flitwick. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/flitwick.html And I didn't find it in my copy of OoP, but isn't it in there as a speculation why Umbridge might be biased against Flitwick? Miles From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 20:49:13 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 20:49:13 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169281 > >>Phoenixgod: > I really, really don't understand the attraction to Snape. Betsy Hp: Why, Phoenixgod, I'm so thrilled you asked! > >>Phoenixgod: > I mean, I get the bad boy thing, because I have a bad girl thing :) > but aren't they supposed to be devastatingly handsome bad boys and > not someone who doesn't shower on a regular basis? Betsy Hp: Ooh, you've made two mistakes here, IMO. Mistake number 1: Snape is not a bad boy. Lucius, Voldemort (back in his Tom Riddle days, before his nose fell off), *those* are the real Potterverse bad boys. Sirius is a kind of "safe" bad boy, in that he leaves home early, rides a motorbike, is too cool for school, etc. But Snape is not a "bad boy". That's not the attraction. Mistake number 2 is the shower thing. I presume you get that from his greasy hair? That's something that's not all that much of a turn- off, contrary to wide-held beliefs. As proof I offer up just about every rock star that ever lived, and (of course) Captain Jack Sparrow. It's very possible to get behind a guy that's not conventually well-groomed. It's very helpful (and don't think JKR didn't know what she was doing, she's clever that one) that Snape doesn't smell. If there were mention of a miasma of body-odor hovering around Snape, it'd be a bit harder, I admit, to find the man attractive. As it is, all we've got is a man who doesn't fuss much with his hair. And that's not enough to battle the sheer sexual charisma Snape has going on. Not for me, anyway. > >>Leslie: > > Plus, well, there's that British actor, and the movie interpretation > that puts him in a ridiculous frock coat with innumerable buttons > that the real Snape would never tolerate. The real Snape wears > robes. Only robes. > Snape is actually supposed to look more like Wormtongue from LotR. > My guess is if he appeared like that in the movies, far less women > would be salivating over him. Betsy Hp: I can say for myself that Alan Rickman *is not* my reason for loving Professor Snape. In fact, while I do adore Rickman, I don't think he's quite right for the role. I agree that Brad Dourif (Wormtongue) would have been a better pick, IMO. And while Snape is a *much* stronger man than Wormtongue, and that strength would show in completely different bearing and facial expressions, I can easily see a similar look (lank hair, pale skin) working. Oh, and I'd have still salivated. (Tim Roth, who I've heard was JKR's dream pick, would have been even better.) But, jerking this conversation *away* from the medium that dare not be named , I read PS/SS *before* realizing what casting had been done for the... ahem... *you know*. By the time I put the book down I was utterly Snape's. So the attraction came solely from what was written down on the page. But enough about what the attraction is *not* based on. What is it that *is* so darn attractive about Snape? > >>Leslie: > > It has to do with intelligence, capability, talent, and a masterful > sense of control. Or, more succinctly, Snape is "cool". > Betsy Hp: Exactly. The very first scene with Snape shows us his ability to hold a crowd in his grip simply by the power of his words. We also see that he's not only intelligent, he's also decisive and quick to act. That "masterful sense of control" describes it exactly, Leslie. And, to me, there ain't nothing sexier than a man who knows what to do and does it. In many ways Snape is JKR's action guy. Which is really cool considering that Snape is also JKR's nerdy brain. I mean, what a killer combination! How could you *not* fall for this guy? > >>Jen: > > And your thought above inspired me to try to start a "What > I like about the character of Snape" thread. > Betsy Hp This is like, my favoritest thread EVER! I love you, Jen. :-D I just have to pull this one out: > >>Montavilla47: > > 4) Snape kicking Gilderoy Lockhart's butt in the Dueling Club. Go > Snape! Betsy Hp: See, this is just a perfect illustration of Snape. He doesn't brag, he doesn't front, he just smirks (because he knows he's a bad-ass) and effortlessly proves his own coolness. At teaching too! One whisper and Draco is throwing a super cool hex. This is where JKR teaches children everywhere that there's more to a man than hair gel and teeth whitener. Much better to actually *be* the part than merely look it. > >>Leslie: > > He is at his most unattractive when he loses his cool. > > Snape, I would grant, is often pathetic as well. I don't mean the > scornful, disgusted sort of definition of the word with either of > these men. But they make me sad sometimes. And sometimes I feel > sorry for them. Snape, in the incident in the pensieve, comes off as > extremely pathetic. And his inability to put the past behind him > (something Sirius is also guilty of) renders him pathetic as well. > Betsy Hp: There is something a bit broken about Snape, I agree. JKR is (as I've said before) a master at hurt/comfort, and so she does tend to put her male characters through the wringer. I think that in order to balance out the many strengths she gives Snape, she needs to give him those weaknesses. But she balances them well enough, IMO, that Snape's weaknesses don't steal from his strengths. Instead, they almost highlight them some how. Like chiaroscuro. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 21:06:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 21:06:12 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169282 Jen wrote: > And your thought above inspired me to try to start a "What I like about the character of Snape" thread. :) I can be open-minded, I *can*. I'm going to give some moments where I've enjoyed Snape as a character and admired the job Rowling has done in creating him: > Carol: Thanks, Jen, for turning this thread in a new direction. You really are a good sport. :-) Montavilla47: > > My favorite Snape moments: > > 1) The Hospital Wing scene in GoF. This is the moment that turned me not only into a Snape fan, but a rabid HP fan as well. It starts with Snape showing that Dark Mark to Fudge, but there's also the forced handshake, and Snape's black glittery eyes as he goes off to what seems his inevitable doom. Carol: Yes, yes, yes. Add his image in the Foe Glass and Dumbledore's anxious silence as Snape leaves, and you have a scene that left me in no doubt whatever that Snape was Dumbledore's man through and through (before the phrase itself had yet been coined). Montavilla47: > 3) The Occlumency lessons. Carol: Yes, again. Snape reveals some very important information about himself and Voldemort, as well as defining Occlumency and Legilimency for us and for Harry. But, for me, it's his control of his anger, his faint praise of Harry's efforts, and, above all, his concerned, alternately fearful and angry reaction when Harry has memories that are clearly Voldemort's, that makes me sure he's DDM and is doing his best to protect and teach a very unwilling and uncooperative Harry. > MV47 (I'm lazy, okay? ): > 4) Snape kicking Gilderoy Lockhart's butt in the Dueling Club. Go Snape! Carol: Classic! And our first indication that Snape really does know DADA as well as Potions. > MV47: > 5) Snape kicking Harry's butt in the post-tower flight. Take that, Chosen One! Carol: LOL! But, also, he's saving Harry from a Crucio and giving last-minute advice in that scene. If only Harry figures it out! > MV47: > 6) Snape healing Draco in the bathroom. What an amazing and unexpected image. I keep thinking of the Pieta when I read about that passage. Carol: And I thought of Gregorian chant when I read the description of the counterspell. We've had off-page indications of Healer!Snape in HBP (the ring Horcrux, the cursed necklace) but here we see him in action. And *this* scene stays in Harry's mind even after he sees Snape kill DD. He thinks of it in the cave, true, but he remembers it again in the hospital wing. I hear alarm bells going off in my head saying that this information is important. And also Sectumsempta and its countercurse are almost like the two sides of the Snape coin in one symbol. > MV47: > 7) The First Potions lesson. It immediately makes Potions seem like the most interesting class at Hogwarts, doesn't it? Carol: Or, at any rate, the most interesting *teacher* by far. I saw a scientist with the soul of a poet (and the phrase "does not suffer fools gladly" also entered my head). Any teacher would love to have Snape's gift for assuring silence just by walking into a room! MV47: > 8) Snape questioning Harry about the Potions book. "I know what a nickname is!" Carol: One of many delicious lines. I wish I could list them all. I would also include the scene Betsy mentioned with Snape walking all over Sirius with his cool, sardonic wit; Snape gripping the back of his his chair when he hears that a student has been taken into the CoS, followed by his setting up the opportunity for Lockhart to expose his ineptitude ("The man. The very man"); his refusal to cooperate with Umbridge followed by an ironic bow when she puts him on probation (and literally saving Neville's neck on his way out); his unexpected gallantry toward the weeping Narcissa, who kneels at his feet and kisses his hands. Come on, now. Isn't that the very image of a Gothic hero (even though, of course, he's not the hero of the books)? Unlike Jen, I don't find him scary, but I have no doubt that he can be *very* dangerous to those who, like Quirrell, have the wrong loyalties. He has intelligence, power, and courage, and I have no doubt that we'd regard him as a very effective teacher if we saw him from, say, Ernie Macmillan's point of view. (And I can't help loving the way he sweeps out of a room.) Carol, noting that the "ugliness" Harry sees in Snape is usually referred to when Snape is angry with Harry and that we don't see it at all in the objective narrator's description in "Spinner's End" From random832 at fastmail.us Fri May 25 23:57:03 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:57:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Snape a Vampire? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0FA492E8-37D9-4A82-87AC-87E173514775@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 169283 > CF: > JKR has also said that she pictures Flitwick simply as a very short > man, although in the movies he is depicted dwarfed and to the point > where it is assumed he has goblin blood in him somewhere. She has stated he is part goblin, though, he just doesn't look as much like it as he seems in the movies. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=95 --Random832 From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat May 26 00:20:17 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:20:17 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169284 Celia: > 2. Similarly, the Snape/Fake!Moody/egg/Filch/Harry-under-the cloak > stairs scene in GoF has the startling vision of "non-teacher" Snape > in his gray nightshirt. Another glimpse of Vulnerable!Snape maybe, > Jen? Confused, and not in control, and outmatched by Fake!Moody, > seizing his pained Dark Mark arm, and tuning a "nasty brick color, > the vein in his temple pusing more rapidly." (471) I love love love > Snape in cool control, as discussed up thread, but this scene gives > the opposite view, a Snape that doesn't know what is going on and > can't maneuver properly to find out. I think it is a very important > scene for making him a multi-dimensional character. Jen: That scene was so disconcerting to me and you know what it was? When Snape said, "Dumbledore happens to trust me," said Snape through clenched teeth. "I refuse to believe that he gave you orders to search my office!" I felt a pang for him there, in a metaphorical way Dumbledore's trust is all he has left, it's what's standing between him and the dark abyss of his former life. And to me it seemed like Snape was questioning for a teeny moment whether Dumbledore's trust was still intact. houyhnhnm: > The coolest Snape scene has got to be when he rescues Draco in the > bathroom, but one of my favorite minor Snape moments was when Snape > caught Harry returning from Hogsmeade. "What was your head doing > in Hogsmeade? Your head does not have permission to be in > Hogsmeade; no part of your body has permission to be in Hogsmeade." > (or something like that. I don't have the books with me.) I just > thought it was funny. Jen: I laughed at that one too, thought it was clever. I'd be curious to see Snape laugh, a happy laugh I mean. What would it look like? Belly laugh? Chuckle? That kind where you sort of snort through your nose?!? I can't imagine. Betsy Hp: > Ooh, you've made two mistakes here, IMO. Mistake number 1: Snape is > not a bad boy. Lucius, Voldemort (back in his Tom Riddle days, > before his nose fell off), *those* are the real Potterverse bad > boys. Sirius is a kind of "safe" bad boy, in that he leaves home > early, rides a motorbike, is too cool for school, etc. But Snape is > not a "bad boy". That's not the attraction. Jen: I don't think he's a bad boy either, not at *all*. That implies there are girls flocking around and that's just not happening with Snape. Now Draco in the train compartment had the bad boy working a little bit, seeming like he was going to ditch Pansy for bigger and better things after another year at Hogwarts. Betsy Hp > This is like, my favoritest thread EVER! I love you, Jen. :-D Jen: HEE, you know what this means don't you? You have to start a 'what I like about the Sirius character' thread. MWAHAHAHAHA. BTW, I had to look up chiaroscuro. Not sure yet, catch you after DH. Carol: > Thanks, Jen, for turning this thread in a new direction. You really > are a good sport. :-) Jen: Thanks Carol, that means a lot. :) Carol: > Yes, yes, yes. Add his image in the Foe Glass and Dumbledore's > anxious silence as Snape leaves, and you have a scene that left me > in no doubt whatever that Snape was Dumbledore's man through and > through (before the phrase itself had yet been coined). Jen: Not sure if you're saying you doubted Snape's loyalty prior to that or was it more that you thought he was loyal and the scene of Snape leaving the hospital wing just solidified where his story was headed? I read up through OOTP all by my lonesome with *no* outside input whatsoever, just my own thoughts, and read Snape as loyal all along. I thought the times with Harry asking if he could be trusted and Ron doubting him were just a red herring. I guess the combination of internet info and HBP were the things to make me question the character a little more. Carol: > And also Sectumsempta and its countercurse are almost like the two > sides of the Snape coin in one symbol. Jen: Nice imagery. I see him as still holding both those sides but I think you're saying one side was his past and one his present? That's the part I need reconciled in DH--is that part of him still completely in his past? How did it happen if it is? And if not, how much of his darker side is left? Jen From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat May 26 00:25:35 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:25:35 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169285 --- "wynnleaf" wrote: > > wynnleaf > It's interesting that to make Hermione's decision > "okay" readers generally have to add to canon some > extra aspect to it that isn't even hinted at in canon. > bboyminn: Things can be justified in context, but not be good in general. I think that is what we have here. Hermione and many/most readers feel Hermione was justified in her actions, but at the same time, feel it was a bad thing to do. > wynnleaf: > 1. The pustules will wear off. ... > bboyminn: No one is stating that as a fact, it is merely a speculative possibility. The problem is Marietta is a minor subplot, so we have extremely limited information on the subject. Limited information opens the door to speculative resolutions. The Pustules /might/ wear off, or they might not, both are possible. Though admittedly with our limited information, we have seen no clear sign that they are wearing off, but as I said, the story isn't over yet, and we have no clear sign that they are not wearing off. > wynnleaf: > 2. Marietta has to "do something," ... > bboyminn: Again, a speculative possibility driven by our LACK of information. Following a speculative path of logic, Marietta DID some thing to cause the acne, perhaps some redeeming act will undo them. The 'redeeming act' doesn't necessarily have to be a heroic death, maybe an apology would do. It is a fair speculation, yet, it is speculation and never represented as more. > wynnleaf: > 3. The hex is really just acne. Another distortion > of the clear point in canon that her face was "horribly > disfigured." ... > bboyminn: She is 'horribly disfigured' based on the INITIAL reaction of a teenage boy who is already in a very stressful situation, and it is just acne. Who ever said acne was fun? But to represent it, as some have, as /oozing/ pustules makes it seem like her face has become horribly infected and is on the verge of gangrene. It's acne. What 'horribly disfigures' her is the fact that the acne has taken on a specific shape and form, and spells out an unpleasant word on her face. > wynnleaf: > 4. The hex can be fixed by other adults, but they > haven't done that yet because they feel Marietta > should continue to be punished a bit longer. ... > bboyminn: Again, a valid speculative possibility drive by the fact that we have so LITTLE information on the matter. Not a speculation that I'm particularly fond of, but it is presented as a possibility not as a fact. > wynnleaf: > ... If we look solely at canon, we see a permanent > and "horribly disfiguring" hex on a girl who cannot > really recall the circumstances that caused it to occur. bboyminn: We have a current on-going and annoying disfiguring hex on a girl who /may/ not recall why it happened. We know Marietta's memory was modified, but we don't know the details. Did the memory charm make her forget the event, or merely forget her motivation? Again, all the speculation is driven by the fact that we have so few details. Harry's initial reaction under stress may not (or may) be the best indicator of the events in proper perspective. To see Marietta that way was certainly a shock to both Harry and Marietta, but we don't know that Harry initial reaction and shock are a true reflection of reality in perspective. > wynnleaf: > > We've got Hermione unconcerned with this state of > affairs and going on about her life. And we see Harry > satisfied with the state of affairs. > > If we don't put in any non-canon additions to make the > whole thing prettier, it's really a very ugly situation. > > wynnleaf > bboyminn: The story isn't over yet, so I'm reserving judgment on Hermione until I see what she does in the final book. Also, on this issue and on all other hotly debated issues, I refuse to be more upset about it than the characters themselves. Using Harry and Snape for example, many fans are incensed that Harry doesn't apologies to Snape, or that Snape doesn't apologies to Harry. Yet neither Harry or Snape seem to feel an apology needs to be offered or demanded. If they don't care, why should I? Marietta is certainly angry, and Hermoine is certainly angry. Some readers feel Marietta should beg Hermione's forgiveness, other feel Hermione should beg Marietta's forgiveness. Yet, I don't see either one of them offering or demanding that apology. So, again, I refuse to get more upset about it than the characters themselves. I'll read the final book, see what happens, and reserve my judgment for then. Steve/bboyminn From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 00:15:04 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:15:04 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169286 Hi, I've been wondering if maybe Snape deliberately let Harry look into the Pensieve in "Snape's Worst Memory." This would accomplish a few things. 1.) It would give Snape an excuse for ending the Occlumency lessons. He wants to end the lessons because he's already gotten the memories he needs from Harry, & doesn't want Harry to actually learn Occlumency. 2.) It would give him some petty revenge to show to Harry that Snape was right about his father all along. Dumbledore has emphasized how important these lessons are, so if Snape ends them, he needs to provide Dumbledore a valid (non-evil) reason in order to preserve DD's loyalty & trust. It needs to be a truthful reason, since DD will ask Harry as well. DD had already told Snape that Harry's curiosity once led him to look into the Penseive when nobody was around. Snape set it up so that Harry would do the same thing in his office. Here's how I think it went: 1.) Montague, the Sytherin captain, was trapped in the Vanishing Closet by Fred & George a day before. Snape, as head of Household, searches the castle for the missing boy until finally finding him in the Closet on the first floor. 2.)Snape sees his opportunity. He stuns Montague, moves him to the fourth floor bathroom, and modifies his memory so that Montague will only remember apparating into the bathroom. He asks Draco to search that very area for the missing student, and tells Draco to notify him AT ONCE if Montague is found. 3.) Snape goes to his lesson with Harry. Before the lesson, he removes the memories into the Pensieve in front of Harry, almost tempting his curiosity. The text says that he "lazily" raised his wand to begin the spell - every other time, Snape invokes the spell immediately, giving Harry no chance to prepare. Why is he acting "lazily" now? Because he's waiting. 4.) On cue, Draco bursts in to tell Snape that Montague has been found. Snape doesn't snarl at this intrusion, but remarks "very well", and heads out of the office - leaving Harry behind. Snape doesn't put back his memories, doesn't put away the Pensieve, and doesn't escort Harry out. I find this odd - Snape has accused Harry of rummaging through his office before, and closely guards his privacy. Why would he suddenly leave Harry alone there? 5.) Harry, tempted by curiosity, does the same thing he did in DD's office - he dives into the Pensieve. Snape quickly takes Montague to the clinic, comes back down & enters to "discover" Harry. In a fit of rage, Snape yells, tosses Harry out, and ends the lessons from then on. He's created a valid excuse for stopping the Occlumency lessons, and he's also managed to gather Harry's memories & open his mind so that Voldemort can plant a vision more easily. Finally, when DD discovers this, it ironically increases his trust - because it "proves" that Snape wasn't hiding any memories of treachery/betrayal in the Pensieve, only a schoolyard fight. DD believes Snape is touchy, but loyal. Evidence: First of all, students can't apparate in Hogwarts. Supposedly, Montague was found in the bathroom after "apparating" out of the Vanishing Closet. This simply isn't possible. If he was in the bathroom, someone or something else moved him there. Who? Why? Snape had the means, motive & opportunity. Montague's symptoms are very unusual. Supposedly, he was only trapped in a closet for a day before apparating out. So why are the side effects so severe? He is described as "confused" and stunned. His parents are called, and he actually ends up spending weeks in the clinic, until he is finally sent to the hospital. It sounds like the effects of a "Confounding" potion or memory loss potion. And who knows potions? SNAPE. Harry bursts into the clinic a few days later, and finds Madame Pomfrey feeding Montague a "bright blue liquid". JKR rarely mentions these details unless they are important. Why is the kind of potion important? We know that Snape makes the potions for Madame Pomfrey - what if he told her to feed Montague this potion regularly as a "cure"? However, the potion is not a cure, but a befuddlement potion that is aimed at preventing Montague from remembering the real events. The circumstances of Montague's "apparition" and "illness" are very unusual & almost inexplicable - I believe JKR meant these to be clues to indicate that something else actually occured here. lizzyben04 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat May 26 01:25:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 21:25:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Marietta/Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? Message-ID: <380-22007562612517265@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169287 Eggplant: All those crying over Marietta's acne should remember that if this was real life and a secret underground organization had discover one of their own members had betrayed them to the fascist enemy that traitor would be very lucked indeed to survive with her life. This is no longer kid stuff, this is life and death, and there is no reason to except our literary heroes would fit in comfortably with Saturday morning cartoon morality. Magpie: No, I don't that is what would happen if this were real life--if you want to talk cartoon morality, I think that would apply more to the idea that the set up for the DA makes it on par with a secret underground organization you seem to be linking it to. You don't start a life and death underground organization by grabbing a few people in the library, including the girl who likes your friend, and some chick who's friends with her (that you don't know and never get to know), and say you want to, like, having a study club because, you know, OWLS are really important and, you know, Voldemort. And if you sign this piece of loose leaf people you're saying you won't tell the teacher. When what you really need is a group of people actually loyal to you personally who are all on the same page and know what they're signing up for and are willing to make that promise. If all this was so important, I'm surprised Hermione's actions are defended at all when they were so obviously dangerous to her own organization. I think by now Hermione could actually admit to them. . (To be honest, I've lost track of the number of prople in this justice system who deserve a bullet in the brain and no jury in the world who would convict anyone for it according to the non-cartoon morality system.) Bart: > That was based on the in-canon indications of Hermione's lack of originality in spellcasting, which makes it HIGHLY unlikely that she could come up with a spell that experts can't undo. Therefore we have it in canon that: A) Hermione cast the spell. B) Nobody HAS undone the spell. C) It is highly unlikely that nobody CAN undo the spell. Therefore, if people can, but people don't, it is likely that people won't. Magpie: I think that's leap off shaky ground, though. Whether or not Hermione created the spell or not (and Hermione has canonically done new things with spells that exist--weren't the coins her own invention based on existing spells?), it seems obvious to assume that Marietta would be seeking people out to try. People who would have little reason to know what she'd even done. Why the big conspiracy against the girl, with apparently even her parents joining in? I think it makes far more sense to assume that because the spell has not been undone no one has yet been able to undo it rather than create lots of people actively against Marietta for some reason--especially her own mother who was the person she was loyal to the ministry for. The Twins did not do anything creative to Montague, and he still was difficult to cure. Hermione can have done something powerful without having to have created another Sectumsempra. Random: It's possible that she's not "moved on" as some here have said, but is ignoring it to avoid facing her own guilt and sense of failure at being unable to reverse it. Magpie: That could certainly be possible--if we see it. Just going on what we saw Hermione focused on since the hexing, there's not much evidence she's worried about it. That interpretation doesn't require us to come up with stuff that goes against what we're seeing. bboyminn: She is 'horribly disfigured' based on the INITIAL reaction of a teenage boy who is already in a very stressful situation, and it is just acne. Who ever said acne was fun? But to represent it, as some have, as /oozing/ pustules makes it seem like her face has become horribly infected and is on the verge of gangrene. It's acne. What 'horribly disfigures' her is the fact that the acne has taken on a specific shape and form, and spells out an unpleasant word on her face. Magpie: I would have thought a teenaged boy might be less squeamish about such thing. Purple pustules across your face sounds horribly disfiguring to me no matter what shape they're in, though of course the brand is part of it--and still there just as disfiguring as before. I'm sure most people have had some acne as teenagers or as adults. I've never met anyone who had purple pustules. I think the text makes it sound infected on its own. Steve: Also, on this issue and on all other hotly debated issues, I refuse to be more upset about it than the characters themselves. Using Harry and Snape for example, many fans are incensed that Harry doesn't apologies to Snape, or that Snape doesn't apologies to Harry. Yet neither Harry or Snape seem to feel an apology needs to be offered or demanded. If they don't care, why should I? Magpie: I think there's good canonical reason to care when they don't. In this case, just to remind us of another person in canon, Cho doesn't seem happy either on this one. She thinks it was a mean trick. And Marietta herself, who is one character who still seems very upset by it. (Unlike Hermione who is not shown having any emotion about it at all.) As I said earlier, it reminds me of Montague. That was another person whose predicament didn't upset any of our characters--and I didn't follow their lead on that one either. They thought it was convenient. Only people who liked him knew what he actually went through. To me that's canon encouragement to think I might not be wrong to think Marietta's curse is something to worry about since JKR for some reason decided to re-introduce it in HBP, give Harry yet another chance to react differently, and have him be pleased again. Just like she did with all the little mentions of Montague. Lizzyben: Hi, I've been wondering if maybe Snape deliberately let Harry look into the Pensieve in "Snape's Worst Memory." This would accomplish a few things. 1.) It would give Snape an excuse for ending the Occlumency lessons. He wants to end the lessons because he's already gotten the memories he needs from Harry, & doesn't want Harry to actually learn Occlumency. 2.) It would give him some petty revenge to show to Harry that Snape was right about his father all along. Magpie: I have a problem with any plan where Snape intentionally lets Harry see his underwear. I don't think he'd be physically capable of doing that on purpose. He also doesn't seem to have a very good reason for ending the Occlumency lessons even in the theory. Why not just keep doing them? What important memory did he supposedly get that he needed? Lizzyben: 1.) Montague, the Sytherin captain, was trapped in the Vanishing Closet by Fred & George a day before. Snape, as head of Household, searches the castle for the missing boy until finally finding him in the Closet on the first floor. 2.)Snape sees his opportunity. He stuns Montague, moves him to the fourth floor bathroom, and modifies his memory so that Montague will only remember apparating into the bathroom. He asks Draco to search that very area for the missing student, and tells Draco to notify him AT ONCE if Montague is found. Magpie: I think you just erased the plot of HBP. Montague remembers *everything* about being in the Cabinet, including traveling back and forth between the school and B&B and his Apparition into the toilet. Not only must Montague remember stuff to tell it to the Slytherins, I think it's thematically important that the Draco knows about it because he listened to the story with the other Slytherin students. Draco doesn't act like Snape told him to search the bathroom that I remember. Lizzyben: 3.) Snape goes to his lesson with Harry. Before the lesson, he removes the memories into the Pensieve in front of Harry, almost tempting his curiosity. The text says that he "lazily" raised his wand to begin the spell - every other time, Snape invokes the spell immediately, giving Harry no chance to prepare. Why is he acting "lazily" now? Because he's waiting. Magpie: Because they've been doing it for a while? Lizzyben: 4.) On cue, Draco bursts in to tell Snape that Montague has been found. Snape doesn't snarl at this intrusion, but remarks "very well", and heads out of the office - leaving Harry behind. Snape doesn't put back his memories, doesn't put away the Pensieve, and doesn't escort Harry out. I find this odd - Snape has accused Harry of rummaging through his office before, and closely guards his privacy. Why would he suddenly leave Harry alone there? Magpie: All this sounds suspicious enough when you put it that way, but it still also sounds like you're taking what happened and writing a theory to fit it instead of seeing real reasons to believe this just from reading it. First, Snape has no reason to snarl at the intrusion--it's Draco. It seems a bit much to count on Harry diving into the right memory of 3 in the Pensieve in the short time he's gone. My other question is: where's the payoff? I mean, the payoff to the Montague story as we know it is in HBP with the Cabinet Plot. If the memory trip wasn't planned I've got the payoff in Snape's humiliation and anger at Harry. I don't see where the other story goes besides making Snape more bad. There's no important memories he seems to get from Harry, Harry was already having the dreams (and working against the very things Snape told him in class to have more), there's no reason I see Snape has to stop the lessons, there's no evidence on its own of Snape molesting Montague's mind. Lizzyben: 5.) Harry, tempted by curiosity, does the same thing he did in DD's office - he dives into the Pensieve. Snape quickly takes Montague to the clinic, comes back down & enters to "discover" Harry. In a fit of rage, Snape yells, tosses Harry out, and ends the lessons from then on. He's created a valid excuse for stopping the Occlumency lessons, and he's also managed to gather Harry's memories & open his mind so that Voldemort can plant a vision more easily. Finally, when DD discovers this, it ironically increases his trust - because it "proves" that Snape wasn't hiding any memories of treachery/betrayal in the Pensieve, only a schoolyard fight. DD believes Snape is touchy, but loyal. Magpie: I don't think Snape's acting when he's furious at Harry being in his memory. That's one of those moments when Snape wears his emotions on his sleeve. He seems genuinely angry in a way that fits his character in ways Snape intentionally letting Harry see him humiliated and then only pretending that would hurt him doesn't. Lizzyben: Evidence: First of all, students can't apparate in Hogwarts. Supposedly, Montague was found in the bathroom after "apparating" out of the Vanishing Closet. This simply isn't possible. If he was in the bathroom, someone or something else moved him there. Who? Why? Snape had the means, motive & opportunity. Magpie: It wasn't a normal Apparition, which seems to be the reason it was dangerous. But still, allowing that we have indeed been told that you're not supposed to be able to Apparate in Hogwarts, if you start messing around with Montague's memories you start messing with the story in HBP, imo. Not just for technical reasons, imo, but by interfering with the irony of the student war playing a part and sticking in Snape running around messing with his students minds. Montague was trapped in limbo, so his just appearing in the broken Cabinet is just as impossible as his Apparating into the toilet. It seems nobody can re-appear in the Cabinet until Draco fixes it. Lizzyben: Montague's symptoms are very unusual. Supposedly, he was only trapped in a closet for a day before apparating out. So why are the side effects so severe? He is described as "confused" and stunned. His parents are called, and he actually ends up spending weeks in the clinic, until he is finally sent to the hospital. It sounds like the effects of a "Confounding" potion or memory loss potion. And who knows potions? SNAPE. Harry bursts into the clinic a few days later, and finds Madame Pomfrey feeding Montague a "bright blue liquid". JKR rarely mentions these details unless they are important. Why is the kind of potion important? We know that Snape makes the potions for Madame Pomfrey - what if he told her to feed Montague this potion regularly as a "cure"? However, the potion is not a cure, but a befuddlement potion that is aimed at preventing Montague from remembering the real events. Magpie: But isn't it important that Montague remember his real time in the Cabinet? Which, btw, I don't think we are told it's only a day that he's in the Cabinet--I think it's longer. His confusion seems linked to his time in limbo and the difficulty he reports in getting out of the trap. (I don't think his symptoms sound not like what we're told they're from--one might as well say Neville's parents must have been Confunded since they, too, have mind trouble.) And why would Montague need further memory loss Potions if Snape's memory charmed him? We've seen memory charms and they work fine with one zap. I think the reason this is brought up has nothing to do with the liquid being important but JKR pointing to Montague again and again so that he can come back at us in HBP with the Cabinet Plot. Montague's being truly befuddled for a long time is validated in HBP where his experience in the Cabinet is described as being rather harrowing and causing him to "almost die." I don't see any reason for Snape to be continuously feeding the kid stuff. We don't even see Snape in the Infirmary. Lizzyben: The circumstances of Montague's "apparition" and "illness" are very unusual & almost inexplicable - I believe JKR meant these to be clues to indicate that something else actually occured here. Magpie: I think they indicate that JKR was calling attention to Montague because that story was going to be important. We're told his condition is unusual but it's certainly not inexplicable. It's explained in HBP. So far, at least, I don't see any indications that Snape did anything to the boy to get Harry into his Pensieve and stop the Occlumency lessons. -m From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 02:31:44 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 02:31:44 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments: Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169288 I have been reading this thread and I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but forgive me if someone has. Snape at Spinner's End. This is *the* chapter for me. He totally owns Bellatrix, and Narcissa as well. The way he puts Wormtail in his place, effortlessly turning him into his servant...the way he turns the two sisters on each *other*. And it all seems completely effortless. They are completely outclassed. This chapter definitively proves for me that he is NOT Voldemort's servant. because I cannot see Snape serving a wizard that is his mental inferior. Voldemort hasn't a chance against Snape. This chapter is I think the best one Rowling has written, in that it makes Snape into a greater hero/villain than Dumbledore or Voldemort--and he becomes the hero and the villain both at the same time. The only time Snape gives anything at all away is when his hand twitches slightly just before he has to promise to kill Dumbledore if Draco can't. In a sea of other indicators that Snape is DDM, that tiny twitch of his hand is the one that speaks loudest to me. At the end of a chapter where Snape is so masterfully in control, his hand, the one that would have to wield his wand, betrays him. Snape would rather do anything than promise to kill Dumbledore. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat May 26 02:35:16 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 02:35:16 -0000 Subject: Marietta/Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: <380-22007562612517265@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169289 > Lizzyben: > Hi, I've been wondering if maybe Snape deliberately let Harry look > into the Pensieve in "Snape's Worst Memory." This would accomplish a few > things. > Magpie: > I have a problem with any plan where Snape intentionally lets Harry see his > underwear. zgirnius: I could not agree more. I think Harry seeing him in such a situation is the last thing he would want! > Lizzyben: > He asks Draco to search that very > area for the missing student, and tells Draco to notify > him AT ONCE if Montague is found. > Magpie: > Draco doesn't act like Snape told him to > search the bathroom that I remember. zgirnius: Indeed not. He implies that he has been searching the area with Umbridge at her orders, and was sent by her. > OotP, "Snape's Worst Memory": > 'Well, Draco, what is it?' asked Snape. > 'It's Professor Umbridge, sir - she needs your help,' said Malfoy. > They've found Montague, sir, he's turned up jammed inside a toilet > on the fourth floor.' > Lizzyben: > > 3.) Snape goes to his lesson with Harry. Before the lesson, he > removes the memories into the Pensieve in front of Harry, almost > tempting his curiosity. The text says that he "lazily" raised his > wand to begin the spell - every other time, Snape invokes the spell > immediately, giving Harry no chance to prepare. Why is he > acting "lazily" now? Because he's waiting. > > Magpie: > Because they've been doing it for a while? zgirnius: Hee. However, the statement Lizzyben makes is simply false. In every instance shown in the book, Snape gives Harry time and warning before casting the spell: > OotP, "Occlumency": > "Brace yourself, now...Legilimens!" > "Let's go again...on the count of three...one - two - three - > Legilimens!" > "We shall try again! Get ready now! Legilimens!" > OotP, "Seen and Unforseen": > "One - two - three - Legilimens!" > "On the count of three, then," said Snape, raising his wand one more. "One - two - (Harry is distracted by fears Snape is about to make him pay for seeing some of his memories) "Legilimens!" zgirnius: It is the only time he is said to be acting 'lazily' in the course of the lessons. He is also so described in CoS, "The Duelling Club", when he tells Harry not to move because of the snake. It seems to me, based on its earlier use, to suggest attitude on the part of Snape, not that he is waiting for something. Also, for him to expect Draco at exactly that moment is surely unreasonable even with the elaborate plot hypothesized. It could take more or less time to find Montague, and more or less time might be spent talking to him or attempting to provide him first aid. > Lizzyben: > 4.) On cue, Draco bursts in to tell Snape that Montague has been > found. Snape doesn't snarl at this intrusion, but remarks "very > well", and heads out of the office - leaving Harry behind. Snape > doesn't put back his memories, doesn't put away the Pensieve, and > doesn't escort Harry out. I find this odd - Snape has accused Harry > of rummaging through his office before, and closely guards his > privacy. Why would he suddenly leave Harry alone there? zgirnius: Well, if it was all not an elaborate set up as you suggest, then Snape has just learned that one of his Slytherin students has shown up, possibly badly hurt, stuck in a toilet, after being gone for quite some time. And no competent adult is there helping yet. To leave with no further delay is reasonable. Further, this same scenario already played out once before, when an earlier lesson was interrupted by the screams or Professor Trelawney. That time, Snape swept out to investigate, leaving Harry alone with the Pensieve. Harry followed Snape out. So Snape had reason, based on his past experience, to suppose that Harry would leave the office when dismissed. I also don't get where the idea is coming from that showing Harry that James bullied Snape is a form of revenge for Snape. We, the readers, know that seeing this scene was painful for Harry. But Snape himself seems to expect Harry would be amused by his father's actions. Of course, you say he was acting in that scene, and thus perhgaps when he says "An amusing man, your father," but the assumption that Harry is arrogant like his father, and thus would find his arrogant behavior amusing, is an opinion Snape expresses quite consistently from PoA onwards. I do think this is because he believes it to be true, which means there is no way he would see showing this memory as a revenge. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 03:08:38 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 03:08:38 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169290 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Celia: > > 2. Similarly, the Snape/Fake!Moody/egg/Filch/Harry-under-the cloak > > stairs scene in GoF has the startling vision of "non-teacher" Snape > > in his gray nightshirt. Another glimpse of Vulnerable!Snape maybe, > > Jen? Confused, and not in control, and outmatched by Fake!Moody, > > seizing his pained Dark Mark arm, and tuning a "nasty brick color, > > the vein in his temple pusing more rapidly." (471) I love love love > > Snape in cool control, as discussed up thread, but this scene gives > > the opposite view, a Snape that doesn't know what is going on and > > can't maneuver properly to find out. I think it is a very important > > scene for making him a multi-dimensional character. > > Jen: That scene was so disconcerting to me and you know what it was? > When Snape said, "Dumbledore happens to trust me," said Snape through > clenched teeth. "I refuse to believe that he gave you orders to > search my office!" I felt a pang for him there, in a metaphorical > way Dumbledore's trust is all he has left, it's what's standing > between him and the dark abyss of his former life. And to me it > seemed like Snape was questioning for a teeny moment whether > Dumbledore's trust was still intact. > > houyhnhnm: > > The coolest Snape scene has got to be when he rescues Draco in the > > bathroom, but one of my favorite minor Snape moments was when Snape > > caught Harry returning from Hogsmeade. "What was your head doing > > in Hogsmeade? Your head does not have permission to be in > > Hogsmeade; no part of your body has permission to be in Hogsmeade." > > (or something like that. I don't have the books with me.) I just > > thought it was funny. > > Jen: I laughed at that one too, thought it was clever. I'd be > curious to see Snape laugh, a happy laugh I mean. What would it look > like? Belly laugh? Chuckle? That kind where you sort of snort > through your nose?!? I can't imagine. > > Betsy Hp: > > Ooh, you've made two mistakes here, IMO. Mistake number 1: Snape is > > not a bad boy. Lucius, Voldemort (back in his Tom Riddle days, > > before his nose fell off), *those* are the real Potterverse bad > > boys. Sirius is a kind of "safe" bad boy, in that he leaves home Carol earlier: > > Thanks, Jen, for turning this thread in a new direction. You really are a good sport. :-) > > Jen: Thanks Carol, that means a lot. :) Carol again: I'm glad. Carol earlier: > > Yes, yes, yes. Add his image in the Foe Glass and Dumbledore's anxious silence as Snape leaves, and you have a scene that left me in no doubt whatever that Snape was Dumbledore's man through and through (before the phrase itself had yet been coined). > > Jen: Not sure if you're saying you doubted Snape's loyalty prior to that or was it more that you thought he was loyal and the scene of Snape leaving the hospital wing just solidified where his story was headed? > Carol again: Well, I had no doubts about his loyalties until PoA, when one doubt crept in that I still haven't figured out a convincing explanation for. Snape's actions in GoF swept that doubt away in the sense that it showed me that I was right in the first place: his loyalties are with Dumbledore. But I'm still left without an explanation for that one niggling detail, which I'll confess here. While his actions in the Shrieking Shack indicate (unless he's an extraordinarily gifted actor) that he thought that the spy/traitor/murderer was Sirius Black. He certainly believed that Black had murdered Pettigrew, and I think he believed along with everyone else that Black was out to murder Harry. *But* he seems to recognize the nicknames on the Marauder's Map, which is where the doubt comes in. If he knew that Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew, and the Death Eaters knew that the spy was Wormtail, how could Snape not know that the spy was Peter Pettigrew? The only explanation I can think of is that the DEs were generally hooded, so that they didn't know who Wormtail was, and Snape didn't know MWPP's nicknames, but figured out who they were from the insults and the nickname Moony, which would be appropriate for a werewolf. Also, I think it was only Bellatrix and her cohorts who were screaming about Wormtail being a traiotr, not all the DEs in Azkaban, but why was no one in the graveyard surprised to find a DE named Wormtail? Did they not know that he was Peter Pettigrew, and didn't they think that Peter was dead? So, see, I'm not 100 percent sure that Snape is DDM. That and the UV and the killing of Dumbledore raise nagging doubts in my mind. But the rest of the evidence (the first two books, most of PoA, all of the fourth and fifth books) counteracts those troublesome moments. I don't think for a moment that he's ESE, but I can see just enough grey to understand why others don't interpret him as I do and to have just the smallest tinge of fear that they may be right. But in the long run, I trust Dumbledore's judgment, and I can explain the UV and the killing of Dumbledore in ways that I find perfectly consistent with DDM Snape. But I'd really like to hear from other DDM!Snapers regarding his apparent recognition of the names on the map. (Didn't know that was coming, didja?) Jen: > I read up through OOTP all by my lonesome with *no* outside input whatsoever, just my own thoughts, and read Snape as loyal all along. I thought the times with Harry asking if he could be trusted and Ron doubting him were just a red herring. I guess the combination of internet info and HBP were the things to make me question the character a little more. Carol: Me, too, with regard to reading the books on my own and seeing Snape as DDM (except for being unable to reconcile that one piece of information with my view of him), but the Internet had the opposite effect for me. I felt like a member of a support group for Snape fans when I discovered that I wasn't alone in believing in him. (Sort of like the Richard III Society, as some of you know!) And it really helped me to come back here and find that the true believers were still out in force, and it wasn't just me making excuses for my favorite character or grasping at straws. Thank you, SSS and Potioncat and Pippin and Julie and whoever else I'm forgetting! But, as I aid, it isn't HBP, which surely the first half of a mystery novel with Snape as the red herring villain again, that bugs me. It's that one little detail relating to the identity of Wormtail that I can't find an explanation for. > Carol earlier: > > And also Sectumsempta and its countercurse are almost like the two sides of the Snape coin in one symbol. > > Jen: Nice imagery. I see him as still holding both those sides but I think you're saying one side was his past and one his present? That's the part I need reconciled in DH--is that part of him still completely in his past? How did it happen if it is? And if not, how much of his darker side is left? Carol: I hadn't thought about it that way, and it wasn't really what I meant. I think that his Dark side is always present. He came to school knowing all those hexes and curses (and maybe a bit about potions, too), which suggests that his mother let him do pretty much whatever he wanted with a wand and maybe taught him a thing or two herself, or maybe he grew up with his Prince grandparents. (I really don't think that Spinner's End was his childhood home unless all the Muggles were long gone.) The obsessive interest in DADA, which is the reverse side of the interest in the Dark Arts, showed itself clearly in the Pensieve memory. Slytherin itself and his future Death Eater friends would have brought out the Dark side; possibly Dumbledore nurtured the interest in DADA to counter it, or Severus did that himself? He doesn't seem to have been evil, just fond of inventing hexes, charms, and potions improvements, so the Dark Arts and DADA would have been intellectual interests. Remember Hermione's comment on the books in the restricted section? They're books about really Dark spells and potions for advanced DADA students. You have to know your enemy, know what you're fighting. And Snape does, which makes him so much more effective at healing Dark curses (and providing antidotes for poisons) than Madam Pomfrey. Dumbledore said that Snape "returned" to our side, which suggests to me that the Dark side of his personality, the side obsessed with revenge and the Dark Arts, temporarily gained control, and he either joined the Death Eaters or was recruited by them and accepted. And then, when he learned how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy (and possibly, like Regulus and Draco, saw what being a Death Eater was all about), the other side took control again and he "rejoined our side." I don't think that his loyalties have wavered since that time, but I think that the Darker side is always there, a part of his nature that he reveals when the occasion requires it, but in terms of allowing himself to act on it, I think he's put that firmly behind him. And that's why having to kill Dumbledore was such a torment for him, his own personal hell, because he had to let the Dark side out to do it. I really think he would rather have died uselessly beside Dumbledore than kill him. He was back in control when he parried Harry's cursed and saved him from the Crucio. The agony only showed once. Maybe he can use Occlumency to suppress it, to compartmentalize his feelings so that they don't control him. If I were Snape, I'd take that memory out of my head and put it in a corked bottle so that it wouldn't constantly torment me. Anyway, that's how I see Snape, and I think the good side--the Healer of Dark spells, the protector of Draco and Harry--will triumph. Or rather, it already has. It's only Harry and the entire WW and we, the readers, who don't know it yet. Carol, hoping that this freewriting (I can't call it a post!) makes sense to someone besides me From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat May 26 03:23:31 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 03:23:31 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169291 > > wynnleaf > > It's interesting that to make Hermione's decision > > "okay" readers generally have to add to canon some > > extra aspect to it that isn't even hinted at in canon. > > bboyminn: > Things can be justified in context, but not be good in > general. I think that is what we have here. Hermione and > many/most readers feel Hermione was justified in her > actions, but at the same time, feel it was a bad thing > to do. The problem is Marietta > is a minor subplot, so we have extremely limited > information on the subject. Limited information > opens the door to speculative resolutions. wynnleaf Nevertheless, there's a difference between speculation based on specific hints and clues as opposed to simply coming up with completely non-canon explanations, which, in my opinion, are not persuasive especially in the face of some actual canon evidence to the contrary. Steve/bboyminn > The Pustules /might/ wear off, or they might not, both > are possible. Though admittedly with our limited > information, we have seen no clear sign that they > are wearing off, but as I said, the story isn't > over yet, and we have no clear sign that they are not > wearing off. wynnleaf Let's put it this way. We have no sign at all that they are wearing off. We have the mention of Marietta trying to cover up the pustules in HBP which shows us that they are certainly still there, and bad enough to still be considered disfiguring, at the very least by Marietta. > > wynnleaf: > > 2. Marietta has to "do something," ... > > > bboyminn: > Again, a speculative possibility driven by our LACK > of information. Following a speculative path of logic, > Marietta DID some thing to cause the acne, perhaps > some redeeming act will undo them. The 'redeeming > act' doesn't necessarily have to be a heroic death, > maybe an apology would do. It is a fair speculation, > yet, it is speculation and never represented as > more. wynnleaf One might as well speculate that there's a specialist on the other side of the world that's currently on his/her way to Hogwarts and will cure Marietta in December during HBP, but we just never heard about it. In other words, speculation utterly without canon can be just as wild as one wants. I am not persuaded that speculation without any canon support at all is particularly helpful in trying to decipher Hermione's actions, especially with canon support that seems to indicate other alternatives. > > > wynnleaf: > > 3. The hex is really just acne. Another distortion > > of the clear point in canon that her face was "horribly > > disfigured." ... > > > > bboyminn: > > She is 'horribly disfigured' based on the INITIAL > reaction of a teenage boy who is already in a very > stressful situation, and it is just acne. wynnleaf Where in canon are we told "it is just acne?" I can find nothing in canon that tells us that it's even *any* kind of acne. Acne is "a chronic disorder of the hair follicles and sebaceous glands." I don't think there's the slightest bit of canon that tells us that Marietta's pustules are acne. Many assume it is, but that's mere speculation without canon backup. One might as well speculate that it's an extended case of chicken pox, or worse, measles. bboyminn What 'horribly disfigures' her > is the fact that the acne has taken on a specific > shape and form, and spells out an unpleasant word on > her face. wynnleaf And where in canon are we told that the horribly disfiguring pustules are only horribly disfiguring because of the word? Hm, how do you know it's acne? I would like to know what leads anyone to believe this, as opposed to, for instance, one of the alternatives I listed above. And why must it be a Real Life ailment at all? > bboyminn: > Again, a valid speculative possibility drive by the > fact that we have so LITTLE information on the matter. > Not a speculation that I'm particularly fond of, but > it is presented as a possibility not as a fact. wynnleaf I have no problem with speculation and I am not criticizing the fact that we all speculate. I certainly think speculating on hints in canon is interesting. The problem is that we *do* have canon on Marietta, and in this case much of the speculation is aimed at explaining why what appears in the *canon* hints really isn't as bad as it seems. So the fact that the pustules are described as "horribly disfiguring" gets speculated away into only being a bad case of acne, even though canon doesn't tell us that it's acne. The fact that the hex is still evident in HBP gets toned down by speculation of the hex being better and gradually going away during HBP, even though nothing in canon says that the hex is any better. > bboyminn: > > We have a current on-going and annoying disfiguring hex > on a girl who /may/ not recall why it happened. We know > Marietta's memory was modified, but we don't know the > details. Did the memory charm make her forget the event, > or merely forget her motivation? wynnleaf In The Centaur and The Sneak, Umbridge asks Marietta a series of questions to which Marietta's answer is a negative shake of her head (Marietta being afraid to speak due to the pustule hex). She'd been asked to shake her head or nod for no and yes answers to questions. Umbridge asked Marietta "how long these meetings have been going on" and "have they been happening regularly over the last six months?" Answer: negative shake of her head. Marietta doesn't think these meetings have been going on regularly for the last six months. Umbridge asks, "I'm asking whether you've been going to these meetings for the past six months?" Answer: negative shake of her head. Marietta thinks she hasn't been going to the meetings. McGonagall asks, "There have been no secret meetings for the past six months. Is that correct, Miss Edgecombe?" Answer: positive nod. Marietta believes no such meetings have occurred. We learn a bit later that Marietta had her memory "modified" by Shacklebolt. Since I can't find any canon that supports the oft speculated theory that people can regain their memories after having memories obliviated, and since we do seem to have plenty of canon that people *don't* regain their memories, I think it's a fairly safe canon -based speculation that Marietta doesn't remember the six months of meetings and in fact believes that there have been *no* such meetings. That being the case, she certainly doesn't recall signing up for the meetings, nor ratting on the DA to Umbridge. Of course, if someone can supply some canon evidence that people do fairly quickly regain their memories after they've been magically altered, then that gives us some canon support for the notion that Marietta now has something for which she can remember and be contrite. > bboyminn > Again, all the speculation is driven by the fact that > we have so few details. Harry's initial reaction under > stress may not (or may) be the best indicator of the > events in proper perspective. To see Marietta that way > was certainly a shock to both Harry and Marietta, but > we don't know that Harry initial reaction and shock are > a true reflection of reality in perspective. > wynnleaf With the few canon details we have, it seems more probable that the details we've got are more accurate than the speculation that lacks any canon support at all (that have *no* details to support it, rather than a few). > bboyminn: > > The story isn't over yet, so I'm reserving judgment on > Hermione until I see what she does in the final book. wynnleaf I, too, will be interested to see what JKR does in book 7. I tend to think she sets up later plot twists with earlier details. The more obvious the "facts" of the early details, the greater possibility she'll overturn them. The less obvious the facts, the more likelihood that she's setting a stage of real evidence. Just my opinion of course. > bboyminn > Also, on this issue and on all other hotly debated issues, > I refuse to be more upset about it than the characters > themselves. Using Harry and Snape for example, many > fans are incensed that Harry doesn't apologies to Snape, > or that Snape doesn't apologies to Harry. Yet neither > Harry or Snape seem to feel an apology needs to be > offered or demanded. If they don't care, why should I? > Marietta is certainly angry, and Hermoine is certainly > angry. Some readers feel Marietta should beg Hermione's > forgiveness, other feel Hermione should beg Marietta's > forgiveness. Yet, I don't see either one of them > offering or demanding that apology. wynnleaf The problem here is that we can only see inside Harry's head, and we only see things from his perspective. Just because Harry doesn't know about Snape's opinion of an apology (or anything else) means little to nothing as regards what Snape actually thinks. Most people who are furious at someone over an intentional bad action, are only more furious if the other person doesn't acknowledge that they did anything wrong. We don't have to "hear" Snape ask for an apology to realize that the lack of one from Harry is only going to make Snape more angry at him. And Snape doesn't have to *want* an apology for Harry to owe one. And vice versa in some cases for things Snape has done to Harry. As regards Hermione and Marietta, without seeing inside their heads, we can only go on what Harry sees and hears. Through his eyes, we don't see any concern on Hermione's part for Marietta. And yet since we are shown other instances of Hermione's concern for injured students -- for instance Montague -- the lack of a scene showing concern for Marietta is notable. Of course, one might imagine that JKR is thinking "I'm going to mislead my readers into being upset at Hermione for not caring about what happened to Marietta, only to show them later that Hermione was really concerned for Marietta all along." If JKR thought that, she miscalculated because I don't see many readers worried about Hermione's lack of concern, or even noticing it. So it seems more likely that JKR leaves out showing us Hermione's concern because Hermione really *wasn't* concerned. But that doesn't mean she *shouldn't* have been concerned. It's obvious that Marietta was concerned about her own predicament. wynnleaf, who loves speculation, but believes that speculation without canon support is not particularly persuasive, especially when there is canon which seems to support an alternative view. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 02:54:16 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 02:54:16 -0000 Subject: Marietta/Perfection of Morality/Other Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169292 Eggplant > > All those crying over Marietta's acne should remember that if this was > real life and a secret underground organization had discover one of > their own members had betrayed them to the fascist enemy that traitor > would be very lucked indeed to survive with her life. This is no > longer kid stuff, this is life and death, and there is no reason to > except our literary heroes would fit in comfortably with Saturday > morning cartoon morality. LL: Well, I don't know about this being real life, although its fictional status does not, of course, lesson the importance of the moral messages being sent. I understand what you are saying. Of course, that brings up the question of just how much preaching JKR intends to do. She claims to have a horror of it, but I fear in the end she may be preaching to the point of actually screaming like a red-faced evangelist -- and one preaching extraordinarily bad morality at that. When it comes to Marietta, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't revisit the subject under the guise of House unity. Hickengruendler said: Marietta, first and foremost, is still a student. She didn't subscribe to any kind of war group, but to a student organisation, which was still allowed, once she signed the parchment. We also learn, that she is worried about he rmother Now LL: True. But JKR doesn't seem to care very much for such niceties. Harry didn't sign up to be abused by his potions professor, either. Still, she has pushed the end of almost all threads to the last book. We shall see what gets revisited. Hickengruendler: Umbridge got away easier than Marietta (though I hope this will change in book 7). LL: True, and JKR's off-hand explanation of that was, I think, one of her worse moments. Once again, we shall see. But I've always thought that Dumbledore's failure to stop and/or clearly punish Umbridge was testament to his contemptible toleration of Harry being abused, seconded only by his seeming approval of Snape's abuse of Harry. Carol: Nor would JKR's having Snape's loyalties and lifesaving outweigh his sarcasm and hatred of James (I also dislike James, sorry!) be an indication that she approves of child abuse. LL: Frankly, I don't see how it could indicate anything else. We have an abusing Snape and a situation where said abuse is "outweighed" by some higher moral principle. Within such context, abuse would, I think, be clearly approved of, or at the very least tolerated. Now, if you think, as I do, that child abuse can never be approved, condoned, or in any way tolerated no matter the context, then what has been done is utterly reprehensible and indicative of a contemptible willingness to wave away moral imperatives. Or that is the message being sent. As I've said before, I don't think that's the message JKR intends. But one of her great weaknesses, I do think, is that she has a habit of lapsing into very bad writing in which she sends contemptible moral messages. Carol: I, for one, will be very disappointed if Harry lets something so petty as an undeserved zero in Potions stand in the way of his forgiveness of Snape. LL: And I would be sad, but not disappointed, if JKR used the excuse of "pettiness" or the "minor" level of Snape's abuse of Harry and Neville to be cover for dismissing said abuse as morally unimportant. Unfortunately, as shown in her sweeping of Dumbledore's contemptible actions and inactions under the rug, JKR is, I think, very apt to do just that. Carol: Carol, hoping that Lupinlore has stocked up on whatever fuel a wood chipper requires as I expect he's going to need it LL: Mostly they use gas. You are probably right that JKR will fail in a reprehensible manner by approving backhandedly of Snape's abusive behavior and DD's contemptible failures. Gas is expensive, but I have enough. Besides, it would be even more expensive to use books approving of child abuse in a more proper way -- as a bathroom tool. Carol: Harry has never showed the least bit of gratitude to Snape for saving his life in SS/PS, for example. LL: Yet another odd ommission by our "epitome of goodness," don't you think? After all, DD has never suggested that Harry thank Snape or be grateful to him. In fact, DD has tacitly assured Harry that he needn't feel grateful, since Snapey-poo was only paying back a debt to mean-ole James. Phoenixgod said: I think that won't be satisfying for a lot of readers. While forgiveness is all well and good in the real world, forgiving someone who doesn't acknowledge it or respond to it by someone who has justifiable reasons to hate the other person won't be satisfying for at least me. LL: Yes, I would agree with that. Unfortunately, I don't think we will be satisfied. I think that is incredibly bad writing, but JKR has shown herself capable of such (see below). Phoenixgod: I don't think I ever found Dumbledore more unlikable than when he just shoves Harry's very real angry and frustration under the rug. LL: True. As I said above, JKR has a habit from time to time of lapsing into bad writing and sending all sorts of messages I doubt she intends. I think this was one of them. Leslie: You are entitled to believe what you like about Snape. However, if you want to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, and present an argument that is coherent and logical, you will demand the same treatment for those you like that you do for Snape. As you call yourself "Lupinlore" my guess is you will not, however. LL: Nope, I won't. That is, I think, the reward for nice people, they get a pass whereas abusive idiots like Snape don't. Perfectly appropriate and perfectly fair, I would say, and in fact do say. Nor will I give JKR a pass, not that she will care in the least or even notice, if she ends up approving of Snape's child abuse and allowing it to go unmentioned and unpunished. Is that hypocritical? It depends, I guess, on your definition, and as Goodlefriend points out all such things are irreducibly subjective. So, maybe I am a hypocrite, :-). On the other hand, I'm very cute and an above average dancer, and most people find that much more important than any amount of intellectual honesty, no matter how you define it. Lupinlore, going out to test the wood chipper From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat May 26 04:19:48 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 04:19:48 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169293 > Carol again: > But I'm still left without an explanation for that one > niggling detail, which I'll confess here. While his actions in the > Shrieking Shack indicate (unless he's an extraordinarily gifted actor) > that he thought that the spy/traitor/murderer was Sirius Black. He > certainly believed that Black had murdered Pettigrew, and I think he > believed along with everyone else that Black was out to murder Harry. > *But* he seems to recognize the nicknames on the Marauder's Map, which > is where the doubt comes in. If he knew that Wormtail was Peter > Pettigrew, and the Death Eaters knew that the spy was Wormtail, how > could Snape not know that the spy was Peter Pettigrew? zgirnius: I am convinced he knew the nicknames. At the least, he knew James was Prongs, Sirius seems to have called him that habitually, in public situations, based on the "Snape's Worst Memory" scene. I suppose it is possible Snape did not know who of Padfoot and and Wormtail was who (Moony is too obvious not to get, with what Snape knows of Lupin), but even that seems unlikely. What I don't get is where the idea that the Death Eaters knew that an individual with the alias Wormtail was the spy is coming from. In PoA, Sirius says only: > PoA: > "You haven't been hiding from me for twelve years," said Black. "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I heard things in Azkaban, Peter... They all think you're dead, or you'd have to answer to them.... I've heard them screaming all sorts of things in their sleep. Sounds like they think the double-crosser double- crossed them. Voldemort went to the Potters' on your information... and Voldemort met his downfall there. And not all Voldemort's supporters ended up in Azkaban, did they? There are still plenty out here, biding their time, pretending they've seen the error of their ways. zgirnius: No name or nickname is mentioned for the 'double-crosser'. When Sirius says 'they think you are dead', he could just mean they think Peter is dead, which is the common opinion throughout the WW. When the DEs speak of the 'double-crosser', Sirius in his own mind inserts 'Peter/Wormtail' since *he* knows it is Peter that led Voldemort to the Potters, but he may well know more than some or all of the Death Eaters he is listening to. Note "Voldemort went to the Potters' on your information... and Voldemort met his downfall there" is a simple statement of fact which Sirius knows independently, Sirius is not saying anyone told him so or yelled it in his sleep. Since Peter has gone into and stayed in hiding apparently out of fear of Voldemort supporters, someone besides Voldemort knew he was the spy, but I would think it was a closely held secret, and in particular one it would have been illogical for Voldemort to share with Snape. This is because it seems Voldemort hoped to plant Snape on Dumbledore as a spy. From a paranoid espionage story type of considerations, one of the beauties of having two spies within the same organization (in this case, the Order) is that you can then crosscheck their reports and see whether they are lying or holding back information. But only if they are not aware of one another. The first 'bad guy' to use the name is Voldemort in GoF. And in the "Death Eaters" chapter, he first uses it after he tortures Avery. If any present knew Pettigrew at all, one presumes they would be surprised much earlier, since he is not described as wearing a mask. His 'murder' by Black was widely publicized (Malfoy, for one, was in school with Peter). We do not see that surprise, I presume because they are more surprised and worried to see Voldemort is also alive, and they are too busy groveling. > Leslie41: > This is *the* chapter for me. He totally owns Bellatrix, and > Narcissa as well. The way he puts Wormtail in his place, > effortlessly turning him into his servant...the way he turns the two > sisters on each *other*. And it all seems completely effortless. > They are completely outclassed. zgirnius: Huh. This is *the* chapter for me, too. (Which, alas, means it is falling out of my poor beat-up copy of HBP...) I recognized in GoF and OotP that the issue of Snape's loyalties was being set up as an official mystery in the series, and thought it sort of unfortunate that I would never get to see the stuff that would help me decide for myself what I think about it (namely, Snape the spy in action, since how would Harry ever be around for that?!). I was, to say the least, pleasantly surprised when the door Narcissa knocked on turned out to be Snape's! And totally convinced that he's a 'good guy' by the chapter. But I see the chapter rather differently from you. He seems effortless and at ease, but somehow I did not get the impression that it *was* easy, or he was really in control. In particular, it seems to me that Narcissa, despite her show of weakness and those teary baby-blues, walked away with exactly what she wanted. I am not convinced it was exactly what Snape planned. The ominous imagery at the end of the chapter gave me the unpleasant feeling that a mistake had been made. I suppose it could be Dumbledore's, and Snape was just carrying out a plan, but, especially in light of Snape's reactions at the very end after he has killed Dumbledore, I don't think so. From cdayr at yahoo.com Sat May 26 04:51:32 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 04:51:32 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > Carol again: > > Well, I had no doubts about his loyalties until PoA, when one doubt > crept in that I still haven't figured out a convincing explanation > for. Snape's actions in GoF swept that doubt away in the sense that it > showed me that I was right in the first place: his loyalties are with > Dumbledore. But I'm still left without an explanation for that one > niggling detail, which I'll confess here. While his actions in the > Shrieking Shack indicate (unless he's an extraordinarily gifted actor) > that he thought that the spy/traitor/murderer was Sirius Black. He > certainly believed that Black had murdered Pettigrew, and I think he > believed along with everyone else that Black was out to murder Harry. > *But* he seems to recognize the nicknames on the Marauder's Map, which > is where the doubt comes in. If he knew that Wormtail was Peter > Pettigrew, and the Death Eaters knew that the spy was Wormtail, how > could Snape not know that the spy was Peter Pettigrew? The only > explanation I can think of is that the DEs were generally hooded, so > that they didn't know who Wormtail was, and Snape didn't know MWPP's > nicknames, but figured out who they were from the insults and the > nickname Moony, which would be appropriate for a werewolf. Also, I > think it was only Bellatrix and her cohorts who were screaming about > Wormtail being a traiotr, not all the DEs in Azkaban, but why was no > one in the graveyard surprised to find a DE named Wormtail? Did they > not know that he was Peter Pettigrew, and didn't they think that Peter > was dead? > > So, see, I'm not 100 percent sure that Snape is DDM. That and the UV > and the killing of Dumbledore raise nagging doubts in my mind. Celia: Ack! This is why I love this list. After all of the amazing posts I have adored from you Carol, defining, defending, and solidifying DDM!Snape, it is so fabulous that you still have doubts and are willing to speak them. Although I am feeling a bit off kilter about it... Back to the canon though, I have to agree that the identity of Wormtail, throughout the books, has been confusing to me. Not his actual identity, of course, but the issue of who knows Peter is Wormtail and uses that name as his identity. I find it odd, in general, that his Marauder name is the name used by the DEs. I tend towards the explanation that his DE identity was "Wormtail" and that few, if any, knew that Peter and Wormtail were the same person. Even if Snape did know that Wormtail was Peter, and a DE, couldn't it still be possible that he also thought he was killed by Sirius and that Sirius was a traitor? (I'm truly asking this, as my brain is now muddled thinking about it...) Another thought...perhaps Snape knew the Marauders' nicknames were MWPP, but not who was who, and figured that "Wormtail" was Sirius once he learned who the "traitor" was? It was only after PoA that he realized his confusion and started calling the correct Marauder Wormtail. Just trying that one out too. Carol: But the > rest of the evidence (the first two books, most of PoA, all of the > fourth and fifth books) counteracts those troublesome moments. I don't > think for a moment that he's ESE, but I can see just enough grey to > understand why others don't interpret him as I do and to have just the > smallest tinge of fear that they may be right. But in the long run, I > trust Dumbledore's judgment, and I can explain the UV and the killing > of Dumbledore in ways that I find perfectly consistent with DDM Snape. > But I'd really like to hear from other DDM!Snapers regarding his > apparent recognition of the names on the map. (Didn't know that was > coming, didja?) Celia: Eeek, no. See above. But isn't this the brilliance of his characterization? That even those of us with a very solid belief that he *is* DDM or ESE or OFH have to admit there is always some doubt. Canon does not give any of us a lock on our side, IMHO. Even if it is little and niggling, doubt is there. I feel very confident in DDM, based on massive canon discussed ad nauseum here. I will defend DDM!Snape until The End. But *my* weakness lies in "He intends me to do it in the end, I think," at Spinner's End. I can work hard to make this comment fit with DDM! Snape about to take the UV, but I get the niggling doubts every time. That would be another interesting thread- what moments make you doubt your solid beliefs the most... Carol: the Internet had the opposite > effect for me. I felt like a member of a support group for Snape fans > when I discovered that I wasn't alone in believing in him. (Sort of > like the Richard III Society, as some of you know!) Celia smiles and waves. *I know.* > Carol earlier: > > > And also Sectumsempta and its countercurse are almost like the two > sides of the Snape coin in one symbol. > > > > Jen: Nice imagery. Celia: I agree. So much of what we know about him supports the idea that he is full of dualities- expert at dark spells/expert at DADA, Order member/DE, etc. The curse, countercurse example and coin metaphor are lovely. Celia From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat May 26 04:57:27 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:57:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0705252157o25508e5bwec52b4f2aae5e3e5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169295 Carol: Well, I had no doubts about his loyalties until PoA, when one doubt crept in that I still haven't figured out a convincing explanation for. Snape's actions in GoF swept that doubt away in the sense that it showed me that I was right in the first place: his loyalties are with Dumbledore. But I'm still left without an explanation for that one niggling detail, which I'll confess here. While his actions in the Shrieking Shack indicate (unless he's an extraordinarily gifted actor) that he thought that the spy/traitor/murderer was Sirius Black. He certainly believed that Black had murdered Pettigrew, and I think he believed along with everyone else that Black was out to murder Harry. *But* he seems to recognize the nicknames on the Marauder's Map, which is where the doubt comes in. If he knew that Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew, and the Death Eaters knew that the spy was Wormtail, how could Snape not know that the spy was Peter Pettigrew? The only explanation I can think of is that the DEs were generally hooded, so that they didn't know who Wormtail was, and Snape didn't know MWPP's nicknames, but figured out who they were from the insults and the nickname Moony, which would be appropriate for a werewolf. Also, I think it was only Bellatrix and her cohorts who were screaming about Wormtail being a traiotr, not all the DEs in Azkaban, but why was no one in the graveyard surprised to find a DE named Wormtail? Did they not know that he was Peter Pettigrew, and didn't they think that Peter was dead? Debbie: I generally solve these problems by not letting little inconsistencies like that bother me. :-) But I do have an explanation for this. First, I don't think the DEs gathered as a group unless hooded, as you say. While there were smaller groups, or cells, that knew one another, it would have been unwise for a single DE to have had the ability to expose all the other DEs, especially after Mr Crouch authorised the use of the Unforgivable Curses on those who would not talk. Second, even if most DEs did know one another, Peter's role was, as far as I can tell, solely that of an informant. As such, most of the other DEs did not know him, and he was not invited along on DE picnics and other social events (i.e., Muggle-torturing parties). However, they did know that there was an informant and that his code name was Wormtail. Third, the DEs in Azkaban were in a different position from those former DEs, such as Snape, who are free. Sirius, who was in Azkaban with them, must have made it known that Peter was Wormtail, not he. For Sirius, knowing he was innocent kept him sane. For the others, being able to project their anger at the horrific prison conditions onto a dead double-crosser named Peter Pettigrew may have served the same purpose. In other words, the DEs at Azkaban were disposed to believe Sirius' plea of innocence. Snape, on the other hand, ensconced at Hogwarts, was not privy to any of this, nor would he have believed it, given his feelings for Sirius. I also want to offer one of my favorite Snape moments, also from PoA, which to me is a very large DDM! clue. After Harry casts his successful Patronus, he and Hermione witness Snape across the lake: "Snape had regained consciousness. He was conjuring stretchers and lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermione and Black ontothem. A fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved them away toward the castle." It is a rare moment when we see a glimpse of Snape when he is not performing for anyone. And it's what we don't see that makes this a big DDM!Snape moment for me. No histrionics. No summoning the Dementors for Sirius. No bumping Sirius' head on the ground. No Oscar-winning acting performances. He just does his job, and he does it well. Sirius, I note, did not bother with a stretcher for Snape. Of course, he did think he'd be getting an Order of Merlin for his efforts. But IMO that's an essential formative element in Snape's character -- he does all this hard spying work, where he has to play a part and act it well all of the time, but he doesn't get the credit he deserves (except, perhaps, from Dumbledore). Debbie who has been rereading OOP and must admit her appreciation of how deftly Snape pushes Sirius' buttons in their kitchen standoff [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat May 26 05:44:33 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 01:44:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0705252244t67ad375if85b9b5a5740a490@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169296 Jen: The other idea I mentioned was that Kreacher was not the one to pass all the relational information about Sirius & Harry that Dumbledore credited to Kreacher at the end of OOTP. Besides not demonstrating that kind of insight into the relationships of the humans around him in my opinion (post #169113), Kreacher was also not around at Christmas to witness Sirius when he was out of his blue period and showing more affection to those around him, including Harry. Debbie: While I was flipping through the books in responding to the Snape Snape Snape thread, I came across this from the beginning of OOP chapter 24. "Kreacher, it transpired, had been lurking in the attic. Sirius had found him up there, covered in dust, no doubt looking for more relics of the Black family to hide in his cupboard. Though Sirius seemed satisfied with this story, it made Harry uneasy. Kreacher seemed to be in a better mood on his reappearance, his bitter muttering had subsided somewhat and he submitted to orders more docilely than usual, though once or twice Harry caught the house-elf staring at him avidly, but always looking quickly away whenever he saw that Harry had noticed." This is the opening paragraph of the chapter. The second paragraph refers to Sirius' cheerfulness evaporating "now that Christmas was over" and his increasing sullenness as "the date of their departure back to Hogwarts drew nearer." Based on the positioning of the two paragraphs and the reference to the passage of time, it appears that Kreacher returned right after Christmas. but that the Trio did not return to Hogwarts for some days thereafter, giving Kreacher ample time to observe Harry and Sirius. And Harry in fact notes that Kreacher did spend time observing him, undoubtedly at Narcissa's request. Furthermore, based on what Dumbledore tells Harry after Sirius died, Sirius gave Kreacher access to all sorts of Order information, not just the identity of Order members but also "the Order's confidential plans." I get the sense that Kreacher was permitted to lurk anywhere at OGP, at his own pleasure. The other notable thing about this passage is the sense I get that Narcissa instructed Kreacher on exactly what he should be looking for. In that case, it may not matter whether he has any insight into human relationships or not; the relationship between Sirius and Harry should have been obvious to anyone who was looking for it. On another note, could Snape's information that helped dispose of Black have been that Harry was not succeeding at Occlumency? The grand plan to lure Harry to the DOM could not have gone forward if Harry had developed a knack for Occlumency like his knack for flying, or even his mastery of the Patronus Charm. Debbie speculating the night away [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat May 26 05:59:17 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 05:59:17 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169297 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Eggplant: > > All those crying over Marietta's acne should remember that if this was > > real life and a secret underground organization had discover one of > > their own members had betrayed them to the fascist enemy that traitor > > would be very lucked indeed to survive with her life. This is no > > longer kid stuff, this is life and death, and there is no reason to > > except our literary heroes would fit in comfortably with Saturday > > morning cartoon morality. > > Pippin: > I was on jury duty the other day, and the judge stressed > that no matter how serious the charges were, everyone entered > the courtroom "wrapped in a cloak of innocence". She also > pointed out that this was not universally recognized, and there > were plenty of places in the world where the police could decide > that you were guilty. However, as both Ron and Hermione were > outraged to hear that Sirius had been sentenced without trial, > it seems the presumption of innocence is a right that Hermione > cherishes -- or used to. > > Hermione disregarded Marietta's rights, and did so not in some > kind of ticking bomb scenario, but with no more thought than > she would discard the wrapper on a Chocolate Frog. Charles: Nice double standard there. Marietta is innocent of doing the thing that caused the hex to come into effect, but Hermione is guilty of callous, unthinking viciousness for putting a ***CONDITIONAL*** hex on a piece of parchment. She stated that signing the parchment meant agreeing not to reveal what they were doing. That shows more thought than simply tossing aside litter. Pippin again: > I don't think JKR considers human rights a matter of Saturday > morning cartoon morality. I'm sure Amnesty International doesn't. > I have no use at all for fascist collaborators and I'm sure JKR doesn't > either, but her point is, IMO, that if they don't have rights then > nobody does. Charles again: I really don't think that Hermione violated Marietta's rights. That hex was activated by Marietta's actions. If Marietta was not guilty of her treason, then she would not have had any ill effects. Period. The impartial judge here was the contract. It is a simple matter of logic. The logic put into the contract was "If A, then B"--"If anyone who signs this parchment tries to destroy the lives of everyone else who signed by revealing our activities, their face will be covered with purple pustules that form the word sneak." Hermione didn't sneak up to Umbridge's office and curse Marietta on a whim, she built a hex into a magical contract. The terms of that contract were stated at the Hog's Head, although incompletely. JKR is careful to let us know that "There was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as though they had just signed some kind of contract." And please remember that no matter what Marietta's motivations were, she knew that she was in effect damning twenty-some odd students. Umbridge's decree meant that the students in the DA would be expelled from Hogwarts. We know from canon that being expelled from Hogwarts means getting your wand snapped, and being forbidden to do any magic. Not a good position for a witch or wizard to be in, is it? If you think Fudge and Umbridge would have given any of those 20+ students their rights you should probably go back and read the book again. Charles, who thinks Marietta got off easy. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat May 26 07:40:52 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 07:40:52 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0705252157o25508e5bwec52b4f2aae5e3e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169298 Goddlefrood: Even though this is purely subjective, and leaving aside for a moment any prejudice relative to Severus's allegiances, I have to tell you that my favourite Snape moment is the speech with which he introduces himself in the first Potions lesson Harry takes. My opinion of that monologue is that it is the best, bar none, in the series to date. That means from any character. Unlikely as I find it that anyone here would not know this, it is the one that starts: "You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potionmaking ... as there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic." It goes further and is always a highlight of book 1 for this member. It is on Page 102 of Bloomsbaury Paperback for those who may wish to savour it once more. Goddlefrood, grasping to recall the Queen's English :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat May 26 08:01:20 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 08:01:20 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169299 --- "wynnleaf" wrote: > > > > wynnleaf > > > It's interesting that to make Hermione's decision > > > "okay" readers generally have to add to canon some > > > extra aspect to it that isn't even hinted at in > > > canon. > > > > bboyminn: > > ... > > The problem is Marietta > > is a minor subplot, so we have extremely limited > > information on the subject. Limited information > > opens the door to speculative resolutions. > > wynnleaf > Nevertheless, there's a difference between speculation > based on specific hints and clues as opposed to simply > coming up with > completely non-canon explanations, ... > > > Steve/bboyminn > > The Pustules /might/ wear off, or they might not, both > > are possible. Though admittedly with our limited > > information, we have seen no clear sign that they > > are wearing off, but as I said, the story isn't > > over yet, and we have no clear sign that they are not > > wearing off. > > wynnleaf > Let's put it this way. We have no sign at all that they > are wearing off. ... > bboyminn: But we have very vague indication that they might be wearing off, which only serves to illustrate my point, we have so little information that we simply don't know /anything/, so all we can do is speculate. The vague indication has already been brought up by another poster, and it is that fact that Marietta went from wearing a ski-mask to just using make-up to cover her face. That MIGHT imply it is getting better, or it might not, and that is they very point I'm making over and over again, we don't have enough information to do anything BUT speculate. > > > wynnleaf: > > > 2. Marietta has to "do something," ... > > > > > bboyminn: > > ... > > Marietta DID some thing to cause the acne, perhaps > > some redeeming act will undo them. ... > > wynnleaf > One might as well speculate that there's a specialist > on the other side of the world that's currently on > his/her way to Hogwarts and will cure Marietta ... bboyminn: Again, this illustrates my point precisely, there very well MAY BE a specialist on the other side of the world winging his way to the UK to cure Marietta. But we don't know one way or the other. That could very well be how the situation is resolved in the next book, it is as good as any other possibility. We can't base our speculation on cannon because on this limited subplot issue there is so very very little cannon to base anything on. > > > > > wynnleaf: > > > 3. The hex is really just acne. ... clear point > > > in canon that her face was "horribly disfigured." > > > ... > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > She is 'horribly disfigured' based on the INITIAL > > reaction of a teenage boy who is already in a very > > stressful situation, and it is just acne. > > wynnleaf > Where in canon are we told "it is just acne?" ... > One might as well speculate that it's an > extended case of chicken pox, or worse, measles. > bboyminn: Again, you are illustrating my point for me. Where in cannon does it say it is NOT acne, or chicken pox, or measles? Harry gives us his initial reaction, which is the reaction of a surprised boy under stress. He further gives us a visual symptomatic description of what he sees, but he doesn't define it. In other words, he doesn't say acne or measles or chicken pox or skin infection; he simply describes what he sees. Further, we don't know anything about the spell Hermione used, it might have been the 'sneak' chicken pox spell, or the 'sneak' acne spell. My central point is we don't know what the spell was or how it works. Since we don't know, we don't know that an act of kindness or loyalty on Marietta's part won't cure the spell. We don't know one way or the other because there IS NO CANNON to base our discussion on, so we are left with nothing but speculation. > > > bboyminn: > > Again, a valid speculative possibility drive by the > > fact that we have so LITTLE information on the matter. > > Not a speculation that I'm particularly fond of, but > > it is presented as a possibility not as a fact. > > wynnleaf > I have no problem with speculation and I am not > criticizing the fact that we all speculate. I > certainly think speculating on hints in > canon is interesting. ... > bboyminn: But you are expecting absolute statements based on cannon when there is no cannon. All we have is 'close set purple pustules', nothing about oozing, or weeping. The pustules could be Dragon pox, they could be acne, they could be measles, they could be elaborate ink spots, they could be welts, they could be any number of things real and/or imagined (or imaginary). Since we don't know anything about the nature of the spell that caused the problem, it is fair game for speculation. It could be self-limiting and will disappear on its own, that is a perfectly valid way for the situation to be resolved. Without something in cannon to offer a more likely alternate explanation, it is, as I said, fair game. It could take an act of regret, loyalty, or kindness to reverse the problem, but without knowing anything about the spell, we can't say it is or isn't; we can only speculate that it /might/ be. > > bboyminn: > > > > We have a current on-going and annoying disfiguring > > hex on a girl who /may/ not recall why it happened. > > We know Marietta's memory was modified, but we don't > > know the details. Did the memory charm make her > > forget the event, or merely forget her motivation? > > wynnleaf > In The Centaur and The Sneak, Umbridge asks Marietta > a series of questions to which Marietta's answer is a > negative shake of her head... > ... > Umbridge asked Marietta "how long these meetings have > been going on" and "have they been happening regularly > over the last six months?" > > Answer: negative shake of her head. > > ...more Q&A... > > We learn a bit later that Marietta had her memory > "modified" by Shacklebolt. ... I think it's a fairly > safe canon-based speculation that Marietta doesn't > remember the six months of meetings and in fact > believes that there have been *no* such meetings. > bboyminn: You are doing that same thing you accuse us of doing, assuming facts not in evidence. I have already pointed out that Mariette may full well remember the details. When Shacklebolt modified her memory, he may have modified that aspect that effected Motivation rather than details. With a shift in motivation comes a shift in loyalty. That shift in loyalty would have produced the same answers as your suggestion that Marietta remembers nothing at all. I'm not saying I'm right, only that my alternate speculation is based on the same evidence as yours and would produce the same results as your speculation. In summary, without knowledge of the nature of the spell and the magic Hermione used, nor a clear definition of the results, we simply don't have the information to say what did or didn't happen, or what final result will or won't be. JKR could resolve this issue in any number of different ways, all of which would be consistent with what we know at this time. Any of the suggested outcomes has roughly an equal likelihood of being true. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat May 26 13:56:19 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 13:56:19 -0000 Subject: Maraurders/he exists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169300 > Jared: > So here we have Snape using Sectumsempra and missing. Depending on > your view of Snap's current character I can see this easily leading > to the chapters title. > > > If Snape is truly repentant then he could look on this incident as a > time where he could very easily have killed James and regret what > could have happened. > > However, if Snape's hatred of James is really as deep as we see in the > current novels then perhaps his worst memory is that in this instance, > where he could have gotten rid of James himself, he missed. Leaving > aside the ramifications he would have received had he killed James it > does seem like something he could regret. > Neri: There's also a third possibility I've mentioned before: that Snape drawing James's blood at that moment was the reason he has acquired an extremely potent magical Debt when James later saved his life. According to this speculation, the life debt magic has some very severe consequences if the debtor spills the blood of the wizard he owes his life to. So this was "Snape's Worst Memory" because, if only he had not lost his head at that moment and used Sectumsempra, he wouldn't have been trapped in the dilemma that has shaped all his future actions in the series. Remember that Snape had originally put *three* memory strands in the Pensieve, of which Harry randomly chose one. Presumably all three are Snape's worst memories and they are all connected, or what would be JKR's plot point in mentioning the other two? I think the second memory was the Prank, when James had actually started the Debt by saving Snape's life, and the third was telling Voldemort about the prophecy, which made Snape responsible to James's death. The series of these three actions has sealed Snape's bond to James and Harry. There's also the point of Dumbledore having that gleam of something like triumph in his eyes when he hears about Wormtail drawing Harry's blood. Neri From lauren1 at catliness.com Sat May 26 12:26:31 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 05:26:31 -0700 Subject: DH: Longshot theories References: Message-ID: <116301c79f9a$1f1e5510$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 169301 > Cassy: Let's take it one step further: in the epilogue we find out > that Harry is in fact crazy and is having delusions while being kept > in a mental institution. Gary: Here's the most obvious big surprise: In DH Voldy gets killed in the first two pages, whereupon we discover that he was just a figurehead for the TRUE prince of evil, who has remained hidden in the shadows pulling all the strings. Yes, the true evil uber-wizard, the real puppet master is none other than (cue fanfare) Vernon Dursley. This shocking revelation sets up the premise for the next 7 books in the series. Hi, But JKR says she isn't writing any more Harry Potter books. I wish she would carry Harry through this one and go on with him training and becoming an auror. Thanks Lauren From lauren1 at catliness.com Sat May 26 08:09:39 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 01:09:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] alternative title References: Message-ID: <038901c79f6d$4b1ea660$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 169302 Kati: The swedish HP publisher, Tiden f?rlag, reveals their translation of the title for HP7, "Harry Potter och d?dsrelikerna" (Harry Potter and the Relics of Death). This alternative title was given to translators by JK herself, as DH is very difficult to translate. Thoughts on the alternative title? Are relics "only" referring to the horcruxes (locket, cup)? Hi, I think JKR is using the term "hallows" to mean the Horcruxes, but I'm not totally certain of that. When I looked up the term "hallows" I did not get a definition for a noun form of the term. I did, however, get a definition of "relics" as a noun: Hallows: "tr.v. hal?lowed, hal?low?ing, hal?lows 1. To make or set apart as holy. 2. To respect or honor greatly; revere. [Middle English halwen, from Old English halgian; see kailo- in Indo-European roots.] The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright ? 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company." ******* relics: "-noun 1. a surviving memorial of something past. 2. an object having interest by reason of its age or its association with the past: a museum of historic relics. 3. a surviving trace of something: a custom that is a relic of paganism. 4. relics, a. remaining parts or fragments. b. the remains of a deceased person. 5. something kept in remembrance; souvenir; memento. 6. Ecclesiastical. (esp. in the Roman Catholic and Greek churches) the body, a part of the body, or some personal memorial of a saint, martyr, or other sacred person, preserved as worthy of veneration. 7. a once widespread linguistic form that survives in a limited area but is otherwise obsolete. [Origin: 1175-1225; ME < OF relique < L reliquiae (pl.) remains (> OE reliquias), equiv. to reliqu(us) remaining + -iae pl. n. suffix] -Related forms rel?ic?like, adjective Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, ? Random House, Inc. 2006. ******* 1. Something that has survived the passage of time, especially an object or custom whose original culture has disappeared: "Corporal punishment was a relic of barbarism" (Cyril Connolly). 2. Something cherished for its age or historic interest. 3. An object kept for its association with the past; a memento. 4. An object of religious veneration, especially a piece of the body or a personal item of a saint. 5. or relics A corpse; remains. list end [Middle English relik, object of religious veneration, from Old French relique, from Late Latin reliquiae, sacred relics, from Latin, remains, from reliquus, remaining, from relinquere, reliqu-, to leave behind; see relinquish.] The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright ? 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company." Thanks Lauren From djmitt at pa.net Sat May 26 15:22:14 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 15:22:14 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a Vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169303 --- Thanks for the welcome and replies. As for Snape out during the day, you got to remember that he is potions master. If he can whip up a concoction to prevent Lupin from becoming a werewolf, he might be able to make a potions to help himself cope with vampire limitations. Just like Dumbledore hired Lupin under certain circumstances as to make him safe to work with students, Snape could have the same agreement. I know this is alot of speculation on my part, but they are feasible. My rebuttal Donna From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 26 15:52:04 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 15:52:04 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169304 > > Pippin: > > > > Hermione disregarded Marietta's rights, and did so not in some > > kind of ticking bomb scenario, but with no more thought than > > she would discard the wrapper on a Chocolate Frog. > > Charles: > Nice double standard there. Marietta is innocent of doing the thing > that caused the hex to come into effect, but Hermione is guilty of > callous, unthinking viciousness for putting a ***CONDITIONAL*** hex on > a piece of parchment. Pippin: What double standard? That I charged Hermione, an innocent person, with a crime? Um, that's the way the system works, at least where I live. *Every* person accused of a crime is innocent -- until proven guilty. I am not attempting to inflict any punishments on her, nor do I think she should be punished without due process. I can't help thinking it would serve her right, but that would make *me* a tyrant. Not worth it. Charles: She stated that signing the parchment meant > agreeing not to reveal what they were doing. That shows more thought > than simply tossing aside litter. Pippin: "Believe me, if anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know exactly who they are and they will really regret it." -Hermione, OOP ch 17 Hermione took it on herself not only to identify the culprit but to punish them, and to punish them in a way that was excessive, IMO. I don't recall the group voting to give her that authority, nor would excessive cruelty be justified even if they did. What they agreed, and *all* they agreed, was not to tell Umbridge or anyone else what they were doing. The implied penalty was ostracism and expulsion from the group, the usual student punishments. Harry told everyone there that this was not a revolutionary group, its purpose was to teach defense so that they could pass their exams and be prepared if Voldemort attacked them. If it wasn't a revolutionary group, and its purposes were defensive, why should its members expect to be subjected to such vicious retaliation? > > Charles again: > > I really don't think that Hermione violated Marietta's rights. That > hex was activated by Marietta's actions. If Marietta was not guilty of > her treason, then she would not have had any ill effects. Period. The > impartial judge here was the contract. Pippin: In the US and the UK, it doesn't matter how obvious the evidence against you is, you still have an *absolute* right to plead innocence and present a defense before a jury. Unless you plead guilty, the judge decides your penalty only after the jury has ruled. The evidence against Sirius was overwhelming too. He probably would have gone to Azkaban even if he'd been given a chance to defend himself, especially if Peter could not be found. But does that mean that his rights weren't violated? Hardly, IMO. Charles: It is a simple matter of logic. > The logic put into the contract was "If A, then B"--"If anyone who > signs this parchment tries to destroy the lives of everyone else who > signed by revealing our activities, their face will be covered with > purple pustules that form the word sneak." Pippin: I'd have fewer problems with the contract if it had actually stated that. You have to wonder, if a hex like this is such a great idea why aren't The Order or Voldemort using it? Voldemort wouldn't use it because he doesn't trust anyone, period, and Dumbledore, I imagine, didn't use it because the Order was open only to those adults whom he trusted enough to ask to join it. Those would be people of deep conviction who, if they decided to betray him, would not have let something like the sneak hex get in the way of doing it. Charles: > And please remember that no matter what Marietta's motivations were, > she knew that she was in effect damning twenty-some odd students. Pippin: No, she did not. The only information Marietta volunteered was that if Umbridge was in the 7th floor corridor at a certain time she'd hear something to her advantage. That did not bring the sneak hex into effect, and if Umbridge had acted on that information then the DA would simply have been out of action until they found a safer place to meet. I'm not saying what Marietta did was right, but it seems her intention was to find a way to quit the group without offending Cho or getting anyone into trouble. What threats or pressure Umbridge used to extract the information that there was going to be some kind of meeting we don't know, but we did see her manhandle Marietta and shout at her. Also, Marietta didn't take any action until they started practicing to repel dementors. At that time the dementors were still considered loyal servants of the Ministry. Harry had denied that he was planning any revolutionary actions, and them he started teaching them how to defend themselves from the Ministry's enforcers. Of course in Harry's mind the dementors were dark creatures who were going to join Voldemort any day, but there's no canon that he shared that view with the class. It'd be a bit like joining a self-defense class taught by a known radical who declared that his intentions were peaceful, and then being shown how to smuggle weapons past security. Marietta could have been worried that Harry really was part of a plot against the Ministry and was involving people in that without their knowledge. Pippin From bawilson at citynet.net Sat May 26 15:45:45 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:45:45 -0400 Subject: Responses to Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169305 "TKJ: I feel nothing for her. She got what she deserved as far as I'm concerned. This group was something bigger than her. She didn't take the time to notice that. She ran to tattle and got EXACTLY what she deserved. She should have kept her mouth shut if not for the group then for Cho who was supposedly her friend. IDK about you, but I wouldn't go and give out information that would get my friends in trouble. Maybe I'm heartless, but I definitely don't feel bad for her at all." I agree with you. Remember, this is a school story, and one of the most important articles of the Code of the Schoolyard is don't rat people out. It has been a long time since I have been in school, but I remember that the snitch, the peacher, the tattletale, whatever you called him/her was generally considered to be at best a few steps above pond scum in the Chain of Being. 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 26 16:08:10 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:08:10 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169306 > > bboyminn: . > When Shacklebolt modified her memory, he may have > modified that aspect that effected Motivation rather > than details. With a shift in motivation comes a shift > in loyalty. That shift in loyalty would have produced > the same answers as your suggestion that Marietta > remembers nothing at all. Pippin: But there's no canon that memory charms can shift motivation, or that Marietta's motivation has shifted. Good heavens, if the Ministry has that kind of power, it's a shame they haven't reformed a few Death Eaters that way, not to mention Riddle himself. Zap! you're a good guy. There is ample canon that memory charms make people forget their acquired knowledge and their experiences. But even a memory charm as violent as the one that affected Lockhart didn't cause him to change his motivations or his loyalties. What you're describing sounds a lot more like the Imperius Curse, actually. Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat May 26 16:24:53 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:24:53 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169307 -Carol Wrote: > But how could Marietta know that Umbridge > was willing to "commit torture and murder"? If Marietta didn't understand what sort of person Umbridge was then she most certainly should have! And I think members of the French Resistance could be forgiven for being a little impatient listening to excuses from one of their member explaining why he put all their lives in danger by betraying them to the Nazis. > She may have thought [ ] Can't you see how irrelevant what a traitor thought would be to soldier fighting on the front lines? Whatever thoughts were dancing in her head her actions could have killed them all, and as it was her action eventual led to the death of Harry's Godfather. > Carol, unaware of any school in the world > that would put a bullet through a student's > brain for any reason whatever Eggplant, unaware of any school in the world except Hogwarts where teachers torture students and try to murder them. "pippin_999" Wrote: > I was on jury duty the other day, > and the judge stressed Off the top of my head I can't think of anything a judge said (or any lawyer for that matter) that was both true and not trivially obvious. > both Ron and Hermione were outraged > to hear that Sirius had been sentenced > without trial They had every reason to be outraged, and even if Sirius had a trial it would have been a Kangaroo Court. The fact is the Wizard world did not have a working judicial system, especially if the victims were unpopular with the Ministry like Sirius, Harry, and the DA. In a case like that the only solution is to take justice into your own hands. True, that is far from the ideal situation, but it's the best they could do at the time, and some justice is better than no justice. > I don't think JKR considers human rights > a matter of Saturday morning cartoon morality. I agree, and that's exactly why JKR does not encourage her readers to weep over Marietta. hickengruendler Wrote: > I do agree that it quite nasty from > marietta, to betray everyone It was more than nasty, it was evil, an evil deserving the harshest punishment; but all she got was acne. montavilla47 > But Eggplant, it was kid stuff. They were > kids at school holding a secret study group. This kids study group held their own against a gang of murderous Death Eaters that outnumbered them two to one. > in HBP, the Ministry is supposed to be merely > incompetent. *Not* the enemy. Oh I think the Ministry is very much the enemy (remember Umbridge still works there), not the same enemy as Voldemort but an enemy nevertheless. And besides, we were talking about OOP not HBP. > If the Ministry and Dumbledore's Army are on > the same side, why is a person who sided > with the Ministry still being punished? Because that person came very close to killing them all. Eggplant From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 16:30:03 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:30:03 -0000 Subject: Snape at Spinner's End. Was: Snape-favorite moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169308 zgirnius: Huh. This is *the* chapter for me, too. (Which, alas, means it is falling out of my poor beat-up copy of HBP...) I recognized in GoF and OotP that the issue of Snape's loyalties was being set up as an official mystery in the series, and thought it sort of unfortunate that I would never get to see the stuff that would help me decide for myself what I think about it (namely, Snape the spy in action, since how would Harry ever be around for that?!). I was, to say the least, pleasantly surprised when the door Narcissa knocked on turned out to be Snape's! And totally convinced that he's a 'good guy' by the chapter. But I see the chapter rather differently from you. He seems effortless and at ease, but somehow I did not get the impression that it *was* easy, or he was really in control. Leslie41: It *seems* effortless, just like Fred Astaire dancing. But obviously Snape had to be on his toes here (pardon the pun!). He was in a situation where he had three different threats from three different people, and he had to deal with them all. 1) Wormtail is making every effort to spy on him, and put himself in the middle of the action. That will *not* do. 2) Narcissa is obviously upset and wants something from him, or why would she be there? 3) Bellatrix loathes and is jealous of him, and does not trust him at all. Making it all seem effortless is part of the reason why he really shines here. zgirnius: In particular, it seems to me that Narcissa, despite her show of weakness and those teary baby-blues, walked away with exactly what she wanted. I am not convinced it was exactly what Snape planned. Leslie41: When the book first came out, I would have tended to agree with you, and I thought Snape was merely responding as deftly as he could to the situation as it unfolded. I don't think that now. I think that Snape knew all along what the "plan" was, and knew what Narcissa wanted from the moment she showed up at his door, looking like "a drowned person". Why else would she come to his "dunghill" of a home, unless it was a matter of direst importance? Unless she had something crucial to ask of him? Doubtless he suspected that Narcissa would show up, and the plan for what to do in that case was already in his head. Why do I think that? For many reasons. Firstly, you notice that from the beginning the only person he really is adamant about keeping away from the discussion is Wormtail. Wormtail must get them drinks and return to his bedroom. Snape knows Wormtail will report to Voldemort. He then, in explicit detail, counters every single one of Bellatrix' assumptions about him; every reason that she might have to criticize, he counters. And does so while making her seem stupid and ill- informed. He tells Narcissa not to speak of her problem because "the Dark Lord has forbidden it". Then, after looking through the window to see if anyone is spying on them, he tells her he knows of it already. Why would he even try to keep her from speaking it if he really didn't know? He's already spent a long while countering Bella's insinuations. He could say something like: "I understand completely, Narcissa, that you don't feel you can tell me, but you will understand if you don't that I cannot help you." Then all he would need to do is smile, and wait. But he himself *offers* to help Draco. Narcissa doesn't ask. Then, when she does request the unbreakable vow, Snape's voice is "blank, unreadable." Now, if Snape is truly in league with Voldemort, why would he try to hide his emotions? Why would he not be at least a bit gleeful at the prospect of killing Dumbledore? "It would be my greatest pleasure..." he might say. But he's veiling his emotions. Though he and Dumbledore doubtless suspected Narcissa might ask for his help, now she HAS. Now he must COMMIT FULLY to the action. It's a hard moment for him. The worst case scenario has materialized. But he keeps his cool. As to the issue of why Dumbledore would insist that Snape commit to killing him, that's a hotly discussed question. Mostly because Dumbledore is extremely old (even for a wizard--check some of the timelines), is near to death anyway, and dying in this manner will help the cause against Voldemort and keep Draco from being a murderer. Good reasons, both, though Snape certainly doesn't want to do it. zgirnius: The ominous imagery at the end of the chapter gave me the unpleasant feeling that a mistake had been made. Leslie41: Not a mistake. An extremely difficult commitment to a necessary course of action. zgirnius: I suppose it (the mistake) could be Dumbledore's, and Snape was just carrying out a plan, but, especially in light of Snape's reactions at the very end after he has killed Dumbledore, I don't think so. Leslie41: Oh, I *do*...and it's all the more reason to admire him in this situation. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 16:38:45 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:38:45 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169309 >> Charles: > > And please remember that no matter what Marietta's motivations were, > > she knew that she was in effect damning twenty-some odd students. > > Pippin: > No, she did not. The only information Marietta volunteered was that > if Umbridge was in the 7th floor corridor at a certain time she'd hear > something to her advantage. That did not bring the sneak hex into > effect, and if Umbridge had acted on that information then the DA > would simply have been out of action until they found a safer > place to meet. I'm not saying what Marietta did was right, but > it seems her intention was to find a way to quit the group without > offending Cho or getting anyone into trouble. Alla: She went to Umbridge, Pippin - to **Umbridge**, the person whom I agree is capable of torture and murder. I think she went above and beyond of trying to quit the group without offending Cho and gettin g anyone into trouble, IMO. I am sure this was raised in the past - after all this is one of much discussed topics, but I will say it again - much is being made of Marietta being torn between loyalty to her mother and DA ( replying to thread in general). I would have MUCH, much less problems with Marietta's treachery ( IMO of course) if she went to **her mother**. Instead she went to Umbridge, she may not have seen what Umbridge done to Harry, but unless she is completely blind, she saw what Umbridge does to Hogwarts, no? I think Marietta made a conscious choice. I despise that choise and I sure think though that this is the choice she needed to pay for and she did. I have no sympathy for Marietta whatsoever. Maybe because the example of Peter Pettigrew is right there. Yes, it is not the same, even though I disagree that DA was **just a study group**. I think the intention to defend themselves against Voldemort was clearly there. I think it is one of those parallels with the twist, where younger generation does things better than the older one. Hermione hex was not perfect, sure, even though I do applaud her intentions, the execution could have been better, yes IMO. But I sure wish that Order of Phoenix at least **tried** to prevent the traitor passing information. DA managed it - sure DD interfered, but Umbridge did not get what she wanted. Order of Phoenix did not seem to manage it in the first war. JMO, Alla From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat May 26 16:47:38 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:47:38 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169310 Charles now: As this subject is one that soured me on this group before, I'm going to let most of it go, but I'm answering this one point before I bow out of the subject of Traitoretta: > > Charles (earlier): > > And please remember that no matter what Marietta's motivations were, > > she knew that she was in effect damning twenty-some odd students. > > Pippin: > No, she did not. The only information Marietta volunteered was that > if Umbridge was in the 7th floor corridor at a certain time she'd hear > something to her advantage. That did not bring the sneak hex into > effect, and if Umbridge had acted on that information then the DA > would simply have been out of action until they found a safer > place to meet. I'm not saying what Marietta did was right, but > it seems her intention was to find a way to quit the group without > offending Cho or getting anyone into trouble. > > > What threats or pressure Umbridge used to extract the information > that there was going to be some kind of meeting we don't know, > but we did see her manhandle Marietta and shout at her. Charles now: Yes, she did. Educational Decree Number 24 was public knowledge. Whatever you think of her motive, she most certainly knew that anyone caught at that meeting would be expelled. If Marietta had remained silent on exactly what she would have learned to her advantage, it is entirely possible within the bounds of known canon that she would have got away with her treason and the rest of the DA would have been expelled. I quote: "BY ORDER OF THE HIGH INQUISITOR OF HOGWARTS All student organisations, societies, teams, groups and clubs are henceforth disbanded. An organisation, society, team, group or club is hereby defined as a regular meeting of three or more students. Permission to re-form may be sought from the High Inquisitor (Professor Umbridge). No student organisation, society, team, group or club may exist without the knowledge and approval of the High Inquisitor. Any student found to have formed, or to belong to, an organisa?tion, society, team, group or club that has not been approved by the High Inquisitor will be expelled. The above is in accordance with Educational Decree Number Twenty-four. Signed: Dolores Jane Umbridge, High Inquisitor"(OOTP, Chapter 17) It does not say could, might, or may. It says WILL. And either Marietta knows it, or she is extraordinarily dense. Since she happens to be in the house known for their intelligence, I'm pretty sure she's not *that* stupid. Charles, now done with the subject of Marietta and her treason. From technomad at intergate.com Sat May 26 16:52:20 2007 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:52:20 -0500 Subject: Hermione, Marietta and the cursed parchment Message-ID: <006701c79fb6$3f4b6b40$61560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 169311 I do think that both sides in this periennal argument have some valid points. Hermione _should have_ made it very clear that grassing on the DA would have serious consequences. Marietta _should have_ kept her mouth shut, and just stopped coming to DA meetings if she felt uncomfortable with what was going on there. That said, I can think of things Hermione could have done to the Parchment that would make what she did do look like Nothing Much. As in: "If you sign this paper, and then go and grass us out to Umbridge, you'll be really, really sorry." "How will we be sorry, Hermione?" asked Marietta Edgecombe. "You'll fall madly in love---with Mr. Filch!" At this, all the girls in the room gagged in unison. "But---what about us guys?" asked George Weasley. "Same for you. You'll be panting after him, wanting him to make you his love-slaves." Every boy in the room turned a delicate shade of green. --Eric, who thinks that after all the stories he's read about Deals With The Devil, he'd be very, very wary if asked to sign any paper at all in the magical world. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat May 26 17:26:25 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 13:26:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta Message-ID: <380-220075626172625593@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169312 Bruce: I agree with you. Remember, this is a school story, and one of the most important articles of the Code of the Schoolyard is don't rat people out. It has been a long time since I have been in school, but I remember that the snitch, the peacher, the tattletale, whatever you called him/her was generally considered to be at best a few steps above pond scum in the Chain of Being. Magpie: So was it difficult watching Harry not get punished for all that tattling he did on Malfoy in HBP? Alla: I have no sympathy for Marietta whatsoever. Maybe because the example of Peter Pettigrew is right there. Yes, it is not the same, even though I disagree that DA was **just a study group**. I think the intention to defend themselves against Voldemort was clearly there. I think it is one of those parallels with the twist, where younger generation does things better than the older one. Magpie: I don't see how this is true when the hex hasn't made anything better for the good guys in this generation. The trouble, for me, of just recasting all the characters into the Nazis and the French Resistance, is, among other things, that it always skips over the stuff that led to Marietta being a danger in the first place. I suspect the French Resistance didn't get together by grabbing people from the library and presenting themselves as a group that was just discussing philosophy and btw, those Nazis suck. The people admitted into it were committed to the cause and were, I think, recruited honestly and honorably. Marietta obviously never was and what's better in that case? Giving her less of a chance to be a weak link, or getting off on punishing her when she's been one? The intention to defend themselves against Voldemort isn't there *clearly*. If it were it wouldn't be a study group talking about OWLS. Yes, if Peter had had a hex like that put on him he wouldn't have been able to be a spy for long (as would anyone spying on LV for the Order). But I suspect he'd have been able to get around it with LV's help--even without LV's help he could probably have claimed the hex was kicked off in a silly way. But at least with Peter they had reason to trust him, they thought. Marietta had no reason to be loyal to Hermione from the beginning, and was obviously not signing up to have that sort of loyalty. So no, I can't see how the younger generation was doing anything so much better than the older one here. The Order actually seems like a pretty tight group even years later, as do the DEs. The DA isn't much. Loyalty based on fear *isn't* stronger than loyalty based on free will, and Hermione's hex did nothing to help the DA whatsoever. If Peter was hexed in return for betraying James and Lily I can't imagine that would make things much better for the good side either. So I think if you're going to put this all on the level of life or death you have to actually judge Hermione on that level too. And I think she would have been in trouble for her actions as well as Marietta's supervisor and the person allegedly in charge of protecting the group. Marietta was an untrustworthy member. Hermione was a dangerously incompetent organizational leader. If Marietta's intentions of thinking it was right to side with the Ministry don't matter, why should it matter that Hermione had really good intentions in not wanting anyone wto betray the group? I don't see Marietta as an innocent here. I don't have much of an emotional response to her betrayal, it's true, for a number of reasons. I just also see Hermione as making glaring mistakes that get covered up by anger at Marietta and her hex, so that Hermione's raised to the level of some sort of brilliant resistance leader who did the best she could when as a reader also identifying with the resistance group in question, I don't think her actions hold up to that kind of scrutiny at all. I think that like everyone else here, I naturally put myself, in my imagination, into the DA along with those characters, and my honest reaction as an "imaginary member" of the DA is to have far more questions about Hermione's actions than Marietta's (who barely makes an impression since she's got no lines and might as well have been wearing a sign that said she was never on board). As I've said, it seems more like a bunch of people wanting to play at having a resistance group to actually having one, which is why the only time they're held to that standard is when it comes to defending Marietta walking around with purple pustules on her face when the rest of the group's moved on to more important things like who they're going to ask to the dance. This maybe also goes back to the whole "development of the good guys" thing, where it seems like the "bad" guys learn a lesson while the good guys pat each other on the back and never examine their own actions, and so can't learn anything. -m (who would have been far angrier at the idea she'd been secretly cursed than anything else--and who no matter how angry she was at Marietta would still question the sanity of anyone okay with Hermione secretly hexing them. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat May 26 17:40:39 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:40:39 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169313 Carol: > *But* he seems to recognize the nicknames on the > Marauder's Map, which is where the doubt comes in. > If he knew that Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew, and > the Death Eaters knew that the spy was Wormtail, > how could Snape not know that the spy was Peter Pettigrew? houyhnhnm: I think that if Snape figured out who created the Marauders' Map, it is fairly easily explained away by the fact that he'd had Lupin and Sirius on the brain all year. Someone (and Snape already believed it was Lupin) had been helping Black get into the castle. Harry was sneaking into Hogsmeade with a magical piece of parchment in his pocket (and Snape was already primed to suspect Lupin of having had a hand in that, also). That same magical piece of parchment revealed insults from four different individuals, insults that must have had a very familiar ring. Even a person less perspicacious than Snape would surely have been able to put two and two together. More troubling is how Peter could have been the spy who betrayed the Potters without Snape knowing about it. On the one hand we have Karkaroff's testimony (which was clearly self-serving and may have been less than truthful) that Voldemort's followers never knew the names of every one of their fellows. On the other hand, Sirius hearing things in Azkaban. "They all think you're dead." But we don't know for sure who "they" were. "They" could just have been the Lestranges, who might have been more closely placed to Voldemort than Snape was during VWI. One thing is certain, though. It was Peter Pettigrew whose death was reported, not someone named "Wormtail", so if there were DEs who believed the spy who delivered the Potters to Voldemort (and Voldemort to his destruction) was Sirius' victim, then they knew that spy as Peter Pettigrew. They may or may not have known his alias. Just because Voldemort in GoF and Snape in HBP called Peter Wormtail, I am not convinced that he went by that name among the DEs during VWI. It could have been a name that LV learned by Legilimencing Peter and used only to taunt him. Snape could have picked it up after returning to Voldemort. Of course the name "Wormtail" is used in the Pensieve memory, but since Snape was separated from the Marauders at the time by a gang of chattering girls, I don't see how it could have been in his conscious memory. (I don't see how it could have been in his memory at all, but that's another matter. As much fun as the Pensieve is, the way it is supposed to work makes no sense to me.) So, the DEs who knew the identity of the Potters' betrayer knew him as Peter Pettigrew. They may or may not have known that Peter Pettigrew was also known as Wormtail. Snape may or may not have known the traitor's identity. It all goes back to central mystery of what happened in the murky period of time between the targetting of the Potters and their death, a period of time for which we have been given many different characters' recollections in a Rashomon like fashion, but about which we have no objective information so far. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 17:49:01 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:49:01 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169314 > Charles: > > And please remember that no matter what Marietta's motivations were, > > she knew that she was in effect damning twenty-some odd students. > > Pippin: > No, she did not. The only information Marietta volunteered was that > if Umbridge was in the 7th floor corridor at a certain time she'd hear > something to her advantage. Lanval: Er, not quite. Scholastic Ed., HB, p.613; "...Miss Edgecombe here came to my office shortly after dinner this evening and told me she had something she wanted to tell me. She told me that if I proceeded *to a secret room* on the seventh floor, *sometimes known as the Room of Requirement*, I would *find out* something to my advantage. I questioned her a little further and she admitted that there was to be some kind of meeting there. Unfortunately at that point this hex,"she waved impatiently at Marietta's concealed face, "came into operation and upon catching sight of her face in my mirror the girl became too distressed to tell me any more." Emphasis mine. Marietta mentioned not only the seventh floor, but named the room. That's all it took for Harry & the DA to find it, back when they were searching for a safe place. Marietta might as well have taken Umbridge's hand and led her up there. And p. 616: "But there was a meeting tonight!" said Umbridge furiously. "There was a meeting, Miss Edgecombe, you told me about it, in the Room of Requirement! And Potter was the leader, was he not, Potter organized it..." Sounds to me as if she not only mentioned the meeting but named Harry. Not 100% proof, but still. And she knew the list of names was on the wall. >Pippin: >That did not bring the sneak hex into > effect, and if Umbridge had acted on that information then the DA > would simply have been out of action until they found a safer > place to meet. Lanval: Canon? Umbridge says "... at that point the hex went into effect." That does not necessarily mean the hex would *not* have gone into effect if Marietta had not volunteered any more info. We don't know anything about how long it takes to be 'activated'. It could be immediately, it could be some minutes later. My guess (which is as good as yours, since I have no way to prove it either *g*) is that since Marietta went to Umbridge with the clear intent to rat out her friends (and have them caught in the act, which is even worse), opening her mouth to Umbridge and giving her directions was plenty enough for the hex. And you bring up the exact point why it was so important for the hex to manifest itself. Umbridge acted without hesitating, which was bad news for the DA. Had she however waited, then every member of the DA would have known by the sight of Marietta's face that they had been betrayed, and who it was. Not only would they have refrained from assembling, they would have been spared the agonizing ordeal of suspecting each other. (Peter? Sirius? Remus? does that ring a bell? It did for Hermione, I'm sure. ). At the time Hermione came up with the contract, she had also no foreknowledge of the members of the future Inquisitorial Squad, Umbridge's foul little helpers, who proved instrumental in the quick capture of the DA members. >Pippin: I'm not saying what Marietta did was right, but > it seems her intention was to find a way to quit the group without > offending Cho or getting anyone into trouble. Lanval: Really? On what evidence do you base that? That she went to see Umbridge at the exact time the meeting took place? Knowing that CHO was there and would be caught red-handed, along with everyone else? >Pippin: > What threats or pressure Umbridge used to extract the information > that there was going to be some kind of meeting we don't know, > but we did see her manhandle Marietta and shout at her. > Lanval: Possible, but conjecture. She does not manhandle M until her frustration at Marietta's denial seems to overwhelm her. Umbridge knows Marietta's mother holds an important position; IMO she would have been careful not to frighten or bully the girl too harshly. Pippin: > Also, Marietta didn't take any action until they started practicing to > repel dementors. At that time the dementors were still considered > loyal servants of the Ministry. Harry had denied that he was planning > any revolutionary actions, and them he started teaching them how to > defend themselves from the Ministry's enforcers. Of course in > Harry's mind the dementors were dark creatures who were going to > join Voldemort any day, but there's no canon that he shared that > view with the class. > > It'd be a bit like joining a self-defense class taught by a known > radical who declared that his intentions were peaceful, and then > being shown how to smuggle weapons past security. Marietta > could have been worried that Harry really was part of a plot against > the Ministry and was involving people in that without their knowledge. > Lanval: Learning DEFENSIVE spells against the foulest creatures known to wizards, in order to save your life, is on the same level as joining a group headed by a "known radical' (who's all of fifteen years old, btw) who, by your descrption, sounds like nothing less than a full-blown terrorist/murderer? Learning to defend yourself (with the help of a PATRONUS of all things, not a gun or anything deadly!) is akin to an armed coup against the ministry??? Revolutionary actions? Really, sometimes I'm just baffled. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 17:49:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:49:59 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta In-Reply-To: <380-220075626172625593@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169315 > Alla: > I have no sympathy for Marietta whatsoever. Maybe because the example of > Peter Pettigrew is right there. Yes, it is not the same, even though I > disagree that DA was **just a study group**. I think the intention to > defend themselves against Voldemort was clearly there. > > I think it is one of those parallels with the twist, where younger > generation does things better than the older one. > > Magpie: > I don't see how this is true when the hex hasn't made anything better for > the good guys in this generation. The trouble, for me, of just recasting > all the characters into the Nazis and the French Resistance, is, among > other things, that it always skips over the stuff that led to Marietta > being a danger in the first place. I suspect the French Resistance didn't > get together by grabbing people from the library and presenting themselves > as a group that was just discussing philosophy and btw, those Nazis suck. > The people admitted into it were committed to the cause and were, I think, > recruited honestly and honorably. Marietta obviously never was and what's > better in that case? Giving her less of a chance to be a weak link, or > getting off on punishing her when she's been one? The intention to defend > themselves against Voldemort isn't there *clearly*. If it were it wouldn't > be a study group talking about OWLS. Alla: I actually do not put it on the level of French resistance, LOL, I think you confused me with somebody else. What I **do** is definitely put it more than level of the stody group of talking about OWLS, I have no book with me now, but will gladly give canon where they talk about defending themselves about Voldemort. To me it seemed pretty clear. IMO of course. And what do you mean, Marietta was not recruited honestly and honorably? Did someone put a gun to her head and said **STAY**? I mean, should Hermione have done better screening? Sure, but this is a long way for me to go to saying that Marietta was not recruited honestly and honorably. I do not see anybody lying to her. IMO of course. Magpie: > So I think if you're going to put this all on the level of life or death > you have to actually judge Hermione on that level too. Alla: I am putting it on the level I think it is shown in canon - had DA been expelled, their futures would have been ruined and yes, I think Umbridge would not have stopped from using Cruciatus on them, not even on Harry only. So, life and death, maybe not, although for Harry, I would not be surprised given that she sent the Dementors to him. But the level of destroying their futures - yes, I absolutely do. And I judge Hermione on that level - meaning, I thank her for trying to protect their futures. As I said - I do not think it was a perfect execution, but intentions IMO were spot on. Magpie: And I think she > would have been in trouble for her actions as well as Marietta's supervisor > and the person allegedly in charge of protecting the group. Marietta was an > untrustworthy member. Hermione was a dangerously incompetent organizational > leader. If Marietta's intentions of thinking it was right to side with the > Ministry don't matter, why should it matter that Hermione had really good > intentions in not wanting anyone wto betray the group? Alla: Probably because I do not think that Hermione's mistakes rise to the level of dangerous incompetency, more like not thinkinh things through well. Magpie: > I don't see Marietta as an innocent here. Alla: We agree here. Magpie: I just also > see Hermione as making glaring mistakes that get covered up by anger at > Marietta and her hex, so that Hermione's raised to the level of some sort > of brilliant resistance leader who did the best she could when as a reader > also identifying with the resistance group in question, I don't think her > actions hold up to that kind of scrutiny at all. Alla: Brilliant? No, but trying hard - in my view yes. They **saw** the traitor the minute she spoke, don't they? It would help them to neutralise traitor, did it not? Would be nice that the hex would not let traitor open her mouth, sure, I agree. I am just saying that what she did served deterrent purpose. To go back to Peter pettigrew, which as I said, I do not see as exactly same, but sort of where I can see Pettigrew starting. To me, the hex of this variety would have prevented Peter from passing information for a year. YES, he may have passed something harmful once, but then Order would have neutralised him. They would knew identity of the traitor. Magpie: > I think that like everyone else here, I naturally put myself, in my > imagination, into the DA along with those characters, and my honest > reaction as an "imaginary member" of the DA is to have far more questions > about Hermione's actions than Marietta's (who barely makes an impression > since she's got no lines and might as well have been wearing a sign that > said she was never on board). Alla: On the personal level, funnily Hermione is my least favorite member of the trio, but as imaginary member of the DA I been deeply grateful to her for trying to protect me and my peers from expulsion. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 17:58:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:58:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0705252244t67ad375if85b9b5a5740a490@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169316 Debbie wrote: > On another note, could Snape's information that helped dispose of Black have been that Harry was not succeeding at Occlumency? The grand plan to lure Harry to the DOM could not have gone forward if Harry had developed a knack for Occlumency like his knack for flying, or even his mastery of the Patronus Charm. Carol responds: Great Kreacher post! I think you've solved that riddle, at least to my satisfaction. Good detective work. But I don't think that Harry's not succeeding at Occlumency was the information that Snape is claiming helped lead to the death of Sirius Black. After all, if Voldemort knew that Snape was giving Harry Occlumency lessons, he would expect Snape to open Harry's mind rather than teaching him to close it (although, IMO, Snape really was doing his best to teach an unwilling pupil, and the problem was two-fold; aside from the intense mutual dislike and distrust, Harry wanted to have that dream and Snape was under orders from Dumbledore not to tell him about the Prophecy). And Voldemort certainly knew that Harry was not attempting to practice Occlumency; the dreams were getting through. (I do think, though, that Snape keeps up a running theme of Harry's "mediocrity" with Voldemort and all the DEs as a way of getting them to underestimate him. We see it in "Spinner's End," for example.) But I think that whatever information Snape claims helped lead to Black's death had to do with Black himself--as I said before, I think it was that he had seen him in dog form at Hogwarts (which, BTW, would match Wormtail's story and perhaps plant the idea of Black's closeness to Harry in Voldemort's mind, to be confirmed later by Kreacher on Narcissa's orders). At any rate, it would be information of the sort that a double agent would be expected to supply and that Snape would report to Dumbledore for damage control. Perhaps, the idea of an Order HQ protected by a Fidelius Charm was prompted by this action of Snape's. He could then safely tell Voldemort or Lucius Malfoy that Black was hiding out at Order HQ (which he couldn't reveal)--and point out to Black that he was seen and recognized by Malfoy on Platform 9 3/4 when he was foolish enough to leave HQ in dog form. Anyway, I think it was information on Black that he was claiming, and Bellatrix had no way of proving or disproving that it led to Black's death, which she (rightly) takes credit for. I imagine that the Emmeline Vance information was something of the same sort, maybe simply that she was an Order member--information of the sort that a double agent has to provide in order to stay alive and obtain the information from the *other* side that he's really after. (Of course, I hope that Snape faked her death, but that's only a hope for now.) What I wonder is why Emmeline was considered important enough to kill. Is Voldemort (via the DEs) just killing off Order members one by one as he did in VW1? (Amanda Bones, in whose death Snape doesn't claim a share, is another matter. She was a fair and objective head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, not subject to corruption or manipulation. Naturally, Voldemort would kill her himself.) Carol, who feels oddly sorry for Kreacher and doesn't blame him for "master's" death (which was unplanned by anyone) but can't excuse him for injuring Buckbeak or knowingly lying to Harry to help lure him to the MoM From bartl at sprynet.com Sat May 26 18:34:28 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 14:34:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments: Spinner's End In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46587DB4.30705@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169317 leslie41 wrote: > In a sea of other indicators that Snape is DDM, that tiny twitch of > his hand is the one that speaks loudest to me. At the end of a > chapter where Snape is so masterfully in control, his hand, the one > that would have to wield his wand, betrays him. > > Snape would rather do anything than promise to kill Dumbledore. Bart: And to me, it is rapidly going through a logical path in his mind; this is taking place AFTER Dumbledore has recovered the ring, Dumbledore is on the magical equivalent of CPR, and Snape is the one who is applying it. The twitch, in my mind, is Snape thinking, "You're a little too late for that." Bart From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 18:38:44 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 18:38:44 -0000 Subject: The D.A. (Was: Responses to Marietta) In-Reply-To: <380-220075626172625593@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169318 Magpie: > I don't see how this is true when the hex hasn't made anything better for > the good guys in this generation. The trouble, for me, of just recasting > all the characters into the Nazis and the French Resistance, is, among > other things, that it always skips over the stuff that led to Marietta > being a danger in the first place. I suspect the French Resistance didn't > get together by grabbing people from the library and presenting themselves > as a group that was just discussing philosophy and btw, those Nazis suck. > The people admitted into it were committed to the cause and were, I think, > recruited honestly and honorably. Marietta obviously never was and what's > better in that case? Giving her less of a chance to be a weak link, or > getting off on punishing her when she's been one? The intention to defend > themselves against Voldemort isn't there *clearly*. If it were it wouldn't > be a study group talking about OWLS. Montavilla47: I'm not sure the Nazi/French Resistance analogy holds up, either. But when I try to apply it, what Marietta reminds me of is the ordinary citizen who becomes targeted for collaborating with the enemy. One of the customs was to shave a woman's head if she was caught. The intention being to mark and humilate her as a traitor to her people. Obviously, this would act as a deterrant to others. Did it? I suppose so, since we don't have Zacharias Smith ( for example) cutting deals with Umbridge to implicate the rest of the group. Of course, hair grows back, so a woman with a shaved head can hope that she'll eventually be forgiven and taken back into society. I do find it ambiguous as to whether or not Marietta's pustules are getting better. Perhaps they are and the lesson we're to take is that Marietta's actions have long-lasting but not permanent consequences. I tend to think that JKR's intention is for the lesson to take place exactly where it is--in discussion. Magpie: >The Order actually seems like a pretty tight group even years > later, as do the DEs. The DA isn't much. Montavilla47: This is something I find truly odd about the DA. It was sold to the other students partly as a study group (do better on O.W.L.s) and partly because of "V-v-v-voldemort" and the need to eventually oppose him. But, when it comes to actually facing Voldemort, Harry tries to reject the three DA members who insist on coming. Then, in HBP, he drops the group entirely--even though he hates the new D.A.D.A. teacher just as much as he hated Umbridge, even though Voldemort is *officially* back, and even though their current D.A.D.A. teacher has voiced no opposition to the idea of extracurricular D.A.D.A. study. So, was the whole DA created to allow Harry a positive outlet for his rebellious anger? Was the group about Voldemort or was it about Umbridge? Magpie: > Hermione was a dangerously incompetent organizational > leader. Montavilla47: We haven't even touched on the most incompetent thing that Hermione did--which was to leave the parchment tacked up in the room for Umbridge to find. Seems like the first rule of organizing a secret organization is that you don't leave the membership list lying around--and if you do, the first thing you do before fleeing the area in a panic is to set the darn thing on fire. Magpie: > As I've said, it seems more like a bunch of > people wanting to play at having a resistance group to actually having one, > which is why the only time they're held to that standard is when it comes > to defending Marietta walking around with purple pustules on her face when > the rest of the group's moved on to more important things like who they're > going to ask to the dance. This maybe also goes back to the whole > "development of the good guys" thing, where it seems like the "bad" guys > learn a lesson while the good guys pat each other on the back and never > examine their own actions, and so can't learn anything. You're right about the double standard here. Not just with Hermione, but about Harry, too. He did a good thing, teaching his fellow students, but I'd be with Ernie--I'd be asking why they're just dropping the group next year as if it's somehow less important now that Voldemort is really back (and killing their families) than it was the year before. It's hard not to view Harry as a terrible leader here. If you're going to ask people to risk their futures for you, you shouldn't just drop them as soon as they no longer seem necessary. At the very least, you should groom and support a successor. Of course, none of the "leaders" in the series has considered that. When Voldemort disappeared, there was no one to rally his Death Eaters--even to await his return. We have no clear idea about who is going to succeed Dumbledore with the Order of the Phoenix or even if that group will continue. I'm not sure what lesson we're supposed to draw from Harry's actions regarding the DA. Are we supposed to see it as good--since secret organizations should only be formed in response to direct oppression? (Unlike the Death Eaters, who were formed to oppose a "good" government?) Or is it a missed opportunity? (Had the DA continued, Harry would have had much more support on the night Dumbledore died.) Montavilla47 From bartl at sprynet.com Sat May 26 18:49:54 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 14:49:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: <116301c79f9a$1f1e5510$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> References: <116301c79f9a$1f1e5510$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <46588152.7070102@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169319 Lauren Merryfield wrote: > Hi, But JKR says she isn't writing any more Harry Potter books. I > wish she would carry Harry through this one and go on with him > training and becoming an auror. Bart: Here's another theory, not quite a longshot. The only effective way to ensure that there are no further sequels in a series is a flash-forward, a sort of "where are they now?", quite possibly to Harry's deathbed. Therefore, my prediction: At the very end of the book, Harry is going to be dead, or just about there. But NOT from fighting Voldemort. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 18:53:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 18:53:39 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169320 bboyminn wrote: > > Again, you are illustrating my point for me. Where in cannon does it say it is NOT acne, or chicken pox, or measles? Harry gives us his initial reaction, which is the reaction of a surprised boy under stress. He further > gives us a visual symptomatic description of what he > sees, but he doesn't define it. In other words, he > doesn't say acne or measles or chicken pox or skin > infection; he simply describes what he sees. Carol responds: Acne or dragon pox, they're canonicaly pustules, defined by Merriam Webster online as "a small circumscribed elevation of the skin containing pus and having an inflamed base. So they're small, inflamed bumps oozing pus (ugh). Moreover, they're *purple*, they're close-set, and they spell out SNEAK." They cover so much of her face that she pulls up her robes to her *eyes* to hide them. And she's still trying unsuccessfully to hide them as of HBP. *Harry* doesn't give his reaction. The *narrator* describes the pustules as Harry sees them, with unusual objectivity. The girl is "horribly disfigured" but Harry isn't disturbed by that. He thinks she deserves it. I don't see any indication that the description is that of "a surprised boy under stress." He isn't horrified by what he sees. In fact, we have no indication of his reaction at all, only the description I quoted earlier (minus "purpustules"--sorry about that), until the next page, where he feels "a surge of pride in Hermione's jinxing ability" (OoP Am. ed. 613). Not, IMO, one of Harry's finer moments, but, of course, he can't be expected to sympathize with her at the moment, and his chief concern is how he's going to get away with lying to Fudge (611). My point, though, is that he expresses neither surprise nor horror on seeing Marietta. All we get is the narrator's description of the pustules, not Harry's reaction, until his moment of pride in Hermione. Fudge, however, is clearly shocked. He says "Galloping gargoyles!" and "leap[s] backward in shock, nearly landing himself in the fire" when Marietta raises her head (she's been hiding her face in her hands). Marietta is so distressed that she wails and hides her face and shakes her head "frantically" (612). Her eyes are "wide and fearful" (613). bbpyminn: > My central point is we don't know what the spell was or how it works. > Since we don't know, we don't know that an act of kindness or loyalty on Marietta's part won't cure the spell. We don't know one way or the other because there IS NO CANNON to base our discussion on, so we are left with nothing but speculation. > Carol responds: We have canon that Hermione jinxed a piece of parchment. It seems likely then, that whoever reverses the jinx would have to examine the parchment itself to see what spell was cast on it (as Snape examines the opal necklace before he can deal with the curse on Katie) before knowing what the counterjinx is. And if it's a spell that Hermione invented (which can't be determined at this point), only she would know the countercurse (though perhaps someone like Snape or a St. Mungo's Healer could invent one once the jinx or hex or whatever it is was identified). Umbridge can't reverse it, but she's no Healer of any kind. I'm guessing that Madam Pomfrey was also consulted, but being unable to diagnose the injury, was consequently unable to treat it. While we're speculating, it seems likely to me that Marietta's mother, a Ministry employee who would (I hope) have been informed by Umbridge of the consequences of her daughter's loyalty to the Ministry (and who certainly would be concerned *as a mother* with her daughter's disfigurement and distress) would take her to St. Mungo's for treatment, but if she did so, they, too, failed to find a countercurse (if they'd found one, she'd be cured) probably because without the parchment, they can't identify the spell. And surely, there's no existing spell that spells out that specific word under those specific circumstances. Hermione must have adapted an existing spell or invented one based on her research of similar types of spells. We have canon for St. Mungo's treating spell-caused injuries and canon for treating curses by determining the spell cast on an object (the opal necklace). Can you show me some canon for any kind of spell that's reversed through an act of loyalty or kindness? And why would Marietta show loyalty to the people who disfigured her when she can't even remember what happened? Carol, who thinks that the canon we do have leads to the conclusion that the spell is either permanent or curable only by a person who knows what curse was cast (that being, at this point, only Hermione) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 26 19:00:17 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:00:17 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0705252157o25508e5bwec52b4f2aae5e3e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169321 > Carol: But I'm still left without an explanation for that one > niggling detail, which I'll confess here. While his actions in the > Shrieking Shack indicate (unless he's an extraordinarily gifted actor) > that he thought that the spy/traitor/murderer was Sirius Black. He > certainly believed that Black had murdered Pettigrew, and I think he > believed along with everyone else that Black was out to murder Harry. > *But* he seems to recognize the nicknames on the Marauder's Map, which > is where the doubt comes in. If he knew that Wormtail was Peter > Pettigrew, and the Death Eaters knew that the spy was Wormtail, how > could Snape not know that the spy was Peter Pettigrew? Pippin: With riddles, the explanation is simple once you get the trick of it. IMO, Snape knew that the Marauder Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew, but he thought the DE Wormtail was Sirius Black. With polyjuice it would be possible for anyone close to Sirius to impersonate him perfectly, and even for someone else, under the Imperius curse, to impersonate Pettigrew at the same time, so that it would have seemed impossible for Pettigrew to be the spy. This would also explain why even if the nickname was known, no one except Sirius realized that the anger of the imprisoned DE's at Wormtail pointed to Pettigrew as the traitor. My favorite Snape moment has to be his response to Dumbledore's "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling them further." That sealed Snape as Dumbledore's man in my mind -- his class was one of the ones that Hermione was doubling, so how could he *not* know about the time-turner. I haven't had any serious doubt since, except for about ten minutes after finishing HBP for the first time. Then I went back to look for the clues, and sure enough there were plenty of things to suggest that events on the tower were not as they appeared to be to Harry. Pippin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat May 26 19:31:34 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:31:34 -0000 Subject: The D.A. (Was: Responses to Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169322 > Montavilla47: > We haven't even touched on the most incompetent thing that > Hermione did--which was to leave the parchment tacked up in the > room for Umbridge to find. Hickengruendler: Did she? According to Umbridge, they needed evidence and the room provided it. Therefore I assumed the list simply appeared in the Room of Requirement, because Umbridge wanted to have it. Montavilla: > It's hard not to view Harry as a terrible leader here. If you're going to ask > people to risk their futures for you, you shouldn't just drop them as soon > as they no longer seem necessary. At the very least, you should groom and > support a successor. Hickengruendler: What I especially didn't understand, was, that Harry honestly expected the DA members to appear in the battle at the end of HBP. Like, "I do not care about the DA anymore, but I sure expect everyone else to check their coins regularly". Anyway, since I suspect the climax of the series will be in Hogwarts, I think the DA was mostly a set up for this. However, and in Harry's defense, he, too, is still a student and obviously does not know everything. Therefore it's only so much he can teach the other students in the DA. If they had a similar inept DADA teacher as Umbridge was, he might have restarted the group as well, but Snape was actually pretty capable, at least in the regard, that he wanted them to do magic and train the spells (I will not go into Snape's general teaching styule here again, even though I do think he was much better than in Potions). From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 26 19:36:32 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:36:32 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169323 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lanval1015" wrote: > > > Charles: > > > And please remember that no matter what Marietta's motivations > were, > > > she knew that she was in effect damning twenty-some odd students. > > > > Pippin: > > No, she did not. The only information Marietta volunteered was that > > if Umbridge was in the 7th floor corridor at a certain time she'd > hear > > something to her advantage. > > Lanval: > Er, not quite. Scholastic Ed., HB, p.613; > "...Miss Edgecombe here came to my office shortly after dinner this > evening and told me she had something she wanted to tell me. She > told me that if I proceeded *to a secret room* on the seventh floor, > *sometimes known as the Room of Requirement*, I would *find out* > something to my advantage. I questioned her a little further and she > admitted that there was to be some kind of meeting there. > Unfortunately at that point this hex,"she waved impatiently at > Marietta's concealed face, "came into operation and upon catching > sight of her face in my mirror the girl became too distressed to > tell me any more." Emphasis mine. Geoff: I must agree with Lanval here. Marietta must have known what the feeling of the majority of the students was about Umbridge; even if not from her own experience, Cho must surely have expressed concerns in conversation with her. So why did Marietta go to Umbridge? To cosy up to her? Why did she have to report that a meeting was taking place - and why was she so coy in revealing what it was or where it was? Knowing dear Dolores' track record, she must have realised that if she revealed the existence of the DA, Umbridge would be bound to apply some sort of serious sanction to members. She could just have refused to come any more with Cho and said nothing. No, I believe that Marietta betrayed the group. Whether Hermione's response was the right one is another matter. But Marietta was certainly asking for some sort of comeback - and got it. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat May 26 19:41:51 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:41:51 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0705252244t67ad375if85b9b5a5740a490@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169324 > Debbie: > While I was flipping through the books in responding to the Snape > Snape Snape thread, I came across this from the beginning of OOP > chapter 24. > This is the opening paragraph of the chapter. The second paragraph > refers to Sirius' cheerfulness evaporating "now that Christmas was > over" and his increasing sullenness as "the date of their departure > back to Hogwarts drew nearer." Based on the positioning of the two > paragraphs and the reference to the passage of time, it appears > that Kreacher returned right after Christmas. But that the Trio did > not return to Hogwarts for some days thereafter, giving Kreacher > ample time to observe Harry and Sirius. Jen: I read that information when reviewing relevant sections for my initial post but didn't draw much of a conclusion from it. It sounds like Kreacher had just returned from seeing Narcissa according to Dumbledore's explanation, and Harry catches him looking 'avidly' at him once or twice after that. The only inference I could draw from the look was that Harry had been a topic of conversation with Narcissa and Dumbledore confirms as much. What I would have liked to see to make the plot of OOTP hang together better for me would have been Harry noting Kreacher watching at a time when he's in conversation with others, particularly Sirius, or some indication Kreacher has observed Harry interacting with others which would lead to the conclusions Dumbledore credits him with at the end of OOTP. Take the scene where Sirius hands Harry the mirror - couldn't Harry have bumped into Kreacher as he was leaving, a very small hint of what was to come later? Debbie: > And Harry in fact notes that Kreacher did spend time observing him, > undoubtedly at Narcissa's request. Furthermore, based on what > Dumbledore tells Harry after Sirius died, Sirius gave Kreacher > access to all sorts of Order information, not just the identity of > Order members but also "the Order's confidential plans." I get the > sense that Kreacher was permitted to lurk anywhere at OGP, at his > own pleasure. > The other notable thing about this passage is the sense I get that > Narcissa instructed Kreacher on exactly what he should be looking > for. In that case, it may not matter whether he has any insight > into human relationships or not; the relationship between Sirius > and Harry should have been obvious to anyone who was looking for it. Jen: The problem with the plot here imo is that Sirius has started to withdraw to Buckbeak's room and have 'fits of the sullens' at the same time Kreacher returns. There's no mention of Harry visiting and talking with Sirius when he withdraws, say, or Sirius showing particular affection to Harry during this time period like the mention of Sirius feeling 'delight' with his visitors and particularly Harry during the time Kreacher is absent. There are so many things that could have been dropped in the story to hint Kreacher is observing something pertinent to Harry and Sirius and none is mentioned. He could have been lurking around the kitchen during the fight between Sirius and Snape (I mistakenly said Kreacher wasn't back at that time but he was). Kreacher could have been mentioned in the same room while Harry has a conversation with Hermione and Ron about his concern for Sirius' mood, something he mulls over in his head but doesn't say out loud. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. This isn't the only thing in OOTP that doesn't work completely for me, possibly due to the sheer volume of information, but I don't know that any of my observations are things that will be revisited in DH. I honestly do see some holes that could be filled with new information if that's JKR's intention. Jen From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat May 26 20:06:45 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 20:06:45 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169325 > > Pippin: > My favorite Snape moment has to be his response to Dumbledore's > "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to > be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in > troubling them further." > > That sealed Snape as Dumbledore's man in my mind -- his > class was one of the ones that Hermione was doubling, so how > could he *not* know about the time-turner. wynnleaf This is one of my favorite Snape scenes as well. Most people see it as Snape totally losing control. But to me, it's really important that Snape completely stopped his objections and backed down, at a moment when he believed that the man had just escaped who attempted to murder him, caused the deaths of the Potters (who Snape tried to save by returning to Dumbledore), who became a mass murderer, etc., had been helped to escape by the kids who had just knocked out Snape, and by the teacher that Snape had been suspicious of all year. And yet, without any evidence yet to the contrary, Snape backed completely down when Dumbledore gave him the "heads up" that the timeturner was in play at Dumbledore's own instigation, and that Dumbledore was therefore behind Black's escape. Snape must have known that Hermione had a timeturner. All of her teachers probably knew. It wasn't a state secret, after all. And the Ministry had granted her the use of the timeturner. Once Dumbledore made his comment, Snape knew that Dumbledore had been behind Hermione and Harry's use of the timeturner, and that to continue ranting about it would ultimately make the Ministry take notice of the fact that the Ministry had issued a timeturner to one of the kids involved. In the midst of thinking this terrible crazed murderer and Death Eater, who Snape had a lot of personal reasons to hate, had just been freed by the kids who had knocked Snape out, he totally backed off as soon as Dumbledore pointed out that the timeturner had been used with his approval. Snape didn't know anything of the evidence for Sirius' innocence, but he followed Dumbledore's lead. wynnleaf From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat May 26 20:39:04 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 20:39:04 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169326 > wynnleaf And yet, > without any evidence yet to the contrary, Snape backed completely down > when Dumbledore gave him the "heads up" that the timeturner was in > play at Dumbledore's own instigation, and that Dumbledore was > therefore behind Black's escape. zgirnius: This is how I see the scene as well. I would add, that I do not believe Dumbledore was laughing at Snape's reactions in this scene (as many suppose). > PoA: > "Well, there you have it, Severus," said Dumbledore calmly. "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling them further." > Snape stood there, seething, staring from Fudge, who looked thoroughly shocked at his behavior, to Dumbledore, whose eyes were twinkling behind his glasses. Snape whirled about, robes swishing behind him, and stormed out of the ward. zgirnius: I think the twinkling eyes are Dumbledore amused by his own cleverness. He has just succeeded in conveying to Snape what he has done, right in front of Fudge, who is totally oblivious. > PoA: > "Fellow seems quite unbalanced," said Fudge, staring after him. "I'd watch out for him if I were you, Dumbledore." > "Oh, he's not unbalanced," said Dumbledore quietly. "He's just suffered a severe disappointment." zgirnius: Note complete lack of evidence of amusement here...he is described only as 'quiet'. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 20:43:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 20:43:34 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169327 Alla wrote: > > What I **do** is definitely put it more than level of the stody group of talking about OWLS, I have no book with me now, but will gladly give canon where they talk about defending themselves about Voldemort. To me it seemed pretty clear. IMO of course. Carol responds: As I do have my book with me, I'll oblige. :-) Hermione begins by telling the group , "Harry here had the idea--I mean, I had the idea--that it might be a good idea if people who wanted to *study* Defense Against the Dark Arts--and I mean, *really, really study it,* you know, not the rubbish Umbidge is doing with us because no one could call that Defense Against the Dark Arts--well, I thought it would be a good idea if we, well, took matters into our own hands" (OoP am. ed. 339). Anthony Goldstein shows his agreement that Umbridge is a useless teacher) by saying "Hear, hear!" (339). Hermione adds, "And by that I mean learning to defend ourselves properly, not just theory but the real spells--" (339). Michael Corner reacts to this first suggestion that they might actually need to defend themselves with, "You want to pass your Defense Against the Dark Arts OWL too, though, I bet?" to which Hermione responds, "Of course I do." Then she stammers that she also wants them to be properly trained "because Lord Voldemort is back." Marietta shrieks and slops butterbeer down herself. (Should have left at that point, Marietta!) Others shudder and yelp, but everyone looks at Harry for, presumably, confirmation or more information. (All they've heard so far is DD's statement that Voldemort murdered Cedric Diggory, which they can be excused for not believing since Voldemort, is he isn't dead, is some sort of disembodied spirit so far as they know. Only a few of them know Harry well enough to believe him without supporting evidence.) Zacharias Smith immediately asks the question that's probably on everyone's mind, "Where's the proof You-Know-Who's back?" Hermione says that DD believes it, and Zacharias retorts with, "You mean Dumbledore believes *him*." Harry realizes that at least some of the students are there, not to learn to protect themselves (or, like the fifth-year Ravenclaws, to learn DADA to pass their OWLs), but to hear Harry's story first-hand. And, unfortunately for group solidarity and confirmation that they need to defend themeselves, Harry's responds defiantly, "What makes me think Voldemort is back? I saw him. But Dumbledore told the whole school what happened last year, and if you don't believe him, you don't believe me, and I'm not wasting an afternoon trying to convince anyone." (Good going, Harry.) (BTW, there's a quick reference to the barman listening in. that's in addition to Mundungus and Willy Widdershins. Nice place for a secret meeting, but at least Aberforth is on DD's side!) Zacharias points out dismissively (and correctly) that DD didn't give any details and says that he thinks they all want to know what really happened, at which point Harry loses his temper and says, "I don't want to talk about Cedric Diggory, all right? So if that's what you're here for, you might as well clear out." Hermione tries to take control by mentioning the practical matter of meeting times, and Susan Bones saves the day by asking if it's true that Harry can cast a Patronus. The subject changes to Harry's accomplishments, essentially establishing his qualifications as a better teacher than Umbridge. Even Zacharias wants Harry to "show ... us ... this stuff" (despite his lingering distrust of Harry's veracity). Finally, Hermione says, "...the point is, are we agreed we want to take lessons from Harry?" (339-343). My apologies for the overdose of canon, but we see here some of the reasons why the kids attended the meeting (not counting Cho's crush on Harry and her unwise choice of companions). We see that none of them except Harry's close friends have any real reason to believe that Voldemort is back, especially given the Daily Prophet's push in the other direction. (Note that Seamus, who is Harry's roommate, still doesn't fully believe it because Harry treated his questions exactly as he treats Zacharias's, and he doesn't show up until the last meeting.) But many of them want to learn DADA as a school subject, and most of them (rightly) view Umbridge's theory-based course as worse than useless. What happens is that those who came to hear Harry's story don't get their questions answered, but those who want to pass their DADA OWL (including Zacharias, I'm sure) have that initial motivation reinforced by the anecdotal evidence that Harry can cast a "corporeal Patronus" and that he killed a Basilisk, as well as the reminder of the tasks he performed in the TWT. Marietta, a sixth year who has already passed her OWLs and whose mother is a Ministry employee, has no reason to believe Harry and no real motivation to learn his DADA spells. She may even have learned some of them from Fake!Moody the previous year (though not a Patronus, of course). But since the group is not yet against the rules, she signs the parchment, not knowing that it's hexed. > Alla: > > I am putting it on the level I think it is shown in canon - had DA been expelled, their futures would have been ruined and yes, I think Umbridge would not have stopped from using Cruciatus on them, not even on Harry only. Carol responds: Marietta does know about the threat of expulsion, but how often have we heard that same threat from various teachers (Snape, Madam Hooch, Hagrid) without a single instance of actual expulsion except Hagrid's own long before for supposedly releasing the monster from the Chamber of Secrets? In any case, being a Ministry loyalist, she probably thinks they deserve it. She certainly doesn't believe that Harry or anyone else is in danger from Voldemrt; she believes her mother and Umbridge and the Daily Prophet that Harry is a delusional and possibly dangerous liar. Nor can she possibly suspect that dear, sweet Dolores Umbridge, who speaks of protecting the students in her opening speech, would torture students in her detentions or consider using the Cruciatus Curse on them. I'm not saying that Marietta is innocent, but I'm saying that she could not have known, despite the decrees, that Umbridge was capable of physical cruelty or the danger that Harry would have faced had he been expelled. Alla: > > Brilliant? No, but trying hard - in my view yes. They **saw** the traitor the minute she spoke, don't they? It would help them to neutralise traitor, did it not? > > Would be nice that the hex would not let traitor open her mouth, sure, I agree. I am just saying that what she did served deterrent purpose. Carol responds: Ah, the heart of the matter. Hermione's hex *didn't* deter Marietta or anyone else from reporting the group to Umbridge (though it might have done so if she'd told them about it!) All it did was reveal the traitor after the fact--and punish her long after the action was committed. If she were going to punish and humiliate her for a week or so, fine, perhaps, though the usual ostracism for snitches would have served the purpose equally well. But it didn't "neutralize the traitor." It only silenced her after the fact. (Shacklebolt's Memory Charm silenced her permanently.) Your second paragraph sums it up beautifully: Hermione should have cast a hex that wouldn't let a traitor open his or her mouth. *That* would have been a deterrent, not a punishment--more effective and a lot less cruel. And what's more, the perfect spell exists in canon. If the DA, in Hermione's view (if not in the view of the members themselves) is a junior version of the Order (as well as the study group she introduces it as being), why not protect it with a Fidelius Charm? Carol, hoping that Hermione finally learns in DH that just being on the right side doesn't justify her every action From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 20:56:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 20:56:12 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169328 > Carol responds: > > Ah, the heart of the matter. Hermione's hex *didn't* deter Marietta or > anyone else from reporting the group to Umbridge (though it might have > done so if she'd told them about it!) All it did was reveal the > traitor after the fact--and punish her long after the action was > committed. If she were going to punish and humiliate her for a week or > so, fine, perhaps, though the usual ostracism for snitches would have > served the purpose equally well. But it didn't "neutralize the > traitor." It only silenced her after the fact. (Shacklebolt's Memory > Charm silenced her permanently.) > > Your second paragraph sums it up beautifully: Hermione should have > cast a hex that wouldn't let a traitor open his or her mouth. *That* > would have been a deterrent, not a punishment--more effective and a > lot less cruel. Alla: Yep, she should have done that in my view , but my point is that the fact that she did not do that does not make her bad strategist, just not the ideal one in my opinion. And that has nothing to do with desire to diminish good side mistakes either actually ( in general reply). It has everything to do with me thinking that while Hermione's planning could have been better, it was not that bad. Actually, I will quote Lanval here: Lanval: > And you bring up the exact point why it was so important for the hex > to manifest itself. Umbridge acted without hesitating, which was bad > news for the DA. Had she however waited, then every member of the DA > would have known by the sight of Marietta's face that they had been > betrayed, and who it was. Not only would they have refrained from > assembling, they would have been spared the agonizing ordeal of > suspecting each other. (Peter? Sirius? Remus? does that ring a bell? > It did for Hermione, I'm sure. ). > Alla: While I think that casting hex that would not have let traitor open her mouth would have been the **ideal** solution, which Hermione did not come up with, I think that the underlying reason that lanval describes is **also** admirable and makes her a good enough strategist and would have let everybody know who is the traitor and nothing lilke long collaboration with Umbridge would have been possible. JMO of course, Alla, who is so happy to see Lanval back :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 26 21:09:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 21:09:31 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169329 > > Geoff: > I must agree with Lanval here. > > Marietta must have known what the feeling of the majority of the > students was about Umbridge; even if not from her own experience, > Cho must surely have expressed concerns in conversation with her. > So why did Marietta go to Umbridge? To cosy up to her? > > Why did she have to report that a meeting was taking place - and > why was she so coy in revealing what it was or where it was? Knowing > dear Dolores' track record, she must have realised that if she revealed > the existence of the DA, Umbridge would be bound to apply some > sort of serious sanction to members. She could just have refused to > come any more with Cho and said nothing. Pippin: According to Cho, that wasn't an option. "Don't mind her, " Cho muttered. "She doesn't really want to be here, but I made her come with me. Her parents have forbidden her to do anything that might upset Umbridge, you see -- her mum works for the Ministry. "What about your parents?" asked Harry. "Well, they've forbidden me to get on the wrong side of Umbridge too," said Cho drawing herself up proudly. "But if they think I'm not going to fight You-Know-Who after what happend to Cedric--" So Cho bullied Marietta into coming to the meetings. I think she meant well, but if Marietta didn't have the courage to stand up to Cho's bullying, what made anyone think she could stand up to Umbridge, much less Voldemort? So Marietta found herself between a rock and a hard place, and she tried to clever her way out of it, IMO. If the meetings stopped, she wouldn't have to choose between Cho and her parents, and if Umbridge found out about their meeting place and put it under surveillance then the meetings would have to stop, wouldn't they? Marietta didn't know that Umbridge was already aware of the group's purpose and who was in it from Willy Widdershins, so she didn't know Umbridge could connect her to it. AFAWK, she didn't tell Umbridge that Harry was involved. Willy Widdershins did, corroborated by the parchment. I *don't* think that Marietta did the right thing, of course not. But we were discussing whether Hermione did the correct thing to protect the group by jinxing the parchment. I think not. The bottom line is, people can't be bullied into loyalty. Even Voldemort knows that. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat May 26 21:21:43 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:21:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta Message-ID: <380-220075626212143125@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169330 Alla: I actually do not put it on the level of French resistance, LOL, I think you confused me with somebody else. What I **do** is definitely put it more than level of the stody group of talking about OWLS, I have no book with me now, but will gladly give canon where they talk about defending themselves about Voldemort. To me it seemed pretty clear. IMO of course. Magpie: Defense in "the real world" is the point of all the learning they're doing in school. DADA itself is about defending themselves--and certainly that means against Voldemort if he's back. It's a DADA class taking the place of Umbridge's non-class whether or not the individual members believe Voldemort is back. Alla: And what do you mean, Marietta was not recruited honestly and honorably? Magpie: She, and no one else, was honestly told how much loyalty was being assumed and that there was this long-term of a punishment. Nobody agreed to be disfigured if they ever saw any reason to tell--and they should have been, because any number of the students there might have said that while they were not planning to tell, they reserved the right to make that decision if in the future they thought it was necessary. Alla: Did someone put a gun to her head and said **STAY**? I mean, should Hermione have done better screening? Sure, but this is a long way for me to go to saying that Marietta was not recruited honestly and honorably.I do not see anybody lying to her. IMO of course. Magpie Yes, she should have done better screening, and that is why Marietta was not recruited honestly and honorably. Placing a secret hex to punish her this way for this long if she turned out not to have the level of loyalty Hermione wanted forever was not honorable or honest. If the stakes are that high, people should know that this is what they're agreeing to. It would have been smarter too. That might have given the hex a chance for acting as the deterrant. Nobody knew they were hexing themselves for this long by signing the parchment. I would consider that lying by ommission if I were in the group. After all, what would I have done to deserve that being done to me at the first meeting? The group wasn't even against the rules yet. Alla: I am putting it on the level I think it is shown in canon - had DA been expelled, their futures would have been ruined and yes, I think Umbridge would not have stopped from using Cruciatus on them, not even on Harry only. Magpie: Whatever Marietta may have thought would happen to the people in the group, if there was a widespread fear of expulsion and crucio then Hermione's haphazard way of "protecting" the group was poorly planned. Alla: And I judge Hermione on that level - meaning, I thank her for trying to protect their futures. As I said - I do not think it was a perfect execution, but intentions IMO were spot on. Magpie: Especially if we're punishing Marietta years later for her intentions I see no reason to pat Hermione on the head for her own allegedly good intentions. If she's given herself the right to hex all those members of the DA I think her own actions deserve more scrutiny. Magpie: And I think she > would have been in trouble for her actions as well as Marietta's supervisor > and the person allegedly in charge of protecting the group. Marietta was an > untrustworthy member. Hermione was a dangerously incompetent organizational > leader. If Marietta's intentions of thinking it was right to side with the > Ministry don't matter, why should it matter that Hermione had really good > intentions in not wanting anyone wto betray the group? Alla: Probably because I do not think that Hermione's mistakes rise to the level of dangerous incompetency, more like not thinkinh things through well. Magpie: When we're talking about Marietta's actions it's about crucios and ruined futures, so I think Hermione's own actions as the protector of the group, which pave the way for Marietta's, are dangerously incompetent. Magpie: I just also > see Hermione as making glaring mistakes that get covered up by anger at > Marietta and her hex, so that Hermione's raised to the level of some sort > of brilliant resistance leader who did the best she could when as a reader > also identifying with the resistance group in question, I don't think her > actions hold up to that kind of scrutiny at all. Alla: Brilliant? No, but trying hard - in my view yes. They **saw** the traitor the minute she spoke, don't they? It would help them to neutralise traitor, did it not? Magpie: "Trying hard" doesn't really cut it when you've appointed yourself the judge, jury and punisher for a group of fellow students with hexes like this. The hex didn't help them neutralize the traitor, it just satisfied Hermione's canonical pleasure for vengeance. Hermione's always "trying hard." That doesn't always mean she's doing the right thing. So her actions could do with some checking too. If the hex was gone by now it wouldn't be an issue. Marietta would have hurt them and gotten hurt back and it would be over. Instead Marietta seems like a walking billboard for Hermione's power. Hermione's being judged as a schoolgirl while Marietta isn't. Alla: Would be nice that the hex would not let traitor open her mouth, sure, I agree. I am just saying that what she did served deterrent purpose. Magpie: It served no deterrant purpose. Marietta, not knowing about the hex, sang like a bird and then the jig was up. (And ironically the list itself--if it was the same list--made it even easier.) There was nobody to be deterred after that, and no one could have been deterred by it before that. Hermione's not telling anybody goes right along with what she says about the hex later--they'll be sorry they told. She's already got whatever pleasure she gets out of getting revenge on people through hexes, I'm not giving her points for good strategy too when almost everything that happened seem more a lesson of what to do better next time. I know I've got the advantage of knowing I'm reading a story, but Marietta looked like a weak link to me from the first day, so it's hard for me to think of Hermione being too good at the job of protection here. Cho tells Harry flat out, if it wasn't obvious, that Marietta doesn't want to be in the group at all and has pressures from her mother from the beginning. Alla: To me, the hex of this variety would have prevented Peter from passing information for a year. YES, he may have passed something harmful once, but then Order would have neutralised him. They would knew identity of the traitor. Magpie: Maybe, yes. But in order to make that a deterrant he would have had to have known about the curse beforehand-and I can't imagine Dumbledore wouldn't have told him about it if all the Order members were under that curse, since that's more his style. In Marietta's case there is no spying so it doesn't really apply. There was no danger of longterm spying for Umbridge, because this isn't a club there's any reason to spy on. The danger was the group being stopped and the people in it being known. Alla: On the personal level, funnily Hermione is my least favorite member of the trio, but as imaginary member of the DA I been deeply grateful to her for trying to protect me and my peers from expulsion. Magpie I think if we were both members we'd be having a lot of these same conversations then.:-) You'd be saying "I'm so grateful to Hermione for trying to protect us." I'd be saying, "WTF???" I'm not grateful to anybody for secretly hexing me with long-term skin diseases. Especially when they're not protecting me from anything. Montavilla47: One of the customs was to shave a woman's head if she was caught. The intention being to mark and humilate her as a traitor to her people. Obviously, this wouldact as a deterrant to others. Did it? I suppose so, since we don't have Zacharias Smith ( for example)cutting deals with Umbridge to implicate the rest of the group. Magpie: I can see the thinking behind the situation in France, but in this case the group was already all caught once Umbridge had the list. And although there's no indication that Zach Smith had any desire to betray the group, he couldn't have done so once Marietta had finished. The group can only be betrayed to Umbridge once. Montavilla47: We haven't even touched on the most incompetent thing that Hermione did--which was to leave the parchment tacked up in the room for Umbridge to find. Seems like the first rule of organizing a secret organization is that you don't leave the membership list lying around--and if you do, the first thing you do before fleeing the area in a panic is to set the darn thing on fire. Magpie: I think Hermione's actions are consistent this way too. Remember when they have that first meeting they're scolded for doing exactly the wrong thing by having it in a pub that's suspicious. Hermione really doesn't have the right mindset for protecting the group--or for this kind of group in general, at times. She's sort of doing what she imagines an underground group would do while doing stuff that members of the Order or the DA see as sending up red flags. I do agree, too, that even beyond that there's this trouble of exactly what the DA is and a lopsided view. Most of these kids have no reason to be personally loyal to Harry--Zach, for instance, seems thought badly of because he challenges him. And even in the final fight it comes down to Neville and Luna fighting because they kept checking the coins because they didn't have friends and this is as close as they have. They don't specifically go to the other kids. Not that I missed the DA--I'm fine with Harry not teaching it anymore. But it does seem like it is treated like a teenaged group most of the time. Hickengruendler: Did she? According to Umbridge, they needed evidence and the room provided it. Therefore I assumed the list simply appeared in the Room of Requirement, because Umbridge wanted to have it. Magpie: I don't have the book with me, but I seem to recall it was tacked up in the room where they practiced. Along with what turned out to be an unfortunate choice of name in that context. - From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat May 26 22:21:20 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 22:21:20 -0000 Subject: (Very Rambling) Responses to Marietta In-Reply-To: <380-220075626212143125@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169331 > Montavilla47: > One of the customs was to shave a woman's head if she was caught. The > intention being to mark and humilate her as a traitor to her people. > Obviously, this wouldact as a deterrant to others. > > Did it? I suppose so, since we don't have Zacharias Smith ( for > example)cutting deals with Umbridge to implicate the rest of the group. > > Magpie: > I can see the thinking behind the situation in France, but in this case the > group was already all caught once Umbridge had the list. And although > there's no indication that Zach Smith had any desire to betray the group, > he couldn't have done so once Marietta had finished. The group can only be > betrayed to Umbridge once. Montavilla47: I suppose so, although Zacharias could have traded testimony for immunity (or just payback) by letting Umbridge know that the club *had* been meeting several times since becoming illegal. That's another odd thing, because Umbridge just drops the charges against the DA once Dumbledore claims responsbility for it. She could have, if she really wanted to, have tried to gather more testimony and get Harry expelled for leading it, at least. But maybe it was enough to her to have Dumbledore leave so that she could take over. > Montavilla47: > We haven't even touched on the most incompetent thing that > Hermione did--which was to leave the parchment tacked up in the > room for Umbridge to find. Seems like the first rule of organizing > a secret organization is that you don't leave the membership list > lying around--and if you do, the first thing you do before fleeing > the area in a panic is to set the darn thing on fire. > > Magpie: > I think Hermione's actions are consistent this way too. Remember when they > have that first meeting they're scolded for doing exactly the wrong thing > by having it in a pub that's suspicious. Hermione really doesn't have the > right mindset for protecting the group--or for this kind of group in > general, at times. She's sort of doing what she imagines an underground > group would do while doing stuff that members of the Order or the DA see as > sending up red flags. Montavilla47: You're making me laugh, Magpie, because you're reminding me of the ridiculous job Hermione did in trying to pump Burke (or was it Borgin) for information about Malfoy. She really is the world's worst spy, isn't she? Although Harry's bright idea to infiltrate the train compartment is right up there. Magpie: > I do agree, too, that even beyond that there's this trouble of exactly what > the DA is and a lopsided view. Most of these kids have no reason to be > personally loyal to Harry--Zach, for instance, seems thought badly of > because he challenges him. And even in the final fight it comes down to > Neville and Luna fighting because they kept checking the coins because they > didn't have friends and this is as close as they have. They don't > specifically go to the other kids. > > Not that I missed the DA--I'm fine with Harry not teaching it anymore. But > it does seem like it is treated like a teenaged group most of the time. Montavilla47: I like the way you put it: That it's like they're playing at being an underground group. The reason that these kids aren't personally loyal to Harry is because he's made no personal investment in them. He likes being a teacher well enough that you'd think he'd show some interest in them as people. But he never really does. Even when Harry sits with Luna and Neville in the train ride in HBP, he says they're "cooler" than the annoying girls he despises (that's sort of faint praise) because they went with him to the Ministry. He's doesn't even think about the things that really make Luna and Neville cool. Like her interesting observations or Neville's gentleness. Sigh. Maybe I spent too much time at the drama table in High School. But I just don't get why anyone *wouldn't* want to sit with Luna and Neville for a long train ride. They seem like people you could hold a long, interesting conversation with--even if you didn't hang around much with them during the rest of the school year. Magpie: > Most of these kids have no reason to be > personally loyal to Harry--Zach, for instance, seems thought badly of > because he challenges him. Montavilla47: I'm pulling this out again, because it does seem (at this point in the story) like a big missed opportunity with Zach. I can't help comparing Zacharias to Bigwig in "Watership Down." Bigwig was *always* challenging Hazel as the leader of the rabbits. None of the rabbits hexed Bigwig behind his back, but it was clear who was in charge no matter how pushy Bigwig got. And, once Hazel proved himself, Bigwig became his strongest and most loyal ally. I get that feeling from Zacharias. All he's really asking Harry for is to back up his position. Once he was satisfied, I think he'd have been the biggest Harry-booster of them all. Montavilla47 From aslitumerkan at gmail.com Sat May 26 22:00:17 2007 From: aslitumerkan at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-9?Q?Asl=FD_T=FCmerkan?=) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 01:00:17 +0300 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6467e1f0705261500o52edc3catf0b722cda9b25384@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169332 I couldn't find the part about Montague's disappearence but I remember as he spent a lot more in the vanishing closet than a day. Are you sure? The apparition evidence is very intriguing though. Asli From juli17 at aol.com Sun May 27 00:00:53 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 20:00:53 EDT Subject: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169333 My problem with the whole Marietta discussion is not whether she was wrong (she was), not whether she betrayed the group (she did), not whether Hermione was uncharacteristically idiotic to use a hex that worked *post* betrayal rather than some other spell that would actually be a deterrent to betrayal (she was), nor whether Hermione's punishment was overly-harsh in its application (I believe it was, at least in terms of its protracted nature). My problem is that we are talking about a bunch of FIFTEEN YEAR OLDS here. They are essentially still children, engaging in school activities, reasoning and making decisions based on their youthful understanding and impulses, not soldiers on any actual front line with the fate of their countrymen clearly in their hands. This is schoolyard stuff, learning something in spite of that learning being against the rules, planning defensive strategies in preparation for a *potential* future war. Potential. It is not happening yet, and many don't believe it will ever happen. The French Resistance has NO relevance whatsoever, nor any other wartime resistance (and the battle that eventually occurred at the DoM was absolutely not foreseeable nor was the DA in training for such a voluntary offensive--which only a handful of Harry's closest friends joined, BTW, not the whole DA). The worst that could happen to the students here was that they perhaps they would be expelled (I say *perhaps* as we've seen more than one student given much less harsh punishment for expellable behavior). And in fact the DA students *were* caught and *did* escape punishment, rendering Umbridge's decree not unexpectedly futile in the face of the unimpedable force of will known as Dumbledore. (And since we have never been told that being expelled equates to having your wand broken and being unable to practice magic--Hagrid supposedly committed a serious crime in addition to breaking school rules--we have no real basis to assume the two are always or even often related, more in fact to believe they usually aren't.) Meanwhile those in the French Resistance who were betrayed faced rape, torture, and death. Perhaps also the destruction of their families and of their villages in retaliation. While being kicked out of school is unpleasant and could have some consequences for a student's future, it somehow pales when compared to being raped, mutilated, dead. Greatly pales, IMO. Two different ballparks. Two different planets even. While Marietta was certainly wrong, applying the word "evil," suggesting that she committed "treason," that she should have been shot, and so on, all comes off as far more out of proportion to the reality of the situation than any argument that Hermione might have been wrong in turn. Julie, thinking wartime judgment requires an actual war in progress ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun May 27 00:08:49 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 00:08:49 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169334 --From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169209 -- One last point from PS/SS -- > zgirnius: > Perhaps any of 100 other people > might have saved Harry instead that day. This does not alter the > fact that only two people did, and one of them was Severus Snape. Mike: From my perspective, Harry was saved from possible serious injury, not from possible death. And yes, Snape with Hermione's inadvertant help did the saving. -- Now on to PoA -- > zgirnius: > > > 1) Black has an accomplice inside the castle. Considering a > person's known associates as more likely to be such an accomplice > compared to complete strangers (such as the actual culprit, the cat > of Hermione Granger) is reasonable. Mike: Excepting one thing - Snape seems to have already decided that Lupin was Black's accomplice by the time of the Fat Lady attack. Snape's words to Dumbledore in the great hall, which included: "I did express my concerns you when appointed--" indicate, to me, that Snape had pleaded his case against Lupin *on the basis of his relationship with Black* before Lupin even had the job. Therefore, Snape needed no evidence to convince him of Lupin's culpability, since he had none prior to the start of term and he has already warned Dumbledore. Subsequent knowledge of an inside accomplice only confirms in Snape's mind his prejudicial suspicions, which are wrong in the first place. > zgirnius: > 2) There is also the matter of the parchment that Snape finds on > Harry after Harry's illicit trip to Hogsmeade. He suspects that it > contains instructions about how to get into Hogsmeade without > passing the Dementors, a reasonable guess given Harry has just done > so. A guess, further, not in any way connected to any supposed > irrational prejudice against the Marauders, since he makes the > connection before the Marauders' nicknames enter the picture. He > learns that the parchment in question was made by the Marauders, > and Lupin lies to him about it. Where do you suppose Snape thinks > Harry got the thing? *Directly from the manufacturers*, Snape > supposes. Only one of whom has easy access to Harry - Lupin. Mike: I'd like to come at this from a little different angle, regarding the Marauder's Map. These *secret passages* are not completely secret, Filch knows about four of them. Dumbledore set one up. I don't believe that the Marauders were the first ones to discover the secret passages of a castle thats been around for nigh a thousand years. In fact, Snape already knows that Sirius knew one of them. Is it too much to expect that Snape (who supposedly had such a keen insight into the Marauders) would suspect Black knew a few more of the secret passages? But lastly, what greater knowledge of the castle would anyone (Snape, DD, etc.) think Lupin might have over Black's knowledge? IOW, why would Black need inside help to get into the castle? The answer is, he doesn't, Dumbledore got that part right. Dumbledore admits he doesn't know all of his castles secrets. Doesn't that mean he could fathom a secret passage that Black knew but he was unaware of? And doesn't he as much as say so when he tells Severus "I do not believe a single person inside this castle would have helped Black enter it."? Of course, Dumbledore was right and Snape was wrong on this count, but Snape is not deterred in his belief at this point. It looks like Dumbledore's!Man!Snape doesn't believe Dumbledore. In the Map questioning scene, I think both Lupin and Snape knew exactly what the other was insinuating, but not saying it out loud in front of Harry. Does anyone really think Snape thought the parchment contained "Dark Magic" as he remarks to Lupin? I don't. So they are both lying out loud, but they understand what each other really thinks about each other. > zgirnius: > 3) That it *is* a way to get into Hogsmeade is a shrewd guess that > Snape confirms before he comes after Lupin in the climax of PoA - > he sees it at work when he sees Lupin go into the tunnel. > > Enough to make following Lupin seem worth the trouble when he does, > to me. Mike: But what does it matter that the Map showed secret passages? Black doesn't have it. And if Snape recognized who the "manufacturers" were, then he knows Black was one of them. So Black didn't need the Map. And how does the Map affect Snape's decision to follow Lupin? He already knows where that tunnel leads, he's been down that road before. _______________________________________________________ The problem I have with all this *evidence* is that it doesn't seem to be enlightening Severus Snape to anything. Oh sure, the Marauder's Map is something new and Snape cleverly deduces its true purpose. But he catches Harry with it. And since he recognizes Black as one of the "manufacturers", shouldn't that point to Black *not* needing any *inside help* to get into the castle? As to Lupin, why would it surprise Snape that Harry could be taken into Lupin's confidence? Snape thinks Harry is too much like his father, and his father was friends with Lupin. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to envision this pairing could happen. But why would Snape think there were two traitors among the Marauders? Or one traitor and one enabler, I guess. We are going to need to be shown some strange goings on from the past to make me understand why Snape should believe both Black and Lupin turned on their friend James Potter. And if Snape believes, as we do, the Lupin is weak - the weak thing to do does not include actively helping a *known* murderer kill the son of your deceased, one-time good friend. The weak thing would be to hide behind Dumbledore and do nothing, positive or negative, which is what Lupin does. How can this be so hard for Snape to see, especially with his past history and experience with the Marauders? Snape seems to be doing what we on this list are prone to do; Fitting the evidence to match the theory. *************************************************** Before I go on, I want to air my opinion that PoA has *the* longest running section of poorly written work, from a plot-making-sense perspective. Starting where Dog!Sirius drags Ron into the Willow and clear through to the final Hospital scene where Snape loses it. This includes JKR's unfortunate choice to introduce time-travel, and my biggest complaint, Lupin's transformation when the cloud shifts. The unreasonableness of actions by many of her characters in this section of the book, has led to many of us drawing completely different conclusions for their actions. But, of course, that doesn't stop us from debating. *************************************************** ---[re: Womping Willow-Shrieking Shack operability]--- In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169093 > Leslie: > Because it took the Marauders to let him out, that's why. He > essentially was "locked in" at the Shrieking Shack, unless someone > came to get him out. Obviously that's the case, because what > protection would the shack have been had they left the door open? > zgirnius: > Canon is that he was able to get out because Peter the convenient > little rat stopped the tree. In his transformed state, he loses his > human consciousness and does not know how to deactivate the tree > himself. > > If he could always get out by himself, why didn't he? Not to > mention it makes Dumbledore an idiot - this is the protection he > put in place when he permitted Lupin to attend the school. Mike: It's good to debate these points when different perspectives can cause enlightenment. I think this happened in this case. I think both of you have spotted a plot hole, not that they are rare in this section of the book. Either that or, as zgirnius notes, Dumbledore was an idiot. When Dog!Sirius is dragging Ron into the Willow the limbs have *not* been deactivated. One of them hits Harry while he has a handful of Dog fur. So it is possible to traverse to or from the Willow's entrance while its still in the "Whomping" mode. This is what prompted my previous remark: "Lupin would just move faster on all fours as a werewolf." As in, a werewolf would have a reasonable shot at eluding the thrashing branches. The dog dragging a boy did. I never even considered the Willow being the "locked door". That that was Dumbledore's protection to keep werewolf Lupin from escaping. I had always assumed the purpose of the Whomping Willow was to keep anybody else from encountering werewolf!Lupin. My assumption was that Madam Pomphrey had to escort Lupin to the Willow because someone had to put some kind of spell on the entrance, like the DE barrier on the tower. (I pick the entrance because I can't see poor Madam P ambling through that dirty tunnel to put the barrier up at the Shack entrance ) Something that the other Marauders removed. It didn't have to be a complicated spell, Lupin the werewolf wasn't going to be casting any counter charms. But if my barrier assumption (which isn't canon) is wrong and your assumption of the Willow as barrier (which is canon) is right, we have a case where the werewolf!Lupin is not adequitely shielded from the rest of the WW. Either Dumbledore was the idiot or JKR messed up. I put the blame on JKR. Oh, and just for the record, the Marauders needed the rat to get into the Willow. Anybody can push the knot to freeze the branches on the way out. > > Mike previously: > > But canon shows that Snape fully intended to "drag the werewolf" > > out himself. > > zgirnius: > Canon shows what he threatened. I am not convinced he was sincere. > His statements about what he was going to do escalated throughout > the conversation. Mike: In his mind, Snape may not have left the castle with this intention. But when he snaps his fingers to make the ends of the cords binding Lupin fly to his hands, then makes the above comment, followed by his order to Harry get out of the way of the door, I submit that at this point there is no doubt what Snape intends on doing. > zgirnius: > You are ignoring my suggestion that he did not necessarily plan to > go in after Lupin, but rather to watch the exit for the appearance > (he hoped) of Black. Finding evidence that one or more students > were already in there would have changed his plans. Mike: OK, I'll address it. If Snape had no intention of following Lupin when he left the castle, why did he leave in the first place? Why not just sit there with the Map and watch for Lupin and Black to reappear on the Map coming back out? Or take the Map with him, so he at least has a warning when they *are* coming out? Why not instead contact Dumbledore immediately? I find it hard to believe that he rushed out of the castle with the intention of reaching the Willow and sitting down in the grass, for who knows how long. How does that jibe with the Snape we've been presented so far? And how does that jibe with the suspicious!Snape which you have presented and I agree with? Since he's been accumulating all this evidence against Lupin and this looks like his big breakthrough, is he likely to passively wait outside the Willow? IMO, it is far more likely that he left the castle with the intention to do exactly what he did do, follow Lupin into the Willow. _______________________________________________________ Snape chasing after Lupin seems so irrational after what seems to be Snape taking a very rational, if somewhat vindictive, approach to implicate Lupin in Black's shenanigans. I don't know, maybe that's what JKR was going for. Snape certainly seems to come unhinged in the Shack when confronting his childhood nemesis, Sirius Black. Are we suppose to conclude that Snape loses perspective and lets his enmity swallow him up when it comes to dealing with the remaining Marauders? Because, thats's what I'm left to conclude. I don't understand why Snape, who *was* a DE at the time, believed that Black had become a DE. Why would he not know that this was a patently false accusation against Black? He didn't have to stick his neck out for Black, I wouldn't expect him to, I certainly wouldn't in his shoes. But his actions in the Shack imply that he still believed this falsehood, one that he should have clearly been in position to know was false. As Carol brought up on another thread, there is this problem with the traitor Pettigrew. We see the Marauders using their nicknames publically. There is no attempt to hide them. So whether the DEs knew the traitor as Pettigrew or as Wormtail, Snape *should* know who this refers to. Further, as houyhnhnm pointed out, the DEs (at least some of those in Azkaban) think the traitor is dead. And it is *common knowledge* that Pettigrew died in an altercation with Sirius Black over the Potter- Voldemort affair. Again, Snape was still a DE, even if he had changed his allegiance by then. So why does he persist in this belief that Black was the one who sold out the Potters? Again, I'm not saying he would or should come forward with this information. But in the Shack, my impression is that he is suppose to be unaware of Black's true status. Snape still blames Black for selling out the Potters. Is that a charactor flaw of Snape's to believe irrational things about Sirius? Or, as Jen has brought up, DDM or not, Snape wanted to see Sirius Black dead and was not above contributing to that end. Or is this a plot hole that we aren't suppose to explore too closely? Mike From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun May 27 00:29:43 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 00:29:43 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169335 --- "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > > bboyminn: > . > > When Shacklebolt modified her memory, he may have > > modified that aspect that effected Motivation > > rather than details. With a shift in motivation > > comes a shift in loyalty. That shift in loyalty > > would have produced the same answers as your > > suggestion that Marietta remembers nothing at all. > > Pippin: > But there's no canon that memory charms can shift > motivation, or that Marietta's motivation has > shifted. Good heavens, if the Ministry has that > kind of power, it's a shame they haven't reformed > a few Death Eaters that way, not to mention > Riddle himself. Zap! you're a good guy. > > There is ample canon that memory charms > make people forget their acquired knowledge and > their experiences. But even a memory charm as > violent as the one that affected Lockhart didn't > cause him to change his motivations or his loyalties. > > What you're describing sounds a lot more like > the Imperius Curse, actually. > > Pippin > bboyminn: What you are forgetting is that Memory Charms are SELECTIVE. They don't, unless specifically intended, make you forget 'everything'. They are very selective and make you forget what the caster desires you to forget. The people that Lockhart Memory Charmed didn't, apparently turn into mindless zombies. They continued on with their daily lives, just as Marietta did. They remembered who they were, where they lived, who their family was, what they did for a living, etc.... The same is true of Mr. Roberts at the Quidditch World Cup camp grounds. He was specifically Memory Charmed to forget /wizard/ related things. His mind did not go completely blank. So, IF Marietta was made to forget her motivation, the details of which we are not privileged to, then the reason for her actions would no longer exist. She could however remember what she did and further remember the consequences of her actions, and THAT would be new motivation for NOT cooperating with Fudge and Umbridge. I'm not saying this is true, I am saying since we don't know the nature of Marietta's memory modification, that modification come open to speculation. My version of speculated memory modification is just as valid as your version, and both are consistent with known cannon. Again, my central point is that since so much is not know, since so many details are missing, we really don't know what happened beyond the superficial explanation we have. That further opens the door to a wide range of speculation about what might happen in the future, because we have so little information to base future actions on. The 'spots' could just as easily disappear on their own, or not. Hermione could just as easily make friends with Marietta in the next book and resolve the spots as not. The master healer winging his way for China to cure Marietta could just as easily happen as not. Etc.... There is simply not enough information available to make sure judgments on. I do however understand and share, to some extent, people dislike for Hermione's actions. But we judge this from the perspective of older, wiser, more rational human beings. Hermione's judgment is from a normally irrational short-sighted impulsive teenager. Teenager's are crazy; completely irrational and illogical creatures who are easy to take offense, and just as easy to forget offense. >From my perspective as an older wiser person, this was a terrible thing to do, but from Hermione's perspective as an impulsive teenager, it makes some sense. Eventually, everyone involved will find, or at least I hope, the rational ground and resolve the unresolved aspects of the event. I'm somewhat angry at Hermione, but I'm also hoping she will have a change of heart and straighten things out with Marietta, that is, if at the beginning of the next book, the issue still needs resolving. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun May 27 02:04:45 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 22:04:45 EDT Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169336 >Mike >But Lupin is irresponsible for not sitting in his office and waiting for Snape to show up with his potion. Just let whatever's happening happen, Lupin. Don't be bothered, remember, you're the wimpy do- nothing of the Marauders. >Leslie41: >You grant Lupin an enormous amount of leeway that you refuse to grant Snape. Snape believes that a murderer is in the Shrieking Shack (again, see my previous post on this), a murderer with whom Lupin is in cahoots, a murderer who has made a great mess of Hogwarts and scared the bejesus out of everyone, and whom everyone believes wants to kill a student. >Oh, wait! Snape's got to remember to bring the potion! To put it in some sort of a bubble or something to keep it safe so Lupin can take it when Snape gets there! Nikkalmati Snape comes into Lupin's office with the potion and sees by the Map that Lupin is headed for the Whomping Willow. Leaving the practicality of taking a steaming goblet of potion with him, why is Snape supposed to know that Lupin will take it? Is he supposed to tie him up and pour it down his throat? "We" know that Lupin has seen something that made him forget, but Snape does not know that. He presumes that Lupin is up to no good - out to meet Sirius the Murderer/Marauder - and he goes after him. Of course, he wants to catch the bad guys red handed and have his own name cleared, so to speak. Of course, he listens outside the door, because when he arrives they are discussing the very topic he is interested in, what the Marauders were doing when they all were fifth years together. Of course, he ignores the children who presumably have no idea what is going on. Harry isn't even supposed to know Sirius is out to kill him, or why. I just can't blame Snape for not packaging up the potion and taking it out to Lupin under these circumstances. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at fastmail.us Sun May 27 02:53:26 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 22:53:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The D.A. (Was: Responses to Marietta) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169337 > Hickengruendler: > > Did she? According to Umbridge, they needed evidence and the room > provided it. Therefore I assumed the list simply appeared in the Room > of Requirement, because Umbridge wanted to have it. While that is a common fan conception of how the RoR works, and has even been spoofed (I remember reading a fanficlet in which Harry went into the RoR wanting Voldemort's head on a platter), it's not actually in evidence in the books. Everything we're shown indicates that the RoR has a possibly finite collection of specific rooms, from which it picks the one best suited for what you need. In particular, there's no reason for all that unrelated stuff to appear in the version of the room Draco is working in in HBP, or for Trelawney to get the same room, unless this is the case. --Random832 From jess_villeneuve at hotmail.com Sun May 27 01:39:05 2007 From: jess_villeneuve at hotmail.com (Princess TinkerB) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 11:39:05 +1000 Subject: alternative title In-Reply-To: <038901c79f6d$4b1ea660$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169338 >Kati: >The swedish HP publisher, Tiden frlag, reveals their translation of >the title for HP7, "Harry Potter och ddsrelikerna" (Harry Potter and >the Relics of Death). This alternative title was given to translators >by JK herself, as DH is very difficult to translate. Thoughts on the >alternative title? Are relics "only" referring to the horcruxes >(locket, cup)? Lauren: >I think JKR is using the term "hallows" to mean the Horcruxes, but > I'm not totally certain of that. When I looked up the > term "hallows" I did not get a definition for a noun form of the > term. I did, however, get a definition of "relics" as a noun: There is no noun form of "hallows" in American English, but there is in the other forms of English (those from the original British). I am going from the top of my head, but it means "an object which has been made holy", so, yes, relics is a good, general alternative word. I love that anyone can make anything holy. It is something that that person deems worthy of awe or worship, and not necessarily religious. The religious tones of the words are just the context we generally hear the words used in. Bianca From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun May 27 03:08:47 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 23:08:47 EDT Subject: Was Ministry going to punish Snape if kills Sirius on site? WAS: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169339 >Carol >So thanks, Alla. You're right that Snape may have avoided a prison sentence for taking justice into his own hands a la Lupin and Black, but he also refrained from committing murder in front of three kids. Nikkalmati Not very likely that he would have been convicted of a crime, if he had killed Black, being that self-defense was a viable defense. We have see that there is not much due process in the WW and many of the laws and customs refer back of an earlier era. I would just note that there is precedent for the idea that Black could be killed on sight without consequence: outlawry. Once a person had been declared an outlaw "If captured, the outlaw could be hanged merely on proof of the outlawry having been made. Anyone could capture him and kill him if he resisted. It needed a resolution of the judges in 1328 to save his life against anyone who took a fancy to kill him . . . (notes omitted)." A Concise History of the Common Law by Theodore Plucknett, Boston 1956. I would not expect that public announcements would encourage Muggles or wizards to approach an armed and dangerous madman, but that does not mean it was forbidden to do it. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun May 27 07:50:42 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 07:50:42 -0000 Subject: alternative title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tassgurka" wrote: > > The swedish HP publisher, Tiden f?rlag, reveals their translation of > the title for HP7, "Harry Potter och d?dsrelikerna" (Harry Potter and > the Relics of Death). This alternative title was given to translators > by JK herself, as DH is very difficult to translate. Thoughts on the > alternative title? Are relics "only" referring to the horcruxes > (locket, cup)? > > Kati > Leslie: I think it's got to refer to the Horcruxes, and only the Horcruxes. What else could it be? We've talked about the meaning of the word "horcrux" before, as it's an invented word, but obviously one Rowling thought about. The word "hore" in Old English means "whore". "Horh" means dirt or defilement, and "horig" (hory) means foul or filthy, and many of the Old English words that have "hor" as their root have to do with dirt, mud, and squalor. Makes sense. "Crux" means cross or center, root, and many words associated with it have something to do with pain (in Rowling's world and ours as well). A less religious interpretation would simply read horcrux as "root of filth". A more religious one (to which I am inclined) would have it mean "cross of defilement" (or something like that), with Voldemort's resurrection serving as an unholy, inverted version of Christ's. But your milage may vary on that. I'm one of those people that sees Harry's scar as symbolic of baptism and unction. We talked a lot about the meaning of "Deathly Hallows" as well when the title was released, but the fact that Rowling allowed the title to be translated as "relics of death" means that the deathly hallows must be horcruxes, not saints or holy places or whatever. Rowling I think is being deliberately vague by not calling it "Harry Potter and the Horcruxes," but that title sounds rather stupid, and every other title has had a bit of mystery too it and why not this one, too? From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun May 27 10:48:36 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 03:48:36 -0700 Subject: [spec] Horcrux's Opposite: or, love is more powerful than the Dark Lord's kind of magic Message-ID: <700201d40705270348x84efe85t80d33c4f08876b47@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169341 HBP, US soft, 645: Bright, white flames had erupted around Dumbledore's body and the table upon which it lay.... 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. Kemper now: I am assuming that the phoenix Harry saw is actually Dumbledore's spirit as I'm under the impression that the patronus represents the soul. The Dementor's Kiss sucks the soul out of it's victim. It seems natural that the corporeal patronus would reflect the soul and hope, fighting back against a soul-eater and despair. No canon. Just running with the idea. So, if the smokey phoenix is DD's spirit, then why did it not leave upon DD's death? Another impression I get, though probably with more canonical support, is that DD's a planner. DD's a man who would plan for his death. Do we think anyone else came up with magic behind the white flames, white smoke (with phoenix) and white tomb? This seems to be DD having set his affairs in order just in case he loses his life in the war against Voldemort. One of thing he may also have planned for, is a way to help Harry from beyond the tomb. Not by means of a ghost: DD's not afraid to die. Not by a portrait: it would be an echo of DD, empty, hollow and redundant. Not by a memory: pensieves have been ad nauseam. I'm thinking the help would come from DD's phoenix spirit. (JKR mentioned to Daniel Radcliffe she was having trouble with DD, maybe she was having trouble anthropomorphizing the phoenix with DD?) DD's spirit (soul) will be allowed to remain on earth by means of an Opposite Horcrux. Voldemort would not know of this type of magic. HBP, US soft, 444, LV to DD: "But nothing I have seen in the world has supported your famous pronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, Dumbledore." The Horcrux selfishly benefits the Dark Wizard. The Opposite Horcrux would need to selflessly benefit another. This other person would have to be someone the Light Wizard loves. OP, US soft, 828, DD to Harry: "I cared about you too much.... I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act." Dumbledore loves Harry more than he loves any other student. I would wager that he loves Harry above all other living people around this time... though maybe Hagrid would be a close second. I speculate that we will see Dumbledore's phoenix spirit aid Harry in his quest to vanquish the Dark Lord. His soul's time on Earth might be until Harry's quest is over or it might be for a short time only (40 days, anyone?) before his phoenix soul soars and ascends into the next great adventure. Kemper, imploring forgiveness for any lapses in reason... it's late... or is it early? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun May 27 13:08:54 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 13:08:54 -0000 Subject: [spec] Horcrux's Opposite: or, love is more powerful than the Dark Lord's kind of magic In-Reply-To: <700201d40705270348x84efe85t80d33c4f08876b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169342 Kemper now: I am assuming that the phoenix Harry saw is actually Dumbledore's spirit as I'm under the impression that the patronus represents the soul. The Dementor's Kiss sucks the soul out of it's victim. It seems natural that the corporeal patronus would reflect the soul and hope, fighting back against a soul-eater and despair. No canon. Just running with the idea. So, if the smokey phoenix is DD's spirit, then why did it not leave upon DD's death? Ceridwen: That's the first and most lasting impression I got from the white- smoke phoenix, that this was Dumbledore's soul or spirit being released. That it was "joyful" seemed appropriate, given DD's attitude toward death. In some cultures, the soul of a person doesn't immediately leave the vicinity when it leaves the person's body. Stories of near-death experiences tend to support that view, with the person looking down on his or her body as rescuers attempt to reanimate it. There are customs in various cultures which celebrate a passing a year after the death. There may be a gathering, there may be gifts presented. There may be a religious service. It is then that the soul or spirit (I'm never quite clear what other people mean by these designations) moves on after a year of hanging around and saying good- bye. The year of mourning in the immediate family, wearing black for the widowed partner, waiting to re-marry, may presume the same sort of belief, at least early on, in western culture. In some cultures, the funeral service is supposed to release the soul. I attended a funeral once where drumming and chant singing was used for this purpose. It was very moving, and it does invoke in the listener the idea that the spirit is now able to move on. Stories in these cultures reflect this belief. Kemper: Another impression I get, though probably with more canonical support, is that DD's a planner. DD's a man who would plan for his death. Do we think anyone else came up with magic behind the white flames, white smoke (with phoenix) and white tomb? This seems to be DD having set his affairs in order just in case he loses his life in the war against Voldemort. Ceridwen: Hee! Yes, I thought it was DD's doings, too. The man's a showman! And, he has the knowledge and experience to carry something like this off. If anything had to be done after the fact, he would have instructed someone he trusts with those details. Kemper: One of thing he may also have planned for, is a way to help Harry from beyond the tomb. Not by means of a ghost: DD's not afraid to die. Not by a portrait: it would be an echo of DD, empty, hollow and redundant. Not by a memory: pensieves have been ad nauseam. I'm thinking the help would come from DD's phoenix spirit. (JKR mentioned to Daniel Radcliffe she was having trouble with DD, maybe she was having trouble anthropomorphizing the phoenix with DD?) Ceridwen: JKR's problem with Dumbledore could mean a memory trip chapter (maybe the Prank?), or it could mean something else. Some people have mentioned that ghosts exist for various reasons, one of which is unfinished business, so DD could also manifest as a ghost, IMO. I'd still rather see one or more memory chapters showing rather than explaining certain mysteries in the series. ;) Pensieve memories are a possibility, but I can't see DD just leaving a bunch of memories lying around where invading DEs and sundry others could get at them. That wouldn't discount the phoenix spirit helping, too. In defeating LV, more help is always better. If a portrait could manage more than catch-phrases, it would be DD's, in my opinion. But so far, we haven't seen many times when Harry is alone in the head's office for there to be a private conversation. If Harry is out searching for HXs, he may not even spend a lot of time at Hogwarts, leaving the research to Hermione. It could happen, and it might. But I think that would be the least of DD's help in DH. Kemper: DD's spirit (soul) will be allowed to remain on earth by means of an Opposite Horcrux. Ceridwen: I'm snipping the rest. This is interesting, and others have speculated some HX sort of thing for DD. So far, the only magic we *know* of that allows for a soul to be tied to the earth is Dark Magic of the evilest variety. It involves killing someone else and shredding off a piece of the soul. I can see mirrored Light Magic, sure. But I would like to hear speculation about how such a thing - why not just call it a Hallow, since the book is titled Deathly Hallows? - would be made. It can't be made through murder, that would make it Dark. If we look at things like a circle, or an artist's color-wheel, then there would be something on the Light side that *differentiates*, not shreds, a piece of soul without murdering, yet leaves it intact inside the host until death. Maybe that magic is the Patronus. Just speculating here, without a full cup of coffee yet (yes, Kemper, it's late *and* it's early!), but if the phoenix seen at DD's funeral is the release of soul or spirit, then as Kemper was guessing, the Patronus is the person's soul representative. It is a part of a soul, but not divorced from the core soul as LV's HXs are. It is created originally from a very good memory, and it fights Dark creatures. It would also not prevent death, which is unnatural. (In fact, if the initial creation of a Patronus involves differentiating a part of the soul for this purpose, maybe that's why it's difficult to create one at first - more speculation) If the Patronus is a form of Opposite Horcrux, then it carries the intent of the originating soul. It may have hung around until the funeral because it was DD's intent for it to do so. Or, the fire could have released it at DD's intent, because I do agree that the whole spectacle of the White Tomb was Dumbledore's doing. The fire may release the magic. Interesting thoughts! I hope someone else adds to the speculation! Ceridwen. From darksworld at yahoo.com Sun May 27 15:38:04 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 15:38:04 -0000 Subject: [spec] Horcrux's Opposite: or, love is more powerful than the Dark Lord's ki In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > If the Patronus is a form of Opposite Horcrux, then it carries the > intent of the originating soul. It may have hung around until the > funeral because it was DD's intent for it to do so. Or, the fire > could have released it at DD's intent, because I do agree that the > whole spectacle of the White Tomb was Dumbledore's doing. The fire > may release the magic. > > Interesting thoughts! I hope someone else adds to the speculation! > Picking this up and advancing it as best as I can here. The horcrux spell is thought to encase a piece of the soul in an object. A spell to encase the patronus in an object? This is an exciting idea. I'm now thinking that DD could have encased a patronus in an object that he leaves to Harry in his will. This object could then convey advice to Harry whilst the trio is on the horcrux hunt. To tie this back in with an odd theory I read somewhere before, possibly even a talking chocolate frog card...hmmm... Charles, intrigued by this concept. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun May 27 15:46:42 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 15:46:42 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169344 Mike: > The problem I have with all this *evidence* is that > it doesn't seem to be enlightening Severus Snape to > anything. Oh sure, the Marauder's Map is something > new and Snape cleverly deduces its true purpose. But > he catches Harry with it. And since he recognizes > Black as one of the "manufacturers", shouldn't that > point to Black *not* needing any *inside help* to > get into the castle? houyhnhnm: Except that Snape doesn't know the history of the Map, its confiscation by Filch and abstraction by the Weasley twins who then gave it to Harry. He has to account for the Map's falling into Harry's hands. "You don't think it more likely that he got it /directly from the manufacturers/?" Since Harry obviously didn't acquire the Map from Sirius, that leaves Lupin. Which would not necessarily show that Lupin was helping Sirius get into the castle, but it would certainly suggest that Lupin was in cahoots with Sirius in an attempt to lure Harry out. Mike: > Again, Snape was still a DE, even if he had changed > his allegiance by then. So why does he persist in this > belief that Black was the one who sold out the Potters? > Again, I'm not saying he would or should come forward > with this information. But in the Shack, my impression > is that he is suppose to be unaware of Black's true > status. Snape still blames Black for selling out the > Potters. Is that a charactor flaw of Snape's to believe > irrational things about Sirius? houyhnhnm: My point was that I was trying to refute the assumption that Snape's loyalty turns on whether or not he knew that Peter Pettigrew was Wormtail the traitor. The DEs in the know, at least according to Sirius--if we can rely on his testimony, *knew* that Peter Pettigrew was the traitor. The question of Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore turns on whether he was in the know about *Peter Pettigrew*, whose alias, it seems to me, is irrelevant to the discussion. If Snape *knew* all along that Peter was the Order's traitor and witheld that knowledge from Dumbledore, then he is not persisting in a belief that Sirius was guilty because of a character flaw; he is out-and-out dissembling and he is not Dumbledore's man. The thing is, we don't really know what Snape's status was among the Death Eaters during VWI. We don't know what DE activities he participated in. All we know is that Voldemort sent Snape to apply for a position at Hogwarts to spy on Dumbledore at the time the prophecy was made and that he failed to do so. We have evidence from both Fudge and Sirius (though I can't remember where now) that Peter was betraying the Order for around a year before the Potters' deaths and this was the same time period during which Snape was spying for Dumbledore. Given what we have seen of the way Voldemort operates, I think it is entirely plausible that Snape was not able to learn the identity of the traitor. And given the fact that I believe there is abundant against both ESE!Snape and OFH!Snape, the only possible conclusion for me is that Snape did not know Peter was the traitor. BTW, an addtional nugget gleaned from the Shrieking Shack scene: Snape's fanatical gleam at the thought of proving Dumbledore wrong about Lupin. Why would an evil Snape be gleeful at the thought of proving Dumbledore could be mistaken in his trust of someone if he's been doing it successfully for fourteen years? It seems to me that whatever his hatred for Lupin, he would be anxious to promote the belief in DD's infallibility since that is what his position in the respectable WW rest on. Mike: > Or is this a plot hole that we aren't suppose to explore > too closely? houyhnhnm: Very possibly. We'll know in 50 days + the amount of time it takes to read and deconstruct. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun May 27 15:40:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 15:40:02 -0000 Subject: alternative title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169345 tassgurka wrote: > wrote: > > > > The swedish HP publisher, Tiden f?rlag, reveals their translation of the title for HP7, "Harry Potter och d?dsrelikerna" (Harry Potter and the Relics of Death). This alternative title was given to translators by JK herself, as DH is very difficult to translate. Thoughts on the alternative title? Are relics "only" referring to the horcruxes (locket, cup)? Leslie: > > I think it's got to refer to the Horcruxes, and only the Horcruxes. What else could it be? > > We've talked about the meaning of the word "horcrux" before, as it's an invented word, but obviously one Rowling thought about. > > The word "hore" in Old English means "whore". "Horh" means dirt or defilement, and "horig" (hory) means foul or filthy, and many of the Old English words that have "hor" as their root have to do with dirt, mud, and squalor. Makes sense. "Crux" means cross or center, root, and many words associated with it have something to do with pain (in Rowling's world and ours as well). > > > We talked a lot about the meaning of "Deathly Hallows" as well when the title was released, but the fact that Rowling allowed the title to be translated as "relics of death" means that the deathly hallows must be horcruxes, not saints or holy places or whatever. > > Rowling I think is being deliberately vague by not calling it "Harry Potter and the Horcruxes," but that title sounds rather stupid, and every other title has had a bit of mystery too it and why not this one, too? > Carol responds: Well, the translators must have invented a word for "Horcrux" or used it untranslated, so they could have used that same word in the titles. But because (as you say) "Harry Potter and the Horcruxes" contains no mystery at all (not to mention that it doesn't fit the patterns for the titles, HP and the (adjective) (noun) or HP and the (noun) of [the] (noun), I can see why she didn't choose it as her English title. "HP and the Relics of Death" may be one of the alternate titles mentioned on her website that she came up with and decided against (for whatever reason) in favor of "Deathly Hallows." It isn't necessarily synonymous with "Deathly Hallows." In any case, I'm not convinced that "Relics of Death" (which, BTW, is a rather horrifying title for a children's book, isn't it?) is synonymous with "Horcruxes," which are supposed to *prevent* death (unlike, say, the relics of a dead saint or the relics you inherit from your great grandmother on her death). Nor am I completely convinced that "deathly hallows" relates to objects. It could refer to a dead person "hallow" in "Halloween" or "Hallowe'en" refers to saints (not just holy people but good people who have died) or to a place (the place where the dead kings are entombed in LOTR's Gondor is referred to as "the Hallows"). I'm not going to argue the point, but "hallows" suggests "holy" and Horcruxes are anything but. One more note, not a point, exactly. Most of JKR's magic-related terms are Latin or pseudo-Latin ("cod Latin," she calls it). "Crux," of course, is Latin for "cross," so it makes sense that the "hor-" root would be Latin as well. And "hor-" in Latin means exactly what it suggests in English words derived from Latin: horror, horrid, horrible, horrific. In Latin itself, we have: horribilis -e [horrible , frightful, dreadful] horridus -a -um [rough , shaggy, bristly; shivering with cold]. Transf., [wild, savage; unpolished, uncouth; frightful, horrible]. Adv. horride, [roughly]. horrifer -fera -ferum [causing shudders of cold or fear]. horrifico -are [to make rough; to terrify]. horrificus -a -um [causing terror , dreadful]; adv. horrifice. horror -oris m. [bristling , shuddering; roughness of speech; dread, fright, esp. religious dread, awe]; meton., [object of dread, a terror]. I don't think that JKR would use the meaning "whore" (even figuratively to suggest filth) in a title for a HP book. The Latin meaning is more appropriate both in terms of readership and meaning, IMO. Carol, who really hopes that the "hallows" are not the Horcruxes and will be very disappointed in Rowling's judgment if they are From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun May 27 15:58:30 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:30 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169346 > > > bboyminn: > I'm not saying this is true, I am saying since we > don't know the nature of Marietta's memory > modification, that modification come open to > speculation. My version of speculated memory > modification is just as valid as your version, and > both are consistent with known cannon. Pippin: If I am to take a speculation seriously, then it has to be more than consistent with known canon. It has to not open up more plot holes than it plugs, especially at this stage of the game. If memory charms were capable of making Mr. Roberts forget his motive for being interested in wizard-related things, he would only need to have been charmed once instead of repeatedly. If Crouch Jr. could have been made to forget his motive for joining Voldemort, he wouldn't have needed to be kept under the Imperius curse. And so forth. So while your speculation is creative and entertaining, I don't think it will prove fruitful. Not that it needs to be of course, and speculations undertaken with no expectation that they will be fruitful in the sense of approximating future canon can sometimes yield unexpected insights and even turn out to be fruitful after all. BBoy: > I do however understand and share, to some extent, > people dislike for Hermione's actions. But we judge > this from the perspective of older, wiser, more > rational human beings. Hermione's judgment is from > a normally irrational short-sighted impulsive > teenager. Teenager's are crazy; completely irrational > and illogical creatures who are easy to take offense, > and just as easy to forget offense. Pippin: Yes indeed. I just wish that Hermione would have taken that into account before visiting such a drastic punishment on one of her schoolmates, and that readers would take that into account before deciding that Marietta was evil and deserved not only the punishment she received but an even worse one. I think many people do not want to see Hermione suffer the consequences of a ruthless and unjust action. Hence, perhaps, all this speculation that the curse will turn out to be milder or less lasting than it appears, or that future developments will show that even more ruthless action would have been justified. But I think, regardless of what happens to Marietta herself, that Hermione is already suffering the consequences. Remember what happened with the House Elf hats? Hermione hid them, hoping that the Elves would pick them up by accident and free themselves. Ron exposed the hats with these words: "They should at least see what they're picking up." I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see a parallel with the DA. Rather than take the trouble to find out what would motivate the Elves to seek their freedom, Hermione assumed they would want freedom if they knew what was good for them, and tried to trick them into accepting it. Rather than take the trouble to find out what would motivate the DA members to be loyal, Hermione assumed they'd be loyal if they knew what was good for them and tricked them into letting her punish anyone who disagreed. The House Elves were so offended by her tactics that they not only didn't accept their freedom, they stopped cleaning Gryffindor Tower. As for the DA, haven't we seen that despite all the curiosity about Harry and all the neat spells he obviously knows, no one but Neville and Luna has paid any attention to the summons of the coins since Hermione's trick was exposed? I think Cho is not the only one who was offended by what Hermione did. If Hermione plans to help unite the Houses, I think she's going to find she has some fence mending to do, whether Marietta is recovering on her own or not. Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun May 27 16:18:54 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 16:18:54 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169347 > > > > wynnleaf > The reader knows that Marietta's pustules are due to a hex on the > list of names that she signed. As far as I know, no characters > other than the Trio have the slightest idea of what caused > Marietta's hex. Finwitch: Well, I believe Cho (and possibly other DA members) do have an idea. She DID come up and said that to Harry, didn't she? And Harry, of course, took Hermione's side. If Hermione DID invent it, the matter might explain her stick-to-the-book attitude in HBP... she doesn't want any trouble AGAIN without knowing how to end it. Finwitch From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun May 27 16:54:56 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 12:54:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ravenclaw (was: Responses to Marietta ) Message-ID: <380-220075027165456484@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169348 > wynnleaf > The reader knows that Marietta's pustules are due to a hex on the > list of names that she signed. As far as I know, no characters > other than the Trio have the slightest idea of what caused > Marietta's hex. Finwitch: Well, I believe Cho (and possibly other DA members) do have an idea.She DID come up and said that to Harry, didn't she? And Harry, of course, took Hermione's side. Magpie: I've been thinking about this angle of it, actually, putting in context my feelings about Ravenclaw in the series. Pre-OotP I remember saying that I always thought that Ravenclaw was potentially a suspicous house-despite really not having canon evidence as such. I just got the feeling that it's connection to the intellectual, rather than a heart-shaped value like loyalty, made it potentially dangerous in the author's worldview. Anyway, the point was I wasn't surprised that the junior villain in OotP turned out to be a Ravenclaw for the specific reasons she betrayed the group. At PR last weekend I remember mentioning to someone that I saw many people in Hufflepuff robes or with badgers, openly declaring their alliance with that house. I also saw many Slytherins and some Gryffindors. The guy I was talking to said he belonged to the house most apathetic about that kind of thing and I immediately said--Ravenclaw? I saw exactly one person wearing anything Ravenclaw the whole weekend. We both laughed, since we both mostly identified with that house over the others. Now, I don't want to get silly and "speak for" the Ravenclaws in canon since I'm not really in the house and they're fictional. But I thought it was interesting that there was this breakdown along the lines of loyalty and joining. And especially along the lines of reaction to this hex. To some, obviously, the hex simply shows that Hermione was trying to protect the group and that's appreciated. Where as for me, I would have considered Hermione's hex an act of aggression against me, trying to trap me into her power. Like she's relating to me more as Big Brother instead of an ally. And she tricked me into this vulnerable position, giving herself authority I wouldn't have granted her. (Similarly, I remember when Hermione said they had to vote on the group leader I probably would have asked why she thought we needed a leader instead of just Harry teaching his fellow classmates. While we know of students in Ravenclaw, they aren't presented as a group so often as some of the other houses. Often they come into play by dating Gryffindors, so are already shown going outside their house. For all Cho is often used in arguments to condemn Marietta, Cho herself defends her. Not, imo, as I've sometimes heard, because she's an idiot, or a wuss (why would a wuss defend her?) or trying to tempt Harry to an evil side somehow. Cho says why she's defending her--she agrees what she did was wrong but can see her pov. That's what she tries to explaing to Harry, the circumstances that Marietta was operating under and why it made sense to her at the time. Circumstances Cho knew well because she knew Marietta. Harry may or may not have been convinced by these circumstances upon just hearing about them second hand, but he doesn't want to hear tthem at all and is offended that anyone would think he would. It's threatening to try to tell them to him. It just seemed significant to me that that's what it came down to, that what was wrong with Cho was that she could see both sides, especially when Harry wanted his own side validated. (The moment it was clear H/G was going to happen in HBP, for me, was where Ginny beat out even Hermione for seeing Harry's side in the Sectumsempra incident; while Hermione reminded Harry of how he might have hurt himself by what he did, Ginny took the more extreme position of saying Harry was right, period, and did good. Iow, there was nothing else to consider than Harry taking care of the enemy. Ginny also adopts Harry's attitude towards Cho as a human hosepipe--in HBP Ginny has an ever-growing list of characters she's judged for us.) Luna, too, keeps offering other points of view, and though they are usually less threatening to Harry because they're just silly, there is at least once where Luna casually announces that Hagrid's a bad teacher and doesn't back down when Ron and Ginny angrily disagree with her. Where Harry worries about the new perspective that allows him to see the Thestrals in OotP, Luna calmly tells him the strange animals really are there, that she has seen them for years, and isn't bothered by the evidence of her eyes that not everyone can see them. But then, what does Dumbledore want Harry to do in HBP but watch Voldemort's life for himself to understand where he's coming from? And it works--DD catches Harry expressing something like "compassion" for Voldemort when he sees his story from Voldemort's pov. This isn't the only time that's happened to Harry in canon either. - From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun May 27 16:58:30 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 27 May 2007 16:58:30 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/27/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1180285110.23.58264.m44@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169349 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday May 27, 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 May 27 17:08:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 17:08:04 -0000 Subject: [spec] Horcrux's Opposite: or, love is more powerful than the Dark Lord's ki In-Reply-To: <700201d40705270348x84efe85t80d33c4f08876b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169350 Kemper wrote: > > HBP, US soft, 645: > Bright, white flames had erupted around Dumbledore's body and the table upon which it lay.... 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. > > Kemper now: > I am assuming that the phoenix Harry saw is actually Dumbledore's spirit as I'm under the impression that the patronus represents the soul. The Dementor's Kiss sucks the soul out of it's victim. It seems natural that the corporeal patronus would reflect the soul and hope, fighting back against a soul-eater and despair. > No canon. Just running with the idea. > > So, if the smokey phoenix is DD's spirit, then why did it not leave > upon DD's death? > > Another impression I get, though probably with more canonical support, is that DD's a planner. DD's a man who would plan for his death. Do we think anyone else came up with magic behind the white flames, white smoke (with phoenix) and white tomb? This seems to be DD having set his affairs in order just in case he loses his life in the war against Voldemort. Carol responds: I agree that Dumbledore planned his own funeral, probably to symbolize hope and minimize despair. As Ceridwen says, he's a showman, but never without reason. Did you notice that Harry smiles at the memory of "Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak," and almost laughs when Grawp claps Hagrid on the shoulder to comfort him (reminsiscent of all the times that Hagrid has brought the kids to their knees by doing the same thing to them)? Harry wonders what's the matter with him to feel that way at a funeral, but I think it's exactly what Dumbledore wanted--love and laughter and happy memories among the tears. And Fawkes has a special connection with Harry, so maybe the symbolic phoenix was especially for his benefit. At any rate, my only objections to your beautiful theory are DD's willingness to "go on," as NHN puts it, or, as DD himself says, to undertake "the next great adventure" (he loves that "flighty temptress, adventure" doesn't he?) and JKR's own onsite definition of a Patronus as "a guardian spirit." Harry's Patronus symbolizes his father, not his own soul, and Tonks's symbolizes Lupin, not her own soul. (And, of course, the etymology of "patronus" supports this idea of a guardian spirit since "patronus" is an actual Latin word meaning "protector, defender, patron" which was used in Medieval Latin to mean "patron saint" and is derived from "pater" (father)--another link to James.) BTW, I think for JKR, a spirit is a supernatural essence (as in Department of Magical Creatures: Beast, Being, and Spirit divisions) and not the same thing as a soul, the eternal part of a person, Wizard or Muggle. Examples of spirits would include ghosts (the "imprint of a departed soul," according to Snape, and not the departed soul itself), ghouls, Dementors, and poultergeists. (I don't think the phoenix that arose from DD's tomb was anything of that sort; I think it was his last act of magic, planned for the moment he seems to have known was coming, even though, of course, he could not have known exactly how he would die.) Carol, whose beautiful new "Deathly Hallows" screen saver highlights that mysterious circle/triangle symbol and Harry's own stag Patronus, but no phoenix that I can see From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun May 27 17:11:21 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 17:11:21 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169351 Mike: > In the Map questioning scene, I think both Lupin and Snape knew > exactly what the other was insinuating, but not saying it out loud in > front of Harry. Does anyone really think Snape thought the parchment > contained "Dark Magic" as he remarks to Lupin? I don't. So they are > both lying out loud, but they understand what each other really > thinks about each other. Pippin: Harry speculates more than once that the Map may contain Dark Magic. He knows that one of the wizards who participated in its making later became a Death Eater, and another became a DADA specialist. It certainly could be dark, especially in the hands of a dark wizard. It has been used in the commission of at least one murder, that of Barty Crouch Sr. Mike: > The problem I have with all this *evidence* is that it doesn't seem > to be enlightening Severus Snape to anything. Oh sure, the Marauder's > Map is something new and Snape cleverly deduces its true purpose. But > he catches Harry with it. And since he recognizes Black as one of > the "manufacturers", shouldn't that point to Black *not* needing any > *inside help* to get into the castle? Pippin: Lupin says himself that the manufacturers of the map would have liked to get Harry out of the castle. Snape is not suspecting Lupin of getting Sirius in, at this point, but of helping Harry to get out. And Lupin is in fact responsible, both for making the map in the first place, and for leaving the witch passage unguarded even after he knew that Sirius might be using it to get in. Mike: But why would Snape think there were two traitors among the Marauders? Or one traitor and one enabler, I guess. We are going to need to be shown some strange goings on from the past to make me understand why Snape should believe both Black and Lupin turned on their friend James Potter. Pippin: *Everyone* had a hard time understanding why Sirius should have turned on James Potter. No one had an explanation beyond the sheer seductiveness of evil " when a wizard goes over to ter the Dark Side, there's nothin' and no one that matters to 'em anymore." If that could affect Sirius, why not Lupin as well? Snape believes this is possible because everyone believes it is possible. Mike: > And if Snape believes, as we do, the Lupin is weak - the weak thing > to do does not include actively helping a *known* murderer kill the > son of your deceased, one-time good friend. The weak thing would be > to hide behind Dumbledore and do nothing, positive or negative, which > is what Lupin does. How can this be so hard for Snape to see, > especially with his past history and experience with the Marauders? Pippin: Except that Snape knows that the weak also hide behind Voldemort. If he's DDM! he knows that the Dark Side didn't make him incapable of caring about anyone. In fact, since much of canon seems to be devoted to proving that the seductive power of evil is a myth, it's probable that all the DE's see themselves and their friends as weak, while supposing that the other DE's are truly evil. But only the psychopaths like Voldemort are actually incapable of caring for anyone, and it was not the practice of dark magic that made him so, but genetic propensity exacerbated by neglect. Mike: > *************************************************** > Before I go on, I want to air my opinion that PoA has *the* longest > running section of poorly written work, from a plot-making-sense > perspective. Starting where Dog!Sirius drags Ron into the Willow > and clear through to the final Hospital scene where Snape loses it. > This includes JKR's unfortunate choice to introduce time-travel, and > my biggest complaint, Lupin's transformation when the cloud shifts. > The unreasonableness of actions by many of her characters in this > section of the book, has led to many of us drawing completely > different conclusions for their actions. But, of course, that doesn't > stop us from debating. > *************************************************** Pippin: EverSoEvil!Lupin resolves all the plot holes in PoA, and yet for some people this is its biggest drawback, as if manufacturing a theory to fit the evidence is somehow not fair play. While Harry blithely manufactures evidence to fit *his* theories, and we *know* he does this, it is still considered somehow not cricket to assume that Harry's theories are flat wrong. > > Mike:> > When Dog!Sirius is dragging Ron into the Willow the limbs have *not* > been deactivated. One of them hits Harry while he has a handful of > Dog fur. Pippin: Or Sirius and Crookshanks were hiding *in* the Willow, and headed out when they heard Ron shouting about Scabbers. They deactivated the tree, Sirius rushed out, knocked Harry over, *turned around* as canon states, and then rushed back, grabbing Ron and disappearing into the tree. The willow then started up again, and Harry and Hermione got whomped. Of course Lupin would have seen Sirius and Crookshanks on the Map in this scenario, but then he should have seen them anyway. It's not a problem for ESE!Lupin, however. > Mike: > OK, I'll address it. If Snape had no intention of following Lupin > when he left the castle, why did he leave in the first place? Why not > just sit there with the Map and watch for Lupin and Black to reappear > on the Map coming back out? Or take the Map with him, so he at least > has a warning when they *are* coming out? > Pippin: Because he would have seen TT!Harry and TT!Hermione on the grounds. He doesn't take the map because it's evidence of Lupin's perfidy and also a reputed dark object. Mike: > Why not instead contact Dumbledore immediately? I find it hard to > believe that he rushed out of the castle with the intention of > reaching the Willow and sitting down in the grass, for who knows how > long. How does that jibe with the Snape we've been presented so far? Pippin: Whether he is DDM! or ESE!, Snape waited thirteen years or longer with his motives in disguise before returning to Voldemort. Mike: > As Carol brought up on another thread, there is this problem with the > traitor Pettigrew. We see the Marauders using their nicknames > publically. There is no attempt to hide them. So whether the DEs knew > the traitor as Pettigrew or as Wormtail, Snape *should* know who this > refers to. Pippin: Unless Snape believes it refers to more than one person. Like Evans, or Crouch or Riddle or Neville Longbottom or Ronil Wazlib. Mike: > Or is this a plot hole that we aren't suppose to explore too closely? Pippin: And yet if Lupin is the traitor, a weak traitor like Marietta instead of a strong traitor like Crouch Jr, it all makes sense. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sun May 27 17:26:31 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 17:26:31 -0000 Subject: [spec] Horcrux's Opposite: or, love is more powerful than the Dark Lord's kind of magic In-Reply-To: <700201d40705270348x84efe85t80d33c4f08876b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169352 Kemper: > The Horcrux selfishly benefits the Dark Wizard. The > Opposite Horcrux would need to selflessly benefit > another. This other person would have to be someone > the Light Wizard loves. houyhnhnm: And if a horcrux requires murder to create, then the Opposite Horcrux requires the opposite of murder--love, but more than just ordinary love, love that strengthens the soul of another. I think that Harry is an Opposite Horcrux (and not the only one, either. All those to whom Dumbledore has given a second chance have an Opposite Horcrux within). Just as Harry experienced the phoenix song as coming from within himself, he will be faced with a critical decision and he will experience Dumbledore within himself telling him the right thing to do. I don't think the Opposite Horcrux will be an external artefact, but there could be some kind of external manifestation such as hearing the phoenix song again or actually seeing a phantasmal phoenix. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun May 27 17:54:59 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 17:54:59 -0000 Subject: Horcrux's Opposite: or, love is more powerful than the Dark Lord's ki In-Reply-To: <700201d40705270348x84efe85t80d33c4f08876b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169353 > Kemper now: > > DD's spirit (soul) will be allowed to remain on earth by means of an > Opposite Horcrux. > > Voldemort would not know of this type of magic. > > HBP, US soft, 444, LV to DD: > "But nothing I have seen in the world has supported your famous > pronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, > Dumbledore." > > The Horcrux selfishly benefits the Dark Wizard. The Opposite Horcrux > would need to selflessly benefit another. Neri: Interesting. I've been considering for some time a speculative Potterverse cosmology in which is the "Opposite Horcrux" is the Life Debt magic. This theory is based on two canonical details: First, the Life Debt is, according to Dumbledore "magic at its deepest, most impenetrable", which would certainly elevate it to a status of "Love-powered magic", worthy of being the opposite of the Darkest magic of all. Secondly, according to Dumbledore the Life Debt creates "a certain bond" between the debtor and savior. What kind of bond would that be? For such deep magic it seems reasonable that it would be a bond between the *souls* of the debtor and the savior. Accepting this little speculation for a moment we end up with a nice little symmetry: Horcrux magic: taking life -> splitting the soul. Life Debt magic: saving life -> creating a bond between souls. Going along with this symmetry we now need a seven-souls bond to counteract Voldemort's seven-parts soul. Hmmm. While adding Snape to the list of people owing a Life Debt to Harry (as I believe Dumbledore implies in SS/PS) this list is still much too short: only Snape and Peter. And I can't add Ron, Hermione, Ginny and everyone Harry ever saved because JKR said that Ginny doesn't really owe a Life Debt to Harry. This deduction seems to have reached a dead end. Now, going along with Kemper's development, what if giving your life for somebody else's life creates a similar bond of Love between the souls. And what if this bond is the reason Dumbledore and Sirius had to go. The list of our Seven-Souls Bond would now include: 1. Harry himself (symmetrical with Voldemort being a member of his seven-part soul). 2. Dumbledore 3. Sirius 4. Lily 5. James 6. ??? 7. ??? We are now missing exactly two souls. How interesting. Suppose that in DH Peter and Snape repay their Debt by saving Harry's life and dying in the process, and we have our complete Seven Souls Bond. Q.E.D. Well, I wouldn't put any money on this speculation, but just in case it does happen, you heard it first here. Neri From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Sun May 27 15:57:19 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 15:57:19 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169354 Carol: >..... his refusal to cooperate > with Umbridge followed by an ironic bow when she puts him on > probation (and literally saving Neville's neck on his way out);... Many critics refer to Snape's cruelty as a teacher as one proof that he is one of the bad guys but I think that one thing we learn from Professor Umbridge is what a really cruel teacher is like. Yes, Snape is sharp-tongued, malicious, spiteful and sometimes very unfair, particularly to Harry and his friends, but he is very competent, respected by his pupils and never physically abusive. In one year at Hogwarts Professor Umbridge shows that she is stupid, incompetent and capricious. She is also extremely abusive, gives the students sadistic punishments and tries to give Harry veritaserum (forbidden) and also attempts to put the cruciatus curse on him. Snape once says that he wishes he could give Harry veritaserum, but that it is forbidden by school rules. He gives Harry several detentions, but never once gives him any kind of physical punishment. By the end of her year at Hogwarts Umbridge is hated and despised by almost every pupil in school but there is no sense that Snape is particularly unpopular, feared perhaps but not hated. And yet Sirius says that Dolores Umbridge is definitely not on LV's side. If Snape really was still on the dark side would he not be more cruel than Umbridge? As regards Spinner's End, it's important to remember that Bellatrix is also an accomplished occlumens since Snape refers in HBP to Draco having lessons from his aunt Bellatrix. So presumably she is also a legilemens. This in my opinion is why Snape spends some time looking out of the window at Spinner's End. We know that legilemency depends on eye contact and I don't think he wants to make eye contact with Bellatrix while he is gathering his thoughts and trying to think quickly. As you can gather I am on the side of those who think Snape is a good guy! Roll on July because I cannot stand the suspense much longer! Sylvia. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun May 27 18:15:53 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 18:15:53 -0000 Subject: alternative title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169355 > Carol responds: > "HP and the Relics of Death" may be one of the alternate titles > mentioned on her website that she came up with and decided against > (for whatever reason) in favor of "Deathly Hallows." It isn't > necessarily synonymous with "Deathly Hallows." Leslie41: That's true. Carol: > In any case, I'm not convinced that "Relics of Death" (which, BTW, > is a rather horrifying title for a children's book, isn't it?) is > synonymous with "Horcruxes," which are supposed to *prevent* death > (unlike, say, the relics of a dead saint or the relics you inherit > from your great grandmother on her death). Nor am I completely > convinced that "deathly hallows" relates to objects. It could refer > to a dead person "hallow" in "Halloween" or "Hallowe'en" refers to > saints (not just holy people but good people who have died) or to a > place(the place where the dead kings are entombed in LOTR's Gondor > is referred to as "the Hallows"). Leslie41: Yeah, I used to agree, but after seeing the translation she approved I don't anymore. "Relics" seems to me to be a very precise word, one that would contradict it being a place or a person. Carol: > I'm not going to argue the point, but "hallows" suggests "holy" > and Horcruxes are anything but. Leslie41: That is definitely true, but combined with "deathly" the implication is that they are *un*holy, or an evil inversion of holiness. "Relics of death" suggests that to me. Carol: > One more note, not a point, exactly. Most of JKR's magic-related > terms are Latin or pseudo-Latin ("cod Latin," she calls > it). Leslie41: I never heard that! That's fascinating. Where does she talk about that? Carol: > "Crux," of course, is Latin for "cross," so it makes sense that > the "hor-" root would be Latin as well. Leslie41: Well, makes sense, but not necessarily. Many of her invented words are *not* rooted in Latin. "Thester" for example, in Old English, means "dark, obscure, gloomy, mournful", etc. To my knowledge there is no equivalent in Latin. It seems plain to me that she used that Old English word to create "thestral". Crux has its *root* in Latin, but Old English assimilated an enormous amount of Latin words. Crux ("cruc") is also an Old English word. Carol: > I don't think that JKR would use the meaning "whore" (even > figuratively to suggest filth) in a title for a HP book. The Latin > meaning is more appropriate both in terms of readership and > meaning, IMO. Leslie41: Or maybe she thought the root "hor" was a perfect blend of both! Carol: > Carol, who really hopes that the "hallows" are not the Horcruxes and > will be very disappointed in Rowling's judgment if they are Leslie41: Why? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun May 27 18:28:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 18:28:04 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169356 houyhnhnm wrote: > My point was that I was trying to refute the assumption that Snape's loyalty turns on whether or not he knew that Peter Pettigrew was Wormtail the traitor. The DEs in the know, at least according to Sirius--if we can rely on his testimony, *knew* that Peter Pettigrew was the traitor. > If Snape *knew* all along that Peter was the Order's traitor and witheld that knowledge from Dumbledore, then he is not persisting in a belief that Sirius was guilty because of a character flaw; he is out-and-out dissembling and he is not Dumbledore's man. > Carol responds: Exactly. That's why I raised the question. I don't really doubt Snape's loyalty to DD because of the preponderance of evidence in favor of it, but still, I'd like to set my mind at rest on this one point. (My own counterarguments will come later in the post.) houyhnhnm (out of sequence; sorry): The question of Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore turns on whether he was in the know about *Peter Pettigrew*, whose alias, it seems to me, is irrelevant to the discussion. Carol: Not necessarily. If Snape knows that Wormtail is the spy and that Peter Pettigrew is Wormtail, then he knows that Pettigrew is the spy. Let me put it as a syllogism. Wormtail is the spy. Peter Pettigrew is Wormtail. Therefore, Peter Pettigrew is the spy. So, if Snape recognized the names on the map (and knew which name belonged to which Marauder, Moony being obvious), he must have known who Wormtail was. He could, of course, have simply put two and two together based on there being four male voices insulting him in familiar terms, and concluded from there that Lupin was one of the manufacturers of the parchment, just as he rightly concluded that it showed Harry a way to sneak into Hogsmeade), and he wasn't really within hearing distance in the Pensieve memory, so maybe he didn't hear them using the nicknames. But *if* he did, and knew who was whom, we have a problem. If Snape knew that Wormtail = Pettigrew = the spy and didn't tell DD, how can he be Dumbledore's man? And how can his behavior in the Shrieking Shack be excused *if* he knew that Black was innocent, not of killing Pettigrew (he couldn't possibly know that) but of betraying the Potters? (If he really thought he was saving the kids from a murderer and his werewolf accomplice, it's a different matter, of course. And I *do* think he sincerely believed that James Potter was "too arrogant" to realize that Sirius Black was untrustworthy, that Black was being let into the castle by Lupin, that Black was trying to kill Harry, that Black had shown himself capable of murder at age sixteen, etc. I'm just trying to fit this one piece involving Spy!Wormtail into the puzzle.) First, I think we need to distinguish between Peter's roles as spy and Secret Keeper. Snape clearly didn't know--could not have known--who the *Secret Keeper* was. Only the Potters, Sirius Black, and Wormtail knew about the Secret Keeper switch, so far as we know. DD didn't, and he would have been Snape's source of information (if Snape knew about the SK at all). And, like the rest of the WW, Snape had to have thought that Peter Pettigrew was dead, killed by Sirius Black. He didn't know that Peter was an Animagus who could transform into a rat and disappear into the sewers. But he could still have known that the *spy* was Wormtail and that Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew, and, if so, he concealed that crucial information from Dumbledore. And yet, if Pettigrew wasn't the Secret Keeper, he couldn't have betrayed the Potters, even if he was a spy. And it doesn't make sense for the spy and the traitor to be two different people. So I'm back to Snape thinking that Black was spy, Secret Keeper, traitor, and murderer, which is certainly the impression that he gives in the Shrieking Shack. Which doesn't fit with his knowing that Wormtail was the spy, so maybe he really didn't. houyhnhnm: > The thing is, we don't really know what Snape's status was among the Death Eaters during VWI. We don't know what DE activities he participated in. All we know is that Voldemort sent Snape to apply for a position at Hogwarts to spy on Dumbledore at the time the prophecy was made and that he failed to do so. Carol responds: I don't think we even know that. It wasn't the beginning of the school year (job interview would normally be conducted in Auguast, right before the start of term. It was a cold, rainy night, either in spring or in late fall; Trelawney had been teaching *nearly* sixteen years, not a full sixteen as would have been the case had she been hired at the usual time. So, apparently, there was an unexpected vacancy, and had she not applied for it--and made that Prophecy--DD would have let the subject fall out of the curriculum. It's very unlikely that young Snape was also looking for a teaching job at that point. Slughorn, of course, was still teaching Potions, and the DADA job would have been filled at the beginning of the year. And since DD didn't anticipate that interview, I don't see how Voldemort or Snape could have. I think that young Snape only happened to be in the Hog's Head, and, like Harry on several occasions, was prompted by curiosity to eavesdrop. But obviously Trelawney is wrong about his motivation: he wasn't looking for job-hunting tips. (IMO, Voldemort sent him to apply for the DADA job nearly two years later, which is when he was hired to teach Potions. I don't think he applied unsuccessfully before that. At least, we have no evidence of it.) But I agree that we don't know his status among the Death Eaters, and we do have Karkaroff's word that many of the DEs didn't know one another. Not that Karkaroff is a trustworthy witness, but he certainly would have given as many names as he could given his desire to betray his friends and free himself. (I suppose that he didn't mention Lucius Malfoy et al. because it was public knowledge that they had pled the Imperius Curse.) And we do see in the graveyard that LV doesn't name all the DEs and that all of them except Wormtail are hooded and masked. Under normal circumstances, he would have been hooded and masked also, and, as others have pointed out, it would have been especially important to keep his identity under wraps since he was a spy. Maybe only a select few, including Bellatrix (entrusted with LV's "most precious" [secrests?]") knew who he was. Maybe he didn't even attend the meetings because it was so important to keep his identity secret. And maybe I'm reaching for straws. houyhnhnm: We have evidence from both Fudge and Sirius (though I can't remember where now) that Peter was betraying the Order for around a year before the Potters' deaths and this was the same time period during which Snape was spying for Dumbledore. Carol: Both conversations are in PoA. Sirius Black belows at Wormtail in the Shrieking Shack (after Snape is knocked unconscious), "DON'T LIE! YOU'D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM (Voldemort) FOR A YEAR BEFORE LILY AND JAMES DIED! YOU WERE HIS SPY" (PoA Am. e.d 374). Fudge, of course, thinks that the Secret Keeper was Black, not Wormtail, but he correctly deduces that the spy and the SK/traitor are the same person. He says earlier, in the Three Broomsticks, "Black was tired of the double-agent role, he was ready to declare his support openly for You-Know-Who, and he seems to have planned this for the moment of the Potters' death" (206). He doesn't specify a time frame, but his conclusions seem to be similar to Snape's (and the WW at large) based on DD's testimony and the publicity following Black's arrest (at which Fudge was present). > houyhnhnm: > Given what we have seen of the way Voldemort operates, I think it is entirely plausible that Snape was not able to learn the identity of the traitor. And given the fact that I believe there is abundant against both ESE!Snape and OFH!Snape, the only possible conclusion for me is that Snape did not know Peter was the traitor. Carol: That's my reasoning, too. It just doesn't fit with Snape's apparent recognition of the nicknames of the "manufacturers" of the parchment. But, of course, we aren't told that he recognized them. Maybe, being Snape, he deduced their identity. It wouldn't have been hard, actually, given the insults. Which other four men (or boys) knew him intimately enough to insult him in that manner and would have dared to do so? Carol, now 80 percent convinced that he didn't recognize the nicknames but hoping for additional views on the topic From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun May 27 19:15:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 19:15:57 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169357 sylviampj wrote: > As regards Spinner's End, it's important to remember that Bellatrix is also an accomplished occlumens since Snape refers in HBP to Draco having lessons from his aunt Bellatrix. So presumably she is also a legilemens. This in my opinion is why Snape spends some time looking out of the window at Spinner's End. We know that legilemency depends on eye contact and I don't think he wants to make eye contact with Bellatrix while he is gathering his thoughts and trying to think quickly. > > As you can gather I am on the side of those who think Snape is a good guy! Roll on July because I cannot stand the suspense much longer! Carol responds: I'm also a DDM!Snaper, but I don't agree with your first paragraph. First, I'm not sure that it's necessary to be a Legilimens to be an Occlumens, but even if it is, Snape is a superb Occlumens, and if he can fool Voldemort, supposedly the greatest Legilimens in the world, he can certainly fool Bellatrix. Note, too, that the rudimentary Occlumency taught to Draco by Bellatirx is readily detectable by Legilimens Snape. If Snape's were detectable, he'd be dead (and Draco will be in for a Crucio at the least if he tries that trick on Voldemort). We see Snape meeting Narcissa's eyes, and it's likely that what he sees there is her fears for Draco. He doesn't need to use Legilimency on Bellatrix to know exactly what she thinks of him, and to do so would arouse her suspicions further. If she tried Legilimency on him, he would just use his invisible Occlumency. (Notice that when he rhetorically asks her if she thinks that he's somehow "hoodwinked" Voldemort, he doesn't specifically mention Occlumency. I don't think he wants to give away his secret to an enemy (and Bella is Snape's enemy even if he's not DDM, but especially so if he is). Snape is very much in control during the entire conversation with Bellatrix and I see no evidence of his avoiding her gaze, or any reason to do so. He only goes to the window and looks out (checking for spies? Giving himself a moment to think!) after Narcissa starts to speak. Bellatrix's doubts he can deal with, having already told almost exactly the same story to Voldemort. Narcissa's problem is much more serious and disturbing because it's Snape's problem, too. Carol, who would dearly love to see Snape trounce Bellatrix in a duel but suspects that that honor will go to Neville, whose nemesis she is From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun May 27 19:08:16 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 12:08:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: [spec] Horcrux's Opposite: or, love is more powerful than the Dark Lord's kind of magic In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40705270348x84efe85t80d33c4f08876b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40705271208o3ce8662cy9a0bea2d44115130@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169358 > Kemper earlier: > So, if the smokey phoenix is DD's spirit, then why did it not leave > upon DD's death? > > Ceridwen: > In some cultures, the soul of a person doesn't immediately leave the > vicinity when it leaves the person's body. Stories of near-death > experiences tend to support that view... > > There are customs in various cultures which celebrate a passing a > year after the death. There may be a gathering, there may be gifts > presented. There may be a religious service. It is then that the > soul or spirit (I'm never quite clear what other people mean by these > designations) moves on after a year of hanging around and saying good- > bye. > > In some cultures, the funeral service is supposed to release the > soul. Kemper now: Thanks, Ceridwen; I see that I did not complete my thoughts on the funeral. I agree with you completely with regards to other cultures. Perhaps that is what JKR has intended as part of Wizarding culture, but I will go ahead and refute that possibility for a couple of reasons. First, JKR is a writer who is Christian (not a Christian writer) which she confirmed in an interview back in October 2000. She also mentions in the interview that any answers she gives to deep questions about her beliefs in God would allow the intelligent person to 'guess what's coming' in the books. Below is the link: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-vancouversun-wyman.htm My understanding of Christian thought/belief is that the soul leaves the body upon a persons death. This seems evident in the Christian belief surrounding the Crucifixion and while I am aware of the Trinity, I'm choosing to simplify: body of Christ dies and thus freeing the spirit for the Harrowing of Hell (helping the dead) and the Resurrection (helping the living). And second, Sirius would have had a funeral. I think that Dumbledore's funeral was part of the spell for the Opposite Horcrux. (As Houynhnm adds, I don't think DD has a relic or a material item of any kind holding his soul to Earth. I think DD's soul soars freely without being bound... but I can't think of a better term to describe the idea than Opposite Horcrux.) I think that Hagrid may have been given some tasks to do in preparing DD's body for the Opposite Horcrux. In SS, one of the most powerful things DD says is in the first chapter, The Boy Who Lived, he says it McGonagall who questions DD's wisdom in trusting Hagrid: "I would trust Hagrid with my life." In six books, we haven't seen this fleshed out. But I believe that if DD trusted Hagrid with his life, he would trust Hagrid with his afterlife. > Kemper earlier: > DD's spirit (soul) will be allowed to remain on earth by means of an > Opposite Horcrux. > > Ceridwen: > I'm snipping the rest. This is interesting, and others have > speculated some HX sort of thing for DD. So far, the only magic we > *know* of that allows for a soul to be tied to the earth is Dark > Magic of the evilest variety. It involves killing someone else and > shredding off a piece of the soul. I can see mirrored Light Magic, > sure. But I would like to hear speculation about how such a thing - > why not just call it a Hallow, since the book is titled Deathly > Hallows? - would be made. > > It can't be made through murder, that would make it Dark. If we look > at things like a circle, or an artist's color-wheel, then there would > be something on the Light side that *differentiates*, not shreds, a > piece of soul without murdering, yet leaves it intact inside the host > until death. Kemper now: I agree! Here is what I see as the similarity and differences: Dark and Light: the Wizards bodies die Dark: act of indifference Light: act of love Dark: takes a life Light: sacrifices life Dark: soul ripped and tied to earthly object Light: soul whole and free to roam earth Dark: immortality Light: eternity > Ceridwen: > Maybe that magic is the Patronus. Just speculating here, ... > but if the phoenix seen at DD's funeral is the release of soul or > spirit, then as Kemper was guessing, the Patronus is the person's > soul representative.... > > It would also not prevent death, which is unnatural. > > (In fact, if the initial creation of a Patronus involves > differentiating a part of the soul for this purpose, maybe that's why > it's difficult to create one at first - more speculation) > > If the Patronus is a form of Opposite Horcrux, then it carries the > intent of the originating soul. It may have hung around until the > funeral because it was DD's intent for it to do so. Or, the fire > could have released it at DD's intent, because I do agree that the > whole spectacle of the White Tomb was Dumbledore's doing. The fire > may release the magic. > > Interesting thoughts! I hope someone else adds to the speculation! Kemper now: Thanks, Ceridwen! Part of preparing for this thread was looking at patronuses (patroni? patronae?) in the books. One of my original ideas, which I still believe but thought it would distract from my overall point, is that Dumbledore discovered the possibility for the Opposite Horcrux through his research of the patronus as he seems to be the one who developed the idea for communicating with them. (But wouldn't it be fun if it was Snape? Just kidding, like we need another Snape thread...) I have thoughts on the fire releasing the soul, but I need to research that more. Kemper From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun May 27 19:20:51 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 19:20:51 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169359 --- "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > I'm not saying this is true, I am saying since we > > don't know the nature of Marietta's memory > > modification, that modification come open to > > speculation. My version of speculated memory > > modification is just as valid as your version, and > > both are consistent with known cannon. > > Pippin: > If I am to take a speculation seriously, > then it has to be more than consistent with known > canon. It has to not open up more plot holes than > it plugs, ... > > ... > bboyminn: What we are doing now is debating the definition of 'motivation'. I think Marietta's motivations were at once simply and complex but they were contained. There is a huge difference between having the personality and motivation that makes you become a Death Eater and what Marietta did. A person evil enough to become a Death Eater will simply find other ways to be evil even if they forget why they joined the DE's. That's not true of Marietta. > BBoy: > > I do however understand and share, to some extent, > > people dislike for Hermione's actions. But we judge > > this from the perspective of older, wiser, more > > rational human beings. ... Teenager's are crazy;... > > Pippin: > Yes indeed. I just wish that Hermione would have > taken that into account before visiting such a drastic > punishment on one of her schoolmates, ... > bboyminn: I'm not trying to vilify anyone nor am I trying to forgive the other. What I am trying to do is establish some fair and reasonable perspective to a polarized discussion. Those who are /for/ Hermione are depicting Marietta as a horribly evil person. Those who are /against/ Hermione are depicting her as a horribly evil person, but both positions are wrong, and that is part of my point. Marietta hasn't been killed, she hasn't had her arms, legs, or head chopped off. She is a perfectly normal girl who felt pulled and confused by conflicting loyalties and she made a mistake, and now because of it she has 'spots' on her face. She still has arms, she still has legs, she hasn't been gutted, she still has her head. Hermione hasn't killed anyone, she hasn't chopped off anyone's heads, arms, or legs. She's a smart, but too smart, impulsive teenager who didn't look at the bigger picture, and she made a mistake. There is no need to vilify Hermione anymore that their is to vilify Marietta. Again, I refuse to be more upset by the events than the characters themselves are. I don't see Marietta going to the police, I don't see Marietta's mother demanding that Hermione be thrown into Azkaban. Marietta is perfectly capable of going about her normal life, though admittedly with some embarrassing spots which she seems to be covering up with make-up. Marietta is not hold up atop of tall tower wailing with despair. She seems to be taking the events in stride, though I'm also sure with a degree of general annoyance. Marietta seems for the moment to be taking a wait and see attitude, though I'm sure she is doing her best to find a way to cure the spots. And, I think eventually Hermione will see that this has all gone on long enough. That she and Marietta are both on the same side, they both made mistakes, and now it is time to forget petty slights, and band together. I'm confident that when the time is right, Hermione will do the right thing. > Pippin: > > I think many people do not want to see Hermione suffer > the consequences of a ruthless and unjust > action. ... > > bboyminn: Again, there is that overstatement, and that extreme position that I am trying to moderate. There is nothing ruthless and unjust here. This is a school where kids routinely sprout antlers and have cumquats coming out of their ears, not to mention teeth and toenails growing to extreme proportions. A few spots on your face are not that big a deal, though a /bigger/ deal in this case since they haven't found a way to undo them. Yet, I have no doubt that those trying to /undo/ them, are still looking for a solution. They haven't given up and declare this an evil permanent act, so I see no reason why we should declare it either evil or permanent. If Marietta still has spots when she is 50, I'll be willing to agree it might be permanent, and that it might now be starting to skirt the edges of evil, but you'll hardly get me to agree before that. Both Marietta and Hermione made mistakes, but you are allowed to make mistakes when you are a teen. That's how you, hopefully, learn not to make mistakes in the future. You learn far more from making a mistake than you do from you parent continually brow-beating you. But I refuse to characterize either of the people or their actions as EVIL. What I'm trying to do is to get people to dial back their rhetoric and see things in the proper perspective in the perspective of this unique world where people are given shoe by their relatives, shoes that try to eat their feet. Steve/bboyminn From muellem at bc.edu Sun May 27 19:49:16 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 19:49:16 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169360 > > bboyminn: > > I'm not trying to vilify anyone nor am I trying to > forgive the other. What I am trying to do is establish > some fair and reasonable perspective to a polarized > discussion. Those who are /for/ Hermione are depicting > Marietta as a horribly evil person. Those who are > /against/ Hermione are depicting her as a horribly evil > person, but both positions are wrong, and that is part of > my point. > > Marietta hasn't been killed, she hasn't had her arms, > legs, or head chopped off. She is a perfectly normal > girl who felt pulled and confused by conflicting > loyalties and she made a mistake, and now because of it > she has 'spots' on her face. She still has arms, she > still has legs, she hasn't been gutted, she still has > her head. > > Hermione hasn't killed anyone, she hasn't chopped off > anyone's heads, arms, or legs. She's a smart, but too > smart, impulsive teenager who didn't look at the bigger > picture, and she made a mistake. > > There is no need to vilify Hermione anymore that their > is to vilify Marietta. colebiancardi: I've stayed out of this thread for a good reason, and now against all of my good judgement, I am jumping in. "Spots" on her face? The description is purple pustules, which is a very disgusting description. And if one has ever seen a teen with cystic acne (which purple pustules fits to a T), one would know it is a disfigurement and many teens suffer horribly with it. The fact that Marietta's face is enough to make adults exclaim out loud in shock and that Marietta is humiliated enough to try to cover her face and run away speaks volumes. At the time of HBP, I don't think Marietta is humiliated by the word sneak, but the fact that her face is an oozing sore Sure, Hermione didn't kill anyone, but for such a "bright" person who shows such compassion and spirit towards the House Elves and Kreacher, she is heartless towards Marietta. Afterall, Marietta didn't kill anyone either and she is just a kid herself. Enough is enough, Marietta got her punishment & Hermione got to gloat. It is time to lift the hex. Or maybe it cannot be lifted, because Hermoine didn't think it all the way thru and maybe she isn't so smart, because she cannot lift the hex? hmmmmm colebiancardi (who went to HS with a young man whose face was totally covered in purple pustules, which led to massive pitting & scaring on his face. Poor boy - he suffered so many names and shunning by girls, even though he really was a sweetie) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun May 27 20:11:53 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 20:11:53 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169361 bboyminn: > I'm not trying to vilify anyone nor am I trying to > forgive the other. What I am trying to do is establish > some fair and reasonable perspective to a polarized > discussion. Those who are /for/ Hermione are depicting > Marietta as a horribly evil person. Those who are > /against/ Hermione are depicting her as a horribly evil > person, but both positions are wrong, and that is part of > my point. Montavilla47: I agree with you, Steve. I don't think either girl is evil or horrible. I think they both did things that have had bad consequences for themselves and others. As I said earlier, I didn't really have a problem with Marietta's face having the word "Sneak" spelled out in pustules--until it HBP when we realize that: a) The spots still haven't gone away and might never go away; and b) Neither Harry nor Hermione appear to feel any regret about that--or any impulse to reverse the curse. That bugs me and it's done deliberately by the author. She didn't have to show us Marietta wearing heavy make-up or mention Harry's smug reaction. I can only see two plausible ways of taking that passage in HBP. Either JKR thought Marietta was so wrong to tell on the DA that she just couldn't resist reminding us about the clever hex Hermione came up with--or she put that detail into the story to give us readers pause. To encourage us to think about the downside of Harry and his friend. To make us ask ourselves what the limit of vengeance should be. So, I don't really think this is about Marietta or Hermione. I think it's about us and how we look at punishment, loyalty, and vengeance. Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun May 27 20:28:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 20:28:32 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169362 bboyminn: > > I'm not trying to vilify anyone nor am I trying to > forgive the other. What I am trying to do is establish > some fair and reasonable perspective to a polarized > discussion. Those who are /for/ Hermione are depicting > Marietta as a horribly evil person. Those who are > /against/ Hermione are depicting her as a horribly evil > person, but both positions are wrong, and that is part of > my point. Carol responds: Maybe a few of us are trying to vilify Hermione, but many of us are condemning her action, especially the secrecy and the punitive nature of the hex, which failed to serve as a deterrent and *seems* to be irreversible. > > > There is no need to vilify Hermione anymore that their > is to vilify Marietta. Again, I refuse to be more > upset by the events than the characters themselves are. > Carol responds: We don't know how Marietta is feeling now, except that she's still hiding behind heavy make-up at the very least and seems to be staying close to Cho. We do know that cho is still not on speaking terms with Harry (and vice versa). And since Harry's reaction was pride in Hermione's jinxing abilities, I'm certainly not going to use his failure to be upset about it to form my own judgement. He didn't seem upset about Hermione's canaries, either, or Ron's snubbing Hermione because he thought she had kissed Viktor Krum. They're all kids; they're all friends; and our judgments of their behavior are surely different from their own. We're not saying that Hermione is evil, only that we'd really rather that she stopped taking matters into her own hands, especially without informing even her friends what she's doing. Or at least, that's what I'm saying. I want her to grow up. (And while we're at it, I'd love to find out that Crumple-Horned Snorkacks are real just to show that she's wrong to treat Luna so contemptuously.) I don't hate Hermione. She has her moments of brilliance and courage, and Harry would have had a hard time in the third-floor corridor without her, to state just one example. But I really don't like her tendency to seek revenge on everyone from Rita Skeeter to Ron, and I'd like to see her overcome that particular fault. At any rate, I don't think that the argument is quite as polarized as you seem to think, and I'm doing the same thing you are, which is trying to establish a balanced perspective that doesn't involve putting a bullet through Marietta's head or setting up Hermione as an Umbridge in the making. (Or a heroine who deserves the Order of Merlin, to go to the other extreme.) And while a few people do hold these extreme positions, or something like them, I don't think it's quite fair to imply that all of us are doing so. bboyminn: > > Again, there is that overstatement, and that extreme position that I am trying to moderate. There is nothing ruthless and unjust here. Carol: That, of course, is the question we're debating. I disagree, as do a number of other people. But, again, it's a matter of degree. Hermione is certainly nowhere near as unjust and ruthless as Umbridge, but she really seems to enjoy revenge and to think she has the right to punish people beyond the authority granted her as a Prefect. At least she could have warned people that the parchment was hexed, or sent away anyone who didn't see the group as she did. And the canon I cited in detail shows that very few people saw the group as she did, or attended the first meeting for the reasons she had in mind. Nor did Harry's words convince anyone who didn't already believe him that Voldemort was back and posed a real threat. Hermione strikes me as a control freak. She may well appear otherwise to you. bboyminn: This is a school where kids routinely sprout antlers and have cumquats coming out of their ears, not to mention teeth and toenails growing to extreme proportions. A few spots on your face are not that big a deal, though a /bigger/ deal in this case since they haven't found a way to undo them. Carol: But antlers and long toenails are not disfiguring in the same way that severe acne is (remember Eloise Midgen?), and even the victim might find them humourous after the fact, especially since they're so easily removed. But someone with no sense of humor (like Hermione herself) might find the pustules much more distressful. Remember her reaction to her elongated teeth and to having a face full of cat fur? Possibly we can gauge Marietta's feelings from hers. And the fact that the purple pustules spell out "SNEAK" makes it that much worse. A few hours or days of such a punishment, coupled with the ostracism of her fellow students would be one thing. But a year or more? I'm not saying that Hermione is evil or even a bad kid, but I think her *action* went way beyond what was called for. There are laws in the U.S., and presumably, the UK, against "cruel and unusual punishment." Too bad the WW doesn't seem to have any such laws, especially given that the punishment is not even administered by someone with the authority to do so. bboyminn: > Both Marietta and Hermione made mistakes, but you are allowed to make mistakes when you are a teen. That's how you, hopefully, learn not to make mistakes in the future. You learn far more from making a mistake than you do from you parent continually brow-beating you. Carol: I agree with the first two sentences. But what lesson has either of them learned in this instance? Marietta won't have the opportunity to repeat her mistake, which she doesn't remember, anyway, and Hermione shows no indication that she regrets her action or thinks it was in any way unjustified or in need of reversing. Carol, still waiting for Steve to answer the points she made upthread about Marietta's distress, Fudge's shock at her disfigurement, the likelihood that she was taken to St. Mungo's (where no treatment was found), and the possibility that the parchment needs to be examined to see which hex was placed on it From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 27 20:41:43 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 20:41:43 -0000 Subject: alternative title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tassgurka" > wrote: > > > > The swedish HP publisher, Tiden f?rlag, reveals their translation of > > the title for HP7, "Harry Potter och d?dsrelikerna" (Harry Potter > and > > the Relics of Death). This alternative title was given to > translators > > by JK herself, as DH is very difficult to translate. Thoughts on the > > alternative title? Are relics "only" referring to the horcruxes > > (locket, cup)? > > > > Kati > > > > Leslie: > > I think it's got to refer to the Horcruxes, and only the Horcruxes. > What else could it be? > > We've talked about the meaning of the word "horcrux" before, as it's > an invented word, but obviously one Rowling thought about. > > The word "hore" in Old English means "whore". "Horh" means dirt or > defilement, and "horig" (hory) means foul or filthy, and many of the > Old English words that have "hor" as their root have to do with dirt, > mud, and squalor. Makes sense. "Crux" means cross or center, root, > and many words associated with it have something to do with pain (in > Rowling's world and ours as well). > > A less religious interpretation would simply read horcrux as "root of > filth". A more religious one (to which I am inclined) would have it > mean "cross of defilement" (or something like that), with Voldemort's > resurrection serving as an unholy, inverted version of Christ's. But > your milage may vary on that. I'm one of those people that sees > Harry's scar as symbolic of baptism and unction. > > We talked a lot about the meaning of "Deathly Hallows" as well when > the title was released, but the fact that Rowling allowed the title > to be translated as "relics of death" means that the deathly hallows > must be horcruxes, not saints or holy places or whatever. > > Rowling I think is being deliberately vague by not calling it "Harry > Potter and the Horcruxes," but that title sounds rather stupid, and > every other title has had a bit of mystery too it and why not this > one, too? Geoff: In the world of Harry Potter, JKR's definition of "Horcrux" has been made very clear: '"Well," said Slughorn, not looking at Riddle but fiddling with the ribbon on top of his box of crystallised pineapple, "well, it can't hurt to give you an overview, of course. Just so that you understand the term. A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul." (HBP "Horcruxes" p.464 UK edition) In other words, a container for a piece of 'living' soul, a definition which seems to run counter to the title of the Swedish edition. Lauren, in message 169360, gave definitions of "relic". In my dictionary, the definition which jumps out at me, in terms of this discussion, is: "3 a part of a holy person's body or belongings kept and revered after their death". Voldemort certainly isn't a holy person but neither, at the time of writing, is he dead. So I suggest that "relics of death" can in no way refer to Horcruxes. Until or unless JKR demolishes the idea in Book 7, I subscribe to the theory that "Deathly Hallows" describes a place. Carol recently reminded us of the Hallows in Tolkien's ROTK and the word Hallow(s) occurs in UK place names. It is interesting that these two titles seem to take up diametrically opposed positions. I wonder whether the Deathly Hallows are the place where the Relics of Death are to be found? Geoff Ah well, only 54 and a bit days and all will be revealed.... or will it? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun May 27 20:47:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 16:47:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) Message-ID: <380-220075027204717843@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169364 bboyminn: Again, there is that overstatement, and that extreme position that I am trying to moderate. There is nothing ruthless and unjust here. This is a school where kids routinely sprout antlers and have cumquats coming out of their ears, not to mention teeth and toenails growing to extreme proportions. A few spots on your face are not that big a deal, though a /bigger/ deal in this case since they haven't found a way to undo them. Yet, I have no doubt that those trying to /undo/ them, are still looking for a solution. They haven't given up and declare this an evil permanent act, so I see no reason why we should declare it either evil or permanent. If Marietta still has spots when she is 50, I'll be willing to agree it might be permanent, and that it might now be starting to skirt the edges of evil, but you'll hardly get me to agree before that. Magpie: I think, though, that part of your moderation strikes some of us as changing canon or changing the actual disagreement. Or else you're just not hearing the one side's position. Of course this situation wouldn't be a problem if Marietta's condition really wasn't bad at all, and was on its way to be cured as we speak. But that's not the case. She doesn't just have "spots" on her face--and while I know "spots" is British for acne, it's still a lot cuter than close-set purple pustules, which is disgusting to read, much less picture. Similarly disfiguring acne or any disfiguring skin condition is a big deal. The fact that Marietta can function has nothing to do with anything. By that rule a lot of the stuff Voldemort has done to many characters isn't too bad. I think I'm judging Marietta's condition based entirely on what it is, and I think it is a surprisingly cruel thing to do. And I don't think I'm exaggerating the condition one bit to get there. You may not have the same visceral reaction to the idea of Marietta walking around this way over a year later, but I honestly do. I don't think Hermione is "evil" now because she's done it, but I don't think it's a compromise between the two positions to do what I think wynnleaf described, which is to change things by downplaying the hex or assuming it temporary when so far we've gotten information that indicates it isn't (in the next book JKR thinks to show us the hex is still on and Harry's still pleased with it--the pleasure coming from the on-going suffering and humiliation). That pretty much removes the very problems I'm stuck with, and to me it seems to undercut the argument that there is no problem, because it suggests that to defend it, it helps to get rid of the difficult parts. Steve: Both Marietta and Hermione made mistakes, but you are allowed to make mistakes when you are a teen. That's how you, hopefully, learn not to make mistakes in the future. You learn far more from making a mistake than you do from you parent continually brow-beating you. Magpie: But in this scenario Hermione is the only one allowed to make mistakes, so far at least. Marietta's mistake is punished daily in the form of her face being disfigured--which seems even worse than constant brow-beating from a parent. Meanwhile, Hermione so far, doesn't seem to think she even has anything to learn. According to Harry, the voice of "our" side and many fans, Hermione didn't make a mistake. She went easy on Marietta. Hermione's never shown a moment's discomfort with any of it while Marietta's disfigured. If the hex actually had been temporary I think we could say they both made a mistake, but it's already gone on long enough to be a problem. Steve: But I refuse to characterize either of the people or their actions as EVIL. What I'm trying to do is to get people to dial back their rhetoric and see things in the proper perspective in the perspective of this unique world where people are given shoe by their relatives, shoes that try to eat their feet. Magpie: Sure, I don't think it's evil either. But it can be not evil and still what it so far is described as in canon. And canonically, I think it actually is bad. Stuff like "shoes eating their feet" usually happen as funny asides. Marietta's hex is played much more realistically--more like Neville's parents dealing with their own longterm problems--sometimes magic is played that way too. As a reader responding to the story, this one doesn't read like a funny thing to me--especially not when a book later JKR makes sure to show Marietta in heavy make up and Harry pausing to enjoy her suffering. Strange magical maladies may be canon, but the story also often turns on acts done on other people that they don't see any reason to care about, that cause problems later. All that would have had to be done is to have actually shown the hex wearing off--or even not bringing it up again so we'd assume it wore off. The author chose to do the opposite.To me, that's more a hint that I *shouldn't* be going along with Harry on this one (not that I would anyway--the only time the rule of "if the character doesn't care, why should I? comes into play for me is when the character himself is the victim). - From celizwh at intergate.com Sun May 27 20:49:41 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 20:49:41 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169365 Carol: > Not necessarily. If Snape knows that Wormtail is the > spy and that Peter Pettigrew is Wormtail, then he knows > that Pettigrew is the spy. > Let me put it as a syllogism. > Wormtail is the spy. > Peter Pettigrew is Wormtail. > Therefore, Peter Pettigrew is the spy. > So, if Snape recognized the names on the map (and knew > which name belonged to which Marauder, Moony being obvious), > he must have known who Wormtail was. [...] But *if* he did, > and knew who was whom, we have a problem. houyhnhnm: Better: Snape knows Wormtail is the spy. Snape knows Peter Pettigrew is Wormtail. Therefore, Snape knows Peter Pettigrew is the spy. We have no evidence on which to establish the truth of the major premise. That is why I don't think your argument is sound. The fact that Snape recognized Wormtail as a Marauder, if he did and I'm not convinced that he did, has nothing to do with recognizing Wormtail as the spy. We would need some kind of evidence that Snape heard of Wormtail the spy while he was spying for Dumbledore, from Voldemort or from his followers. If Sirius' words can be taken at face value, and that's a big if, then there were some Death Eaters who knew that Peter Pettigrew was LV's spy within the Order. We have no evidence that he was known to them as Wormtail at that time. I can imagine a scenario in which Snape was nosing around the DEs back in the day and managed to find out that someone called "Wormtail" was betraying the Order's secrets but couldn't manage to find out "Wormtail's" real name. Then the question of whether or not Snape recognized Wormtail on the Marauder's Map would matter. But that is just wild speculation without any canon support whatsoever. Carol: > Snape clearly didn't know--could not have known--who > the *Secret Keeper* was. Only the Potters, Sirius Black, > and Wormtail knew about the Secret Keeper switch, so > far as we know. houyhnhnm: "Sounds like they think the double-crosser double-crossed them. Voldemort went to the Potters on your information . . . and Voldemort met his downfall there." I'm not sure how reliable is any information that comes from Sirius, not because I think he is a liar, but because he is careless of speech and given to hyperbole, but if his words are an accurate representation of what the Death Eaters were saying in Azkaban, it sounds to me like they did know that Peter was the Secret Keeper, and if some Death Eaters knew that, then Snape could have known it, too, if he was 100 percent in the loop. I don't think he was. I think there is abundant evidence in all six books to falsify the ESE and OFH Snape theories. Therefore he could not have known, either that Peter was the spy or the Secret Keeper. The fact that Snape knew Peter Pettigrew was Wormtail the Marauder (or didn't know) has no relevance to his DDMness or lack thereof, in my opinion. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun May 27 23:05:37 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 23:05:37 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? - Montague In-Reply-To: <6467e1f0705261500o52edc3catf0b722cda9b25384@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169366 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Asl? T?merkan" wrote: > I couldn't find the part about Montague's disappearence but I > remember as he spent a lot more in the vanishing closet than a day. > Are you sure? The apparition evidence is very intriguing though. zanooda: Hi, Asly! Montague spent aproximately one and a half day in the Cabinet. It's all described in "Snape's worst memory", if you want to check. The Twins forced Montague into the Cabinet some time in the morning on the next day after DD's escape. They talked to Harry about it right before lunch. At lunch Umbridge attempted to make Harry drink Veritaserum, and at the end of lunch the Twins let out their fireworks. The next evening Harry had his Occlumency lesson with Snape. At the very beginning of the lesson Draco Malfoy appeared with the news that Montague has been found. Harry usually had Occlumency lessons at 6:00 in the evening. It makes it 24 full hours and some hours more. How many more I don't know, because I'm not sure when they have lunch at Hogwarts :-). From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 00:40:02 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 00:40:02 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169367 > > Carol: > > > Not necessarily. If Snape knows that Wormtail is the > > spy and that Peter Pettigrew is Wormtail, then he knows > > that Pettigrew is the spy. > > > houyhnhnm: > Snape knows Wormtail is the spy. > > We have no evidence on which to establish the truth of the > major premise. The fact that Snape recognized Wormtail as a > Marauder, if he did and I'm not convinced that he did, has > nothing to do with recognizing Wormtail as the spy. Mike: The Marauders made no secret of their nicknames. In SWM pensieve scene we hear them use all four of their nicknames, and they are out amongst their fellow students at this time. Sirius calls James "Prongs" while they are the center of attention in their picking on Snape and arguing with Lily. I would find it highly unlikely if Snape didn't know the nicknames of his boyhood tormenters, and which belonged to which. And I think there is instant recognition when the Map insults Snape. He calls for Lupin immediately, and I don't think it was for Lupin's DADA skills. That said, I agree with houyhnhnm, I don't think it matters in the figuring out that Peter is Wormtail is the spy is the Potter's SK. What does matter is what Sirius said about the DEs in Azkaban. > houyhnhnm: > If Sirius' words can be taken at face value, and that's > a big if, then there were some Death Eaters who knew that > Peter Pettigrew was LV's spy within the Order. Mike: Sirius' hatred of Wormtail and his resulting imprisonment because of being bested by Peter is what he used to keep his sanity in Azkaban. This is one area that he didn't need to and doesn't resort to hyperbole, imo. And, yes, we don't know who these unnamed DEs that screamed things out in their sleep were. But that's rather the point, isn't it? They are the generic any DE, as in, it seems any and all of them know that their Master's downfall came at the Potters and Peter sent LV there. So, maybe not all of them knew, but a fair few of them seemed to, imo. And I would have thought that Snape was one of them. Now let's move on to Snape's treatment of Sirius in this affair. > Carol: > > > Snape clearly didn't know--could not have known--who > > the *Secret Keeper* was. Only the Potters, Sirius Black, > > and Wormtail knew about the Secret Keeper switch, so > > far as we know. > > houyhnhnm: > > "Sounds like they think the double-crosser > double-crossed them. Voldemort went to the Potters > on your information . . . and Voldemort met his downfall > there." I'm not sure how reliable is any information > that comes from Sirius, not because I think he is a liar, > but because he is careless of speech and given to > hyperbole, but if his words are an accurate representation > of what the Death Eaters were saying in Azkaban, it sounds > to me like they did know that Peter was the Secret Keeper, > and if some Death Eaters knew that, then Snape could have > known it, too, if he was 100 percent in the loop. > > I don't think he was. Therefore he could not have known, > either that Peter was the spy or the Secret Keeper. Mike: As I said above, it doesn't sound like Snape needed to be anywhere near 100% in the loop, the knowledge that Peter led LV to the Potters seems to have become common knowledge amongst the DEs *after* the LV's downfall. Likewise, the knowledge that Sirius Black was *not* a fellow DE also seems to be common knowledge among the DEs. At least Sirius Black's cousins Bella and Narcissa would know this and, given that Snape and Lucius were thick as thieves, I would expect that Snape also knew this. So, why didn't Snape tell this to Dumbledore? First let's look at Sirius' predicament. We get our initial information about Black's supposed DEness from the Daily Prophet and then Fudge. Fudge of course is the one who first told us about the Potter's Fidelius. But both these sources are highly suspect. I'm not sure that the rest of the WW held this same belief, if they thought about Sirius Black at all. And Fudge certainly seems to have a healthy self-aggrandizement streak in his story telling. So maybe only a few members of the Ministry (obviously including Barty Crouch Sr.) were interested in Black and they were the ones convinced of Sirius' allegience to LV. Rosemerta seems utterly surprised and still unbelieving in the Sirius turned on James Potter version. Therefore, it seems that it was the Ministry that propegated the version of Sirius the DE. Did Dumbledore believe it? A better question might be: Why did Dumbledore testify that Black was the Potter's Secret Keeper? This same Dumbledore that seems to hold is own knowledge close to the vest, comes out and *testifies* to something that he truly has no direct knowledge?! He only knows what was told to him, he wasn't there at the spells performance. Why would Dumbledore give this testimony? It's just possible that Sirius Black had mucked up things once too often, and Albus Dumbledore had grown tired of bailing him out. From all indications, it seems heroic effort would be needed to get Sirius out of this one, the whole Ministry seemed to be convinced of Black's guilt. So maybe Dumbledore didn't want to fight for Sirius any more. Furthermore, maybe Snape did tell Albus about Peter being the one who ratted out (pun intended) the Potters to LV. But it would have come a while after the Sirius-Peter confrontation in London, imo, because the "common knowledge" about Peter didn't become that immediately. I do believe that LV would have held Peter's identity close to the vest, only told a few insiders who the spy was. But after the downfall, those in the know would have released that information to both focus the other DEs anger at Peter and to exonerate themselves of any treachery. I assume that Voldemort would approve of this action, too. So, Sirius is already in Azkaban by the time Dumbledore learns that Peter was the SK. But where would he learn that the Peter-Sirius confrontation didn't happen the way everybody believed it did? That is, Sirius blasted Peter to smithereens and blew up the street in the process. Now Dumbledore doesn't want his spy Severus compromised. So he doesn't come forward with this information that only could have come from another DE, because he still believes that Sirius is the murderer of 12 innocent Muggles, even if the 13th killing was a revenge killing. The problem with this whole scenario; it doesn't answer why Snape would still believe that Black was the traitor of the Potters. Which comes back to my contention, Severus Snape was blinded by his hatred of Sirius Black. He either thought Sirius was part of the treachery, or more likely, he didn't care. He still thought that Sirius tried to kill him when they were kids and he wanted to see Sirius dead for his own self-serving reasons. > houyhnhnm: > The fact that Snape knew Peter Pettigrew was Wormtail the > Marauder (or didn't know) has no relevance to his DDMness > or lack thereof, in my opinion. Mike: And I take this one step further. The (possible) fact that Snape knew that Sirius wasn't the traitor doesn't stop Snape from wanting Sirius dead. And Snape doesn't have to agree with *everything* that Dumbledore believes in, so it still doesn't affect his DDMness!! From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 00:28:00 2007 From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 17:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Cho: was Ravenclaw (was: Responses to Marietta ) Message-ID: <932571.47432.qm@web51404.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169368 Magpie // For all Cho is often used in arguments to condemn Marietta, Cho herself defends her. Not, imo, as I've sometimes heard, because she's an idiot, or a wuss (why would a wuss defend her?) or trying to tempt Harry to an evil side somehow. Cho says why she's defending her--she agrees what she did was wrong but can see her pov.// Coriandra: I don't see Cho as an idiot or a wuss either. I once read (I don't remember where) "How Cho Chang got in Ravenclaw is anyone's guess." because Ravenclaw traditionally stands for intelligence. I don't believe Cho lacks intelligence, however, or courage. What she lacks is maturity. She's strong, bright and attractive, but still a teenage girl and let's be honest, teenagers don't always use the best judgement. It's all part of learning, making mistakes and taking the consequences. I find it unfortunate that Mariette had to pay for Cho's learning experience, but of course, she learned a valuable lesson herself and hopefully the consequences won't be permanent. Coriandra From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 01:12:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 01:12:20 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169369 Mike: > And I take this one step further. The (possible) fact that Snape knew > that Sirius wasn't the traitor doesn't stop Snape from wanting Sirius > dead. And Snape doesn't have to agree with *everything* that > Dumbledore believes in, so it still doesn't affect his DDMness!! > Carol responds: Thanks for that concession, Mike. If *you* don't think it affects his DDMness, and you're not a DDMsnaper, then I have nothing to worry about! :-) Seriously, though, if Snape thought, as we know he did, that Sirius Black tried to kill him when he was sixteen and that Black actually did kill twelve Muggles and Peter Pettigrew, and if Snape *knew* (as we know he did) that Black had gotten into Hogwarts, slashed up the painting of the Fat Lady, gotten into Hogwarts a second time and actually slashed Ron's bedcurtains with a twelve-inch knife, wouldn't he have thought, with good reason, that Black was trying to kill someone? And, given that he didn't know that Pettigrew was alive, much less an Animagus posing as Ron's pet rat, wouldn't he have thought, as everyone else did, that the person Black was trying to kill was Harry? What else was he to think? Carol, keeping her argument simple this time to make sure that this one question is answered From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon May 28 01:25:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 21:25:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? Message-ID: <380-22007512812519828@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169370 > houyhnhnm: > If Sirius' words can be taken at face value, and that's > a big if, then there were some Death Eaters who knew that > Peter Pettigrew was LV's spy within the Order. Mike: Sirius' hatred of Wormtail and his resulting imprisonment because of being bested by Peter is what he used to keep his sanity in Azkaban. This is one area that he didn't need to and doesn't resort to hyperbole, imo. And, yes, we don't know who these unnamed DEs that screamed things out in their sleep were. But that's rather the point, isn't it? They are the generic any DE, as in, it seems any and all of them know that their Master's downfall came at the Potters and Peter sent LV there. So, maybe not all of them knew, but a fair few of them seemed to, imo. And I would have thought that Snape was one of them. Magpie: They're not necessarily any generic DEs. We know that they didn't all know each other, and that they are not all included in every plan. Snape himself was allegedly spying on Dumbledore by then. Sirius, of course, knows the truth and is filling in anything that doesn't specifically call peter by name, but I don't think Snape had to be one of the ones in on his identity. In fact, it makes thematically perfect sense that he wouldn't, because it gives Snape the same flaw as James. Of course Snape thought it was Black--that's the person he hated. As much as he wouldn't like any of the Marauders, he'd rather it be Sirius than Peter. He'd be just as likely to overlook Peter as James. Voldemort would have good reason to conceal Peter's identity from Snape, certainly--no reason to tell both spies in the order (if he's sending Snape in there to spy on them too) who the other one is. Smart of him to split up the attack on the Potters into two people: Snape brings the information, someone else cracks the secret. If Snape is DDM, of course, he shouldn't know the identity of the traitor, because it was Peter, not Sirius, who ruined Snape's own attempts to stop the assassination of James and Lily. Mike: As I said above, it doesn't sound like Snape needed to be anywhere near 100% in the loop, the knowledge that Peter led LV to the Potters seems to have become common knowledge amongst the DEs *after* the LV's downfall. Likewise, the knowledge that Sirius Black was *not* a fellow DE also seems to be common knowledge among the DEs. At least Sirius Black's cousins Bella and Narcissa would know this and, given that Snape and Lucius were thick as thieves, I would expect that Snape also knew this. So, why didn't Snape tell this to Dumbledore? First let's look at Sirius' predicament. We get our initial information about Black's supposed DEness from the Daily Prophet and then Fudge. Fudge of course is the one who first told us about the Potter's Fidelius. But both these sources are highly suspect. I'm not sure that the rest of the WW held this same belief, if they thought about Sirius Black at all. And Fudge certainly seems to have a healthy self-aggrandizement streak in his story telling. So maybe only a few members of the Ministry (obviously including Barty Crouch Sr.) were interested in Black and they were the ones convinced of Sirius' allegience to LV. Rosemerta seems utterly surprised and still unbelieving in the Sirius turned on James Potter version. Magpie: I'm not convinced by this premise that Snape had to have known simply because certain DEs in Azkaban were yelling about a traitor in DD's camp whom they think double-crossed them. (He didn't even double-cross them that I can see.) So I can't build on that really, but Snape's behavior in terms of the emotions he shows to me support the reading that he thought Sirius was the Secret Keeper and so the only spy that mattered. It's never been brought up as an issue that Snape had to have known Peter was really a spy. I think it's bizarre that Sirius only says in OotP that Peter will by then have revealed his animagus form to Voldemort, so I don't think we have to assume a lot of things are common knowledge. Mike: Therefore, it seems that it was the Ministry that propegated the version of Sirius the DE. Did Dumbledore believe it? A better question might be: Why did Dumbledore testify that Black was the Potter's Secret Keeper? This same Dumbledore that seems to hold is own knowledge close to the vest, comes out and *testifies* to something that he truly has no direct knowledge?! He only knows what was told to him, he wasn't there at the spells performance. Why would Dumbledore give this testimony? Magpie: Doesn't he testify to it because he believed it to be true? Sirius was supposed to be the Secret Keeper, wasn't he? Mike: It's just possible that Sirius Black had mucked up things once too often, and Albus Dumbledore had grown tired of bailing him out. From all indications, it seems heroic effort would be needed to get Sirius out of this one, the whole Ministry seemed to be convinced of Black's guilt. So maybe Dumbledore didn't want to fight for Sirius any more. Magpie: MWPP pulled the wool over DD's eyes yet again. He wasn't included in the Secret Keeper Switch, as far as we know, I believe. Mike: Furthermore, maybe Snape did tell Albus about Peter being the one who ratted out (pun intended) the Potters to LV. But it would have come a while after the Sirius-Peter confrontation in London, imo, because the "common knowledge" about Peter didn't become that immediately. I do believe that LV would have held Peter's identity close to the vest, only told a few insiders who the spy was. But after the downfall, those in the know would have released that information to both focus the other DEs anger at Peter and to exonerate themselves of any treachery. I assume that Voldemort would approve of this action, too. Magpie: The problem with this for me is it starts sounding like Dumbledore and Snape just acted like they believed certain things and didn't share information with others because they were trying to help JKR tell the story of PoA the way she wanted. I don't think that's her style. She sometimes has plot holes, but if characters lie about something like this, it's usually transparent enough that it's part of their motivation. Mike: The problem with this whole scenario; it doesn't answer why Snape would still believe that Black was the traitor of the Potters. Which comes back to my contention, Severus Snape was blinded by his hatred of Sirius Black. He either thought Sirius was part of the treachery, or more likely, he didn't care. He still thought that Sirius tried to kill him when they were kids and he wanted to see Sirius dead for his own self-serving reasons. Magpie: I think he is driven by hatred of Sirius, but I think it's a bit much to say he knew the truth and just didn't believe it because of that. (That again sounds like he continued to believe it was Sirius for the plot.) That Snape believes Sirius was the traitor I take as a given, and considering Peter's being the traitor is actually the big secret, I accept that Snape was one of those many surprised. Once he knows Sirius isn't the traitor he's able to work with him, even if he still hates him. We have good canonical reasons for believing Sirius was the traitor: Sirius was the Secret Keeper as far as anyone knew. Snape would have no reason to be privvy to last-minute switches amongst James Potter's friends. Voldemort wouldn't necessarily have had any reason to share with him that Peter Pettigrew had switched sides, and once everything went down, he wouldn't have had time to fill Snape in on what really happened. So I think Snape, who was by then a former DE protected by DD, had a good reason for believing what the good side knew at the time, based on eye witness accounts. -m From catlady at wicca.net Mon May 28 02:49:41 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 02:49:41 -0000 Subject: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169371 Nate wrote in : << In few words, my theory is that Voldy was wrong about HP being the one on the prophecy. This one would be in fact Neville >> I would like very much for Neville to really be the Prophecy Boy, and I would like even better for the Prophecy to be just be wrong and Neville does for Voldemort, but Rowling does not agree. This is on her website : << Q: What is the significance of Neville being the other boy to whom the prophecy might have referred? JKR: (snip) 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. Yet I was making what I felt was a significant point about Harry and Voldemort, and about prophecies themselves, in showing Neville as the also-ran. If neither boy was 'pre-ordained' before Voldemort's attack to become his possible vanquisher, then the prophecy (like the one the witches make to Macbeth, if anyone has read the play of the same name) becomes the catalyst for a situation that would never have occurred if it had not been made. Harry is propelled into a terrifying position he might never have sought, while Neville remains the tantalising 'might-have-been'. Destiny is a name often given in retrospect to choices that had dramatic consequences. >> Neri wrote in : << It is well established that Lupin has to take his potion every day during the week before his transformation (he says so in the Shack, and we also see Snape bringing him the potion in Halloween day and Lupin is seen that night in the great hall, but misses his class several days later). >> Is it well-established? Here is some canon from PoA: <> and << "I was a very small boy when I received the bite. My parents tried everything, but in those days there was no cure. The potion that Professor Snape has been making for me is a very recent discovery. It makes me safe, you see. As long as I take it in the week preceding the full moon, I keep my mind when I transform .... I'm able to curl up in my office, a harmless wolf, and wait for the moon to wane again." >> I long to know whether 'take it in the week preceeding the full moon' means 'take it once anytime during that week' or 'take it daily each day of that week'. (Or, for that matter, why assume once daily? It could be every four hours daily!) The conversation between Snape and Lupin has the disadvantage that both speakers are trying to hide things from Harry and the readers, but "*if* you need more" and "I should probably take some again *tomorrow*" don't sound to me like daily doses. By the way, we know from HBP that the Wolfsbane Potion was invented by Damocles Belby, but we don't know why. Goddlefrood wrote in : << Mike wrote: << I was never under the impression that Fluffy was put there to *kill* any intruders. >> Nor I, hence his name. Fluffy was a big furball, somewhat like his owner Rubeus. >> Hagrid's dog is a big furball and is named Fang. Hagrid's dragon is dangerous and is named Norbert. I think the name 'Fluffy' is a clue that the dog really is dangerous. Pippii filked in : << My! Ginevra A Filk by Pippin To the tune of My Sharona, by The Knack >> I literally laughed out loud, momentarily waking Tim. By the way, who'd ever have thought of filking 'My Sharona'? Carol wrote in : << In which case, how do you explain that Snape specifically requested Black to remain at home and wait for Dumbledore? >> To which, Neri replied in : << Really, after Snape goading Sirius about being a coward and staying at home the whole year, his "request" from Sirius to remain at home at such a moment was the best way to ensure that Sirius will go to the DoM. >> People have been talking about the kitchen scene, in which Severus demonstrated that he can play Sirius like a yo-yo. Severus, having perfect control of his voice and his words, can say the things that absolutely hit the target of driving Sirius crazy (and, Carol, I doubt that Severus ever feared Sirius once he had joined the Death Eaters, and certainly not since Sirius went to Azkaban; I'm sure his calculated taunting is motivated by hatred and cruelty, not fear, altho' much of his taunting is simple habit). So if Severus had wanted to make sure that Sirius would go to the Ministry, he would know exactly which words to tell him to stay behind to make certain that he went. Nikkalmati wrote in : << Several listees have brought out theories about time travel into the past such as we have seen in POA. One theory, which seems to fit the books, is that there is only one past and it cannot be changed. What about the future? Aren't there numerous even infinite numbers of futures? >> I believe that if there is only one past, and it can't be changed, then there is only one future, and it can't be changed either. Think of what is to us the present; to a time-traveller, it is the past. And to a historical person, it is the future. So, the present cannot be changed because it is someone's past, and the future cannot be changed because it is someone's past. I hate this theory, because I feel that it contradicts free will and contradicts choice. But C.S.Lewis did not -- in context of God being in eternity rather than in time, and therefore able to observe past, present and future simultaneously. Martin Gardner quoted him saying something like "You never thought your will was less free because God can watch you in the present, so why assume that it's less free because God can watch you in the past or the future?" From celizwh at intergate.com Mon May 28 03:07:43 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 03:07:43 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169372 Mike: > As I said above, it doesn't sound like Snape needed > to be anywhere near 100% in the loop, the knowledge > that Peter led LV to the Potters seems to have become > common knowledge amongst the DEs *after* the LV's > downfall. Likewise, the knowledge that Sirius Black > was *not* a fellow DE also seems to be common knowledge > among the DEs. At least Sirius Black's cousins Bella > and Narcissa would know this and, given that Snape and > Lucius were thick as thieves, I would expect that Snape > also knew this. houyhnhnm: I don't see any evidence for this view of the openess of the DE sub-culture even pre GH. Post GH, an awful lot of them seem to have been claiming to know nothing. Mike: > So, why didn't Snape tell this to Dumbledore? houyhnhnm: I snipped the rest, because *if* Snape knew that Peter Pettigrew was betraying the Order for a year and he withheld that information from Dumbledore, then there is no need for a convoluted theory to explain why. If Snape knew that Pettigrew was a Voldemort spy and failed to tell Dumbledore, then he is not only guilty of the Potters' deaths, but also those of Marlene MacKinnon, Benjy Fenwick, Edgar Bones, Caradoc Dearborn, Gideon and Fabian Prewett, Dorcas Meadows, and who knows how many nameless ordinary witches and wizards. Voldemort was winning at the time he went to Godric's Hollow, and who knows how much of that was due to the fact that the WW's anti-Voldemort guerillas were being decimated from within by a traitor. Why did Snape keep that knowledge to himself? Because he's evil, evil to the bone, Voldemort's man through and through. And Dumbledore is an old fool. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 28 03:52:34 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 03:52:34 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169373 > Mike: > Sirius' hatred of Wormtail and his resulting imprisonment because of > being bested by Peter is what he used to keep his sanity in Azkaban. > This is one area that he didn't need to and doesn't resort to > hyperbole, imo. And, yes, we don't know who these unnamed DEs that > screamed things out in their sleep were. Pippin: One of them was Crouch Jr. Sirius heard him screaming for his mother. We know that Sirius was kept heavily guarded, so he probably didn't get much chance to mingle. He says he saw Bellatrix as she was being brought in. I don't think it's too speculative that the prisoners near him were the Pensieve Four: Crouch Jr, Bella, Rabastan and Rudolphus -- all greatly feared high security prisoners. They seem to have known that the real secret keeper was Wormtail (or someone they knew by that alias, at any rate.) But how many other Death Eaters knew this? Sirius speculates that one at least does, and this was why Wormtail needed to stay in hiding. I think he was quite right about that. But it seems extremely unlikely that they would have shared this information with Snape, who was stationed at Hogwarts at the time and so cannot have been spying on the Marauders. Probably the only information Snape was given pointed at the person Voldemort had picked as his patsy: Sirius Black. There's canon that Bella and Snape have never been close. She has no idea where he lives. Snape is close to Narcissa and Lucius, but they were not "sent" (Jo's word) along with the Pensieve Four to attack the Longbottoms. I have speculated before that the real spy was the Sender, and his plan was to sting those who could have revealed his true identity. But we'll soon find out. Pippin From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 04:05:20 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 04:05:20 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: <6467e1f0705261500o52edc3catf0b722cda9b25384@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Asl? T?merkan" wrote: > > I couldn't find the part about Montague's disappearence but I remember as he spent a lot more in the vanishing closet than a day. Are you sure? The apparition evidence is very intriguing though. > > Asli > He spent about a day in a half in the closet. So he'd be tired & hungry, but why would he need to spend the rest of the term in the hospital? Basically, I just CAN'T think of a valid explanation for how Montague ended up in that bathroom. The books inform us, numerous times, that people can't apparate at Hogwarts. Snape says the same thing in POA, when he says that Black couldn't have apparated out of the castle. Yet Draco claims Montague apparated out of the closet? It doesn't make sense. Either JKR forgot this obvious principle (doubtful), or she's trying to signal that something else really happened there. I also think it's interesting that she took the time to describe the potion that Montague was drinking in the clinic - why bother? She usually doesn't bother w/details like that unless they become important later on. It's like Anton Chekov's rule of drama: a gun you see in Act One must go off by Act Three. A sketchy apparition & potion you see in Book 5 must go off in Book 6. Also, why was the cabinet moved to the Room of Requirement in Book 6? Why weren't Fred & George ever punished for this? Why didn't Snape investigate this impossible "apparition"? He's a logical man, & he must have realized that there's more to the story. The whole thing seems very odd - especially when you consider that that same cabinet was later used to smuggle 6 Death Eaters into Hogwarts in the next book. I think, once Montague said that the Cabinets connect Hogwarts to Borgin & Burke, SOMEBODY thought this information was too important to get out. So Montague's memory was erased, his body was moved, and he was given befuddlement potion until the end of term so that he couldn't share the story with anyone else. lizzyben04 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon May 28 04:25:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 00:25:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? Message-ID: <380-22007512842524140@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169375 Lizzyben: I think, once Montague said that the Cabinets connect Hogwarts to Borgin & Burke, SOMEBODY thought this information was too important to get out. So Montague's memory was erased, his body was moved, and he was given befuddlement potion until the end of term so that he couldn't share the story with anyone else. Magpie: But he *did* share the information with someone else. He shared it with all of Slytherin.That's where Draco heard it, as he explained, and realized what it meant. Montague's memory wasn't erased, he was, as far as we know now, just befuddled by being trapped in limbo with no way to get out or make anyone hear him--until he managed to Apparate into the toilet. Which completely goes against what we've been told about Apparition it's true, and also goes against the fact that the Vanishing Cabinets are broken. It could be a special circumstance, with the rule-breaking Apparition being part of the ill-effects. But so far it seems important that Montague doesn't have missing gaps in his memory--we hear his whole story as told to the Slytherins in HBP, some of the details of which are demonstrated via that Cabinet Plot. As to why the Twins weren't punished, I don't think they could have been. Montague was still befuddled when they left school, I think, so there was no one to punish once Montague came around. Before that no one but the Trio knew what happened to him and they weren't talking. If we see any bright blue Potions I will definitely connect it to whatever Montague was taking, but the fact that it was bright blue so far doesn't seem to be any evidence that it was Confunding him. After all, eventually he did get better and share his story. And if somebody memory charmed him, particularly if Snape memory charmed him, since Snape is a competent adult, he could just be memory charmed, couldn't he? And if he was being given Potions to keep him Confunded, why was he able to tell the whole "great story" to the Slytherins? -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 05:15:13 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 05:15:13 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: <380-22007512812519828@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169376 Mike: I was going to respond point by point, but that didn't work so well last time. So instead, let me lay out my theoretical timeline and you all can point out where I'm off base. :) 1) Peter Pettigrew starts spying for Voldemort. There are a fair few true DEs that know that Severus Snape is spying for Voldemort. I gotta believe that although Voldie would hold Peter's allegiance close to the vest, he would tell someone. Pettigrew would have a handler, a middleman who took Peter's info to LV. And he probably told more than just that one. He wouldn't want to have to handle Peter personally all the time. 2) Dumbledore suggests the Fidelius to the Potters. They tell DD they are going to use Black, then switch at the last minute to Pettigrew. I would think that DD would have told Snape about the Fidelius and that Black was going to be the SK. If for no other reason than Snape would have the same plausible deniability that he had with Bella in Spinner's End. To wit: I can't tell you where the Potters are, they are under the Fidelius Charm. And why would DD hide his understanding that Black was the SK? Besides, it seems to have become a known fact. In quick order, 3) PP gives up the Potters. LV goes bye-bye. 4) Sirius tracks down PP and we get 12 dead Muggles and a missing and presumed dead PP. 5) Sirius is accused of the murders of all 13, thrown into Azkaban without trial. 6) Sometime in here DD gives testimony that Sirius was the Potter's SK. To whom, we aren't told, but presumedly to Crouch Sr. This is about where we are in PS/SS when we meet DD, MM, and Hagrid. 7) The in-the-know DEs start spreading it around that PP was the Potter's SK and led LV to the Potters, whereupon he vanished. As I explained previously, these few in-the-know DEs don't want to take the fall for LV's demise. So they start releasing to their bretheren who the spy was. And why not, they all believe that PP is dead. Who better to pin the screw-up on than the dead spy? And why keep the dead, screw-up spy's name a secret, that only makes the others suspicious that one of them was the screw-up, if the others don't get a plausible name. 8) Snape learns this info about PP in due course and reports it to Dumbledore. Dumbledore has a dilemna. He now knows that Sirius wasn't the Potter's SK, but he's already given testimony to the contrary. His information comes from his double agent, so he doesn't necessarily want to come forward with it. Without LV around, who knows how the rest of the DEs may respond to finding out Snape told DD this info. And the DEs would obviously suspect Snape as he is currently employed by DD. Besides all this, DD has no proof and no knowledge that Black wasn't responsible for 13 murders (well 12 and change) and for all we know, this is the primary charge that got Sirius thrown into Azkaban. This doesn't look like a fight DD can win, and he would be putting his double agent in jeopardy if he tries. He gives it up as a bad job and consoles himself in the knowledge that Sirius screwed up once too often and it finally caught up with him. 9) Snape knows the true identity of the Potter's SK. (Scenario #1) But Snape also knew the Potters told DD they were going to use Black. Why would they switch to PP? Couldn't Snape believe the same thing that Sirius tells Harry in the Shreiking Shack? That is, that the idiot Black convinced the Potters to switch to the traitor Pettigrew. Who else besides the arrogant Black would be so convinced in the brilliance of a stupid plan like that? So Snape still blames Black for the Potters demise and, maybe worse, it was because of Black's arrogance. (Scenario #2) There is second possible explanation for Snape's perception. He believed that Black was in cahoots with Pettigrew. He convinces himself that Sirius had decided to return to his Black roots and was going to join up with the Dark side. And that Black went after Pettigrew for the same reasons that any other DE would have gone after Pettigrew, he led LV to his demise. Nobody understood what happened that night at Godric's Hollow. Could some DEs have believed that Pettigrew "double-crossed" LV and that he was the proximate reason for LV's downfall? Snape could have credited Black with this same motivation if he believed that Black was switching sides. I don't find the second scenario plausible. But apparently the WW didn't have too much of a problem with it. Normally, I would credit Snape with more sense than to believe this hooey. But, if Snape is blinded by his hatred of Black, I can see him accepting this explanation. It's like Magpie said, of course he wanted the traitor to be Black. Either of these two scenarios makes what Snape said in the Shack about "died like your father - too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black", a plausible utterance. 10) Snape believes that Lupin is helping Black in PoA. If Snape is blinded by his hatred of Black into believing that Black was the reason for the Potters demise, it's not too big of a leap to believe that Lupin has also fallen under Black's spell. This is my biggest complaint with Snape. He has convinced himself that Black has this hold over Lupin because if his irrational hatred of Black. Not Snape's best moment, imo. Snape's bits of "evidence" here and there are totally outweighed with the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. The contrary evidence was there to see, but Snape didn't want to see it, imo. 11) Snape is convinced that Black is trying to kill Harry. Snape could believe this under both of the above scenarios. First, he could believe that Azkaban addled Black's mind, not an unlikely outcome after 12 years with the Dementors. And in the second scenario, well that one has Black switching sides just like the rest of the WW believes. Again, why he believed Lupin was helping Black is a problem for me. And as Carol has pointed out (and Dumbledore said to Harry and Hermione) Black hasn't exactly acted rationally throughout the whole of PoA. We understand what was going on, now, but I wouldn't expect any of the characters to react to it in any other way than they did, including Snape. 12) Snape enters the Shack convinced of Black's guilt. Given everything else that led up to this point, what else would Snape have believed? That doesn't mean that Snape's hatred is rational, making his false conviction partially his own fault. But, also remember, nobody has any evidence that Black didn't kill those 13 people. So Black is still a criminal in the WW regardless of his status vis-a-vis the Potters. This makes Snape's attempt to capture Black perfectly plausible on the grounds of the 13 murders alone. That said, I still have a problem with his treatment of Lupin. I see a lot of werewolf prejudice in the Shack. And Lupin's admission (that Snape heard) that he was weak and cowardly is not the same thing as admitting that he was helping Black. But that's the way some folks think Snape heard it. That sounds like rationalization to me, excusing Snape's bias against Lupin. Thanks for your indulgence. Mike From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon May 28 06:33:42 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 06:33:42 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Mike: > I was going to respond point by point, but that didn't work so well > last time. So instead, let me lay out my theoretical timeline and you > all can point out where I'm off base. :) > > 1) Peter Pettigrew starts spying for Voldemort. > There are a fair few true DEs that know that Severus Snape is spying > for Voldemort. I gotta believe that although Voldie would hold > Peter's allegiance close to the vest, he would tell someone. > Pettigrew would have a handler, a middleman who took Peter's info to > LV. And he probably told more than just that one. He wouldn't want to > have to handle Peter personally all the time. Hickengruendler: That might very well be true, but given that Peter was a spy, it makes perfect sense for Voldemort to keep his identity as secret as possible. I would be surprised, if the majority of Death Eaters knew, who the spy in the Order was, simply because it makes sense for Voldemort not to tell anyone. Sure, a few obviously knew, but Snape doesn't have to be among them. And there's also Karkaroff's statement during his trial, that no Death Eater knew all the other ones. And this was at a time, where Karkaroff was willing to sell ot anyone for his freedom. And again, if Dumbledore kept the DE's identities a secret from most others, it would make particularly sense to do this with a spy. The fact, that a few DE's knew the truth, doesn't change this. Mike: > 2) Dumbledore suggests the Fidelius to the Potters. They tell DD they > are going to use Black, then switch at the last minute to Pettigrew. > I would think that DD would have told Snape about the Fidelius and > that Black was going to be the SK. If for no other reason than Snape > would have the same plausible deniability that he had with Bella in > Spinner's End. To wit: I can't tell you where the Potters are, they > are under the Fidelius Charm. Hickengruendler: The Fidelius charm, maybe. But why should he tell Snape about the Secret Keeper? According to your theory, which I do find possible, Snape just had to tell Voldie, taht the Potters were under the Fidelius Charm and that he wasn't the Secret Keeper. Mike: > 7) The in-the-know DEs start spreading it around that PP was the > Potter's SK and led LV to the Potters, whereupon he vanished. > As I explained previously, these few in-the-know DEs don't want to > take the fall for LV's demise. So they start releasing to their > bretheren who the spy was. And why not, they all believe that PP is > dead. Who better to pin the screw-up on than the dead spy? And why > keep the dead, screw-up spy's name a secret, that only makes the > others suspicious that one of them was the screw-up, if the others > don't get a plausible name. Hickengruendler: At a time, when Snape was already in Hogwarts! No matter on which side Snape is, why should he bother to meet the other Death Eaters know. He was in Hogwarts all year, and every disappearance would only look suspicious. Loyal to Dumbledore Snape had fulfilled his spy work for that time and no reason to meet the Death Eaters. And evil Snape (loyal to Voldie or OFH) would have no reason to risk his safety and freedom, because he associated with other Death Eaters again. Mike: > 8) Snape learns this info about PP in due course and reports it to > Dumbledore. > Dumbledore has a dilemna. He now knows that Sirius wasn't the > Potter's SK, but he's already given testimony to the contrary. His > information comes from his double agent, so he doesn't necessarily > want to come forward with it. Without LV around, who knows how the > rest of the DEs may respond to finding out Snape told DD this info. > And the DEs would obviously suspect Snape as he is currently employed > by DD. Hickengruendler: Sorry, but I hope you are aware, what kind of monster you are making out of Dumbledore. I know that he does have his flaws, that he might (or should) have investigated better in Sirius' case, and that he is sometimes incoherently written. But nothing in the books suggests, that he is the kind of person, to leave an innocent man rot in prison, if he knew that man was innocent. Besides, Snape was comparatively safe in Hogwarts. And it's not, that Dumbledore kept Snape's work as a spy a secret. He told it in front of the whole Wizengamot and many visitors at Karkaroff's trial, and it was mentioned during the trial, that he already made another testimony regarding Snape during an earlier trial. Besides, the Death Eaters knew anyway, that Dumbledore thought Snape to be a spy. Mike: Besides all this, DD has no proof and no knowledge that Black > wasn't responsible for 13 murders (well 12 and change) and for all we > know, this is the primary charge that got Sirius thrown into Azkaban. Hickengruendler: Yes. But if he had heard from Snape, that at least one of the charges against SIrius was already wrong, he should have investigated more regarding the other one as well. Hickengruendler From dragondancer357 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 06:05:11 2007 From: dragondancer357 at yahoo.com (Anna) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 06:05:11 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169378 Rereading HBP, just past the part when Dumbledore shows Harry the TRUE memory of Slughorn, young Voldemort, and their conversation about Horcruxes, I still don't understand something: Slughorn says that killing someone splits your soul, and that with said piece of soul, you can create a Horcrux. Well, what about all the Aurors and others who killed in the numerous battles between "good" and the forces of Voldemort. If they (the Aurors) killed dark wizards and such when trying to capture them, for example, aren't their souls split as well? I mean, does the mere act of killing someone -- anyone -- split the soul, or is the soul only split when one does a particulary nasty/evil murder, or has the concious intention of creating a Horcrux? Voldemort did countless murders, yet he only supposedly created 6 Horcruxes. Do you think his soul is really split into a hundred-some-odd pieces? Any ideas? Thanks. Anna From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 07:18:46 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 07:18:46 -0000 Subject: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: <15886746.1180015987692.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169379 Bart: > OK, I'm going to open the discussion of longshot theories for things > that will happen in DH. What I mean are events which are not likely, > but you can find the kind of "obvious in hindsight" foreshadowing in > the canon that JKR commonly uses. lizzyben04: In the end, Snape will live up to his childhood nickname and *cry*. I see a ton of hints for this across all the novels & am really hoping to see this scene. From xellina at gmail.com Mon May 28 07:42:41 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 11:42:41 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: References: <463f9ec00705250401x41e25081ie96d422fa3d1f7a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463f9ec00705280042m4b8cbe03gcc6d93ab9def1932@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169380 2007/5/25, Gary : Here's the most obvious big surprise: In DH Voldy gets killed in the first two pages, whereupon we discover that he was just a figurehead for the TRUE prince of evil, who has remained hidden in the shadows pulling all the strings. Yes, the true evil uber-wizard, the real puppet master is none other than (cue fanfare) Vernon Dursley. This shocking revelation sets up the premise for the next 7 books in the series. > > - > > Cassy: I love this idea! I'd like to add that not only Voldy gets killed in the beginning, but also Harry, and in the next 7 books Neville will be the champion of light :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lauren1 at catliness.com Mon May 28 09:28:56 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 02:28:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DH: Longshot theories References: <116301c79f9a$1f1e5510$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> <46588152.7070102@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <0b7101c7a10b$992bb880$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 169381 Therefore, my prediction: At the very end of the book, Harry is going to be dead, or just about there. But NOT from fighting Voldemort. Bart Why not from Voldemort? Wouldn't that cause Voldemort to live and make things even worse? And that would be the end of the story? Thanks Lauren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 28 12:21:17 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 12:21:17 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169382 Hickengruendler: > > That might very well be true, but given that Peter was a spy, it > makes perfect sense for Voldemort to keep his identity as secret as > possible. I would be surprised, if the majority of Death Eaters > knew, who the spy in the Order was, simply because it makes sense > for Voldemort not to tell anyone. Sure, a few obviously knew, but > Snape doesn't have to be among them. And there's also Karkaroff's > statement during his trial, that no Death Eater knew all the other > ones. And this was at a time, where Karkaroff was willing to sell > ot anyone for his freedom. And again, if Dumbledore kept the DE's > identities a secret from most others, it would make particularly > sense to do this with a spy. The fact, that a few DE's knew the > truth, doesn't change this. Dana: I have been thinking about this and I know people already stated that Karkaroff said LV kept the identity of his DEs hidden but there is one problem I still have with this. And that is the Graveyard scene in GoF. The DEs come in and they take a specific place in the circle, they form around LV, leaving gaps that should contain DEs that are missing, like they were expecting more still to come. Of course one could state that people were just told were to stand without knowing the identity of the people standing next to them but to me this still gives a problem. If there is a specific place for each DE to stand, this indicates to me that LV had these meetings often with all his DEs present because why else dedicate specific places to each DE if they never met in this way before or just once, how would they even know where to stand after 13 years if they only met like this once or never had before or how would they know how much room to leave between them and the next person if they did not know how many people actually where DEs. Wormtail after receiving his new hand goes to his own place in the circle too. GoF pg 564 UKed Paperback Chapter "The Death Eater" Wormtail stood up and took his place in the circle staring at his powerful new hand, his face still shining with tears. Voldemort now approached the man on Wormtail's right. `Lucius, my slippery friend,' he whispered,' End quote from canon. One could say that Wormtail just took a place at the end of the circle but there is again a problem. It was not half a circle, the DE enclosed Tom Riddle Sr's grave and left gaps were other people normally stood (as LV indicates when he mentions who is missing that should have been where the gap was), we do not hear Lucius or any one moving over to make place for Wormtail or that Wormtail looked around to decide where he was going to stand. It is specifically stated that he took HIS place in the circle and not A place in the circle. And if Wormtail is on Lucius left then this indicates that LV moved from left to right when he did his rounds. If I'm assuming correctly then Lucius actually stood alone because on both sides there were gaps where people ought to have been. On Lucius right stood the Lestrange (as Wormtail stood on his left) as it is specifically stated that the place they should have been, separated Lucius from the next man (pg 564). LV stops with his rounds after mentioning the 6 missing DEs, there is no mention of skipping people after this gap. But even if it does then it is still strange that Wormtail took a place next to Lucius if he did not have his own place already because he could have taken a place anywhere where there was a gap but it is specifically stated that Wormtail stood next to Lucius no mention of any space between them. We know the identity of 5 of the missing DEs in the gap of 6. Rosier being dead (mentioned both by Sirius and Karkaroff), Wilkens being dead (mentioned by Sirius), Karkaroff, Snape and Barthy Crouch Jr. The last dead DE is never mentioned by anyone. We see in the pensieve that the Lestrange are connected to Barthy Crouch Jr. We also know they are connected to Lucius, not only because they stood next to him but because Bella and Narcissa are sisters and Sirius connects Snape to the Lestrange but also to Rosier and Wilkens who he mentions both are dead and to Avery as all being part of the gang of Slytherin's and all being DEs. We also hear Sirius connect Snape to Lucius and him confirming this by mentioning to Sirius that Lucius recognized him on the platform. We also see that Karkaroff knows Snape. So if Wormtail is connected to Lucius as well, as his place in the circle seems to indicate, then to me it is very hard to believe that Snape 1) could not have recognized Wormtail during these kinds of meetings, because they were standing very close to one another 2) would not have known Wormtail was working for Voldemort through Lucius. 3) Indeed not have known Sirius was not a DE even if he could still have betrayed the Potters just that one time. To me Karkaroff statement about LV keeping the identity of his DEs a secret becomes less plausible by these specific actions of DEs swooping into the scene after LV's rise. There are a few reasons 1) Karkaroff mentions Rookwood, who is not a DE but a MoM employee working as a spy for LV, this identity should not be known to Karkaroff. 2) Karkaroff like Sirius would know which people were set free and he is trying to get out himself, if he gives their names and the MoM does not put them in Azkaban then Karkaroff will not have time to enjoy his newly earned freedom. Former DEs will not risk their own freedom on behave of someone else but they will surely act on someone risking their own. So Karkaroff actually stating that LV kept the identity of his DEs a secret seems to be a hollow phrase that he seems to state only to protect himself from revealing information about people that could harm him. What I do believe LV kept secret from his DEs, is what each specific DE is doing on LV's orders. For instance Bella specifically asks Snape where he was, indicating to me that Bella knew Snape was a DE at the time of LV's down fall but did not know LV's orders for Snape. There is also another problem. Who recruited Wormtail? LV would not have gone to Peter himself as he never does his own dirty work and Wormtail could never have gotten to LV if he did not have anyone to tell him were he could find him. I do not believe LV was listed in the phone book. And Wormtail being a coward would actually never have gone to LV himself, so I do believe someone brought him to LV and this means someone specifically knew who Wormtail was and what information he could deliver to LV. And if we assume it was Lucius then I do not for one moment believe Snape would not have heard about the same rumors Sirius heard in Azkaban, because Lucius would have told him. I do believe Snape knew Peter was a spy in the Order working for LV, that doesn't mean that he knew that Peter was the SK by definition. We do see that Snape keeps information from DD in OotP about LV's plans and yes, I do believe Snape was in the know if he wasn't from LV directly then he was in the know through Lucius because I do believe that Lucius would use his contact at Hogwarts to get him the necessary information to perform his task. Lucius had a lot riding on the success of the raid after LV found out about the destruction of the diary and therefore he would use any means available to him and Snape is one of them. So to me it is not a lot to assume that Snape kept the information about Peter being the spy from DD because this information could only have come from Snape and therefore it would have been to great a risk for Snape to reveal. In PoA it was specifically implied that DD did not know who the spy was but from what we hear from both Sirius and Lupin, he did tell the Potters he believed there was one and why they all did what they did and I do not for one second believe that DD would allow Peter to go on spying on the Potters and putting them at risk because before the charm was in place, information about the Potters whereabouts put them in direct risk. Snape might have mentioned there being a spy but not reveal the identity of him but to me it seems not likely that Snape did not know who it was. There are two senario's possible in my opinion. 1) Snape did know about the rumors that it was Peter leading LV to the Potters causing his downfall that night and actually his connection to Lucius makes it highly unlikely he didn't. And Peter could only have provided LV this information if he also was the SK. So he could still blame Sirius for convincing the Potters to change to Peter and his remark in the shack would still have the same meaning. Because indeed it could have been Snape's information about there being a spy that led to DD suggesting they use the Fidelius Charm and then the Potters give the SK job to the spy, Snape was trying to protect them from in the first place. 2) Snape did not know about the rumors but did know Peter was working for LV but never told this information because Peter could not give LV the information of the Potters location after the charm was in place and Snape thought he therefore could withhold this information safely and revealing it would risk him his cover. So he could indeed have believed Sirius was the SK and betrayed the Potters, even if he could have known Sirus was not a loyal DE. To be honest the second scenario seems much more unlikely to me because for instance Bella is directly told Snape did not show up at the Graveyard while she was still in Azkaban at the time, it seems to me that rumors in the DEs reach far and therefore I can't believe that Snape through his contact with Lucius never before heard that it was Peter that caused LV's downfall, especially if it was Lucius that brought Peter to LV. He certainly would want as many DEs to know that it wasn't him who caused LV's downfall and that would include Snape (Snape was still believe to be on LV's side only him staying with DD after LV's downfall let to the rumors Snape was in DD's pocket). But to me another scenario of who gave Peter to LV is possible and I do believe that to be Snape and why JKR put Peter in Snape's house in HBP. Why if Snape believed that all Marauders were in on the Prank does he tolerate Peter in his house if there wasn't already a connection between them? And why does he try to get Sirius and Lupin to pay with their lives for their involvement in the Prank? IF there was no connection between Snape and Peter and if he believed Sirius was lying in PoA then he surely must feel guilty about his treatment of Sirius but yet he goes on to proudly claim to have helped in the disposal of Black, something that like Jen already stated before puts his entire cover of sending the Order at risk and he could have left out because it adds nothing to convince Bella of anything. How can he not forgive Lupin and Sirius but lets Peter live with him in his house? And LV putting him there makes no sense because Snape will not be home for most of the year anyway, so it rather seems that Snape offered him a place to stay. This leads me several possible conclusions for Snape's actions during PoA. He already knows Sirius is innocent of betraying the Potters and that he would want to try to talk to Harry to explain himself and he considers Lupin a serious risk of exposure of the truth and why he tries to get ride of him throughout the year and it would give a far more fitting reason to me of why Snape believed Lupin would try to help Sirius and without Peter's testimony it will be impossible for Sirius to proof his innocence. Peter not being alive to proof anything doesn't mean that Sirius talking to DD could seriously harm Snape's cover with DD and as we see DD does believe Sirius's story before he talks to Harry. Snape wanting Sirius soul sucked therefore to me could have been motivated by three things; wanting to keep the truth hidden and at the same time making Sirius pay for trying to kill him and causing him to have a debt to his enemy which caused Snape to be in this predicament in the first place and third punish Sirius for messing up his chance to make it even with James and releasing him from that annoying debt. To me Snape telling Harry that he should have let him die is a hollow remark for the simple fact that I do not believe Snape being so stupid to think Lupin would take the time to tell Harry his story and explain himself or who Sirius is and their relation to his father if he is going to kill him right after it or even that Harry not being dead already when he arrives. To me it is just an attempt to muddy the waters in Harry's mind about putting his trust in Black and believing his story just like his father. I do not for one minute believe Snape was motivated because Sirius killed 12 muggles because Snape never sells out his DE friends to the MoM, while they had done far worse things then Sirius did, even if Snape believed Sirius to be responsible. If Snape truly was defected and believed in the wrongs of LV's ways because of the killings of innocent people then his friends should be punished for their involvement in these killings but Snape never rats on his friends. Snape trying so hard in GoF to make DD aware of LV's rise in power might just have been an attempt of Snape to secure his place with DD if a word comes to his ear that LV will not be going to forgive Snape for delivering him an incomplete prophecy that led him to his down fall and him trying to make Fudge see that LV was indeed back might have been for the specific reason that he knew that DD's ability to secure Snape's safety would be at risk if he did not have the MoM behind him. So to me canon still provides enough evidence to support ESE or OFH Snape as much as people want to read these same actions as him being DDM and actually HBP and Snape killing DD actually puts a big strain on the DDM version of Snape because canon at this moment does not support a DD involvement in Snape's actions of killing him. And to quote JKR "I think that if you are discussing evil, you really need to bring home what a terrible thing it is to murder someone." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1298-sundaytimes-nicol.html So DD asking Snape would actually be even worse because DD would ask Snape to do an evil deed and this while DD is such a big supporter of fighting evil with love and not fighting evil with evil. JMHO Dana From twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 12:43:19 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo (Joanna)) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 12:43:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's Training Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169383 Like probably everyone else in this group I have been re-reading the books in preparation for book 7. Something struck me in book 6 which I think I thought about the first time but not so strongly. When Dumbledore and Harry went to the cave to find the Horcrux it was more evident than ever just how inexperienced Harry is. When DD was working out how to get through Voldemort's barriers he could tell where magic was and could also interpret how to get through. How did Dumbledore learn all of that in the first place? Who showed him how to detect residual magic? Or how to detect and work out how to get through dark magic? Was it that DD had an effective DADA teacher when he was at school? What do others think about how this will affect Harry's ability to be able to defeat Voldemort. Do you think he knows more than he realises? I'm looking forward to reading what others may thing of this. Jo. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 28 14:15:51 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:15:51 -0000 Subject: Responses to Marietta (was: Misc. responses, some quite old) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169384 > bboyminn: > A person evil enough to become a Death Eater will > simply find other ways to be evil even if they > forget why they joined the DE's. That's not true of > Marietta. Pippin: That doesn't seem to be JKR's view of evil, though. All her characters, even Voldemort, have specific things they are trying to gain "I didn't want to create this cardboard cutout of a baddie, where you put a black hat on him and you say 'Right, now you shoot at that guy because he's bad.' Here's what Jo has to say about Hermione: "Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she's trying to help. She offends them." (both comments from http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solomon.htm (you may have to cut and paste the link into your browser) > I'm not trying to villify Hermione, just agreeing with the author that some of her actions are offensive. Many of the characters seem to go through a dangerous phase where they have the powers of an adult but the shortsighted vision of a child, and some of them do ruthless and unjust things. 'Evil' is definitely too strong a word-- nobody is saying that Hermione is *habitually* and *intentionally* ruthless or unjust, but 'idiot' or 'berk' will do nicely, IMO. Hermione was unfair to *all* the members of the DA. I don't suppose anyone here would like to find out that a contract they signed had provisions written in invisible ink, known to the other party but not to you. It would be like wizards to do that as a practical joke, of course, but Hermione was not joking, and the lasting nature of the hex shows she was not. Steve: > I don't see Marietta going to the police, don't see > Marietta's mother demanding that Hermione be thrown > into Azkaban. Pippin: Huh? Dawlish and Shacklebolt *are* the police. But there's nothing much for the aurors to investigate, since no one can answer questions about the DA without being hexed themselves. If Cho tells *anyone* what happened, she's going to have SNEAK written on her cheeks too. Not nice, is it? Pippin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon May 28 14:48:00 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:48:00 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169385 > Dana: > I have been thinking about this and I know people already stated that > Karkaroff said LV kept the identity of his DEs hidden but there is > one problem I still have with this. And that is the Graveyard scene > in GoF. The DEs come in and they take a specific place in the circle, > they form around LV, leaving gaps that should contain DEs that are > missing, like they were expecting more still to come. Of course one > could state that people were just told were to stand without knowing > the identity of the people standing next to them but to me this still > gives a problem. If there is a specific place for each DE to stand, > this indicates to me that LV had these meetings often with all his > DEs present because why else dedicate specific places to each DE if > they never met in this way before or just once, how would they even > know where to stand after 13 years if they only met like this once or > never had before or how would they know how much room to leave > between them and the next person if they did not know how many people > actually where DEs. Hickengruendler: That's probably true. But knowing how many they are, does not necessarily mean, that they also know who else is behind the masks. And at least during the end of the First War, it seems rather unlikely that *Snape* was at every meeting, since he was in Hogwarts and could hardly disappear there whenever he wanted. Granted, he could probably leave the castle to Voldemort often enough, since he went there on Dumbledore's orders (no matter to whom he's really loyal), but it's still doubtful that Snape can leave the castle during all of the meetings. (If these meetings happened often, of course, and if not, than there's even less a chance for Snape and Peter to meet.) Dana: > If I'm assuming correctly then Lucius actually stood alone because on > both sides there were gaps where people ought to have been. On Lucius > right stood the Lestrange (as Wormtail stood on his left) as it is > specifically stated that the place they should have been, separated > Lucius from the next man (pg 564). LV stops with his rounds after > mentioning the 6 missing DEs, there is no mention of skipping people > after this gap. But even if it does then it is still strange that > Wormtail took a place next to Lucius if he did not have his own place > already because he could have taken a place anywhere where there was > a gap but it is specifically stated that Wormtail stood next to > Lucius no mention of any space between them. Hickengruendler: Well, yeah, but so what. First of all, Lucius is not Snape. While it does seem, that the Malfoys trust Snape, I don't see why they should talk to him about anything. So even if Lucius knew, that doesn't mean Snape did as well. And second, how well did Lucius know Wormtail during the First War? he was a few years older than the Marauders. Why should he recognise James Potter's friend Peter as the masked Death Eater besides him. Dana: So if Wormtail is connected to Lucius as > well, as his place in the circle seems to indicate, then to me it is > very hard to believe that Snape 1) could not have recognized Wormtail > during these kinds of meetings, because they were standing very close > to one another 2) would not have known Wormtail was working for > Voldemort through Lucius. 3) Indeed not have known Sirius was not a > DE even if he could still have betrayed the Potters just that one > time. Hickengruendler: That's a very big assumption. So Wormtail was standing next to Lucius. That doesn't mean they were connected. There is in six books no evidence, that Lucius and Wormtail are connected, except that they are both Death eaters. And anyway, as you quoted, Snape did not stand next to Wormtail or even Lucius. The Lestranges were between them, which makes three places, since there's also Bellatrix' brother in- law. Meaning Snape did not stand all that close to Wormtail. Dana: > To me Karkaroff statement about LV keeping the identity of his DEs a > secret becomes less plausible by these specific actions of DEs > swooping into the scene after LV's rise. There are a few reasons 1) > Karkaroff mentions Rookwood, who is not a DE but a MoM employee > working as a spy for LV, this identity should not be known to > Karkaroff. 2) Karkaroff like Sirius would know which people were set > free and he is trying to get out himself, if he gives their names and > the MoM does not put them in Azkaban then Karkaroff will not have > time to enjoy his newly earned freedom. Former DEs will not risk > their own freedom on behave of someone else but they will surely act > on someone risking their own. Hickengruendler: According to the fake Moody in GoF, Karkaroff fled because he betrayed too many fellow Death Eaters and couldn't be sure to be accepted back. And as it turns out, he was right. if he lied to protect himself, it didn't work, did it? Dana: > There is also another problem. Who recruited Wormtail? LV would not > have gone to Peter himself as he never does his own dirty work and > Wormtail could never have gotten to LV if he did not have anyone to > tell him were he could find him. Hickengruendler: I think Wormtail was a special case. If the timeline giben by Sirius in PoA is correct, he was recruited after Trelawney made the prophecy and after Harry was born. That means Voldemort probably already targeted the Potters and searched for the weakest link among the Potters and their friends, which he found in Wormtail. In this case, I don't see why he shouldn't have "visited" Wormtail himself. The Potters certainly were important enough to him. Dana: I do not believe LV was listed in > the phone book. And Wormtail being a coward would actually never have > gone to LV himself, so I do believe someone brought him to LV and > this means someone specifically knew who Wormtail was and what > information he could deliver to LV. And if we assume it was Lucius > then I do not for one moment believe Snape would not have heard about > the same rumors Sirius heard in Azkaban, because Lucius would have > told him. Hickengruendler: But I do not assume at all, that it was Lucius. Why should Lucius know anything about Wormtail? If you believe in evil Snape, I am willing to consider, that evil Severus himself told Voldemort, who was the weakest link among James' friends. But Lucius? So far, we don't even know of any intercation between these two characters. You could just as well have proposed to me, that it was Barty Crouch junior, who recruited Peter. Seems as likely, or rather unlikely, to me, as that it was Lucius. Dana: > We do see that Snape keeps information from DD in OotP about LV's > plans and yes, I do believe Snape was in the know if he wasn't from > LV directly then he was in the know through Lucius because I do > believe that Lucius would use his contact at Hogwarts to get him the > necessary information to perform his task. Hickengruendler: Where in OotP does Snape keep informations from Dumbledore? And which task are you talking about? As far as I know, the only task Snape performed in OotP was alerting the Order about Harry's vision. And even if you think, that Snape waited extra long to do it, so that the Death Eaters have more time to finish Harry off, I don't know, what this has to do with Lucius. Lucius couldn't have known what happened in Hogwarts, so what exactly should he have told Snape? And for that matter, how? You are talking about Malfoy's contact at Hogwarts, but what contact does he have, other than Draco? And if you remember, Draco along with the Inquisitorial Squad and Umbridge did everything to *stop* Harry from going to the ministry. Given his reaction, he even seemed to have believed Hermione's lie about the weapon. So it doesn't seem, that Draco knew anything. Also, why should Voldemort or Lucius have told Snape anything? What does this have to do with him? Snape was in Hogwarts, and all the Death Eaters would have done in telling him, is risking that someone else found out. Besides, Voldemort wanted to kill Snape directly after Voldie's return to power. Snape convinced him otherwise, but that doesn't mean, Voldie didn't have any doubts anymore, as proven by Wormtail living with Snape in HBP and listening on his conversations (no doubt on Voldemort's orders, since it was mentioned that Voldemort wanted Peter to be around Snape). From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon May 28 15:23:15 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 15:23:15 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169386 houyhnhnm (169257): The coolest Snape scene has got to be when he rescues Draco in the bathroom, but one of my favorite minor Snape moments was when Snape caught Harry returning from Hogsmeade. "What was your head doing in Hogsmeade? Your head does not have permission to be in Hogsmeade; no part of your body has permission to be in Hogsmeade." (or something like that. I don't have the books with me.) I just thought it was funny. Dungrollin : I was away for a while, and missed the FavouriteSnapeBits thread, and have been trying to catch up and oh oh oh I want to play! It's interesting that there's such variety in everyone's favourite Snape scenes, but I have to agree with Houyhnhnm (169257) on both points. The questioning about the HBP potions book is my favourite moment of that book, but my all-time favourite scene in all the books is after the mud-throwing incident in Hogsmeade. It's delicious, from beginning to end, from that first "So," and the look of suppressed triumph right through five pages to the "directly from the manufacturers" line. What I particularly like is that on re-reading you can have a good guess at exactly what Snape's thinking, while Harry hasn't got a clue. It's not only my favourite Snape scene, but also, imo, one of the finest examples of JKR hiding characters' motivations amongst beautiful dialogue, and leaving Harry none the wiser (similar to the Snape/Crouch!Moody scene in GoF). I may be mistaken, but I think it's one of Snape's longest scenes in any of the books. I'm also particularly fond of the way Stephen Fry reads it on the audio cds. I'm gonna dissect the way I read it, just for fun! To me it's the *classic* Snape/Harry confrontation, and Harry escapes through sheer luck, and the help of his friends. First Snape says little, but marches Harry to his office, suspecting, quite correctly, that Harry has managed to get past the dementors to Hogsmeade, and had fun tormenting Malfoy from under the invisibility cloak. Does he recognise a little too much of James in Harry here? It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that James had used the invisibility cloak in a similar way to torment Snape, on occasion. Snape starts telling Malfoy's version of events while carefully watching Harry's reactions in an effort to get him to admit the truth, Harry says nothing. "Snape's eyes were boring into Harry's. It was exactly like trying to stare out a Hippogriff." So he gets going with the legilimency almost from the start, though rather than "reading" Harry's mind as he does when he forces the image of the HBP's text book, he seems to be using legilimency's lie-detector function. ************************ "What would your head have been doing in Hogsmeade, Potter?" said Snape softly. "Your head is not allowed in Hogsmeade, no part of your body has permission to be in Hogsmeade." "I know that," said Harry, striving to keep his face free of guilt or fear. "It sounds like Malfoy's having hallucin-" "Malfoy is not having hallucinations," snarled Snape. ************************ Then Harry makes the mistake of lying (shame, he was doing so well!), Snape detects the lie immediately, when Harry says that he's been up in Gryffindor tower. This is where Snape knows that Harry's caught, and his mouth curls into a horrible smile. Then he gets going with the rhetoric about everyone from the Minister for Magic down trying to keep famous Harry Potter safe, trying to provoke Harry into giving away more information, but Harry remains silent, so Snape changes tack and disparages his father. A low blow, to be sure, but so *Snape*. Perhaps Snape didn't expect it to work quite so well, he certainly didn't expect Harry to have been given such a skewed (from Snape's pov) version of the prank from Dumbledore. ************************ "I told you to shut up about my dad!" Harry yelled. "I know the truth, all right? He saved your life! Dumbledore told me! You wouldn't even be here if it weren't for my dad!" Snape's sallow skin had gone the colour of sour milk. "And did the Headmaster tell you the circumstances in which your father saved my life?" he whispered. "Or did he consider the details too unpleasant for precious Potter's delicate ears?" ************************ I love that bit. It's so typically Harry, and so typically Snape. Try saying Snape's lines out loud, those hissed sibilants! Snape's shocked that DD would reveal such a sensitive piece of his history to Harry, but he recovers fast, and is soon smoothly back in control. He corrects Harry's misconception (in his eyes), though I get the feeling that he revealed the information somewhat unwillingly, or possibly regretted revealing so much afterwards, because once he's finished he switches tack again: ************************ "Turn out your pockets, Potter!" he spat suddenly. Harry didn't move. There was a pounding in his ears. "Turn out your pockets, or we go straight to the Headmaster!" ************************ Snape again sees that Harry's lying when he tries to claim that the Marauders' Map is just a "Spare bit of parchment," so he threatens to put it on the fire. ************************ "No!" Harry said quickly. "So!" said Snape, his long nostrils quivering. "Is this another treasured gift from Mr Weasley? Or is it ? something else? A letter, perhaps, written in invisible ink? Or ? instructions to get into Hogsmeade without passing the Dementors?" Harry blinked. Snape's eyes gleamed. ************************ And then we get to those glorious insults from the map, which enrage Snape (see how his voice goes soft) and terrify Harry. ************************ Snape froze. Harry stared, dumbstruck, at the message. [...] It would have been very funny if the situation hadn't been so serious. And there was more ... "Mr padfoot would like to register his astonishment that an idiot like that ever became a Professor." Harry closed his eyes in horror. When he'd opened them, the map had had its last word. [...] Harry waited for the blow to fall. "So ..." said Snape softly. "We'll see about this ..." ************************ I only left Padfoot's comment in, because that's the one which makes clear the parchment's authors knew Snape from before Voldemort's fall. And that's where Snape makes his mistake, by calling Lupin, because he underestimates Lupin's ability to calmly lie his head off. >From the odd, closed expression on Lupin's face the second he sees the map, Snape suspects that Lupin knows what it is. ************************ "Well?" said Snape. Lupin continued to stare at the map. Harry had the impression that Lupin was doing some very quick thinking. "*Well?*" said Snape again. "This parchment is plainly full of Dark magic. This is supposed to be your area of expertise, Lupin. Where do you imagine Potter got such a thing?" ************************ So Snape immediately assumes that the map came from Lupin and that he gave it to Harry to lure him into Hogsmeade and into Black's clutches. Lupin stays calm (occlumensing like mad, one assumes ? but can Snape tell?), and dismisses the map as a childish joke shop trick. Snape is enraged, his jaw rigid with anger. He *knows* Potter was in Hogsmeade, breaking rules which were there to ensure his safety, he *knows* that it was this bit of parchment which got Harry there without crossing the dementors, and he's pretty sure that the "Mr Moony" who has just insulted him is Lupin. But Lupin is not giving anything away, not even a flicker that he has ever before heard of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot or Prongs. Bringing Lupin in has backfired on Snape, because he can't give out too much information in front of Harry, and Lupin plays this to his advantage, relying on the fact that Snape will not disobey DD's orders in front of Lupin by revealing that they both knew Sirius Black and James Potter at school, nor that it was Sirius who betrayed Harry's parents. What I love about it most is that Snape's right. He's wrong about the motivations, about Harry being too caught up in his own fame and glory to consider the real danger, and about Lupin hiding information from Dumbledore because he's secretly in league with Sirius, but he *is* right about Harry being in Hogsmeade, and Lupin lying about the map. He's right, but he's left fuming with disappointment. It reminds me of how Harry feels after he tries to get Dumbledore to listen to him about Malfoy and Snape in HBP, because Harry's certain that he's right, too, but he doesn't understand the motivations of the characters concerned, and is left furious at his own impotence. Dungrollin Dribbling in anticipation that all Snape scenes will be able to be re- read like this after DH... From chrissilein at yahoo.com Mon May 28 14:14:16 2007 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (SevenBooks) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:14:16 -0000 Subject: The offial Swedish Title Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169387 The Swedish Harry Potter publisher TIDEN has announced following message on its website. LINK: http://www.panorstedt.se/templates/Tiden/News.aspx?id=46232 I translate the most important sentences. Taken from the original Swedish article. Eftersom titeln Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ?r v?ldigt sv?r?versatt, speciellt om man inte har manus, s? valde J. K. Rowling att ge alla utl?nska f?rlag en alternativ titel att ?vers?tta. Titeln som gavs var Harry Potter and the Relics of Death, vilket enkelt ?vers?tts till Harry Potter och d?dsrelikerna! My translation: Because the title Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is very hard to translate, especially if there is no manusscript, J.K. Rowling decided to give (share) all foreign publishers an alternative title for translation. The title she gave (shared) was Harry Potter and the Relics of Death, which is easy to translate into Harry Potter och D?dsrelikerna! http://www.harrypotter.nu/ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 15:49:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 15:49:20 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169388 Dana wrote: > I have been thinking about this and I know people already stated that Karkaroff said LV kept the identity of his DEs hidden but there is one problem I still have with this. And that is the Graveyard scene in GoF. The DEs come in and they take a specific place in the circle, they form around LV, leaving gaps that should contain DEs that are missing, like they were expecting more still to come. Of course one could state that people were just told were to stand without knowing the identity of the people standing next to them but to me this still gives a problem. If there is a specific place for each DE to stand, this indicates to me that LV had these meetings often with all his DEs present because why else dedicate specific places to each DE if they never met in this way before or just once, how would they even know where to stand after 13 years if they only met like this once or never had before or how would they know how much room to leave between them and the next person if they did not know how many people actually where DEs. > > Wormtail after receiving his new hand goes to his own place in the > circle too. > Carol responds: I've wondered about this, too, and also why the DEs didn't react to the presence of Wormtail/Peter, whom they thought dead. First, I think that only Bella and the Lestranges (IMO, the only DEs arressted after Sirius Black) actually knew who Wormtail was (whether or not they knew his nickname or that he was the spy, they knew that he was the SK who, in their view, pretended to betray the Potters in order to bring down Voldemort. They must have been the ones Black heard screaming. Everyone else had been brought in before GH. Second, we see that all the DEs except Wormtail are hooded, and they don't react to him at all. You'd think they'd be almost as shocked to see a "dead" man as to see LV, but they don't give him a thought as far as I can tell. So maybe when LV refers to "Wormtail here," he's introducing him (but still not revealing his identity, which he hints at and which they may be able to piece together, but he gives similar hints about his Horcruxes and it seems that the DEs don't ask questions, except the one Lucius asks, craving to know the story of the Dark Lord's miraculous return. Slippery Lucius knows an acceptable question that will turn away the Dark Lord's wrath.) So Wormtail would have been hooded and possibly unknown, like the DEs that Voldemort passes by, at their meetings, which probably weren't all that frequent during his one year as a spy. There would have been no reason for LV to address him by name. As for knowing where to stand, that doesn't depend on knowing who you're standing next to. It's just knowing the spot in the circle, which you could do by visualizing it as a clock and your spot is 9:15 or just short of 11;50. That, and you're by the tall guy with the evil grey eyes. (Since Voldemort speaks openly to Lucius Malfoy, Wormtail could easily know who Malfoy is without the reverse being true.) Also, the narrator says that Wormtail took his place in the circle, but that's Harry's perspective. He could merely have taken *a* place in the circle, not necessarily one he had taken before. There are many gaps, not just the ones that Voldemort refers to. Other DEs besides Bellatrix and Rodolphus are in Azkaban. Poor Rabastan is forgotten as usual. Dolohov isn't mentioned, or Mulciber, or any of the escapees (other than two of the three Lestranges) who show up with Malfoy in the MoM. BTW, I'm not sure that Rosier, Wilkes (not Wilkens), and the third unnamed DE are the only ones "killed in my service." They're just three who should be standing in that spot, along with Snape, Karkaroff, and Barty Crouch Jr., all of whom LV alludes to without naming. I'm not sure why you think that Rookwood isn't a DE. Snape's role as a DE, at least post-GoF, is as a spy. Why can't Rookwood be a DE spy as well? (Macnair, too, is a Ministry employee, though I think he'd rather be killing people than chopping heads off beasts.) Anyway, I'm trying to come up with a feasible explanation that answers my own questions, which are similar to yours, without getting into unprovable speculations about who recruited Wormtail. Carol, who believes Karkaroff when he says that the Dark Lord operated in the greatest secrecy and thinks that he would have revealed the identity of his spy only to Bellatrix, who in turn revealed it to her closest cronies (her fellow torturers of the Lestranges) after Godric's Hollow From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon May 28 15:53:48 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 15:53:48 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Snape--favorite moments (Re: Snape's involvement in the...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169389 > Dungrollin : > Snape starts telling Malfoy's version of events while carefully > watching Harry's reactions in an effort to get him to admit the > truth, Harry says nothing. "Snape's eyes were boring into Harry's. It > was exactly like trying to stare out a Hippogriff." zgirnius: I would like to add that I *love* that Harry immediately sees this as a challenge and refuses to break eye contact. He's not going to let Snape stare him down! Which, of course, if precisely the wrong move (as we now know, after OotP.) > Dungrollin: > Bringing Lupin in has backfired on Snape, because he can't give out > too much information in front of Harry, and Lupin plays this to his > advantage, relying on the fact that Snape will not disobey DD's > orders in front of Lupin by revealing that they both knew Sirius > Black and James Potter at school, nor that it was Sirius who betrayed > Harry's parents. zgirnius: Of course! That's why he doesn't confront Lupin with what he has deduced. Thanks, I have wondered about that for *ages*. > Dungrollin > Dribbling in anticipation that all Snape scenes will be able to be > re-read like this after DH... zgirnius: Ditto!!! From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 28 16:08:22 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 16:08:22 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169390 : > > Mike: > I was going to respond point by point, but that didn't work so well > last time. So instead, let me lay out my theoretical timeline and you > all can point out where I'm off base. :) > > 1) Peter Pettigrew starts spying for Voldemort. > There are a fair few true DEs that know that Severus Snape is spying > for Voldemort. I gotta believe that although Voldie would hold > Peter's allegiance close to the vest, he would tell someone. > Pettigrew would have a handler, a middleman who took Peter's info to > LV. And he probably told more than just that one. He wouldn't want to > have to handle Peter personally all the time. Pippin: As Snape is at Hogwarts, he would not be in a convenient position to handle Peter. Peter can travel anywhere in his rat disguise, but why make him go all the way to Hogwarts? Order HQ was doubtless in London then as now, because the target they are trying to protect is the Ministry. The spy's handlers will be in London too. I suggest some additional steps. 1.1 Snape discovers that Voldemort has an informant code named 'Wormtail' and reveals this to Dumbledore, along with the information that Wormtail was the school nickname of Peter Pettigrew. The identity of the informant is kept very secret. As we know, wizards have better ways that robes and masks to conceal their appearance, and these would certainly be used. Dumbledore considers him to be a powerful wizard who acted as Voldemort's second in command, as Fudge reports in PoA. It would seem obvious that it cannot be Peter Pettigrew. 1.2 Since Snape is not supposed to have revealed the Wormtail code name, Dumbledore will not let anyone know that he knows it. He interrogates the Potters' close friends, and it becomes clear that he thinks that someone close to them must be the spy. 1.3 Pettigrew is not found out, either because, contrary to all appearances, he is a superb occlumens, or because, contrary to all later appearances, he is not the spy. The real spy must be a superb occlumens of course. Mike: > 2) Dumbledore suggests the Fidelius to the Potters. They tell DD they > are going to use Black, then switch at the last minute to Pettigrew. > I would think that DD would have told Snape about the Fidelius and > that Black was going to be the SK. If for no other reason than Snape > would have the same plausible deniability that he had with Bella in > Spinner's End. To wit: I can't tell you where the Potters are, they > are under the Fidelius Charm. And why would DD hide his understanding > that Black was the SK? Besides, it seems to have become a known fact. Pippin: Not known to very many, according to Fudge. Most people think that Black's crime was the murder of twelve Muggles and a wizard. Most people have never even heard of the secret keeper spell. 2.1 Snape, thinking that Sirius is the spy, breaks cover and warns the Potters not to use Sirius as their Secret Keeper. James will not listen to his warnings. points 3-6 which I agree with Mike: > 7) The in-the-know DEs start spreading it around that PP was the > Potter's SK and led LV to the Potters, whereupon he vanished. > As I explained previously, these few in-the-know DEs don't want to > take the fall for LV's demise. Pippin: Um, why would they? Only the secret keeper can have betrayed the secret. Unless these individuals were known friends of the Potters, they can't have been the secret keeper, so what have they to fear? The only reason Peter's handler would have to be afraid is if he were known to be a friend of the Potter's or a friend of Dumbledore's as well. But of course if he were a friend of the Potters, he would want those voices silenced. How fortunate for him that everyone who knows that Wormtail was the secret keeper and is willing to talk about it ends up in Azkaban. It would have been hard for Peter Pettigrew to arrange this, since he was busy pretending to be dead. But we don't know what Remus was doing, do we? Mike: > 8) Snape learns this info about PP in due course and reports it to > Dumbledore. Pippin: Snape would not learn anything more, since Lucius is pretending he was under the Imperius Curse and has no contact with anyone thought to be a faithful DE. Snape wants to believe Lucius, his old protector, thus the sudden movement when Harry reveals that Lucius was at the graveyard. Dumbledore knows that Wormtail was the spy, but he thinks that Sirius Black was 'Wormtail'. Dumbledore does not press for a trial of Sirius because he knows there isn't enough evidence to overturn the verdict. If Sirius is guilty, he is where he belongs. If he is innocent, then evidence will appear in due course, and it will be easier to free him if his conviction is not in order. Black is in Azkaban, James is dead, and where, pray tell, is Remus? JKR doesn't want us to know. That is the single most suspicious circumstance in the whole saga, IMO. Did Sirius and James ever share their suspicion of Remus with Dumbledore? Did Dumbledore refuse to believe them because of his emotional investment in Lupin? It is hardly outrageous for Snape to have suspected Sirius and Lupin of being spies, since they even suspected each other. Sirius's suspicions of Lupin cannot have been based on Lupin's lycanthropy. There must have been other evidence. Nor would Sirius's conviction necessarily clear Lupin -- as you say, spies seldom work alone. Snape, listening under the cloak, hears Lupin tell the story of the prank, and it turns out that James was *not* in on it. But that means that James committed a very serious offense by going to rescue Snape -- he ratted out his friends and exposed them to the dangers of being expelled. It would be no wonder if Lupin and Sirius never quite forgave James for that. In fact that gives Snape a motive to think that Lupin and Sirius might have turned against James, doesn't it? James had violated the code. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon May 28 16:32:00 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 09:32:00 -0700 Subject: favorite Harry moments? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169391 Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape favorite moments, and since the books are Harry's story, how about some favorite Harry moments? Even people who don't particularly like Harry might have some favorite moments of his. I'll start it off by trying to pinpoint some of my favorite Harry moments. in no particular order, by the way. First and foremost, when Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew. Second, Harry saving Dudley from the dementors. I love this moment because I think it does show the depth of character Harry may develop as he matures. Dudley has been a bully to him all his life, but he didn't hesitate to try to warn or save Dudley. I felt very proud of him in this scene. Third, and this isn't exactly a moment, I love his awe and wonder in the first diagon alley scenes, where he is discovering this new world. JKR seems to brilliantly capture his wonder. It's reminiscent of Dorothy first looking out at Oz. And possibly my two very favorite moments for Harry, back to POA, are Harry and Sirius leaving the shack and their discussion about Harry living with Sirius. I love how he says something like, are you crazy, of course I want to live with you. Do you have a house? This moment always gets me a little choked up, now that I know the way that flame of hope will be smothered. And the moment later, before escaping on Buckbeak, when Sirius tells Harry he really is his father's son. No matter what we do or don't know about James later, right then, that was a perfect beautiful thing to tell Harry. POA is really so much about Harry and his father in many ways, and to give him that validation was very special. Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 16:40:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 16:40:51 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169392 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape favorite moments, and > since the books are Harry's story, how about some favorite Harry moments? > Even people who don't particularly like Harry might have some favorite > moments of his. I'll start it off by trying to pinpoint some of my favorite > Harry moments. in no particular order, by the way. Alla: Oooooooo, you read my mind dear, you so read my mind. Sherry: > And possibly my two very favorite moments for Harry, back to POA, are Harry > and Sirius leaving the shack and their discussion about Harry living with > Sirius. I love how he says something like, are you crazy, of course I want > to live with you. Do you have a house? This moment always gets me a little > choked up, now that I know the way that flame of hope will be smothered. > And the moment later, before escaping on Buckbeak, when Sirius tells Harry > he really is his father's son. No matter what we do or don't know about > James later, right then, that was a perfect beautiful thing to tell Harry. > POA is really so much about Harry and his father in many ways, and to give > him that validation was very special. Alla: I love these, in fact I love everything you listed and agree with them, but that means I should list different ones, heheh. I love, love, love how JKR IMO subtly showed in HBP that Harry's ability to love is indeed unusual. He felt brief compassion for Tom Riddle and drop of pity for Malfoy. Yes, yes, I know compassion for Tom Riddle was brief and went away right away. But to me the fact that he was **able** to feel it even for the shortest period of time is SO amazing. I mean amazing that he could feel anything positive for the man who brought so much misery in his life, who killed his parents, took so many loved ones from him, etc. I thought JKR did a brilliant job with this, absolutely brilliant. What else did I love? Oh, of course Graveyard. I was amazed how very strong he managed to be while facing the horrible torture. I love, love how Harry grows through the books, how complex of the character he becomes ( angry teenager in OOP was amazing in my opinion - the only thing I loved about that book). I will come back with more later :) Thanks Sherry :) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 16:46:54 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 16:46:54 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169393 > Dana: > I have been thinking about this and I know people already stated that > Karkaroff said LV kept the identity of his DEs hidden but there is > one problem I still have with this. And that is the Graveyard scene > in GoF. The DEs come in and they take a specific place in the circle, > they form around LV, leaving gaps that should contain DEs that are > missing, like they were expecting more still to come. Of course one > could state that people were just told were to stand without knowing > the identity of the people standing next to them but to me this still > gives a problem. If there is a specific place for each DE to stand, > this indicates to me that LV had these meetings often with all his > DEs present because why else dedicate specific places to each DE if > they never met in this way before or just once, how would they even > know where to stand after 13 years if they only met like this once or > never had before or how would they know how much room to leave > between them and the next person if they did not know how many people > actually where DEs. > Montavilla47: I agree with you that this graveyard circle is a problem for DDM!Snape if we examine it closely. But, if we do, then it just becomes a problem in general. Because, there is a big *practical* difficulty in forming this circle with everyone's specific place, whether they all knew each other's identities or not. They're all wearing black cloaks and masks. How the heck are they supposed to know where to stand, even if they know each other's identities when they're all disguised? If, for example, Bellatrix knows that she's supposed to stand next to Lucius in the circle, how does she know which of the cloaked, masked figures is Lucius? By his distinctive aftershave? Or would every meeting start with everyone bumping awkwardly into each other and whispering, "Hi! This is Wormtail. Are you Avery or Nott?" I can imagine each new Death Eater being assigned his or her spot in the circle and frantically trying to memorize the height of the person next to them. Or, each person could memorize his or her spot according to how many places they are distant from Voldemort, which would really be the most practical method (assuming that he has a spot in the circle and doesn't simply stand in the middle). If they are figuring their place by counting, say, twelve spots from Voldemort on the right, and seven spots from Voldemort on the left, then it's fairly easy to get the right spot in the circle, regardless of whether or not you know who your neighbor is. Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 16:53:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 16:53:31 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169394 Sherry Gomes wrote: > since the books are Harry's story, how about some favorite Harry moments? Even people who don't particularly like Harry might have some favorite moments of his. I'll start it off by trying to pinpoint some of my favorite Harry moments. in no particular order, by the way. > > First and foremost, when Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from killing > Pettigrew. > > Second, Harry saving Dudley from the dementors. I love this moment because I think it does show the depth of character Harry may develop as he matures. > Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? > > Sherry > Carol responds: Harry? Oh. Are the books about him? (Just joking!) My favorite Harry moment is when Harry, for the first time, feels sorry for Snape and understands why he regards James as he does. Too bad Snape misreads his feeling so badly, but at least he had it. I also admire Harry for saving Peter Pettigrew (or rather, preventing Lupin and Black from becoming murderers) but I'm not sure it qualifies as a favorite moment. The same with saving Dudley. Exactly the right thing to do, but I was more wrapped up in the excitement of the moment than identifying with Harry. (OTOH, I *loved* Mrs. figg hitting Mundungus with the catfood cans. I don't know why, since I don't approve of violence, but it was funny and he deserved it and it was a Squib getting the better of a wizard.) Another favorite moment, one that makes me smile, is Harry remembering "Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak," and smiling through his tears at Dumbledore's funeral. I smiled through my tears, too. Carol, realizing that many of her favorite moments are funny ones involving Ron rather than Harry, who, alas, is too busy dealing with being a Quidditch champion and the boy with the scar and worrying about Voldemort to be amusing From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon May 28 17:13:45 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:13:45 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169395 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape favorite moments, and > since the books are Harry's story, how about some favorite Harry moments? Hickengruendler: 1. "There's no need to call me Sir, Professor." 2. Harry seeing his parents for the first time in the Mirror of Erised. 3. Harry as DA teacher 4. Harry saving Dudley from the Dementor From celizwh at intergate.com Mon May 28 17:22:37 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:22:37 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169396 Mike: > I was going to respond point by point, but that didn't > work so well last time. So instead, let me lay out my > theoretical timeline and you all can point out where > I'm off base. :) > 1) Peter Pettigrew starts spying for Voldemort. There > are a fair few true DEs that know that Severus Snape > is spying for Voldemort. I gotta believe that although > Voldie would hold Peter's allegiance close to the vest, > he would tell someone. Pettigrew would have a handler, > a middleman who took Peter's info to LV. And he probably > told more than just that one. He wouldn't want to have > to handle Peter personally all the time. houyhnhnm: Snape was not spying for Voldemort at the time Peter turned traitor. He was not a member of the original Order. He was not yet teaching at Hogwarts. There is no clue in the books as to what Snape was doing for *Voldemort* a year before GH. He may have been spying for Dumbledore by that time, but no one would know that except Dumbledore. It is plausible that there was a middleman between PP and LV, but there is no evidence even to show such was the case, let alone who it was. We have absolutely no canon to explain how Peter came to spy for Voldemort. Was he kidnapped? Did he approach Voldemort on his own? Perhaps he was recruited. Plausible, but Snape seems a very unlikely candidate for recruiter and go-between, however, because he was not placed for such a role. He was not a member of the Order. He was not a friend of Peter's. He did not move in the circle of Peter's friends. And they were no longer at school. Or am I misunderstanding your argument. Further down, in the part I snipped, you seem to be implying that Snape only found out Peter was the Secret Keeper after LV's fall. Again, where is the evidence, or for that matter, the need to bring Snape into it? Your argument seems to start with the assumption that all of Voldemort's followers were in each other confidence. But what we know, that LV operated in secrecy, that he maintained power by torture, fear, and instilling distrust, contradicts that assumption it seems to me. Furthermore, the fact that so many DEs escaped Azkaban by claiming to have been imperiused, suggests to me that they were keeping low profiles, more likely avoiding one another than gathering in each other's houses to conduct post mortems. There is Lucius' caution to Draco to speak no ill of the Boy-Who-Lived even in a Dark Magic shop in Knockturn Alley. It seems it was not safe to let one's hair down even at Borgin and Burkes post VWI. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon May 28 17:22:17 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 13:22:17 EDT Subject: DH: Longshot theories Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169397 In the epilogue, if he survives, Snape will be the Headmaster of Hogwarts. Nikkalmati (Apologies to anyone who may be upset by this picture) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon May 28 17:21:24 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:21:24 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169398 Sherry Gomes: > Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape favorite moments, and since the books are Harry's story, how about some favorite Harry moments? Dungrollin: Who? Oh *him*. OotP ch 31 p 630 (UK) "I heard from my dear friend Tiberius Ogden, that you can produce a Patronus? For a bonus point ...?" Harry raised his wand, looked directly at Umbridge and imagined her being sacked. "*Expecto Patronum!*" Very satisfying, that bit. I think my favourite Harry moments are when Harry surprises the reader, so I'd have to put in the faking the Felix in Ron's pumpkin juice in HBP. I'm also rather fond of the "You don't have to call me sir, professor," because it's so out-of-the-blue, and the "That's my nickname," in response to the Roonil Wazlib question in the bathroom, because he manages to think on his feet without panicking, and in front of *Snape* of all people. I must admit I don't find many instances in the earlier books, I like Harry more as the series goes on, as he grows up a bit. But that's because I'm cynical and hard-hearted and I don't go in for the overly sentimental stuff. I do like the description of Harry in front of the Mirror of Erised, but it's more the generally good writing than anything particular about Harry. Dung From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 17:26:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:26:44 -0000 Subject: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169399 > lizzyben04: > > In the end, Snape will live up to his childhood nickname and *cry*. I > see a ton of hints for this across all the novels & am really hoping > to see this scene. > Alla: HA! Yes, please. And in front of Harry, not the less. But I do not know if it is such a long shot, heheh. I mean the way I imagine it it is a long shot - Snape crying from humiliation in front of Harry, Harry keeping his life in his hands and letting greasy git live because of his mercy. But as I was just talking to someone ;) - Slytherin is the water house and it is quite possible that we will see Snape crying at the end - say at DD's grave or something like that, IMO. From darksworld at yahoo.com Mon May 28 17:52:34 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:52:34 -0000 Subject: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169400 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > In the epilogue, if he survives, Snape will be the Headmaster of Hogwarts. > **shudder** And Lucius Malfoy Minister of Magic? Charles, one of those who was disturbed by the thought. From darksworld at yahoo.com Mon May 28 17:49:03 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:49:03 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? I think the one that stands out as my favorite moment from Harry in the series, and sets a tone that lasts throughout the books so far is in Harry's first potions class. I quote: "I don't know," said Harry quietly. "I think Hermione does, though, why don't you try her?" It shows Snape for the great bullying ass that he is, and eliminates any real retort. Rather than continue the unwarranted attack, he provides the information and takes a point from Gryffindor. (Yes I can hear the spluttering of Snape lovers from here-but Harry got the majority of what he wanted. The attack ceased and the first potions lesson actually began.)More to the point, it shows Harry refusing to be cowed under by a bully, something that recurs through the series. My # 2 moment is in the DoM when he taunts Bellatrix and the rest of the DE's. I shall be very cross if that scene has met the hatchet in the OOTP movie, because it is probably my favorite scene of that entire book. Those are my favorites right now. I reserve the right for that to change. Charles, who reads the books because he likes *Harry* not *Snivellus*, and loves this thread! From celizwh at intergate.com Mon May 28 17:57:09 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:57:09 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169402 Hickengruendler: > 1. "There's no need to call me Sir, Professor." houyhnhnm: I laughed out loud when I read that. Some of my favorite Harry moments: 1. Worrying more about the trouble he had gotten Mr. Weasley into than his own trouble after flying in the Ford Anglia. 2. Telling Neville he was worth twelve of Malfoy. 3. Letting Cedric know about the dragons. 4. Inviting Luna to Slughorn's party (and inhaling half his mead up his nose when she started in on the Rotfang conspiracy). From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 15:46:57 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 15:46:57 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: <380-22007512842524140@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169403 > Lizzyben: > I think, once Montague said that the Cabinets connect Hogwarts > to Borgin & Burke, SOMEBODY thought this information was too important to > get out. So Montague's memory was erased, his body was moved, and he was > given befuddlement potion until the end of term so that he couldn't share > the story with anyone else. > > Magpie: > But he *did* share the information with someone else. He shared it with all > of Slytherin.That's where Draco heard it, as he explained, and realized > what it meant. Montague's memory wasn't erased, he was, as far as we know > now, just befuddled by being trapped in limbo with no way to get out or > make anyone hear him--until he managed to Apparate into the toilet. Which > completely goes against what we've been told about Apparition it's true, > and also goes against the fact that the Vanishing Cabinets are broken. It > could be a special circumstance, with the rule-breaking Apparition being > part of the ill-effects. > > But so far it seems important that Montague doesn't have missing gaps in > his memory--we hear his whole story as told to the Slytherins in HBP, some > of the details of which are demonstrated via that Cabinet Plot. > > As to why the Twins weren't punished, I don't think they could have been. > Montague was still befuddled when they left school, I think, so there was > no one to punish once Montague came around. Before that no one but the Trio > knew what happened to him and they weren't talking. > > If we see any bright blue Potions I will definitely connect it to whatever > Montague was taking, but the fact that it was bright blue so far doesn't > seem to be any evidence that it was Confunding him. After all, eventually > he did get better and share his story. And if somebody memory charmed him, > particularly if Snape memory charmed him, since Snape is a competent adult, > he could just be memory charmed, couldn't he? And if he was being given > Potions to keep him Confunded, why was he able to tell the whole "great > story" to the Slytherins? > > "Montague's memory wasn't erased, he was, as far as we know now, just befuddled by being trapped in limbo with no way to get out." That just doesn't make sense to me. Assume the facts are as given: Montague was shut in a closet for a day until he apparated out. Why would he have any significant mental side effects from that? One day isn't enough time to cause real injuries, and the text never suggests that apparating itself causes mental "befuddlement" or confusion. In HBP, a bad apparition usually means that the body itself doesn't apparate right. If he left a leg behind, that would be much more in line w/the side effects of a bad apparition. "Befuddlement" suggests something else altogether. From the dictionary: "Befuddle - 1. To confuse; perplex. 2. To stupefy with or as if with alcoholic drink." It suggests a charm, drink or other agent was used to cause confusion. And, everyone acknowledges that he shouldn't have been able to apparate within Hogwarts at all. So, there's at least 2 things that don't make sense about this incident. I should've posted some quotes to help sort this out. Here's the text of what happens: ""On the count of three then," said Snape lazily. "One, two," Snapes office door banged open and Draco Malfoy sped in. "Professor Snape, sir - oh - sorry " ... "Well, Draco, what is it?" asked Snape. "It's Professor Umbridge, sir - she needs your help," said Malfoy. They've found Montague, sir, he's turned up jammed inside a toilet on the fourth floor. "How did he get in there?" demanded Snape. "I don't know, sir, he's a bit confused." One week later, Montague's still in the clinic, he's still confused & disoriented, and his parents are called: "To cap matters, Montague had still not recovered from his sojourn in the toilet; he remained confused and disoriented and his parents were to be observed one Tuesday morning striding up the front drive, looking extremely angry. "Should we say something?" said Hermione in a worried voice, pressing her cheek against the Charms window so that she could see Mr and Mrs Montague marching inside. "About what happened to him? In case it helps Madam Pomfrey cure him?... what if Montague's permanently injured?" This conversation occurs the first week of Easter holiday. Flash forward to the end of May, when students are taking their OWL exams. Montague is STILL in the hospital wing, and apparently so incapacitated that he can't take the exams with the rest of the students: "Harry ran up the marble staircase, hurtled along the corridors so fast the portraits he passed muttered reproaches, up more flights of stairs, and finally burst like a hurricane through the double doors of the hospital wing, causing Madam Pomfrey - who had been spooning some bright blue liquid into Montague's open mouth - to shriek in alarm. "Potter, what do you think you're doing?" OK, so Montague remained in Madame Pomfrey's clinic from late March through May - two months, and he still hasn't recovered. He's being fed a bright blue liquid - a potion of some kind. He's described as "confused & disoriented". Oddly enough, the novel earlier took the trouble to describe all the ingredients and side effects of a "confusing and befuddlement potion" - "Midnight came and went while Harry was reading and rereading a passage about the uses of scurvy-grass, lovage and sneezewort and not taking in a word of it. 'These plantes are moste efficacious in the inflaming of the braine, and are therefore much used in Confusing and Befuddlement Draughts, where the wizard is desirous of producing hot-headedness and recklessness " He's reading this as part of an assignment from Snape. The quote is repeated TWICE, as Harry wonders if the potion might be used against Sirius. Again, why go into detail about a potion if it didn't have some relevance to the events of the novel? This is virtually the only time that the novel directly quotes from a textbook. Why? I think this was a clue - so readers could combine the description of a "confusing & befuddlement draught" w/later descriptions of Montague as "confused & disoriented." Snape knows how to brew "confusing draughts", and was one of the first to discover Montague; Montague is confused & disoriented for months, while he's being fed a blue potion. What if that potion was the "confusing draught?" That would actually explain Montague's symptoms. He's apparently confused throughout this time - I don't know when he told Draco this "great story," - perhaps on the train home? Maybe he was only befuddled while at the clinic until the MOM plan could take place? I dunno. I actually tend to think that Snape is on the good side, but this incident nags at me, & almost convinces me that Snape planned this out. He'd kill 2 birds w/one stone - end Occlumency lessons, and prevent Dumbledore from learning about the Cabinets' connection to Borgin & Burkes. Or maybe it wasn't Snape - maybe Draco moved Montague so that he could use the Cabinets later. It's a mystery - I don't know who's the actual "bad guy", but I'm pretty sure the events didn't actually go as portrayed. I'm just posting this in hopes someone can help sort it out. lizzyben04 From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 28 18:20:45 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 18:20:45 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169404 Montavilla47: > Because, there is a big *practical* difficulty in forming this circle > with everyone's specific place, whether they all knew each other's > identities or not. They're all wearing black cloaks and masks. How > the heck are they supposed to know where to stand, even if they know > each other's identities when they're all disguised? Dana: Sure but then how does LV recognize his own DE's even to the point that he is able to name them by name? Isn't a disguise only a disguise if you do not know the identity of the person behind the disguise? Many DEs worked together on specific assignements as we see through OotP and HBP and even DD could recognize some of them even while in disguise. Hickengruendler: > That's probably true. But knowing how many they are, does not > necessarily mean, that they also know who else is behind the masks. > And at least during the end of the First War, it seems rather > unlikely that *Snape* was at every meeting, since he was in > Hogwarts and could hardly disappear there whenever he wanted. > Granted, he could probably leave the castle to Voldemort often > enough, since he went there on Dumbledore's orders (no matter to > whom he's really loyal), but it's still doubtful that Snape can > leave the castle during all of the meetings. (If these meetings > happened often, of course, and if not, than there's even less a > chance for Snape and Peter to meet.) Dana: Snape wasn't at Hogwarts, he only became a teacher right before LV's downfall. According to his own account he was a teacher for 14 years during OotP while Harry was 15 by that time meaning he could only have been a teacher for about 3 months before LV targeted the Potters as Harry was 15 months when LV came to his house. Hickengruendler: > Well, yeah, but so what. First of all, Lucius is not Snape. While > it does seem, that the Malfoys trust Snape, I don't see why they > should talk to him about anything. So even if Lucius knew, that > doesn't mean Snape did as well. And second, how well did Lucius > know Wormtail during the First War? he was a few years older than > the Marauders. Why should he recognise James Potter's friend Peter > as the masked Death Eater besides him. Dana: All the people mentioned next to Lucius are people that Snape knew and was associated with during his schooldays, this is a little to long to not recognize people just by the way they pose themselves or recognize their voices. Bella is up to date about Snape not coming to the graveyard and about the rumors about Snape living in DD's pocket. DEs talk to one another and there is no reason to believe that they did not talk to Snape too. How would Bella even know Snape was a DE or anyone else to get these rumors spreading. LV does not mention his name and only Karkaroff knows Snape was indeed a DE but he is not at the graveyard scene either and not very social with the other DEs. Bella was locked up in Azkaban and we here from Sirius that no rumors about Snape were going around there. Bella specifically asks Snape were he was on the night LV went to the Potters, if she just learned about Snape's identity after LV came back what is it to her where he was the night LV met his faith, unless Snape was suppossed to have been there and slithered out of action. I still believe Bella was indeed present at GH and it was not LV's high pitch cackle Harry heard but her's and how she knew LV did not die perminently there as she saw him flet the scene with her own eyes. For me it is not hard to imagine that it was Bella's screams Sirus heard about Peter. Hickengruendler: > That's a very big assumption. So Wormtail was standing next to > Lucius. That doesn't mean they were connected. There is in six > books no evidence, that Lucius and Wormtail are connected, except > that they are both Death eaters. And anyway, as you quoted, Snape > did not stand next to Wormtail or even Lucius. The Lestranges were > between them, which makes three places, since there's also > Bellatrix' brother in-law. Meaning Snape did not stand all that > close to Wormtail. Dana: If I'm correct then Barthy Crouch Jr. stood next to Wormtail and next to him Snape and next to him Karkaroff and next to him the three dead DEs of which I believe one was Regulus. It seems that people's places are never filled not even if they are no longer able to attend the meetings. Even if the order in which they stood then it is still very close and most of them were in the gang of Slytherin's as are the Lestrange. I think and yes it is an assumption that it is a specific indication that Wormtail was indeed connected to Lucius because why would he go and stand next to him and no where else in the circle? Because I believe that Lucius was in charge of the new Hogwart recruits and that he learned about Peter to one of these recruits. Hickengruendler: > According to the fake Moody in GoF, Karkaroff fled because he > betrayed too many fellow Death Eaters and couldn't be sure to be > accepted back. And as it turns out, he was right. if he lied to > protect himself, it didn't work, did it? Dana: It didn't work only after LV came back but he had a confortable time for at least 13 years, didn't he? DEs did not get him even though it was common knowledge that he ratted out his fellow DEs right? Even Sirus knew this information but no one toughed him and only after LV came back was he hunted down. Hickengruendler: > I think Wormtail was a special case. If the timeline giben by > Sirius in PoA is correct, he was recruited after Trelawney made the > prophecy and after Harry was born. That means Voldemort probably > already targeted the Potters and searched for the weakest link > among the Potters and their friends, which he found in Wormtail. In > this case, I don't see why he shouldn't have "visited" Wormtail > himself. The Potters certainly were important enough to him. Dana: Because LV had not decided yet who he was going to target - the Longbottom's or the Potters, by the time Peter became a spy and DD himself implies that Snape became a spy for him around the same time. So LV would not pay Wormtail such a high priced visit so soon into it because it would draw attention to Wormtail. And LV only goes to the Potters himself because he considers Harry to be the one the prophecy referred to and as we see time and time again LV would not allow anyone but him to proof that no one can defeat the Dark Lord. It was not because he had a habit of doing his own dirty work and he would never go to someone so low as Wormtail if he can let him be brought to him so easily. LV only made his decision on who he was going to target right before the Potters hid behind the Fidelius Charm because if he had decided before that time then the Potters would have been death long before DD could ever suggest it to them. Snape might have been specifically sent to DD (again) to see if he could find out more information about who LV should target. Snape of course could not give him that information because he used his remorse story to get into DD's confidence and when Snape heard LV picked the Potters he told DD because he still had the debt to settle with James but Peter messed it up and Snape blames not himself but James and Sirius for it. LV would not know anything about Wormtail being the weakest link, unless he was told about this specifically and James and Sirius were counting on LV being told that Peter was not much of a wizard and why he would not be trusted with there secrets. So to me this indicates someone got to Peter and told LV what Peter was about and that he probably could be of interest to him. Hickengruendler: > But I do not assume at all, that it was Lucius. Why should Lucius > know anything about Wormtail? If you believe in evil Snape, I am > willing to consider, that evil Severus himself told Voldemort, who > was the weakest link among James' friends. But Lucius? So far, we > don't even know of any intercation between these two characters. > You could just as well have proposed to me, that it was Barty > Crouch junior, who recruited Peter. Seems as likely, or rather > unlikely, to me, as that it was Lucius. Dana: Snape was in LV's employment and he was working as a double spy on both DD's and LV's orders. I believe LV never told Snape who he was going to target as a result of the prophecy because Snape was to young to be of any importance to LV to tell him what he is going to do with the information he brought to him. But I do believe he told Lucius and that he gave Lucius the assignement to find out more about the Potters and the Longbottom's and thus it being Lucius who was looking for someone in both inner circles that could provide him with this information and Lucius would know that Snape was at Hogwarts at the same time as the marauders and how Snape found out how LV had interpreted the prophecy and that it included Snape knew even if LV had not decided yet who to pick. Bella and her gang were specifically SEND to the Longbottom's after LV's downfall and according to JKR herself they did not know anything about the prophecy. Bella specifically asks were Snape was, implying to me that it was not Snape who send Bella and her gang but someone did and the choice of this specific target implies to me that that someone knew about the prophecy and about LV's dillema in who he should target as a result of it. I'm not going into the OotP things again here, read my previous posts on that subject as I think I was clear enough in what I meant with Snape being in the know. All is just my very humble opinion of how canon can be interpreted too. Dana From dignan101 at sbcglobal.net Mon May 28 17:48:00 2007 From: dignan101 at sbcglobal.net (Mary Dignan) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 10:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <26770.59629.qm@web81010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169405 --- Sherry Gomes wrote: > Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape > favorite moments, and > since the books are Harry's story, how about some > favorite Harry moments? > Sherry Gomes asked for favorite Harry moments, and I couldn't resist responding and making this my first post to the list after months of lurking, smile. Sherry listed the following moments as her faves: When Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from murdering Wormtail; when Harry saved Dudley from the dementors; when Harry first saw Diagon Alley; when Harry hears Sirius offer to share his home, and when Sirius tells Harry he is "truly [his] father's son" just before flying off on Buckbeak. I agree, I love all those moments. Another scene I just love is the morning of Ron's 17th birthday in HFB, when Ron eats the box of chocolate cauldrons that Harry tosses out of his trunk in his search for the Marauder's Map, and that have been spiked with love potion by Romilda Vane. JKR's writing is so excellent in that scene. The dialogue is so perfect, and I love Harry's quick thinking, deciding against letting Ron run amok because, after all, they WERE best friends, but letting Ron down from the levicorpus hex with a hard crash because, after all, he did hurt a lot from that blow in the head Ron gave him. Mary, presently listening to Jim Dale reading Order of the Phoenix and expects that she'll make it through Half Blood Prince again just in time to pick up smoothly with Deathly Hallows ... From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 28 18:49:05 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 18:49:05 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169406 Sherry: > Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape favorite > moments, and since the books are Harry's story, how about some > favorite Harry moments? Even people who don't particularly like > Harry might have some favorite moments of his. I'll start it off > by trying to pinpoint some of my favorite Harry moments. in no > particular order, by the way. Dana: I myself love the moment where Harry nods because he is to chocked up to speak, after he finally believes Sirius to be innocent and that Sirius would never betray James. I love the scene where Harry conjures the Prongs patronus and saves both himself and Sirius. I just love the story line of PoA and Harry meeting the marauders. But the best Harry moments however are when he tells Snape at the end of OotP that he is thinking about what spell to use on Draco. When he says to Snape; `You do not have to call me sir, sir.' And finally when he tells polyjuiced Grabe or Goyle; `you are a pretty girl, aren't you.' Of course there are many heart ranching Harry moments and the most pronounced one for me is when Harry witnesses Sirius fall through the veil and later thinking about him when he is possessed by LV. Dana From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon May 28 18:52:50 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 18:52:50 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169407 > Hickengruendler: > > > That's probably true. But knowing how many they are, does not > > necessarily mean, that they also know who else is behind the masks. > > And at least during the end of the First War, it seems rather > > unlikely that *Snape* was at every meeting, since he was in > > Hogwarts and could hardly disappear there whenever he wanted. > > Granted, he could probably leave the castle to Voldemort often > > enough, since he went there on Dumbledore's orders (no matter to > > whom he's really loyal), but it's still doubtful that Snape can > > leave the castle during all of the meetings. (If these meetings > > happened often, of course, and if not, than there's even less a > > chance for Snape and Peter to meet.) > > Dana: > Snape wasn't at Hogwarts, he only became a teacher right before LV's > downfall. Hickengruendler: Yes, I know. That's why I said "at the end of the First War". I know that earlier they could have met, but don't forget that Wormtail wasn't recruited that long before. It's not that he was that long a Death Eater, I think he started spying around a year before Godric's Hollow, and it's not sure that he participated in the DE Meetings, in the beginning. > Dana: > Because LV had not decided yet who he was going to target - the > Longbottom's or the Potters, by the time Peter became a spy and DD > himself implies that Snape became a spy for him around the same time. Hickengruendler: We don't know, when Voldemort decided this. If Peter became a spy around a year prior to Godric's Hollow, than Harry was already born. Therefore, theoretically Voldemort could have made his decision already. There's nothing in Canon, that contradicts this, because we don't know, when e exactly Voldemort decided Harry was the one. Snape started teaching after Slughorn retired, therefore we can't give the day of his hiring as a fix date for when he came to Dumbledore with this information. Maybe he started his work as a spy earlier, and both Dumbledore and Voldemort thought Slughorn's farewell would be a good opportunity to have Snape in Hogwarts, where he can be around Dumbledore all the time (either to spy on him or to give him the worthwhile information) without making it seem suspicious. Dana: > And LV only goes to the > Potters himself because he considers Harry to be the one the prophecy > referred to and as we see time and time again LV would not allow > anyone but him to proof that no one can defeat the Dark Lord. It was > not because he had a habit of doing his own dirty work and he would > never go to someone so low as Wormtail if he can let him be brought > to him so easily. Hickengruendler: Yes, possibly. But that still doesn't prove, that Lucius Malfoy had anything to do with it, because there are countless other possible Death eaters, and because it is unlikely that Malfoy knew Wormtail well enough. If you are going with evil Snape (which I don't, as you know ;-) ) it seems more likely to me, that he himself recruited Wormtail, since he knew the Marauders and their possible weaknesses. I find this much more plausible than bringing Lucius Malfoy into the mix, because the so called connection between him and Wormtail seems pure guesswork to me. Dana: > LV only made his decision on who he was going to target right before > the Potters hid behind the Fidelius Charm because if he had decided > before that time then the Potters would have been death long before > DD could ever suggest it to them. Hickengruendler: But according to Dumbledore Snape came to him with the regret, that Voldemort targeted James and Lily, and it was *then*, when he started his work as a spy, If this was a week prior to Godric's Hollow, there simply was not any time for Snape to do some actual work as a spy. Dana: Snape might have been specifically > sent to DD (again) to see if he could find out more information about > who LV should target. Snape of course could not give him that > information because he used his remorse story to get into DD's > confidence and when Snape heard LV picked the Potters he told DD > because he still had the debt to settle with James but Peter messed > it up and Snape blames not himself but James and Sirius for it. Hickengruendler: But that's not what happened, acording to Dumbledore. According to Dumbledore, Snape came to him, because he regretted that the Potters were targeted. Either Snape fooled Dumbledore or he was genuine, but it was about the Potters, therefore Voldemort must have already made his decision. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 28 19:15:59 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 19:15:59 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape favorite moments, and > since the books are Harry's story, how about some favorite Harry moments? > Even people who don't particularly like Harry might have some favorite > moments of his. I'll start it off by trying to pinpoint some of my favorite > Harry moments. in no particular order, by the way. > Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? Geoff: Two come to mind, one funny, one very moving... The first has already been touched on by Hickengruendler and a couple of others: "There's no need to call me Sir, Professor." The second: "Now the burning feeling was in his throat, too. He wished Ron would look away. Mrs.Weasley set the potion down on the bedside cabinet, bent down and put her arms around Harry. He had no memory of ever being hugged like this, as though by a mother. The full weight of everything he had seen that night seemed to fall in on him as Mrs. Weasley held him to her. His mother's face, his father's voice, the sight of Cedric, dead on the ground, all started spinning in his head until he could hardly bear it, until he was screwing up his face against the howl of misery fighting to get out of him." (GOF "The Parting of the Ways" p.620 UK edition) That brings back memories of one or two events in my life when I wished I had had a Mrs. Weasley there too. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Mon May 28 19:17:36 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 19:17:36 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > > Sherry: > > Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape favorite > > moments, and since the books are Harry's story, how about some > > favorite Harry moments? Even people who don't particularly like > > Harry might have some favorite moments of his. I'll start it off > > by trying to pinpoint some of my favorite Harry moments. in no > > particular order, by the way. I like the scenes where Harry comes across as tough, badass or actually competent instead of lucky. The "you don't have to call me sir, Professor" was just great. I laughed for about twenty minutes. I also liked the scene in the beginning of HBP where he gets into Narcissa's face. I remember thinking that, now that is the Harry I have been waiting to see for five books. I liked the first DADA class with Umbridge and his refusal to be cowed. And I loved the running battle he had with the death eaters in HBP as he chased Snape through Hogwarts as well as their duel. I can't wait to see their rematch because even if Snape is going be revealed as good, I think its going to be after Harry gives him a thrashing in their rematch. phoenixgod2000 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon May 28 19:36:56 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 15:36:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? Message-ID: <380-220075128193656562@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169410 Magpie: "Montague's memory wasn't erased, he was, as far as we know now, just befuddled by being trapped in limbo with no way to get out." Lizzyben: That just doesn't make sense to me. Assume the facts are as given: Montague was shut in a closet for a day until he apparated out. Why would he have any significant mental side effects from that? Magpie: But we're not talking about real life conditions here; it's magic. The effects can be whatever JKR says they are. The Trio knows what happened to Montague, and they don't think it's suspicious that he's still befuddled from being in the broken Vanishing Cabinet. No one else thinks it's odd either. Montague wasn't shut in a Cabinet, he was sent into a limbo world, floating back and forth. That doesn't mean, of course, that we couldn't learn that the befuddlement was actually the result of some sort of foul play, but there's no evidence of it so far--I don't think we can take the befuddlement as evidence that foul play was involved just because we, as readers who know nothing about magical injuries anyway, don't think it's possible. Nobody else has ever experienced what Montague has. More importantly, there's never any indication from anyone that Montague has lost his memory once he comes out of it, since he tells everyone, eventually, what happened to him. One could suggest that he was given false memories like we saw in HBP, but there's no more evidence that this happened than there is that anyone else has been given false memories. What Montague says happened is validated in HBP when Draco bases his plan on what happened to Montague, as reported by Montague himself. Snape himself is never connected to him at all except that he has an alibi for Montague being found in the toilet. Lizzyben: One day isn't enough time to cause real injuries, and the text never suggests that apparating itself causes mental "befuddlement" or confusion. In HBP, a bad apparition usually means that the body itself doesn't apparate right. If he left a leg behind, that would be much more in line w/the side effects of a bad apparition. "Befuddlement" suggests something else altogether. From the dictionary: "Befuddle - 1. To confuse; perplex. 2. To stupefy with or as if with alcoholic drink." It suggests a charm, drink or other agent was used to cause confusion. And, everyone acknowledges that he shouldn't have been able to apparate within Hogwarts at all. So, there's at least 2 things that don't make sense about this incident. Magpie: We're not told the Apparition caused the befuddlement. We are told that apparently a day and a half in limbo *is* enough to cause befuddlement, perhaps when there's also a quasi-Apparition escape into a non-Apparition zone out of it. I wouldn't automatically say Montague should be confused after that experience, but it also makes sense to me that he would be since the point is the Cabinet is broken and he is in limbo. It's like if a character were stuck in another dimension for a day and a half--sure that could cause long-term confusion. There are a lot of people in St. Mungo's who have weird mental problems--it doesn't seem like it's that unusual for peoples' brains to be addled by magic. In HBP, iirc, we hear about a badly-done Imperius curse making somebody think he's a duck or something. We're also given another reason his confusion lasts so long: nobody knows what happened to him except people who aren't telling. If he was actually found in the toilet, which is the only information we have, no one would connect him to the Cabinets at all. Apparition is impossible in Hogwarts, but so is coming out of the Vanishing Cabinet when it's broken. That's why Draco has to fix it before it works the way it's supposed to work. According to what we know Montague wasn't able to come out of the Cabinets because one was broken. I don't see any independent evidence that he was being befuddled afterwards by Pomfrey or by Snape, Potion aside. There's no signs of Snape interfering there, eventually Montague tells his story, and what is Snape's motive for keeping him befuddled for several weeks? Not to keep the Cabinet story secret, since it isn't secret to the Slytherins and on the contrary it potentially is a secret to Snape. Lizzyben: OK, so Montague remained in Madame Pomfrey's clinic from late March through May - two months, and he still hasn't recovered. He's being fed a bright blue liquid - a potion of some kind. He's described as "confused & disoriented". Oddly enough, the novel earlier took the trouble to describe all the ingredients and side effects of a "confusing and befuddlement potion" - "Midnight came and went while Harry was reading and rereading a passage about the uses of scurvy-grass, lovage and sneezewort and not taking in a word of it. 'These plantes are moste efficacious in the inflaming of the braine, and are therefore much used in Confusing and Befuddlement Draughts, where the wizard is desirous of producing hot-headedness and recklessness" He's reading this as part of an assignment from Snape. The quote is repeated TWICE, as Harry wonders if the potion might be used against Sirius. Again, why go into detail about a potion if it didn't have some relevance to the events of the novel? This is virtually the only time that the novel directly quotes from a textbook. Why? I think this was a clue - so readers could combine the description of a "confusing & befuddlement draught" w/later descriptions of Montague as "confused & disoriented." Snape knows how to brew "confusing draughts", and was one of the first to discover Montague; Montague is confused & disoriented for months, while he's being fed a blue potion. What if that potion was the "confusing draught?" That would actually explain Montague's symptoms. He's apparently confused throughout this time - I don't know when he told Draco this "great story," - perhaps on the train home? Maybe he was only befuddled while at the clinic until the MOM plan could take place? I dunno. Magpie: The Befuddlement Potions definitely interested me too--and I well remembered Montague's longterm confusion because it shocked me at the time. I do expect that Potion might be coming up later in some way. If it was given to Montague I'd want to know why we didn't see him acting hot-headed and reckless. It is, I grant you, a very intersting connection since we've got this confusion potion and then a confused Montague. But why is Pomfrey giving him this Potion--surely she can't be expected to be so clueless as to be feeding someone a Befuddlement draught and not realize what it is when she's trying to cure befuddlement? What good does it do anyone for him to be befuddled for this block of time? The only people we know think they benefit are the Trio, and they're not dosing him. Also, if we're now talking about a befuddlement draught, we are no longer talking about Memory Charming. Montague's condition is never connected to the MoM battle. And did Pomfrey eventually stop giving him anything and then he got better? Lizzyben: I actually tend to think that Snape is on the good side, but this incident nags at me, & almost convinces me that Snape planned this out. He'd kill 2 birds w/one stone - end Occlumency lessons, and prevent Dumbledore from learning about the Cabinets' connection to Borgin & Burkes. Or maybe it wasn't Snape - maybe Draco moved Montague so that he could use the Cabinets later. It's a mystery - I don't know who's the actual "bad guy", but I'm pretty sure the events didn't actually go as portrayed. I'm just posting this in hopes someone can help sort it out. Magpie: For Snape, there's no pressing reason for him to end the Occlumency lessons we know of, and his behavior indicates true anger and humiliation at what Harry saw, imo. As I've said before, I find it hard to believe that Snape would intentionally let Harry see him in his underwear. It was also incredibly convenient that Umbridge and Draco happened to discover Montague and send for Snape at just the right moment. Suggesting that Snape doesn't want Dumbledore to find out about the Cabinets opens an even bigger can of worms. An important element of HBP both thematically and technically is that Draco is the only one who knows what the Cabinets mean--a way into Hogwarts. Snape doesn't know what he's up to there. Draco himself tells us that everyone heard the story from Montague, so Draco isn't hiding the information from anybody either. He listened to the story along with other people but only he realized that it meant fixing the Vanishing Cabinet meant having a portal into Hogwarts from B&B. Draco also tells us that he discovered Montague in the toilet with Umbridge. He has no reason for interrupting the Occlumency lessons since he doesn't know about them. (Making Snape into an even bigger puppetmaster in HBP destroys a lot of the Draco plot, which I don't think we can do.) Finally, the idea that Montague must have been found in the Cabinet seems to be a premise here, when the Cabinet is broken, so he shouldn't be able to come back through it. Not Apparating in a non-Apparition zone isn't, imo, any easier than coming through a broken portal. Either way you're making a door out of a brick wall. - From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon May 28 19:50:40 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 19:50:40 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169411 Sherry: > Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? Ceridwen: Bringing Cedric Diggory back. "You don't have to call me sir." Saving Dudley. Realizing it was himself all along who cast the Patronus. The end of the fight with Draco in the bathroom, before Snape comes in. His explanation of a nickname to Snape. Bringing Dumbledore back from the cave. From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Mon May 28 20:03:15 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:03:15 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape favorite moments, and > since the books are Harry's story, how about some favorite Harry moments? Dondee: I adore Harry, and there are too many scenes I love for me to decide on a favorite - but I will share a scene not mentioned yet in this thread... In OotP Chapter 33, Fight and Flight, when Grawp is reaching for Harry and Hermione. Hermione completely panics and falls down while Harry, wandless, stands his ground prepared to punch, kick, or bite Grawp in order to protect his fallen friend. How many of us would be that brave in a moment like that? I think I'd be the one doing the panicking. Cheers, Dondee From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 20:32:04 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:32:04 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: <26770.59629.qm@web81010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169413 > --- Sherry Gomes wrote: > > > Ok, since I am not interested in reading about Snape > > favorite moments, and > > since the books are Harry's story, how about some > > favorite Harry moments? > > Montavilla47: Let's see. Favorite Harry moments. I love the moment when he chooses Ron as a friend, even though I sympathize with Draco as well as Harry. I also love when he buys the treats and shares them with Ron. I love that he gives Ginny his Lockhart books. I pretty much love all the times he's with Lockhart because he's so disgusted with having to help the idiot sign his photographs. One of my favorite moments in PoA is when Lupin brings Harry a butterbeer and Harry slips up and almost spills the beans about being in Hogsmeade. In GoF, I love Harry in the Graveyard. I especially love him making sure to bring back Cedric's body. In OotP, I love that moment when he struggles with his feelings about Ron getting the Prefect badge. Montavilla47 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon May 28 20:43:03 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:43:03 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169414 --- "Dondee Gorski" wrote: > > --- "Sherry Gomes" > wrote: > > > > ... how about some favorite Harry > moments? > > > Dondee: > > I adore Harry, ... I will share a scene not mentioned > yet in this thread... > > In OotP Chapter 33, Fight and Flight, when Grawp is > reaching for Harry and Hermione. Hermione completely > panics and falls down while Harry, wandless, stands > his ground prepared to punch, kick, or bite Grawp in > order to protect his fallen friend. > > How many of us would be that brave in a moment like > that? I think I'd be the one doing the panicking. > > Cheers, Dondee > bboyminn: Many of my favorite scenes have already been mentioned by others, and speaking of courage, there are times when Harry is generally very brave, but what he is really displaying is nobility and grace. It didn't take much courage to step in on Peter's behalf, but it was a very noble things to do. Some of my favorite scene are hardly covered at all in the books; very few words, but great impact. For example, when Hagrid buys Harry his owl Hedwig, the scene is very short, but in my mind, I see Harry stunned by such overwhelming kindness and generosity. Something he has seen very little of in his life, and now from a very strange stranger no less. It's not so much his visible reaction, but the underlying emotions that I imagine. The next scene when Harry and Hagrid are in a hamburger restaurant, and Harry is feeling very down and inadequate, and Hagrid comforts him. Again, it's not so much what we see in the scene, but what I imagine Harry's underlying emotions to be. I also agree with others that Harry's ability to empathize with his enemies is significant. At one point or other, Harry has felt sorry for Snape, Draco, and Tom Riddle; his three greatest 'enemies'. Though, I don't much see him feeling sorry for Umbridge, though that doesn't bother me at all. So, far we've seen nothing even hinting at a redeeming quality in Umbridge. Voldemort does evil knowing it is evil but he doesn't care. Umbridge is insidious; she commits evil but dresses it up in the clothes of propriety. She does evil and convinces herself she is doing both good and right. Personally, I was sure the results of the Occlumency lessons would ultimately deepen Harry and Snape's understanding of each other, but I think, at least for now, Harry looking at 'Snape's worst memory' kill that chance. Also, when Harry rolls over in bed deeply grateful that Ron can't see what Harry is imagining in his mind. That was kind of sweet. Also, when Ron meets Harry in the tent after the Dragon task. Just as Ron is about to apologies, Harry realizes he doesn't need it... 'Look Harry I...' 'Forget it...' 'BOYS!' Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 20:43:21 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:43:21 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169415 > Mike previously: > > 1) Peter Pettigrew starts spying for Voldemort. > > > > I gotta believe that although Voldie would hold Peter's > > allegiance close to the vest, he would tell someone. > > Pettigrew would have a handler, a middleman who took > > Peter's info to LV. Mike now: I see that my inclusion of Snape in this paragraph was confusing, so I take it out. It doesn't change what I believe was going on between Pettigrew, LV, and some (maybe one or two) DEs. I do not think that Snape knew or was in any way involved with Pettigrew's spying nor with Pettigrew as the Potter's SK. I only included Snape in my original paragraph to point out that Voldemort does not keep the identity of his spies completely secret, they are not known by only himself. > houyhnhnm: > > Snape was not spying for Voldemort at the time Peter > turned traitor. He was not a member of the original > Order. He was not yet teaching at Hogwarts. There is > no clue in the books as to what Snape was doing for > *Voldemort* a year before GH. He may have been spying > for Dumbledore by that time, but no one would know > that except Dumbledore. Mike: Does my above answer your questions? I hope this also answers the questions that Hickengruendler and Pippin brought up on this point. Snape's position and/or job does not affect my contention. Sorry for the confusion. :) > houyhnhnm: > It is plausible that there was a middleman between PP > and LV, but there is no evidence even to show such was > the case, let alone who it was. We have absolutely > no canon to explain how Peter came to spy for Voldemort. > Was he kidnapped? Did he approach Voldemort on his own? > Perhaps he was recruited. Plausible, but Snape seems a > very unlikely candidate for recruiter and go-between, > however, because he was not placed for such a role. > He was not a member of the Order. He was not a friend > of Peter's. He did not move in the circle of Peter's > friends. And they were no longer at school. Mike: Re the middleman, true enough, there is no canon. I am speculating based on how spying is normally handled. We don't even know the logistics of how Snape's spying was handled. I was left to make an educated guess. I would gladly entertain alternatives. How would you guess that Voldemort handled his spy Pettigrew? And you're right, I never suggested that Snape was Pettigrew's recruiter nor handler. I specifically suggested that Snape didn't know anything about Pettigrew before GH. > houyhnhnm: > Or am I misunderstanding your argument. Further down, > in the part I snipped, you seem to be implying that Snape > only found out Peter was the Secret Keeper after LV's fall. Mike: Yep :) > houyhnhnm: > Again, where is the evidence, or for that matter, the need > to bring Snape into it? Mike: Nobody *brought* Snape into it. Snape was just another DE who learned of this spy Pettigrew that had been the one to lead LV to GH and his downfall. As all good spies, Snape was nobody special to his other DEs, he just was told like all the rest were told. > houyhnhnm: > Your argument seems to start with the assumption that > all of Voldemort's followers were in each other confidence. Mike: I'll stop you here and say emphatically NO that is not my assumption at all. I believe that Voldemort ran his organization using the Patron system. He had cell leaders who knew their charges. The little guys reported to their cell leaders. The cell leaders reported to Voldemort, or possibly another middleman who controlled several but not all the cells. The several cell leaders probably but not definitely knew the other cell leaders. The lower cell members probably knew their fellow members but not the members of different cells; unless they were involved in a group effort like the DoM raid where two or more cells participated. Spies were probably handled under a different chain of command, and most likely did not know each other. But someone has to retrieve the spies information. The spies need to maintain their cover, they can't be running off to Voldemort every time they have some info. Nor could Voldemort be expected to always be available to accept time sensitive information. That is why I envision a handler for LV's spies. Again, not canon, we have very little canon to extrapolate from as to how LV ran his organization. Most of this idea comes from an LJ piece of Pharnabazus. If you'd like to read his piece, part 1 link is below: http://pharnabazus.livejournal.com/715.html >From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169390 Pippin: Only the secret keeper can have betrayed the secret. Unless these individuals were known friends of the Potters, they can't have been the secret keeper, so what have they to fear? The only reason Peter's handler would have to be afraid is if he were known to be a friend of the Potter's or a friend of Dumbledore's as well. Mike: Dumbledore warned Harry, in the OotP wrap-up soliloquy, that there were plenty of DEs still at large after LV's downfall and some of them almost as bad as LV. Bella and Co. tortured the Longbottoms some time after the downfall. What do you suppose Bella would have done if she had caught the one who led LV to his downfall? Especially if she thought that person didn't just lead but had a hand in causing LV's disappearance. Say LV had held the identity of Pettigrew close, as we both believe. The rest of the DEs are looking around for someone to blame. That is, if they don't know about Pettigrew, they don't know about the Potter's Fidelius and their SK, they don't know who lured their Master to his fate. They start fishing around for a scapegoat and the spy handler become a likely target. 'Hey, he had LV's ear, he had priviledged information, he's the one who told LV to go to GH.' So that spy handler decides to give up the name Pettigrew to assuage Bella and her ilk, to deflect suspicion that it was him. Yes, again I am speculating. I don't know what else to do with the lack of information. But it is canon that some of the DEs knew Pettigrew's name. I'm trying to bridge the gap between an assumed tight-lipped LV and the fact that PP's name got out. It didn't come from LV, he's gone. It had to come from another DE. Why? This is the best explanation I could come up with, based on my interpretation in canon. That the DEs all suspected each other, that LV liked it that way. > > 8) Snape learns this info about PP in due course and reports it > > to Dumbledore. Pippin: Snape would not learn anything more, since Lucius is pretending he was under the Imperius Curse and has no contact with anyone thought to be a faithful DE. Snape wants to believe Lucius, his old protector, thus the sudden movement when Harry reveals that Lucius was at the graveyard. Mike: I am a bit confused. I don't understand where you think I brought Lucius into this?? Nor how Lucius pretending to be under the Imperious has anything to do with Snape learning about Pettigrew. Related to Lucius, his admonishment to Draco in Borgin & Burkes (CoS) could stem from the DE rumor that Potter was a new Dark Lord. Potter had, at this point in time, faced Voldemort twice and bested him twice. Maybe Lucius wasn't as sure as Snape was in the opinion of the Potter boy. Since many have questioned Snape learning about Pettigrew, I'll address that. Snape was not the type to burn his bridges. Neither he nor Dumbledore believed Voldemort was completely gone. He would not completely cut himself off from all the other DEs. Canon suggests that he at least kept in touch with Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy. Cissy knew where Snape lived. Canon also suggests that someone was informing on the DEs to the Ministry as to *who* were these former DEs still at large. So I don't think it a stretch that Snape kept in touch with some of his former DE mates. Even more important is the time immediately following LV's downfall. If Snape cuts himself off then, he becomes the prime suspect for the rest of the DEs as the spy who caused the downfall. He has to play it cool and act outraged at LV's downfall, just like the other loyal DEs. He can truly play the innocent party, he didn't do it. Also, this time of confusion (for the DEs) is a prime oppurtunity to collect information from the DEs. This is why I don't believe Snape ran and hid from the rest of the DEs. And why he learned of Pettigrew just as the other DEs learned of Pettigrew. Dumbledore's Dilemma: If DD finds out subsequent to GH, Sirius' imprisonment, and his own testimony that PP was the SK, what can he do? He has even less proof than he had for his testimony. He heard from his spy who heard from some other DEs that another DE has let it be known that PP was the man. Barty Crouch is going to accept that? Dumbledore is going to chance exposing his spy for this longshot? And don't forget about the 13 dead people that Dumbledore has no evidence to refute. Furthermore, what did Dumbledore do as far as trying to clear Sirius after PoA, when he definitely believed Sirius was innocent? He had Barty Crouch, the man who locked up Sirius and threw away the key, up at Hogwarts. Does he ever pull him aside and say, 'you know, you were wrong about Sirius Black.'? Does DD go to the MoM and try to get Sirius cleared at any time after PoA? We have the same amount of canon that he pleaded Sirius' case to the MoM before PoA as after PoA: None. So why is it hard to believe that Dumbledore did nothing for Sirius before PoA if he did nothing to clear him after PoA? Conversely, if you believe he did try to clear Sirius after PoA, how do we know he didn't try before? It obviously didn't work in either case. Or, we could say in neither case did Dumbledore try. It all comes to the same thing. No canon either way, only canon that says that Sirius is just as guilty in the eyes of the MoM before and after PoA. Mike From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Mon May 28 20:34:14 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:34:14 -0000 Subject: Harry's Training In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169416 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jo (Joanna)" wrote: > Like probably everyone else in this group I have been re-reading > the books in preparation for book 7. > Something struck me in book 6 which I think I thought about the > first time but not so strongly.>>>> Dear Jo, This is an interesting post. I too have been re-reading HBP recently and one thing struck me, - this has probably been mentioned by a lot of other people already but it's the first time I noticed it. At the beginning of HBP when DD fetches Harry from the Dursleys' he says: 'I do not think you need worry about being attacked tonight.' 'Why not sir?' 'You are with me' said Dumbledore simply. Then at the end of the chapter 26 when they are emerging from the water after obtaining the (false) Horcrux Harry says: 'It's going to be all right, sir.... we're nearly there...I can Apparate us both back..don't worry.. 'I am not worried, Harry'said Dumbledore, his voice a little stronger despite the freezing water. 'I am with you'. It's like a reversal of roles and I sometimes wonder whether, just as Voldemort marked Harry as his equal by transferring some of his powers to him, so DD has somehow managed to transfer some of his extraordinary powers to Harry, knowing (as I believe he does) that he is shortly going to die. Throughout the six books Harry never rates his own powers as a wizard as being particularly remarkable. He faces Voldemort at the end of each book but each time escapes and attributes it each time to a combination of luck and help from other people. Because the books are written so much from Harry's perspective I've come to think that he simply modest and is in fact a much more powerful wizard than he realises. He can obviously do a Patronus which is very advanced magic and he is good enough to teach the other pupils in DD's Army. Also his parents were both very gifted wizards - his father finding out how to make himself an animagus by the fifth year and his mother also being very talented. DD comments on more than one occasion that Harry has acquitted himself better than many adult wizards. Snape of course says he is mediocre but Snape dislikes Harry and also if Snape is as I believe on the right side then he would not want Voldemort to realise the extent of Harry's powers. Sylvia. From editor at texas.net Mon May 28 21:02:31 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 16:02:31 -0500 Subject: The Geist predicts again, mostly about Snape Message-ID: <3FDCF4D2088C4654982F06D47F85D363@AmandaPC> No: HPFGUIDX 169417 Greeting to the list, from one long inactive. I'm throwing out a "predictions post," for a couple of reasons. For one, book 7 is looming and I love to go on record. For another, I have to give a presentation on HP to our local Mensa chapter on June 20, and the list's thoughts on my predictions may give me some fodder. And lastly, I was digging through the archives to find an old post, and felt anew the seduction of the list discussions. Please forgive the length. Some of these are "general" in nature, and some provide details on how I think the general ones will play out. I numbered them for ease of response, if anyone so chooses. I tried to get them in some logical order, but they're a bit interrelated; sorry. For any masochists with historian instincts, links to the old posts follow my compendium. Have at 'em. (1) The rest of the Order, along with Harry, go on believing Snape is a turncoat. (2) Hermione discovers the tarot and thus they realize they are looking for, among other things, Rowena Ravenclaw's wand. (2.a.) Ollivander has it. His ancestor made it (they've been in business for two thousand years, after all). He's hiding; they have to find him before the other side does. [but if Voldemort hasn't Horcruxed it yet? Maybe Ollivander's hiding because he is in danger for the simple reason that he can tell Harry that he's looking for a wand.] (3) We may see a third in the sequence of brilliant plot mechanisms that increase Harry and Snape's knowledge/understanding of each other without their desire to know and without them growing any closer. Snape and Harry have already been forced into a deeper understanding through the Occlumency lessons and the old potions textbook. I can think of one plot device that will continue this-more knowledge of Lily and any interaction she had with Snape. Since both Snape and Harry see each other through eyes so prejudiced they don't even realize it, this could lead to many interesting over- or mis-reactions. (4) Related to #3: We will learn that he did love Lily; but by that I mean *he* loved *her,* likely from afar, unless he managed to say something and was let down easy. I don't think they ever had a relationship. [I still think part of the strength of the venom he associates with James is due to some neat sublimation, where he associates all the negative of being let down to James, and all the positive feelings that remain to Lily. Also the very deep fear that Lily may have told James; can you imagine his (even imagined) humiliation, to even consider that James *knew* and could have laughed?] (5) We will hear reports of Snape doing things that can be interpreted in two ways but will be presented as only Evil!Snape. (5.a.) Harry will fatally misunderstand some action of Snape's, and act based on his own interpretation of it, to the great harm of both Harry, Snape, and the cause. JKR depends on Harry's misinterpretation of things as a plot driver; and this is prime territory. For example, I will be genuinely surprised should Snape honestly turn out to be wholeheartedly supporting Voldemort--but since he must give that impression, and Harry is so ready to believe it, we will likely see more ambiguity (if not wilfull disbelief on Harry's part) leading to mishap. Possibly as I outline in #6. (6) Harry will confront Voldemort with Snape present. (6.a.) Harry will be unable to withstand Voldemort's mental abilities. (6.b.) Snape will have to mentally "shield" Harry at some point-- for only with help from someone as skilled as Snape would Harry be able to lie or even hold his own in a conversation with Voldemort (unless Harry's signed up for Kwikspell's Occlumency program over the summer). (6.c.) This will endanger not only Snape himself, but also the long-laid plans that require Voldemort to trust Snape. Either because (a) Voldemort detects Snape's action himself; or (b) Harry cannot bring himself to trust Snape and betrays him to Voldemort. I can see him doing it, either deliberately out of fury at Snape, or inadvertently, out of an inability to break his habit of resistance to Snape. (7) Regardless of whether it takes the shape I lay out in #6, Snape will be injured or otherwise damaged through some attempt to protect Harry, which Harry does not understand and therefore fights, causing it to go awry. A potential scenario is in If myIt may be the spell that Dumbledore's willing death could have been a part of (see #11 below). (8) Snape will die. All of his character looks backward. He gives me the impression of someone whose goals are not ahead, except to rectify mistakes made, and who does not care much if he dies in that attempt. He can't let the past go, because that's where he lives; I think he accepted long ago that the future holds only one task for him and nothing else, and so has made no effort to move past the past that defined that future. I personally think he will go heroically in some blaze of redemption, but he's toast. (9) Snape may or may not have been truly evil at various points in the books or their prehistory--but his final choice will be for the good. Harry will not believe this until in hindsight. Harry's not understanding will be part of what led to Snape's death. (10) Harry will learn why Dumbledore trusts Snape, from a memory Dumbledore left safely bottled in his office somewhere. (10.a.) Dumbledore did not tell Harry why, because he himself didn't know (because the memory wasn't in his head, it was in the bottle). (10.b.) Harry will immediately understand why Dumbledore didn't tell him in the first place; and immediately wish he still didn't know. (since he is such a liability where Legilimency is concerned). --OR-Harry will convince himself that Dumbledore had been fooled. (11) We will learn that Dumbledore's death was part of two things: --A plan-maybe not Plan A, but definitely one of the potentials, and Snape was adhering to Dumbledore's will as much as Harry had been when Harry fed him the potion. --A powerful spell, where a willing death was a component, which required Snape's action to complete. As I said in an earlier post: "I believe that, however Dumbledore dies, both Harry and Voldemort will *believe* that Snape is responsible. Snape will foster this belief in Voldemort; it will be an unfortunate conclusion drawn by Harry (who for whatever reason--Dumbledore's general lack of any desire to explain anything, a misunderstood conversation, a missed message, etc.--will not know or will refuse to believe that Snape did not do it). At this point, Snape and Dumbledore will have accomplished two key things: --Snape will have proven himself to Voldemort and will be reinstated with full DE honors or whatever, in the inner circle. Even if he wasn't in the Inner inner circle before, I think he will be now, because (a) Voldemort's followers have diminshed somewhat and (b) Snape now has a very useful position. --The spell, whatever it is, to which Dumbledore's death is integral, will have been completed (or nearly so). "These are key because Snape will now be in a *superb* position to implement or otherwise set in motion or effect, the spell. Having a tremendous spell ready is of no use at all, if the spell cannot be cast or implemented due to lack of access. Access is of no use without a weapon. Snape will have both the access and the means." (12) Harry will be brought to a literary parallel with Snape-he will be presented the opportunity Snape was, in the Shrieking Shack: to recognize that an object of hatred had been misunderstood and was, in actuality, following orders and as much a victim as himself. Much as Snape rejected the possibility of another view of Lupin, as another to whom Dumbledore's second chance meant the world--- Harry may reject the possibility of any other view of Snape than the one he so cherishes and defends. I don't know if Harry will completely fail, as Snape did-but I do think his hesitation will cause major problems, possibly Snape's demise. (12) Snape will have problems maintaining his own control, because of Dumbledore's death. I think Snape loved Dumbledore. Snape himself is young--old enough intellectually to accept what Dumbledore asked him to do, but facing problems of his own on the *emotional* level. He's already pretty unsteady there as it is. So Snape's own reactions to what happened will cause difficulties. I think that Dumbledore's death devastated Snape, for I believe that to Snape, as to Lupin, Dumbledore's trust has meant everything. And he cannot show it at all-leaving a lot of emotion behind a dam, ready to cause damage if it is breached. Say, by the weakening caused by having to protect a clueless boy during his confrontation with the Dark Lord. Especially if that clueless boy must be shielded because his knowledge of Dumbledore's plan must be hidden from Voldemort, lest the sacrifice Snape made in killing Dumbledore be wasted. Especially if he blames that clueless boy for Dumbledore's death (because I can see him blaming Harry, just as Harry blames Snape for Sirius' death). (13) Snape will remain Snape and operate on his own terms to the end. Whatever he does to save Harry or the cause, whenever he does it, he will do it in his particularly nasty and cruel manner, without one shred of softening at all. We will be denied any dewy-eyed scene of forgiveness. Snape cannot forgive himself for his past and for what he did to Dumbledore, and true Slytherin that he is, nobody else's forgiveness matters. (14) Harry will realize Snape's death as a loss, not a triumph. Snape is a father figure to Harry--one of the most reliable, in fact. He is all the negative aspects--the one who doesn't understand, who sets curfews, who isn't interested in explanations, who sets rules, who doesn't seem to care. The aspect that you hate. The one you do not appreciate until many years later--or when he is gone. And we don't have the luxury of "many years later" in this series (or indications are strong that we don't). ~Amandageist, old Snapologist References (newest to oldest): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/28778, August 2005, Re: Tink-Tink-Tink! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/134457, July 2005, What would convince Harry/canned memories http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/133732, July 2005, Reposted in hopes of new discussion: TBAY: Amanda Binns Explains It http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/129605, May 2005, The Geist Predicts, was Re: Admonishing Snape http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/80881, September 2003, Amanda Predicts Snape's future, was Snape history/future http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/47077, November 24, 2002, TBAY: Amanda Binns Explains It All (was loads of Snape stuff) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Mon May 28 21:27:46 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:27:46 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169418 > Hickengruendler: > > But that's not what happened, acording to Dumbledore. According to > Dumbledore, Snape came to him, because he regretted that the Potters > were targeted. Either Snape fooled Dumbledore or he was genuine, but > it was about the Potters, therefore Voldemort must have already made > his decision. > colebiancardi: and I am not sure that is what Dumbledore was saying either...DD stated that Snape had remorse and regretted that the Potter's were targeted, but I do not think that was the defining reason why Snape turned on LV and decided to come to DD in the long run. I think it was something else, something that we will hopefully find out in DH. colebiancardi From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 28 21:35:26 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:35:26 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169419 Carol responds: > I've wondered about this, too, and also why the DEs didn't react to > the presence of Wormtail/Peter, whom they thought dead. Dana: Well they do not react to Harry's presence right away either so I do not see there being a specific reason for them to react to Peter. They are all a little busy trying to safe their own butts from being punished for not having searched for their master. And from Snape's reaction in HBP they all know from each other who did not search for him and the only once who ever did where the Lestrange who were locked up in Azkaban and Barthy Crouch Jr who was also believed to be dead. They however do react to LV mentioning his most loyal servant being at Hogwarts while 4 in the spot of 6 are supposed to be dead (3 LV confirms), one is to cowardly to return and one is believed to have left forever. I was however wrong that DEs did not know each others assignments because Bella confirms that Snape was at Hogwarts on LV's orders in HBP (Spinner's End) when the Dark Lord fell. But the DEs clearly consider Snape to be a traitor for staying at Hogwarts after LV's downfall so I have no doubt that they assumed LV was referring to him as the one who left him forever (which I by the way do not doubt either). And LV never mentions the name of his most loyal DE and Barthy Crouch Jr. never returns to LV's side, while Snape does, but in HBP we still see that the DEs rumor about him being a traitor. So all seemed to know LV was not talking about Snape or Karkaroff but to me the reaction was because they knew who else was supposed to be in that gab and they believed he died in Azkaban. The 3 others died before LV's downfall, sure Karkaroff doesn't know Rosier is dead but he died just *after* his own capture but even Sirius heard about Wilkes as it was a year before LV's downfall and if the third is indeed Regulus then LV would have made that known to his DEs just to make an example out of him. To me there is still no indication that DEs did not know who was who or at least not within specific groups of DEs and too many do seem to know each other either from before they joined up or by family relations. There is also too many rumors flying around the DEs to assume that no rumors ever reached Snape's ears. Even Sirius knew about rumors that LV was somewhere in Albania and even Peter heard this and how he knew where to look. British rats could not have told Peter to go to Albania. And Snape lying to Bella about him believing LV to be finished says nothing because every single DE is using the same excuse. Lucius even has the nerve to tell it to LV himself. LV himself states that aurors were still searching for him there. Most DEs seemed content with LV being gone and so it does not specifically say anything about Snape's loyalties to DD. To be honest with you Snape loyalties actually do not specifically matter in the time LV was gone but I do believe Snape would go to any lengths to secure his own place and would not allowed anyone to compromise this, especially not one of the Marauders. Snape also seemed to have specifically secured that no one of the DEs could harm him if LV would indeed rise again and to me too it seems that Snape at least kept his old tie with Lucius and if Lucius did know about there reason LV targeted the Potters and did know LV was going there then Lucius in my opinion also knew who betrayed the Potters just like Bella did but in Bella's case JKR specifically stated that she was send to the Longbottom's and that she did not know about the prophecy and if Snape did not send her there as the one of the others in the know about the prophecy and who LV was going to target because of it then someone else knew and to me Lucius is the best candidate for that and if Lucius knew then he also knew who brought the prophecy to LV and therefore I believe that even if Snape did not know from LV directly that Wormtail was the spy and he did not know from these meetings then he surely was told by Lucius as yes I do speculate that it was Lucius who cleared the way for LV to get to the Potter as LV would not have done that part of the work himself. And I do not think Lucius would be too modest to wash himself of blame to everyone that wanted to here. And let's say that Bella wasn't at GH that night then someone told her about it being Peter just like someone told her to go after the Longbottom's. I have to correct one thing though Snape did not invite Peter to live with him as he specifically states that LV placed him with Snape to assist him. Which of course could lead to a whole knew line of speculation. Assist him in what? Was Snape going to bring a new pet to Hogwarts? Because Snape's holiday is soon to be over and he would not be home for Peter to assist him in anything. Anyway that is for another time. To me it is still not quite believable that DEs did not know each other or at least that those most trusted which include Bella and Lucius did not know who was who as we see in OotP and HBP groups of DEs are assigned to specific tasks and as we see at the World Cup DEs do not have a tendency to work alone. Snape in HBP does not call Wormtail Peter either and he wasn't at the graveyard to see LV refer to him like that and he knows Peter is Peter but he still refers to him in such a way. I know many people in my privet live that still go by the childhood nick names once given to them. Carol: > First, I think that only Bella and the Lestranges (IMO, the only DEs > arressted after Sirius Black) actually knew who Wormtail was > (whether or not they knew his nickname or that he was the spy, they > knew that he was the SK who, in their view, pretended to betray the > Potters in order to bring down Voldemort. They must have been the > ones Black heard screaming. Everyone else had been brought in > before GH. Dana: I agree but I believe that Snape and Lucius knew too. Bella did not know why LV wanted to target the Potters but I believe both Lucius and Snape did. And Bella's specific question to Snape where Snape was on that specific night seems to indicate to me that she expected Snape to be there even if she knew Snape was at Hogwarts at LV's orders. Lucius in OotP specifically asks Harry if he never wondered why LV tried to kill him as a baby and this was after LV found out Lucius racked his diary so I do not believe that he told Lucius afterwards why he wanted the prophecy or what it was about but that this information was already known to Lucius. Carol: > So maybe when LV refers to "Wormtail here," he's > introducing him (but still not revealing his identity, which he > hints at and which they may be able to piece together, but he gives > similar hints about his Horcruxes and it seems that the DEs don't > ask questions, except the one Lucius asks, craving to know the > story of the Dark Lord's miraculous return. Slippery Lucius knows > an acceptable question that will turn away the Dark Lord's wrath.) Dana: I think LV addressed those that were DEs for much longer and were "they, who knew" the steps he had taken and thus those who could have known the Dark Lord was not gone forever and thus should have looked for him. But even a worthless wizard as Wormtail could find LV by following the rumors. Carol: > I'm not sure why you think that Rookwood isn't a DE. Snape's role > as a DE, at least post-GoF, is as a spy. Why can't Rookwood be a DE > spy as well? (Macnair, too, is a Ministry employee, though I think > he'd rather be killing people than chopping heads off beasts.) Dana: Macnair according to LV himself was not a MoM employee when he was in LV's service, as he specifically states that Mcnair is *now* killing magical beast for the MoM. You're right Rookwood could have been a DE. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon May 28 21:42:45 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:42:45 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0705281442t46f84640l8b08e928b37962c5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169420 Lynda: My favorite Harry moments? Okay. 1. Harry at the zoo with the Dursleys on Dudley's birthday--love the whole scene with the snake. 2. Harry blowing Aunt Marge up. 3. Harry seeing his patronus for the first time 4. Harry saving Dudley from the dementors--to me, this shows his true capacity for love, to save someone who's never done a nice thing for him, has even treated him very badly from the time they've lived in the same house. 5. Oh yes! Let's not forget Harry and Cedric in the maze before the Goblet takes them to the graveyard--the battle of the good boys! Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon May 28 22:08:28 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 22:08:28 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169421 > Sherry: > how about some favorite Harry moments? Neri: Some favorite Harry moments: Harry just shaking his head when Molly attacks his hair with a wet comb and asks desperately "doesn't it ever lie flat?" To Draco on the Hogwarts Express, when Draco offers his help in defining the wrong sort of Wizarding families: "I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself". Harry in CoS, after his arm gets broken in Quidditch. To Colin: "I don't want a photo of this". To Lockhart trying to fix his arm: "I'll keep it that way, thanks " Harry's speech to Ron and Hermione in SS/PS: "Losing points doesn't matter anymore, can't you see? D'you think Voldemort will leave you and your families alone if Gryffindor win the House Cup?" Harry about Rita Skitter: "She can't keep writing about what a tragic little hero I am, it'll get boring She should've interviewed Snape. He'd give her the goods on me any day." (A favorite trio moment) In the Shrieking Shack -- Harry, Hermione and Ron (with his leg broken!) all expelliarmusing Snape simultaneously without consulting each other. In addition to the satisfying result I think it just shows what a great team they have become. Harry coming up with the idea to assign Kreacher and Dobby to tail Draco. Sometimes his thinking surprises me. Also Harry after Dumbledore refuses to take action about Draco, agreeing to go Horcrux-hunting but setting Ron and Hermione as a second line of defense without Dumbledore's knowledge. Even in hindsight it is difficult to think how he could have handled the situation better, and that was right after he had discovered about Dumbledore hiding Snape's involvement in his parents' death. Harry in Patronus lessons in PoA, realizing that he's failing because he half wants to keep hearing his parents' voices. "They're dead," he told himself sternly. "They're dead and listening to echoes of them won't bring them back. You'd better get a grip on yourself if you want that Quidditch Cup." Harry thinking privately that the only way he'd be visiting Myrtle's bathroom again is if every other toilet in the castle gets blocked. "Wangoballwime?" Neri, who thinks that a thread of favorite Ron moments would be even funnier. From ida3 at planet.nl Mon May 28 22:33:09 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 22:33:09 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169422 Hickengruendler: > Yes, I know. That's why I said "at the end of the First War". I > know that earlier they could have met, but don't forget that > Wormtail wasn't recruited that long before. It's not that he was > that long a Death Eater, I think he started spying around a year > before Godric's Hollow, and it's not sure that he participated in > the DE Meetings, in the beginning. Dana: Him having a specific place in the circle seem to indicate he did and him having a dark mark and not merely used as outside spy indicates he was there when LV had something important to share with his DEs. I do not forget that Wormtail was already working as a spy for a whole year and that the Potters only hid behind the Fidelius Charm one week before Wormtail let LV to them. Hickengruendler: > We don't know, when Voldemort decided this. If Peter became a spy > around a year prior to Godric's Hollow, than Harry was already > born. Therefore, theoretically Voldemort could have made his > decision already. There's nothing in Canon, that contradicts this, > because we don't know, when e exactly Voldemort decided Harry was > the one. Snape started teaching after Slughorn retired, therefore > we can't give the day of his hiring as a fix date for when he came > to Dumbledore with this information. Dana: Yes, we do because it was specifically stated in PoA that one of DD's helpful spies told DD, LV was going to target the Potters and that DD suggested the Fidelius because of this information and it was only one week after the charm was in place that Peter gave the secret to LV. Peter had access to the Potters before that time so why would LV wait if he had already decided who to target until they are safely hidden behind the charm. So LV had not made up his mind before that time or he would have gone after the Potters sooner. A year is a long time and although the Potters were in hiding probably before that time LV did not need the SK to get to them. LV did not wait so that Peter could provide him with the information about the secret to protect Peter being the spy because without it, no one would have ever known who the spy was because everybody knowing the Potters location could have revealed it then. LV would not have needed Peter for that. It doesn't matter when DD hired Snape he wasn't at Hogwarts until the next year started and so he was free to attend DE meetings when ever he liked. I was not referring to Snape as starting spying at the time he began teaching at Hogwarts as this has been discussed before and Snape being at Hogwarts does not prevent him to be in contact with LV during OotP or HBP either but it is irrelevant because Snape wasn't at Hogwarts long before LV met his downfall at GH and if he started at the new semester he was actually working only 2 months at Hogwarts as the new term starts on 1 of September and LV went to the Potters on Halloween night. So Snape was free to go to every single DE meeting. Hickengruendler: > Yes, possibly. But that still doesn't prove, that Lucius Malfoy had > anything to do with it, because there are countless other possible > Death eaters, and because it is unlikely that Malfoy knew Wormtail > well enough. If you are going with evil Snape (which I don't, as > you know ;-) ) it seems more likely to me, that he himself > recruited Wormtail, since he knew the Marauders and their possible > weaknesses. I find this much more plausible than bringing Lucius > Malfoy into the mix, because the so called connection between him > and Wormtail seems pure guesswork to me. Dana: As I stated I believe it was Lucius and he used information he got from Snape. The reason I believe it was no one other then Lucius is because he specifically states in OotP that he knows why LV went after Harry while JKR specifically stated Bella did not. JKR never introduced other powerful DEs that where involved in this specific issue. Snape doesn't seem like the recruiting kind, he is not social enough to do that Snape is about gathering information and I believe Snape was not included in anything to do with the prophecy besides him bringing it to LV because LV had sent him to spy on DD. I believe Snape heard through Lucius how LV interpreted the prophecy and when LV made up his mind which family he was going to pick. Lucius might not have mentioned to Snape at first why he wanted information on the inner circle of the Potters when Snape gave him info. There are a million of possibilities here but I have no doubt that it was Lucius that was in the lead of gathering information on the Potters and the Longbottom's and that it was him that send Bella and her gang after the Longbottom's and therefore to me it is not stretch to think LV knew Wormtail was the spy and the SK and if he knew this then to me it is not hard to believe that even if Snape did not know before that he was told after. Hickengruendler: > But according to Dumbledore Snape came to him with the regret, that > Voldemort targeted James and Lily, and it was *then*, when he > started his work as a spy, If this was a week prior to Godric's > Hollow, there simply was not any time for Snape to do some actual > work as a spy. Dana: No, that is not what DD stated he stated that Snape regretted the way LV interpreted the prophecy and it including people that Snape knew. That doesn't mean that LV already made up his mind that it was going to be the Potters, there was still a chance LV was going to target the Longbottom's. Snape learning about this information could have given him an entrance to DD as he knew DD was aware that he heard part of the prophecy and he was under orders from LV to spy on DD anyway but it could very well be that Snape already was motivated by the debt in case LV was indeed going to pick the Potters and then when he indeed did Snape did tell DD and why DD suggested the Fidelius to them. Snape was loyal to LV enough to bring him the prophecy and it takes him at least 9 months to start regretting it and only then does he go to DD. After LV had decided it could only be two families because only their kids fitted the part LV had of the prophecy. To me this still indicates that Snape was motivated to go to DD only because it included James's family and the debt he owed James and to me his actions in PoA where he blames both Sirius and James himself indicate to me too that Snape blamed them because they racked his chance to get rid of that annoying debt and his actions towards Harry do not indicate Snape regretted James being dead as a result of information he brought LV as DD suggest he came to him for in the first place and no neither do I see any sign of guilt that Lily died as a result to because you would not treat their son in such away if you truly feel guilty. JMHO Hickengruendler: > But that's not what happened, acording to Dumbledore. According to > Dumbledore, Snape came to him, because he regretted that the > Potters were targeted. Either Snape fooled Dumbledore or he was > genuine, but it was about the Potters, therefore Voldemort must > have already made his decision. According to Snape himself he went to DD on LV's orders and Bella confirms this. And canon does not suggest that LV already had made up his mind just that both the Potters and the Longbottom's fitted the content of the prophecy. Also LV's actions do not suggest that he already had made up his mind because he already had a spy for a whole year that could have directed him to the Potters at any time he wanted but it is specifically suggested that LV made up his mind right before the fidelius charm was put in place and not before. And sure I have no problem with the suggestion that Snape was not longer a spy for DD then right before he told DD this but canon suggests that he was a spy for DD longer as the Potters went in to hiding long before LV targeted them and so did the Longbottom's although not much information is given about them. JMHO Dana From rklarreich at aol.com Mon May 28 22:58:43 2007 From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 22:58:43 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments?/Wolfsbane In-Reply-To: <2795713f0705281442t46f84640l8b08e928b37962c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169423 I'll limit myself to 10, in no particular order. All quotes are from memory: 1. "Nice to keep these things private" as Peeves zooms off shouting "Potty luuuuuuuuurves Loooooooooony!!!!" 2. The entire scene of Harry on Felix, but especially this exchange: "I am the Chosen One," said Harry. "I have to kill him. I need that memory." "You *are* the Chosen One?" gasped Slughorn. "Of course I am," said Harry calmly. 3. Pretty much all of Harry as DA teacher, especially: "Nice one," said Harry encouragingly [to Neville], thinking it best not to point out that in a real duel his opponent was unlikely to be looking away with his wand hanging limply at his side. 4. "His eyes are as green as a fresh pickled toad." 5. Harry half wanting to talk about kissing Cho and half wanting to carry the secret with him to the grave. 6. The short scene where Krum vants to know vot there is between Harry and Hermioninny. 7. In the broom closet with Rita Skeeter. 8. Harry deflecting a curse aimed at Sirius in the DoM and Sirius shouting "Nice one!" This is their last moment together; I'm glad it's a good one, though brief. 9. Harry wiping the notorious trickle of blood from Dumbledore's cheek. 10. "Wangoballwime?" Also, not exactly a favorite moment, but it made me smile: Harry doubting, in the days following Dumbledore's death, that he will ever feel curious again. Yeah, RIGHT, Harry! *** I just want to add a quick response to Catlady's post on Wolfsbane Potion. She wrote: <> Roberta now: Here's what it says on the bottle: WOLFSBANE POTION Active ingredient: Wolfsbane Inactive ingredients: toad guts, beetle eyes, cockroaches, pickled herring, dragon liver, marmite Dosage: 1 gobletful daily for one week prior to full moon. Special instructions: Do not dilute or add sweetener. Rinse mouth thoroughly after each dose. Warning: This medicine WILL NOT stop a transformation once one has started. Hope that helps. And in case you're wondering, I don't take this potion myself; I was just picking up a prescription for a friend. Roberta From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon May 28 22:59:54 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 22:59:54 -0000 Subject: The Geist predicts again, mostly about Snape In-Reply-To: <3FDCF4D2088C4654982F06D47F85D363@AmandaPC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169424 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > (7) Regardless of whether it takes the shape I lay out in #6, Snape will be > injured or otherwise damaged through some attempt to protect Harry, which > Harry does not understand and therefore fights, causing it to go awry. A > potential scenario is in If myIt may be the spell that Dumbledore's willing > death could have been a part of (see #11 below). > > > (8) Snape will die. All of his character looks backward. He gives me the > impression of someone whose goals are not ahead, except to rectify mistakes > made, and who does not care much if he dies in that attempt. He can't let > the past go, because that's where he lives; I think he accepted long ago > that the future holds only one task for him and nothing else, and so has > made no effort to move past the past that defined that future. I personally > think he will go heroically in some blaze of redemption, but he's toast. > > > > (9) Snape may or may not have been truly evil at various points in the > books or their prehistory--but his final choice will be for the good. > Harry will not believe this until in hindsight. Harry's not understanding > will be part of what led to Snape's death. > > > (12) Harry will be brought to a literary parallel with Snape-he will be > presented the opportunity Snape was, in the Shrieking Shack: to recognize > that an object of hatred had been misunderstood and was, in actuality, > following orders and as much a victim as himself. Much as Snape rejected > the possibility of another view of Lupin, as another to whom Dumbledore's > second chance meant the world--- Harry may reject the possibility of any > other view of Snape than the one he so cherishes and defends. I don't know > if Harry will completely fail, as Snape did-but I do think his hesitation > will cause major problems, possibly Snape's demise. > > (14) Harry will realize Snape's death as a loss, not a triumph. Snape is a > father figure to Harry--one of the most reliable, in fact. He is all the > negative aspects--the one who doesn't understand, who sets curfews, who > isn't interested in explanations, who sets rules, who doesn't seem to care. > The aspect that you hate. The one you do not appreciate until many years > later--or when he is gone. And we don't have the luxury of "many years > later" in this series (or indications are strong that we don't). wynnleaf Much of your reasoning makes a lot of sense. However, there's a big piece here which I feel JKR may avoid. Many readers think that Harry will only discover Snape's loyalty *after* Snape has died sacrificially for the cause - most likely to protect Harry. We *know* that the two will confront each other again because JKR has said that the level of Harry's more personal hatred is important for when they meet again. Therefore, many speculate that Harry's hatred for Snape will ultimately lead to a situation where his distrust and hatred causes Snape to die while protecting Harry or otherwise serving the cause. The problem. This leaves Harry at the end of the series the protagonist of a major tragedy. And I really don't think JKR wants the story to end up a tragedy. If we already know good characters will die, why would Snape's dying sacrificially for Harry, and Harry learning *later* of Snape's loyalty, turn the whole series into a tragedy when all those other deaths didn't do that? Although not always stated explicitly, we know that Harry has a certain amount of guilt feelings for the various deaths so far in the series. Harry's guilt for the deaths is sometimes completely misplaced, and sometimes only mostly misplaced, but he does appear to feel guilt. Harry told Cedric to grab the TriWizard Cup with him and Cedric then died. Harry, in spite of "knowing" that he'd "never do anything" to lure Sirius out of Grimmauld Place, in fact fell prey to Voldemort's trick and inadvertently led Sirius to his death, not to mention leading friends and Order members to serious injury. On Dumbledore's orders, Harry force-fed him potions that left Dumbledore weak and sick at the time of his confrontation with Draco, the Death Eaters, and Snape, ultimately leading to Dumbledore's death. Harry has already participated in the deaths of several people for whose deaths he feels, or will likely feel in book 7, varying degrees of guilt. Now we have the possibility that he will be almost *directly* responsible for yet another loyal person's death -- yet another person who is trying to protect or support him in some way. In the scenario you present, Harry is left once again with someone dying to protect him. But now it's *even worse* because now the person died due to Harry's own personal, misplaced hatred for that person. Harry gets to discover that not only is he partly responsible for the person's death (as he feels in part responsible for the earlier deaths), he gets to find out that in fact it was primarily his own hate and distrust that led to the death. Making Snape's death as tragic as you suggest makes Harry's situation at the end of the series far *more* tragic. In fact, if we see Snape as a sort of negative father figure (and I think you're right there), then Harry's partial responsibility becomes a kind of patricide, something Harry's already got with the guilt of his part in Sirius and Dumbledore's deaths. And the worst part is, there is now no way for Harry to work his way out of this guilt, because now the book series is at its end. Harry can't "reclaim" his part, his "innocence," from any of those deaths. He has no major events left through which to work his way through the guilt. He just gets to learn more, through Dumbledore's memories or some other method, of just how tragic this death was and how misplaced his hate. His guilt can only increase. With this scenario, we're almost left with a sort of reverse Lear sort of situation -- Harry finding that all that misplaced hatred for this negative father-figure hate caused so much tragedy. And how can Harry learn and grow from this? That's a big problem because this kind of story depends on Harry learning and growing. Yes, Harry can posthumously forgive Snape, but he how's he going to posthumously deal with the guilt? I've said in the past that forgiving a dead person is a heck of a lot easier than forgiving a living person who is right there in front of you. But more than that, if Harry is able to forgive Snape and learn of his loyalty while he's alive, then a sacrificial death by Snape at the end can symbolize a sort of victory. Harry isn't burdened by the greater guilt of hating and mistrusting someone to their death. And Harry can then move on toward the future -- that epilogue we keep hearing that JKR wrote. What I hope to see is Harry learning of Snape's loyalty *before* Snape dies for Harry, and forgiving Snape then -- that tough forgiveness of someone you actually have to learn to trust. In this scenario, Harry actually grows and matures while there's still time to change, and enough events left in the book to effect that change. Then perhaps Snape may die sacrificially, but it won't add to Harry's guilt. wynnleaf From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 23:00:37 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:00:37 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169425 zanooda: All my favorite moments seem to be already "taken", but I also like this: "Dumbledore's man through and through, aren't you, Potter?" "Yeah, I am. Glad we straightened that out". From kat7555 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 21:30:43 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:30:43 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169426 Sherry wrote: > > Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? Here are my favorite Harry moments. When Harry learns that he is a wizard and his anger at the Dursleys for lying to him in Sorcerer's Stone. Harry freeing Dobby at the end of the Chamber of Secrets and his outwitting Tom Riddle in the Chamber. Harry attempting to give his winnings from the Triwizard tournament to the Diggorys. Harry's deep grief at Sirius's death. Harry vow that he wants to defeat Voldemort regardless of the prophecy in HBP. Kathy Kulesza From carylcb at hotmail.com Mon May 28 22:06:05 2007 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (Caryl Brown) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 18:06:05 -0400 Subject: favorite Harry moments? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169427 My first favorite Harry moment is when he and Ron are getting acquainted and Harry is so NOT full of his own celebrity: ******************* SS/PS US version p.98-99 "Are you really Harry Potter?" Ron blurted out. Harry nodded. "And have you really got you know..." He pointed at Harry's forehead. Harry pulled back his bangs to show the lightning scar. "Are all your family wizards?" asked Harry, who found Ron just as interesting as Ron found him... *************** And the second is when Harry unselfishly shares his newfound wealth with Ron: ******************* SS/PS US version p.101-102 Around half past twelve there was a great clattering outside in the corridor and a smiling, dimpled woman slid back their door and said, Anything off the cart, dears? Harry, who hadnt had any breakfast, leapt to his feet, but Rons ears went pink again and he muttered that hed brought sandwiches. Ron stared as Harry brought it all back in to the compartment and tipped it onto an empty seat. Hungry, are you?" Starving, said Harry, taking a large bite out of a pumpkin pasty. Ron had taken out a lumpy package and unwrapped it. There were four sandwiches inside. He pulled one of them apart and said, She always forgets I dont like corned beef. Swap you for one of these, said Harry, holding up a pasty. Go on You dont want this, its all dry, said Ron. She hasnt got much time, he added quickly, you know, with five of us. Go on, have a pasty, said Harry, who had never had anything to share before or, indeed, anyone to share it with. It was a nice feeling, sitting there with Ron, eating their way through all Harrys pasties, cakes, and candies (the sandwiches lay forgotten) *********** clcb58 _________________________________________________________________ Catch suspicious messages before you open themwith Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507 From dragondancer357 at yahoo.com Mon May 28 22:27:28 2007 From: dragondancer357 at yahoo.com (Anna) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 22:27:28 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169428 Many of my favorite Harry moments have been mentioned already, such as his spontaneous smart-talking Snape to his noble actions of saving his enemy Wormtail and feeling compassion/pity for his nemeses to bringing Dumbledore back from the cave, but I think I can add a few: 1. All the sessions with Lupin, learning to make a Patronus. I admire his determination. Knowing how difficult and advanced magic Lupin says it is, Harry is discouraged only a little and he persists. 2. Threatening George and Fred that if they don't accept his winnings, he'd hex them. I laughed -- he does know some good ones now! I also had a feeling their stuff would come in handy in the War, like the line of shield stuff they come up with later. 3. Harry getting some attitude at the beginning of OotP. Jo has that frustrated teenage boy personality just bang on! I could hardlly stop laughing as he kept smarting Dudley. 4. Harry's forceful insisting that Arthur Weasley is fatally injured in OotP, and his difficulty to make the Hogwarts staff understand him/take him seriously. Then feeling simultaneously relieved that Mr. Weasley will recover and very awkward when the family thanks him profusely. Also in HPB when he kept telling Ron and Hermione about Malfoy, and ended up being right. It takes a lot of gumption to hold to something when no one around you will support it. 5. Harry fights within himself about his feelings for Ginny, being Ron's sister in HBP. And my GOD that kiss!!! *sigh* yeah, I'm a hopeless romantic, I love sappy moments. Overall, I LOVE how he develops as a character throughout the books, from a scared, naive boy thrust into another world to the brave, noble hero at 16. And he's already got the girl! Anna, who is LOVING this thread. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon May 28 23:44:15 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:44:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's Training In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169429 --- "sylviampj" wrote: > > --- "Jo (Joanna)" wrote: > > ... > > Something struck me in book 6 which I think I > > thought about the first time but not so strongly.>>> > > Dear Jo, (from Sylvia) > > This is an interesting post. I too have been re-reading > HBP recently and one thing struck me, - ... At the > beginning of HBP when DD fetches Harry from the > Dursleys' he says: > > 'I do not think you need worry about being attacked > tonight.' > 'Why not sir?' > 'You are with me' said Dumbledore simply. > > Then at the end of the chapter 26 when they are > emerging from the water after obtaining the (false) > Horcrux Harry says: > 'It's going to be all right, sir.... we're nearly > there...I can Apparate us both back..don't worry.. > > 'I am not worried, Harry'said Dumbledore, his voice a > little stronger despite the freezing water. 'I am with > you'. > > It's like a reversal of roles and I sometimes wonder > whether, just as Voldemort marked Harry as his equal > by transferring some of his powers to him, so DD has > somehow managed to transfer some of his extraordinary > powers to Harry, knowing (as I believe he does) that > he is shortly going to die. > bboyminn: I don't think Dumbledore is transferring power to Harry, I think he is transferring knowledge and wisdom. He, by example, is showing Harry that he needs to deal with these problems in a thoughtful and knowledgeable way. and not just go blundering off as Harry has done in the past. I think this is part of Harry's growing up process. He needs to continue to be brave and courageous, but he also needs to apply thought and analysis. Dumbledore has also demonstrated the kinds of skill, both analytical and practical, that Harry will need if he is to succeed. > Sylvia: > > Throughout the six books Harry never rates his own > powers as a wizard as being particularly remarkable. > ... > ... > I've come to think that he simply modest and is in > fact a much more powerful wizard than he realises. > ... > > Sylvia. > bboyminn: I certainly agree that Harry is much more powerful than he thinks he is and more powerful than he has demonstrated so far. But 'power' isn't the problem; what Harry needs is skill in order to apply the power he has. Harry could be the most powerful wizard in the world, but untrained, that power is not worth much. As it just so happens in every area where Harry needs to refine his power by increasing his skill, he just happens to have an expert available to him. Now all we have to do is convince Harry to trust these people, and bring them in to help him. Bill Weasley - does for a living, and does quite well, exactly what Dumbledore did in the cave. Mad-Eye Moody - the best Auror who ever lived. He certainly has a range of skill to pass on to Harry. Lupin, the Weasley's, Tonks, they all have something to contribute. But, the big question is, will Harry reach out to them. I say he will, though one at a time and slowly. Right now Harry only trusts Ron and Hermione, but he range of trust has to expand beyond that if he has any hope of succeeding. I think that is what Dumbledore taught Harry, wisdom and maturity. Harry will initially feel that he can't tell anyone anything because he promised Dumbledore he wouldn't. But he will eventually realize that he can tell some people just enough for them to know how to help Harry. Regardless of what Dumbledore said, that is what Dumbledore did. He told people only what he thought they needed to know and only when he thought they needed to know it. Harry will discover this form of guarded selective truth, and figure out how to make it work for him. I even Harry visions of Harry approaching the Ministry in a way that allows Harry to hold all the card. In a sense, you tell me(Harry) everything I need to know and allow me access to every available resource, and in return, I will tell you(the Ministry) what I think you need to know when I think you need to know it, and if that bargain doesn't appeal to you, then I will take my case to the people, and we'll see how long your career last when the world knows what a bumbling idiot you are. Hard to say if it will happen, but I really want it to happen just like that. I want Harry to take charge and not be intimidate by anyone, and not let anyone deter him from his objective. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 00:12:55 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo (Joanna)) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 00:12:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's Training In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169430 bboyminn said: "I don't think Dumbledore is transferring power to Harry, I think he is transferring knowledge and wisdom. He, by example, is showing Harry that he needs to deal with these problems in a thoughtful and knowledgeable way. and not just go blundering off as Harry has done in the past. I think this is part of Harry's growing up process. He needs to continue to be brave and courageous, but he also needs to apply thought and analysis. Dumbledore has also demonstrated the kinds of skill, both analytical and practical, that Harry will need if he is to succeed. Sylvia said: "Throughout the six books Harry never rates his own powers as a wizard as being particularly remarkable. I've come to think that he simply modest and is in fact a much more powerful wizard than he realises." bboyminn said: "I certainly agree that Harry is much more powerful than he thinks he is and more powerful than he has demonstrated so far. But 'power' isn't the problem; > what Harry needs is skill in order to apply the power he has. Harry could be the most powerful wizard in the world, but untrained, that power is not worth much. As it just so happens in every area where Harry needs to refine his power by increasing his skill, he just happens to have an expert available to him. Now all we have to do is convince Harry to trust these people, and bring them in to help him." Jo says: I really wish that when they were in the cave and DD had sensed the magic he had said something like "do you feel that cold shiver up your spine Harry? That tells you magic has been here before". I'm just making up how he might have felt the magic but hopefully you will understand what I mean. I suppose that was just DD's way - let Harry find the answers and he will be much more effective in the end rather than telling someone the answer. I agree that he has never rated himself and I suppose that is because he has never had much positive reinforcement - he is put down a lot. I know there is a question over whether DD knew he was going to die or not. If he did I wish he had told Harry who he should seek help from too. I suppose though ultimately it makes the wait for the next book much more exciting because there are so many unanswered questions. Jo (waiting anxiously for the 21st July). From jr_pumpkin at yahoo.com Tue May 29 00:33:02 2007 From: jr_pumpkin at yahoo.com (jr_pumpkin) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 00:33:02 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169431 > Sherry: > Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? My favorite moment is also one of the saddest, IMO. I love the two scenes with DD in HBP where they are side-along apparating. When DD changes from "You are with me" to "I am with you." Knowing what comes next gives me chills when I read this line now. Crawling back into Lurkdom, jr_pumpkin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 00:53:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 00:53:50 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: <380-220075128193656562@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169432 Magpie wrote: The Trio knows what happened to Montague, and they don't think it's suspicious that he's still befuddled from being in the broken Vanishing Cabinet. No one else thinks it's odd either. Montague wasn't shut in a Cabinet, he was sent into a limbo world, floating back and forth. > > That doesn't mean, of course, that we couldn't learn that the befuddlement was actually the result of some sort of foul play, but there's no evidence of it so far--I don't think we can take the befuddlement as evidence that foul play was involved just because we, as readers who know nothing about magical injuries anyway, don't think it's possible. Nobody else has ever experienced what Montague has. > > More importantly, there's never any indication from anyone that Montague has lost his memory once he comes out of it, since he tells everyone, eventually, what happened to him. What Montague says happened is validated in HBP when Draco bases his plan on what happened to Montague, as reported by Montague himself. > We're not told the Apparition caused the befuddlement. We are told that apparently a day and a half in limbo *is* enough to cause befuddlement, perhaps when there's also a quasi-Apparition escape into a non-Apparition zone out of it. I wouldn't automatically say Montague should be confused after that experience, but it also makes sense to me that he would be since the point is the Cabinet is broken and he is in limbo. It's like if a character were stuck in another dimension for a day and a half--sure that could cause long-term confusion. > > We're also given another reason his confusion lasts so long: nobody knows what happened to him except people who aren't telling. If he was actually found in the toilet, which is the only information we have, no one would connect him to the Cabinets at all. Apparition is impossible in Hogwarts, but so is coming out of the Vanishing Cabinet when it's broken. According to what we know Montague wasn't able to come out of the Cabinets because one was broken. > > I don't see any independent evidence that he was being befuddled afterwards by Pomfrey or by Snape, Potion aside. There's no signs of Snape interfering there, eventually Montague tells his story, and what is Snape's motive for keeping him befuddled for several weeks? Not to keep the Cabinet story secret, since it isn't secret to the Slytherins and on the contrary it potentially is a secret to Snape. > The Befuddlement Potions definitely interested me too--and I well remembered Montague's longterm confusion because it shocked me at the time. I do expect that Potion might be coming up later in some way. If it was given to Montague I'd want to know why we didn't see him acting hot-headed and reckless. > > For Snape, there's no pressing reason for him to end the Occlumency lessons we know of, and his behavior indicates true anger and humiliation at what Harry saw, imo. As I've said before, I find it hard to believe that Snape would intentionally let Harry see him in his underwear. It was also incredibly convenient that Umbridge and Draco happened to discover Montague and send for Snape at just the right moment. > > Suggesting that Snape doesn't want Dumbledore to find out about the Cabinets opens an even bigger can of worms. An important element of HBP both thematically and technically is that Draco is the only one who knows what the Cabinets mean--a way into Hogwarts. Snape doesn't know what he's up to there. > > Draco himself tells us that everyone heard the story from Montague, so Draco isn't hiding the information from anybody either. He listened to the story along with other people but only he realized that it meant fixing the Vanishing Cabinet meant having a portal into Hogwarts from B&B. > Carol responds: I agree with everything in this post. Let me just reiterate the points I agree with a few additions of my own. Snape had no known reason to end the Occlumency lessons, which had been interrupted before (Trelawney's screams) and resumed. In fact, the last thing Snape does before he leaves to help Montague is reschedule the lesson. Snape doesn't know that the Vanishing Cabinets form a link between Hogwarts and Borgin and Burkes. Only Draco figures that out, and he uses it to bring in back-up DEs in HBP. But Snape doesn't know about that aspect of the plan, only that Voldemort has assigned Draco to kill Dumbledore. Draco uses his newly learned Occlumency to keep him from finding out. Until Montague tells his Slytherin friends that he was trapped in limbo between Hogwarts and B&B, no one even knows that he was in the Vanishing Cabinet (except, of course, the Twins and their friends, who don't bother to tell Madam Pomfrey this important information). Draco doesn't even tell his Slytherin cronies, Crabbe and Goyle, that he's fixing the Vanishing Cabinet in HBP. Neither they nor Snape know what he's up to in HBP. They just think, as the other Slytherin kids do, that Montague's adventure was an entertaining story. There's no hint that Snape is involved in the treatment of Montague at all. I'm not even sure that he prepares the potions for Madam Pomfrey in HBP since he's no longer the potions master. And surely, she would know a Befuddlement Potion when she saw one, not only from its effects but from its appearance. She probably doesn't brew her own potions, but she still needs to know which potion to administer and what its properties are. She's not going to let Snape (or Slughorn) diagnose her patients for her (unless there's Dark magic involved and she needs Snape's expertise) any more than Snape would let Lockhart brew the Mandrake Restorative Potion for him. And to be a Healer, Madam Pomfrey would have had to score high on her Potions NEWT. Whatever that blue potion is, she knows exactly what it is and why she's giving it. And, as Magpie says, there's no indication that Montague, once he recovers, has forgotten what happened to him or that he's behaving in a reckless way like that described as being the effect of a Befuddlement Draught. A day and a half in limbo followed by a supposedly impossible Apparition (by a kid who probably only recently passed his Apparition test) might be enough in itself to cause befuddlement of the type he does suffer. I'm not sure that the anti-Apparition rule was fully in effect because he was technically already in Hogwarts, or, at least, the broken cabinet was. So between the broken cabinet and that anti-Apparition spell, he ended up in the last place he wanted to be--stuck, presumably headfirst, in a toilet. And that, my friends, would be enough to make *anyone* suffer from befuddlement or PTST or whatever he was suffering from. He's lucky he didn't drown. Carol, who BTW meant the Longbottoms, not the Lestranges, in her sign-off for her previous post! From twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 00:52:15 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo (Joanna)) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 00:52:15 -0000 Subject: Could Sirius Still Be Alive? In-Reply-To: <07e601c79df1$e08dff70$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169433 Lauren wrote: Sirius slipped through a veil but I wonder if he died or just is lost, maybe to find his way back? Kathy Kulesza wrote: Unfortunately Sirius is dead. JK Rowling stated that she cried when she killed him off. I also think Sirius would have found a way to contact Harry if he were alive. I'd love see some type of reunion between the two of them similar to characters in Greek mythology meeting in Hades. Jo writes: I have always hoped that Sirius was "dead" so that in some way he would return and Harry would have the relationship he deserved with his Godfather. However, JKR's comment about how she had cried when she killed him off makes me think that maybe he is gone forever! I wonder what the significance of the mirror is. What was the point of that being smashed at the end? Was it symbolic - confirming there would be no further contact with Sirius? Or was it just a stark reminder that if Harry had not knee jerked when he thought Sirius was in danger he had the tools to hand to check without endangering either of their lives? I would like Sirius to return but I would also like DD to return and I would like Harry to live happily ever after and for no-one else to die. Me thinks I am not going to get everything that I want! Jo. From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue May 29 01:12:24 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 18:12:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Sirius Still Be Alive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169434 Jo writes: I have always hoped that Sirius was "dead" so that in some way he would return and Harry would have the relationship he deserved with his Godfather. However, JKR's comment about how she had cried when she killed him off makes me think that maybe he is gone forever! Sherry now: The fact that JKR cried when she killed him off isn't convincing proof to me that he won't come back. She could have cried from the sheer emotion of the scene, the effect on Harry, the effect on the fans, any number of things. She has often said that dead means dead, so though I have a little hope for Sirius, I don't let myself have too much. The only way I could see around it would be if he isn't really dead but is in some sort of in between place where he will have to choose to come back or to move on. I want Harry to have Sirius back in his life, the person his parents chose to be his godfather and guardian, the connection to his parents. I just try not to think about it too much, so I won't be disappointed. Sherry From celizwh at intergate.com Tue May 29 01:28:23 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 01:28:23 -0000 Subject: What did Snape know, and When did he know it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169435 Dana earlier: > The DEs come in and they take a specific place in > the circle, they form around LV, leaving gaps that > should contain DEs that are missing, like they were > expecting more still to come. Of course one could > state that people were just told were to stand without > knowing the identity of the people standing next to > them but to me this still gives a problem. Dana: > Him having a specific place in the circle seem to > indicate he did and him having a dark mark and not > merely used as outside spy indicates he was there > when LV had something important to share with his DEs. houyhnhnm: After re-reading the chapter and thinking it over, I find that I am not ready to concede as established fact a formal protocol of position in Death Eater circles. They apparated all over the place, then crawled on their knees one by one to kiss the hem of Voldemort's robes, backed away and stood up. This sounds haphazard to me. Nothing is said about wizards criss-crossing the circle, jockeying into position, switching places, as you would see with a group of, say, choristers seeking out their assigned positions on a set of risers. They just backed away and formed a silent circle. If they were used to a certain number of Death Eaters showing up, then they would automatically form a circle with a certain radius (I'm sure most of them weren't eager to be any closer to Voldemort than they had to--Look what happened to Avery). They would leave gaps because they were expecting others to come (or hoping). I mean they would be counting, rather than looking for specific individual. They only closed ranks once Voldemort had turned his attention to Harry. As for Rowling's writing that Wormtail "took his place in the circle", to me that just sounds like idiomatic English. I mean, how else would you say it? You could say "he joined the circle" I suppose. If I were were describing someone joining a circle, I think I might say "took his place in" without necessarily meaning the person had an assigned position. Like you might say s/he took her/his seat. It's his or her seat after they take it, right? Wormtail took *his* position because it was his after he took it. It just seems like a natural way to say it to me. From bawilson at citynet.net Tue May 29 01:10:42 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:10:42 -0400 Subject: (Very Rambling) Responses to Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169436 "Montavilla47: You're making me laugh, Magpie, because you're reminding me of the ridiculous job Hermione did in trying to pump Burke (or was it Borgin) for information about Malfoy. She really is the world's worst spy, isn't she? Although Harry's bright idea to infiltrate the train compartment is right up there." Harry was Muggle-raised and Hermione was Muggle-born. While in both cases it gives them strengths that they can 'think outside the box' (Hermione more than Harry), but it also gives them weaknesses in that there are some 'everybody knows' things in the WW. No Wizardling-raised kid would think that an Invisibility Cloak would provide absolute immunity for eavesdropping, and such a kid might well think through the magical protections on the DA contract a bit more thoroughly. 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 twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 01:28:35 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo (Joanna)) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 01:28:35 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169437 Anna wrote: Rereading HBP, just past the part when Dumbledore shows Harry the TRUE memory of Slughorn, young Voldemort, and their conversation about Horcruxes, I still don't understand something: Slughorn says that killing someone splits your soul, and that with said piece of soul, you can create a Horcrux. Well, what about all the Aurors and others who killed in the numerous battles between "good" and the forces of Voldemort. If they (the Aurors) killed dark wizards and such when trying to capture them, for example, aren't their souls split as well? I mean, does the mere act of killing someone -- anyone -- split the soul, or is the soul only split when one does a particulary nasty/evil murder, or has the concious intention of creating a Horcrux? Voldemort did countless murders, yet he only supposedly created 6 Horcruxes. Do you think his soul is really split into a hundred-some-odd pieces? Any ideas? Thanks. Jo writes: I relate this to the difference between someone who murders another person and how would be arrested / tried in court / sent to prison compared with someone in the army, during a war, who kills an enemy soldier. The soldier is doing his or her job and this is not considered a crime. Using this analogy Voldemort would be a murderer but the aurors would be soldiers in a war. Jo. From juli17 at aol.com Tue May 29 01:51:20 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:51:20 EDT Subject: favorite Harry moments? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169438 > Sherry: > Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? jr_pumpkin wrote: My favorite moment is also one of the saddest, IMO. I love the two scenes with DD in HBP where they are side-along apparating. When DD changes from "You are with me" to "I am with you." Knowing what comes next gives me chills when I read this line now. Julie: This is one of my favorite Harry moments too. Many others have been mentioned, so I'll just say that I like Harry best when he is acting like Dumbledore. When he faces challenges and threats calmly even though he's terrified inside (Triwizard tournament, the Graveyard), when he feels empathy even for his "enemies," and when he acts mercifully (stopping Sirius and Lupin from killing Peter), when he makes a promise and nothing will stop him from honoring it (taking back Cedric's body), when he refuses to compromise his values (insisting he is Dumbledore's man, the end). I do enjoy some of Harry's snarky comments, and the recipients generally deserve them. But Harry's anger often leads him into acting rashly, into acting off his immediate emotions rather than from rational deduction (the DoM fiasco, blaming Snape for Sirius's death). This is the side of him that could devolve into Snape, sarcastic and bitter, if he doesn't overcome it. And as much as I love Snape as a character, I'd much rather see Harry evolve into a wise, witty and compassionate Dumbledore. Julie, imagining Harry years after having survived his encounter with Voldemort, settled, happy and with a knowing twinkle flashing in his eye ;-) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 02:02:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 02:02:21 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169439 > Julie: > This is one of my favorite Harry moments too. Many others have been > mentioned, so I'll just say that I like Harry best when he is acting like > Dumbledore. > Julie, imagining Harry years after having survived his encounter with > Voldemort, > settled, happy and with a knowing twinkle flashing in his eye ;-) > Alla: I like Harry acting as Dumbledore at his best as I see it. I do NOT, do NOT want to imagine Harry evolving in what I consider Dumbledore at his worst as I see it. I like him showing mercy and compassion indeed - for friends and enemies. But I would prefer to think that he would think **twice** before deciding the fates of other people, even if he would think it is best for them. And when he would think twice, I would still like him to figure out what those people want NOT what he thinks is best for them. I would like for him to NOT grow in the loner who has no confidante equal to him in wisdom and that is why he has to decide everything alone in his infinite wisdom. So, in short I do not want Harry to become Dumbledore if he survives, no way. IMO obviously, but I want Harry to adopt DD's best traits as I see them. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 29 02:45:58 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 22:45:58 -0400 Subject: A few words, once again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <465B93E6.3090808@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169440 justcarol67 wrote: > Another favorite moment, one that makes me smile, is Harry remembering > "Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak," and smiling through his tears at > Dumbledore's funeral. I smiled through my tears, too. Bart: Am I STILL the only person who does NOT think it's a coincidence that those 4 words contain the letters, "D,U,M,B,L,E,D,O,R and E"???? I've put the rest of the letters through anagram generators, but haven't got anything useful, yet. Bart From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue May 29 03:21:00 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 03:21:00 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169441 > Neri wrote in > : > > << It is well established that Lupin has to take his potion every day > during the week before his transformation (he says so in the Shack, > and we also see Snape bringing him the potion in Halloween day and > Lupin is seen that night in the great hall, but misses his class > several days later). >> >Catlady wrote: > Is it well-established? Here is some canon from PoA: > > < was smoking faintly, and stopped at the sight of Harry, his black eyes > narrowing. > > "Ah, Severus," said Lupin, smiling. "Thanks very much. Could you leave > it here on the desk for me?" > > Snape set down the smoking goblet, his eyes wandering between Harry > and Lupin. > > "I was just showing Harry my grindylow," said Lupin pleasantly, > pointing at the tank. > > "Fascinating," said Snape, without looking at it. "You should drink > that directly, Lupin." > > "Yes, Yes, I will," said Lupin. > > "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need more. > > "I should probably take some again tomorrow. Thanks very much, Severus.">> > > and > > << "I was a very small boy when I received the bite. My parents tried > everything, but in those days there was no cure. The potion that > Professor Snape has been making for me is a very recent discovery. It > makes me safe, you see. As long as I take it in the week preceding the > full moon, I keep my mind when I transform .... I'm able to curl up in > my office, a harmless wolf, and wait for the moon to wane again." >> > > I long to know whether 'take it in the week preceeding the full moon' > means 'take it once anytime during that week' or 'take it daily each > day of that week'. (Or, for that matter, why assume once daily? It > could be every four hours daily!) The conversation between Snape and > Lupin has the disadvantage that both speakers are trying to hide > things from Harry and the readers, but "*if* you need more" and "I > should probably take some again *tomorrow*" don't sound to me like > daily doses. Neri again: Perhaps it is not *that* well-established as I've made it sound. But IMO the canon above does suggest daily doses. Snape does prepare an entire cauldronful, and Lupin does say he'll take another goblet tomorrow. Assuming a cauldronful is more than two goblets and extrapolating from the goblet today and the goblet tomorrow we can conclude a daily goblet during the week before the full moon. Maybe it is not that regular. Maybe Lupin just feels ill and then he knows he has to take another goblet. However, in that case one wonders: how come Lupin forgetting to take just *one* goblet was enough for a violent transformation to occur? This strongly suggests that Lupin must take the potion for a fixed number of times during that week, and if he misses just one of them the potion loses its effect. It doesn't have to be daily for my original argument to hold, but this would be the simplest and most obvious with the canon we have. So we can assume that Lupin and Snape look at their lunar charts and find that the next full moon would take place at a Friday night. There's no problem of Lupin missing any classes in such a case, so Lupin just starts taking the potion the night of the previous Friday. What is critical now is not neglecting to take the potion even once during that week, or the effect will be lost. What *isn't* critical is to keep track of days and remember that Friday is full moon night. The transformation isn't dangerous as long as Lupin keep taking the potion. When the full moon night finally arrives Lupin becomes a harmless wolf, he just curls in his office until tomorrow and that's the end of it until the next month. In that case you can reasonably imagine both Lupin and Snape, under the stress of the unexpected events, losing track and forgetting that tonight is the night. Snape has brought Lupin his potion (or alternatively Lupin went to Snape's office to get it) the night before that, and before that, and before that... six times over. So in the Shack Snape tells Lupin that he forgot to take his potion tonight (this "tonight" again suggesting that Lupin took it the nights before that) and yet neither of them behaves as if a violent transformation is imminent every moment now. The most logical explanation is that both of them lost track of days and forgot that tonight is full moon night. Neri From technomad at intergate.com Tue May 29 04:04:51 2007 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:04:51 -0500 Subject: Favorite Harry scenes Message-ID: <000e01c7a1a6$9f35ba50$ac570043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 169442 Here's a few that I don't think anybody's mentioned yet: When Harry runs into Luna, after Sirius' death in OotP, and finds himself feeling compassion for her. When Harry takes Luna to Slughorn's party; his relief that she's left off her odder adornments is very true-to-teenage-boy-life, and his enjoyment of her befuddling the people she's talking to is hilarious. --Eric, owner of a big soft spot for Luna. From juli17 at aol.com Tue May 29 04:17:26 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 04:17:26 -0000 Subject: A few words, once again In-Reply-To: <465B93E6.3090808@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169443 > > justcarol67 wrote: > > Another favorite moment, one that makes me smile, is Harry remembering > > "Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak," and smiling through his tears at > > Dumbledore's funeral. I smiled through my tears, too. > > Bart: > Am I STILL the only person who does NOT think it's a coincidence that > those 4 words contain the letters, "D,U,M,B,L,E,D,O,R and E"???? > > I've put the rest of the letters through anagram generators, but haven't > got anything useful, yet. > > Julie: Those 4 words also contain the letters T,O,M,R,I,D,D,L,E. Coincidence? I put the remaining letters through an anagram generator, and got the following: WIN BUT WET-BLANKET Hmm. He is sort of a wet-blanket of a villian ;-) Julie, suspecting it's probably all meaningless From laurel.coates at gmail.com Tue May 29 04:01:27 2007 From: laurel.coates at gmail.com (Laurel Coates) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:01:27 -0700 Subject: Will Neville kill Voldy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3cd952930705282101w24e34ae9j59ed9ef4b020ec@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169444 > JW: > > My interpretation of the signs and augers is that what awaits LV is > NOT death, but a fate WORSE than death. LV will be destroyed, but > not killed. This was foreshadowed (maybe even fiveshadowed!) in the > confrontation between LV and DD in the MoM at the end of OotP. Laurel: I wonder what would happen if Harry shoved Voldemort through the veil before all the remaining horcruxes were destroyed? Voldemort's original soul portion would be dead, but the rest of him would be encased in Horcruxes for all eternity -- or at least until they were all found and properly disposed of. Would that be "a fate worse than death?" To be in some sort of helpless limbo, unable to do anything and slowly experience the rest of your soul pieces die one by one? Eeeeww. Laurel, totally creeped out now From juli17 at aol.com Tue May 29 04:41:40 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 04:41:40 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169445 > > Alla: > > I like Harry acting as Dumbledore at his best as I see it. I do NOT, > do NOT want to imagine Harry evolving in what I consider Dumbledore > at his worst as I see it. > > I like him showing mercy and compassion indeed - for friends and > enemies. But I would prefer to think that he would think **twice** > before deciding the fates of other people, even if he would think it > is best for them. And when he would think twice, I would still like > him to figure out what those people want NOT what he thinks is best > for them. Julie: I think Hermione has this unpleasant trait of Dumbledore's cornered! One can only hope some day she recognizes that it is not a good trait. Alla: > I would like for him to NOT grow in the loner who has no confidante > equal to him in wisdom and that is why he has to decide everything > alone in his infinite wisdom. > > So, in short I do not want Harry to become Dumbledore if he > survives, no way. IMO obviously, but I want Harry to adopt DD's best > traits as I see them. Julie: I agree. I didn't mean I expected Harry to become exactly like Dumbledore, but in the areas where Harry already exhibits similar traits, like his ability to feel compassion, that is where I think Harry will grow more like Dumbledore. Again, Harry isn't Dumbledore, so his faults aren't the same. His tendency to act from emotion rather than thought, for instance, is somewhat the opposite of Dumbledore's style (too much reliance on either can be a bad thing of course). This is where Harry tends to be like Snape, oddly, as I'm assuming young Snape joined the DEs based on emotion rather than thinking it out or rationally considering the likely consequences--he was too busy wearing his heart on his sleeve and so on. Snape tamps down those emotions now--though they do burst out on at least two occasions--but the damage was irrevocably done. Harry is like Dumbledore in that he keeps his own counsel, but I don't think it's because he feels he has no equal. It's because he never had anyone to confide in as a young child, so he's still learning to completely trust the judgment of others. Not to mention that he's been told he has to defeat Voldemort alone! But I do hope like you that he grows in this area, and learns that having a confidante relieves one of a great burden, not to mention great loneliness. Julie From Jen at alveymedia.com Tue May 29 04:49:49 2007 From: Jen at alveymedia.com (Jen Nielsen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 22:49:49 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169446 > Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? > > Sherry I love the moment in GOF when Harry decides he's not going to die hiding from Voldemort, that he'll face him like a man and take whatever's coming to him. I also love in SS his disovery of the Mirror of Erised. Very poignant. Jen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue May 29 05:15:44 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 05:15:44 -0000 Subject: A few words, once again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169447 > justcarol67 wrote: > Another favorite moment, one that makes me smile, is Harry > remembering "Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak," and smiling through > his tears at Dumbledore's funeral. I smiled through my tears, too. Bart: > Am I STILL the only person who does NOT think it's a coincidence > that those 4 words contain the letters, "D,U,M,B,L,E,D,O,R and > E"???? I've put the rest of the letters through anagram generators, > but haven't got anything useful, yet. > Julie: > Those 4 words also contain the letters T,O,M,R,I,D,D,L,E. Coincidence? I put the remaining letters through an anagram generator, and got the following: > > WIN BUT WET-BLANKET > > Hmm. He is sort of a wet-blanket of a villian ;-) > Julie, suspecting it's probably all meaningless Jen: I used to love anagrams, had pages of trying to work out Droobles Best Blowing Gum. That was a fun time on the list with less canon and more theories! :) Then I ended up finding JKR's answer about the gum wrappers very poignant, that Alice wanted to give Neville something back for visiting and to make a connection with him. Still sad she likely won't recover though; I'd hoped for some progress after OOTP and realized it's not likely after JKR's interview comment. Back to the above: It's interesting both Dumbledore's and Riddle's name are there and not Voldemort. Also that the phrase is in the book prior to "I am Lord Voldemort." I would say it was a sneaky way to get Riddle's name in there but since she hadn't introduced an anagram yet that would be a stretch to figure out. If you guys couldn't generate an anagram I won't bother trying, but I'd be curious to find out if she specifically used words so that the names would be contained within or if she just liked the way the words sounded together (or some other mundane explanation). Jen, suspecting as an anagram it's meaningless but still curious what's behind the creative impulse. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Tue May 29 05:50:37 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 05:50:37 -0000 Subject: A few words, once again In-Reply-To: <465B93E6.3090808@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169448 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > justcarol67 wrote: > > Another favorite moment, one that makes me smile, is Harry remembering > > "Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak," and smiling through his tears at > > Dumbledore's funeral. I smiled through my tears, too. > > Bart: > Am I STILL the only person who does NOT think it's a coincidence that > those 4 words contain the letters, "D,U,M,B,L,E,D,O,R and E"???? > > I've put the rest of the letters through anagram generators, but haven't > got anything useful, yet. > > Bart JW: Are any anagrams derived when you do NOT eliminate those letters? To put it another way, does inserting "DD" into your results make any of them meaningful? You are further along than I ever got - I did not even realize you could derive DD's name. I tried an assortment of simple cyphers - letter and number substitution, code squares, anagrams - even my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring. I had no automated tools (other than the ring), and got nowhere. Good luck! Hmmm... are there any other words or phrases in the books that could be added to these 24 letters, or might provide an additional sample of the code (assuming there is one, of course)? From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Tue May 29 06:06:49 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 06:06:49 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169449 > >Catlady wrote: > > Snape set down the smoking goblet, his eyes wandering between Harry > > and Lupin. > > > > "I was just showing Harry my grindylow," said Lupin pleasantly, > > pointing at the tank. > > > > "Fascinating," said Snape, without looking at it. "You should drink > > that directly, Lupin." > > > > "Yes, Yes, I will," said Lupin. > > > > "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need more. > > > > "I should probably take some again tomorrow. Thanks very much, > Severus.">> > > "The potion that > > Professor Snape has been making for me is a very recent discovery. It > > makes me safe, you see. As long as I take it in the week preceding the > > full moon, I keep my mind when I transform .... I'm able to curl up in > > my office, a harmless wolf, and wait for the moon to wane again." >> > > > > I long to know whether 'take it in the week preceeding the full moon' > > means 'take it once anytime during that week' or 'take it daily each > > day of that week'. (Or, for that matter, why assume once daily? It > > could be every four hours daily!) > Neri again: > > IMO the canon above does suggest daily doses. Snape does prepare an > entire cauldronful, and Lupin does say he'll take another goblet > tomorrow. Assuming a cauldronful is more than two goblets and > extrapolating from the goblet today and the goblet tomorrow we can > conclude a daily goblet during the week before the full moon. Maybe it > is not that regular. Maybe Lupin just feels ill and then he knows he > has to take another goblet. However, in that case one wonders: how > come Lupin forgetting to take just *one* goblet was enough for a > violent transformation to occur? This strongly suggests that Lupin > must take the potion for a fixed number of times during that week, and > if he misses just one of them the potion loses its effect. It doesn't > have to be daily for my original argument to hold, but this would be > the simplest and most obvious with the canon we have. > Snape has brought Lupin his potion (or > alternatively Lupin went to Snape's office to get it) the night before > that, and before that, and before that... six times over. So in the > Shack Snape tells Lupin that he forgot to take his potion tonight > (this "tonight" again suggesting that Lupin took it the nights before > that) and yet neither of them behaves as if a violent transformation > is imminent every moment now. The most logical explanation is that > both of them lost track of days and forgot that tonight is full moon > night. > Neri JW: I've always wondered why Snape made a cauldronful (however much that is) when it is best used when fresh. Either there is an awful lot of wasted potion, or perhaps Hogwarts has several werewolves. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 29 06:51:46 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 06:51:46 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169450 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anna" wrote: > > Rereading HBP, just past the part when Dumbledore shows Harry the TRUE > memory of Slughorn, young Voldemort, and their conversation about > Horcruxes, I still don't understand something: > > Slughorn says that killing someone splits your soul, and that with > said piece of soul, you can create a Horcrux. Well, what about all > the Aurors and others who killed in the numerous battles > between "good" and the forces of Voldemort. If they (the Aurors) > killed dark wizards and such when trying to capture them, for example, > aren't their souls split as well? I mean, does the mere act of > killing someone -- anyone -- split the soul, or is the soul only split > when one does a particulary nasty/evil murder, or has the concious > intention of creating a Horcrux? Voldemort did countless murders, yet > he only supposedly created 6 Horcruxes. Do you think his soul is > really split into a hundred-some-odd pieces? Any ideas? Thanks. Geoff: Actually, Slughorn is more specific than that..... '"How do you split your soul?" "Well," said Slughorn incomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." "But how do you do it?" "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing MURDER. Killing rips the soul apart..."' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) (My emphasis). In a war situation, people are killed but his stress lies on murder as a premeditated act against another person which I think is not quite the same. Even so, if the souls of Aurors are split, it doesn't follow that they are going to rush off and create Horcruxes; perhaps the soul pieces remain together but separate - if you see what I mean. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue May 29 06:59:33 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 06:59:33 -0000 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169451 juli17 at ... wrote: > we are talking about a bunch > of FIFTEEN YEAR OLDS here The French resistance hung people younger than that who betrayed them to the Nazis. Marietta just got acne. Lucky girl. > This is schoolyard stuff Is it schoolyard stuff to be betrayed to someone willing to torture and murder you, is it schoolyard stuff to have your soul sucked out of your mouth, is it schoolyard stuff to be tied to a tombstone and tortured so horribly you literally want to die? I already know what your defense of Marietta will be, it will be some variation on the theme that the ideas bouncing around in her head were incorrect so its OK that she did an evil thing. I don't buy it, you need to pay a price if you're THAT wrong! And if Marietta didn't understand what sort of person Umbridge is then she is a moral imbecile. Eggplant From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue May 29 07:49:45 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 00:49:45 -0700 Subject: A Kiss for the Dark Lord In-Reply-To: <3cd952930705282101w24e34ae9j59ed9ef4b020ec@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cd952930705282101w24e34ae9j59ed9ef4b020ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <103277951.20070529004945@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169452 Laurel: I wonder what would happen if Harry shoved Voldemort through the veil before all the remaining horcruxes were destroyed? Dave: A related question I have is: What would happen if a dementor sucked out Voldemort's soul (i.e. "the bit that's still in his body") before all the horcruxes are destroyed? Dave, who wouldn't be surprised if a dementor's kiss was LV's final fate From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue May 29 11:24:08 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:24:08 -0000 Subject: The Knight of Walburga Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169453 Goddlefrood, with a small disclaimer to begin, that being that any words used herein that are not words perhaps should be. I still have some problems with reconciliation of Mrs. Walburga Black with her portrait. How did a woman from a pure blood radical background end up with such a foul depiction. Is it simply because her portrait was meant as no more than an amusement, or is there more to it? Was Kreacher involved, perhaps? His description of his old mistress went a little awry when describing her to whatever or whoever painted the portrait in the hall at 12 Grimmauld Place, thus giving rise to her parodic depiction. Or was she slowly poisoned or otherwise diseased and ended up looking as she does in the portrait shortly before her passing? The fullest description of her portrait is in Chapter Four of OotP: "The moth-eaten velvet curtains Harry had passed earlier had flown apart, but there was no door behind them. For a split second, Harry thought he was looking through a window, a window behind which an old woman in a black cap was screaming and screaming as though she were being tortured - then he realised it was simply a life-size portrait, but the most realistic, and the most unpleasant, he had ever seen in his life. The old woman was drooling, her eyes were rolling, the yellowing skin of her face stretched taut as she screamed; and all along the hall behind them, the other portraits awoke and began to yell, too, so that Harry actually screwed up his eyes at the noise and clapped his hands over his ears." If the tapestry is to be believed, and despite some anomalies, in this instance I think it safely can be, Mrs. Black was 59 or 60 years of age when she died having been born in 1925 and died in 1985 (the death date I actually gave her when writing a discarded R. A. B. theory before the tapestry as drawn by JKR came to light - #142202). 59 or 60 is not especially old, more particularly in the wizarding world, if JKR's interview statements are to be taken as accurate. How is it then that Mrs. Black is described as old by Harry, he has seen many far older wizards and witches before he sees Ma Black's portrait, after all? Walburga is drooling, has rolling eyes and yellowing skin to boot. Not the ideal of a respectable, in wizarding world terms, middle aged woman. Also not a depiction she herself could have approved IMO. Back then to Kreacher, but also to how portraits come about. The only instance we have of a portrait being created is Dumbledore's after his death in HBP, if that is a typical example of how portraits come to be then we have been shown no portraitist who painted it. The impression I formed is that they come about after death, and also that not every dead wizard or witch merits one. The Black household has many portraits, as the above quoted portion coupled with Phineas's portrait in the bedroom Harry uses attests. Suggestive that it is a family where a portrait would be merited, in whatever way that works in the wizarding world. If I'm correct then these portraits appear after death and depict the sitter (even though we do not know if there is an artist) at or around the moment of death. I predict that we will find out a deal more about the more recent Blacks in Deathly Hallows. As a small aside I also contend that Hallows can refer to the vessels in which Horcruxes are stored, which could then tie in to the recent Relics, as translated back from the translation recently noted. What we may find out about the Blacks I believe will be that they were active in their opposition to Lord Voldemort, while disapproving of certain other of his resisters. Mrs. Black had something to do with the obtaining of the heavy locket that would not open, in other words. She should have been a contemporary of Tom Riddle at school, albeit two possibly three school years above him. If Regulus is R. A. B., as now appears the case, even though I hold out hope he won't be, then Mama will be the person from whom he learned the secret referred to in the letter left with the fake locket in the cave. Briefly on Pa Black, he was a few years younger than his wife and died in the same year as Regulus, perhaps he too was somewhat useful in the anti-Voldemort movement. He was also at school with Tom Riddle, a year or two behind. Sirius's view that his parents turned away from Voldemort's stated aims need not be what really happened, maybe Orion and Walburga recognised him as their old school mate and had known him to be a half blood back then. This scenario would make them extreme pure blood proponents and counter many of the above thoughts, but the conclusion that they assisted in their way to rid the world of Tom would not necessarily be altered following that reasoning either. Any thoughts on these matters out there? Goddlefrood From random832 at fastmail.us Tue May 29 12:47:44 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 08:47:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Marietta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1180442864.13513.1192292547@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169454 eggplant: > Is it schoolyard stuff to be betrayed to someone willing to torture > and murder you, is it schoolyard stuff to have your soul sucked out of > your mouth, is it schoolyard stuff to be tied to a tombstone and > tortured so horribly you literally want to die? None of which Marietta was aware of. (well, for the second she was presumably aware of what Dementors do, just not that there was any danger of it happening to any of them) > And if Marietta didn't > understand what sort of person Umbridge is then she is a moral imbecile. Why? What evidence does she have in front of her that Umbridge is capable of torture and murder? What reason does she have to believe that, NOT knowing what we know? -- random832 at fastmail.us From lfreeman at mbc.edu Tue May 29 13:30:18 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: A Kiss for the Dark Lord Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169455 I think that is a great idea, for Voldemort's dementor "allies" to turn on him. I also think could be useful in disposing of Horcruxes... perhaps they could suck the bit of soul out of the object? Louise, imagining Harry throwing the Horcrux into a swarm of hungry dementors and yelling "Fetch!" Maybe those experiences with Aunt Marge's dogs will come in handy after all. From celizwh at intergate.com Tue May 29 13:57:49 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:57:49 -0000 Subject: A few words, once again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169456 Bart: > Am I STILL the only person who does NOT think > it's a coincidence that those 4 words contain the > letters, "D,U,M,B,L,E,D,O,R and E"???? > I've put the rest of the letters through anagram > generators, but haven't got anything useful, yet. Julie: > Those 4 words also contain the letters > T,O,M,R,I,D,D,L,E. Coincidence? I put the > remaining letters through an anagram generator, > and got the following: > WIN BUT WET-BLANKET houyhnhnm: The best I can come up with : "Dumbledore twin knew Ia", probably the Cornish saint named Ia (She walked across the Irish sea on a cabbage leaf) not Iowa or Indian Airlines. Cheating big time (adding s, e and r, with a t left over) gives "Dumbledore knit twin sweater". Of course, Rowling would say jumper, not sweater. I think it's highly significant that both "twin" and "knit" can be abstracted from the four words, even if I can't figure out what to do with the remaining letters. Keep trying everyone! It's in there--the secret to making the Philosopher's Stone. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue May 29 14:22:38 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:22:38 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: <1180442864.13513.1192292547@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169457 Me: >>Is it schoolyard stuff to be betrayed >> to someone willing to torture and murder >> you, is it schoolyard stuff to have your >> soul sucked out of your mouth, is it >> schoolyard stuff to be tied to a >> tombstone and tortured so horribly you >>literally want to die? random832 Wrote: > None of which Marietta was aware of. Harry, Ron and Hermione were certainly aware of it and the monstrous nature of Marietta's offense. The other members of the DA seem to understand this too as none of them (except Cho) are very upset at her fate. As for Marietta herself, all of the defenses of her are variations on this theme: Marietta should not be held responsible for committing a very evil act because the ideas bouncing around in her head were ignorant and or stupid. I just don't buy that as an excuse, when your ideas are that astronomically wrong you have to pay the consequences. Unfortunately all Marietta got was acne. Eggplant From KLMF at aol.com Tue May 29 14:32:08 2007 From: KLMF at aol.com (klmf1) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:32:08 -0000 Subject: DD and Voldemort as loners Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169458 It was mentioned in one of the favorite Harry moments about DD being a loner, which got me to remembering that Voldemort is one as well. There are a lot of parallels between them, though the reasons are different. Voldemort is a loner because, according to DD, he is incapable of loving or caring about anyone else. His is a control freak out for his own gain. V may have no "friends", but he has followers because they *fear* him and respect his power and are interested in what it can do for them. It is a selfish devotion. DD---well, I rather get the impression that he very much loves his friends and cares deeply about them and about people in general, but keeps them at arm's length for their own safety. (we dont know if he had close friends at his side in the past that he may have lost tragically) DD is himself deeply loved and respected because of the man he is, not just his power and what he has to offer them. While I get the impression that DD is a bit of a control freak himself, I do not get any sense that it is out of any selfish drive, but rather out of desire to see happen what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, is best for all concerned---thus his admitted dilemma of finding himself loving and wanting to protect the child Harry, which contradicts with the welfare of everyone else. Harry....Harry has already begun to attempt to keep his friends at a distance while he begins his quest for the horcruxes, for the same reason DD did. Harry's friends, however, will have none of that. It will be interesting to see what turns his relationship with friends and with Ginny takes in the final (waah!) installment. Sorry if this has been explored ad nauseum already. Karen From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 29 15:06:45 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:06:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A few words, once again Message-ID: <25024895.1180451205689.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169459 From: julie justcarol67 wrote: >> > Another favorite moment, one that makes me smile, is Harry >remembering >> > "Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak," and smiling through his tears at >> > Dumbledore's funeral. I smiled through my tears, too. >> Bart: >> Am I STILL the only person who does NOT think it's a coincidence that >> those 4 words contain the letters, "D,U,M,B,L,E,D,O,R and E"???? >> >> I've put the rest of the letters through anagram generators, but >haven't >> got anything useful, yet. > Julie: >Those 4 words also contain the letters T,O,M,R,I,D,D,L,E. Coincidence? >I put the remaining letters through an anagram generator, and got the >following: > >WIN BUT WET-BLANKET > >Hmm. He is sort of a wet-blanket of a villian ;-) > >Julie, suspecting it's probably all meaningless Actually, the fact that it contains "Tom Riddle" as well makes me even more suspicious that these words were not chosen by accident. Of course, the names might point to the meanings of the words. And, assuming that JKR plays fair (which she does, let's take some additional items: 1) Dumbledore has a habit of planting ideas into people's heads in such a way that they believe they came up with it independently (well, Harry in particular; some are more obvious than others, like when he prods Hermione to use the Time Turner in POA, some so subtle that there is disagreement as to whether or not he did it on purpose, like, did he place the Mirror of Erised where Harry was sure to find it?). This increases the chance that the words have some special meaning. However... 2) Dumbledore does not, in general, believe in the inevitability of prophecy (notably mentioned in explaining THE prophecy to Harry at the end of OOP), although he probably believes that prophecies show potentialities, and it's up to the people involved to try and either make them happen or prevent them from happening. Therefore, it is HIGHLY unlikely that, at the time he said these words, he believed he was going to be dead before Harry could defeat Voldemort. However, he knew that he could die at any moment. 3) It seems clear (admittedly a dangerous thing to say in these books, it's at least strongly hinted) that Dumbledore did not suspect that there were one or more hurcruxes in play before CoS; it's probably a safer bet to say that they only became his major theory as to how Voldy survived until then, though they may well have been one of several other theories. 4) I've mentioned in the past my belief (brought on by Dumbledore's statement to Harry near the end of PS/SS implying that he expected/encouraged Harry to try to prevent the theft of the variably adjectived Stone) that quite a bit of Harry's meddling (as in "I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids and that kneazle!") was not only known by Dumbledore, it was instigated by him. These all lead to a theory that the words were important, that they were even more important now Dumbledore is dead, yet, many of us Muggles have attempted to decipher them, and failed. It appears that two conclusions are likely: That the words are an important part of Dumbledore's legacy, that they have something to do with Voldemort, and, when they are needed, the reason will be reasonably obvious. Bart From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 15:18:50 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:18:50 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169460 > Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? > > Sherry Mike: This is an easy one. My favotite moment in the entire series is Harry's in PoA. When his Stag Patronus comes back to him after driving off the Dementors, the stag lowers his head. Harry reaches out as if to pet him and whispers, "Prongs" The poignency of that moment, of Harry making that connection with his dead father, realizing that his love for his father is his most powerful emotion,... I'm blubbering like a baby right now just thinking about it. BTW, Lupin had trained Harry to create a Patronus by thinking of a "happy" memory. But Harry creates his most powerful Patronus with an unconscious thought of "Love". This demonstrates, to me, that the Patronus Charm comes from a place more like what Kemper was saying, from the soul. Or maybe at the least, a Patronus made from the heart outshines a Patronus made from the mind. Mike From radosmarie at yahoo.com Tue May 29 12:55:32 2007 From: radosmarie at yahoo.com (Marie Rados) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:55:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's Training In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169461 Hello Jo, hello all, Here is a newbie's first post on this list. I'll try to be not too long, but still a bit more sopisticated than a one-word "yes, indeed answer". Still, I don't have everything in mind yet concerning the books. (Unlike others here, I believe.) Jo: > Like probably everyone else in this group I have been re-reading the > books in preparation for book 7. Well, I don't know about the others, but I definitely AM. I want to be absolutely aware of EVERYTHING when I read the last book, when JKR answers most of the most important questions. I say most of them, because she claims that even after there'll be much room for speculation... > Something struck me in book 6 which I think I thought about the > first time but not so strongly. > > When Dumbledore and Harry went to the cave to find the Horcrux it > was more evident than ever just how inexperienced Harry is. When DD > was working out how to get through Voldemort's barriers he could > tell where magic was and could also interpret how to get through. > > How did Dumbledore learn all of that in the first place? Who showed > him how to detect residual magic? Or how to detect and work out how > to get through dark magic? Was it that DD had an effective DADA > teacher when he was at school? > > What do others think about how this will affect Harry's ability to > be able to defeat Voldemort. Do you think he knows more than he > realises? So yes. When I read that book for the first time, but this one more in particular I remember being struck by this, too. I don't know how it feels to you guys, but education in Hogwarts seems to be a joke compared to what other wizards know about magic. I especially say it, because at this moment Harry has been through his OWLs. On the other hand the Weasly twins have left school just with their OWLs, and they could run a most successful business with their knowledge acquired so far. But we should bear in mind that they have been making a lot of experiences. And so do HHR and ppl from DA, just with another perspective. So my feeling is the following. Hogwarts is like most Muggle schools: gives you the basics only, and the rest you'll have to learn for yourself on your own. It is even supported by the fact that a wizard's lifetime is even longer than that of Muggles, and they are only educated for 7 years. There is no wizarding at university level. (There's another good question to know where they learn to read and write etc. There may be some answer on this somewhere, but I did no research so far.) The problem is that knowing that there will be only 7 books about Harry and he will have to defeat Voldemort before the end of the last book, the last time we see him he will still be rather inexperienced. The possibilities are the following in my humble opinion: 1. He learns a lot more in the last book. 2. He kind of discovers his "real strength and powers". Because he is a Hero. And this might be somehow connected to LOVE. 3. He will be able to defeat V. with a lot of help from the others, just as usual. And this must be somehow connected to LOVE. Bye, Marie (from Hungary) From darksworld at yahoo.com Tue May 29 16:10:59 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:10:59 -0000 Subject: Heart vs. Mind WAS:Re: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: Or maybe at the least, a Patronus made from the heart > outshines a Patronus made from the mind. Charles: EEP! Whoop! Yes! "Power the Dark Lord knows not." Voldemort of the cold calculating intellect vs. Harry the blundering sentimentalist in the final battle! This of course means that Harry will have to learn how to control himself. As much as I hate to admit it, this line of thinking would bode well for a DDM!Snaper. While Snape has the wrong end of the stick (-it isn't that Harry needs to shut off his emotions, he needs to learn to control and channel them-), he's at least got a hold of the right stick. If (big if, in my ESE!Snape mind) Snape is DDM, then what I think we will see him eventually getting across to Harry is not the mental control of occlumency, but the emotional control that he himself struggles with. We may see Snape learning a lesson or three himself. Charles, who thinks Snape is ESE, or at least OFH, but grudgingly now admitting the DDM possibility. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue May 29 16:29:33 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:29:33 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169463 > JW: > I've always wondered why Snape made a cauldronful (however much that > is) when it is best used when fresh. Either there is an awful lot of > wasted potion, or perhaps Hogwarts has several werewolves. > Neri: The Goblet of potion Snape brings Lupin is still smoking, and Snape says that Lupin should drink it right away, yet he has made an entire cauldronful if Lupin needs more. Presumably this means that as long as the potion is kept boiling in its cauldron over the fire it is still good, but once it was taken from the cauldron it loses it potency relatively quickly and therefore should be drunk right away. As to why an entire cauldron is needed - no available data. I find it quite possible that Snape's cauldron is of the small kind and doesn't contain much more than seven goblets. We can also hypothesize additional werewolves at Hogwarts although in such a case I doubt Lupin's addition would be that controversial. Pharmacologists would know that sometimes you prepare more than you really need because of precision considerations. For example, if the recipe says you must not use more than 0.001 ounces of aconite powder per goblet, but the minimum weight your scale can precisely measure is 0.1 ounce, then you'd better prepare a total amount for 100 goblets even if you don't need all of them, or you'd embarrass yourself by killing your patient. But I kind of doubt JKR would be aware of that, and IIRC she wrote PoA before she married a doctor. Neri, who swore off Potterverse Lycanthropy some time ago From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 29 16:37:01 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Knight of Walburga Message-ID: <29299397.1180456621446.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169464 From: Goddlefrood >The old woman was drooling, her eyes were rolling, the >yellowing skin of her face stretched taut as she screamed; >and all along the hall behind them, the other portraits >awoke and began to yell, too, so that Harry actually >screwed up his eyes at the noise and clapped his hands >over his ears." Bart: Sorry that you feel that way. The only thing there is to say is every WW portrait's got a touch of Dorian Gray. (apologies to Hunter, Garcia, and, of course, Goddlefrood). Bart From wileras at gmail.com Tue May 29 16:18:43 2007 From: wileras at gmail.com (wileras01) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:18:43 -0000 Subject: A few words, once again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169465 > houyhnhnm: > > The best I can come up with : "Dumbledore twin knew Ia", > probably the Cornish saint named Ia (She walked across > the Irish sea on a cabbage leaf) not Iowa or Indian Airlines. > Jared Building from what you have there I think I prefer: "I, Dumbledore, knew a twin." Which is fairly true in the end since he does have a twin brother. From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 16:31:08 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:31:08 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a Vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169466 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > --- > Thanks for the welcome and replies. As for Snape out during the day, > you got to remember that he is potions master. If he can whip up a > concoction to prevent Lupin from becoming a werewolf, he might be able > to make a potions to help himself cope with vampire limitations. Just > like Dumbledore hired Lupin under certain circumstances as to make him > safe to work with students, Snape could have the same agreement. I > know this is alot of speculation on my part, but they are feasible. > > > My rebuttal Ryan: Yes, Snape is a potions master. However, the wolfsbane potion does not prevent a werewolf from transforming. It helps them retain something of their human personality when they're transformed. Lupin said something to the effect of the wolfsbane potion allowing him to curl up in his office and sleep on the nights he transformed. Second, JKR has all but said "Snape is not a vampire," so I don't believe you line of speculation is feasible. There may be some vampires using potions to walk around during the day, but Snape's not one of them. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 13:45:17 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:45:17 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: <000f01c79670$03375550$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169467 Marion: > But back to the previous alinea. > Has Harry ever changed in all those years in attitude? Has he > grown as a person? Personally - and this is my beef with the > series -I can't see *any* change. Harry was a judgemental, self- > absorded, rude eleven-year-old and six year later Harry is a > judgemental, self-absorded, rude sixteen-year-old. > I'm still waiting for Harry to *learn*. > I'm hoping Harry will finally, *finally* realise that he *needs* > to change, to learn, in Book 7. What worries me is that I'm not sure JKR thinks he *needs* to change. In interviews, she describes Harry in such glowing terms that I wonder if she's describing the same character. She says that Ginny, who hexes & rams people she doesn't like, is her favorite character. I'm actually starting to wonder about her judgment. When I'm starting to agree with SNAPE's judgment more than JKR's, something is off here. The heros seem to have become more self- absorbed & foolish over time, not less. To me, it seems like the books give lip-service to "tolerance" and "unity" while actually embodying the opposite. For instance, I'm still patiently waiting for a good Slytherin. In the first few books, it was easier to overlook Harry's Sytherin-hatred, because I assumed that the books would become more complex, and introduce some "sympathetic Sytherins" to lessen this bias. Now, 6 books later, Sytherin still equals evil. That's so incredibly simplistic. What's worse, because Slytherin = evil, behavior by Gryffindors towards Slytherins is automatically excused because they're "the bad guys." Draco's ferret bouncing, Montague's vanishing, etc. I find this actually disturbing. Gryffindor apparantly = good, no matter what one of them does. I feel disturbed when Ginny rams into Zacarias Smith, but I'm not sure that JKR thinks that we should. And that really bothers me. What's the lesson here - It's OK when "we do it"? That's total moral relativism. It teaches that you can instantly label someone based on their background or party, and feel justified by any immoral actions you take against that person. lizzyben04 From thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk Tue May 29 17:35:03 2007 From: thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk (simon harris) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 18:35:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <942031.48964.qm@web27315.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169468 "Anna" wrote: > Slughorn says that killing someone splits your soul, and that with > said piece of soul, you can create a Horcrux. Well, what about all > the Aurors and others who killed in the numerous battles > between "good" and the forces of Voldemort. If they (the Aurors) > killed dark wizards and such when trying to capture them, for > example, aren't their souls split as well? I mean, does the mere > act of killing someone -- anyone -- split the soul, or is the soul > only split when one does a particulary nasty/evil murder, or has > the concious intention of creating a Horcrux? Voldemort did > countless murders, yet he only supposedly created 6 Horcruxes. Do > you think his soul is really split into a hundred-some-odd pieces? > Any ideas? Thanks. Geoff wrote: > Actually, Slughorn is more specific than that..... > > Even so, if the souls of Aurors are split, it doesn't follow that > hey are going to rush off and create Horcruxes; perhaps the soul > pieces remain together but separate - if you see what I mean. Simon: The person's name I thought would have been mentioned with Horcruxes is Snape's. The question that come in to my head last night was how quickly do you need to 'make' the Horcrux? My understanding is that you need a very powerful magic item. Would the item need to be in your hand? I think Snape would have known about them. Also, if he is still a double agent, IMO I think he would want one as protection against Tom. As to the Aurors perhaps an act of love or kindness could recombine a soul. Maybe JKR will let us know??? Simon From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 29 18:24:05 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A few words, once again Message-ID: <21648918.1180463045944.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169469 From: wileras01 >Building from what you have there I think I prefer: > >"I, Dumbledore, knew a twin." > >Which is fairly true in the end since he does have a twin brother. A twin? Hmmmm... the only brother I know of is a non-twin who (according to JKR) is tending bar at Hogsmeade. However, he is ALSO Dumbledore, and Dumbledore is definitely dead, but if the Goatmeister is alive, then Dumbledore is alive, unless they're both dead and... Has anybody discussed Abe pulling a Sydney Carton? Bart From thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk Tue May 29 18:28:01 2007 From: thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk (simon harris) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:28:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <968866.57592.qm@web27310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169470 Anna wrote: > Slughorn says that killing someone splits your soul, and that with > said piece of soul, you can create a Horcrux. Well, what about all > the Aurors and others who killed in the numerous battles > between "good" and the forces of Voldemort. If they (the Aurors) > killed dark wizards and such when trying to capture them, for > example, aren't their souls split as well? I mean, does the mere > act of killing someone -- anyone -- split the soul, or is the soul > only split when one does a particulary nasty/evil murder, or has > the concious intention of creating a Horcrux? Voldemort did > countless murders, yet he only supposedly created 6 Horcruxes. Do you > think his soul is really split into a hundred-some-odd pieces? Any > ideas? Thanks. Simon: IMO I think you need a very powerful Magic object to make a Horcrux, also there might be a time limit to splitting the soul and making the Horcrux. That is why the Aurors have not made them or do not know about them. Even DD has problems with the theory (then again he might just want to find out how much Tom knew). Simon From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Tue May 29 19:17:08 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:17:08 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > > > > JW: > > I've always wondered why Snape made a cauldronful (however much that > > is) when it is best used when fresh. Either there is an awful lot of > > wasted potion, or perhaps Hogwarts has several werewolves. > > > > Neri: > The Goblet of potion Snape brings Lupin is still smoking, and Snape > says that Lupin should drink it right away, yet he has made an entire > cauldronful if Lupin needs more. Presumably this means that as long as > the potion is kept boiling in its cauldron over the fire it is still > good, but once it was taken from the cauldron it loses it potency > relatively quickly and therefore should be drunk right away. > > As to why an entire cauldron is needed - no available data. I find it > quite possible that Snape's cauldron is of the small kind and doesn't > contain much more than seven goblets. We can also hypothesize > additional werewolves at Hogwarts although in such a case I doubt > Lupin's addition would be that controversial. > > Pharmacologists would know that sometimes you prepare more than you > really need because of precision considerations. For example, if the > recipe says you must not use more than 0.001 ounces of aconite powder > per goblet, but the minimum weight your scale can precisely measure is > 0.1 ounce, then you'd better prepare a total amount for 100 goblets > even if you don't need all of them, or you'd embarrass yourself by > killing your patient. But I kind of doubt JKR would be aware of that, > and IIRC she wrote PoA before she married a doctor. > > > Neri, who swore off Potterverse Lycanthropy some time ago > JW: Continuously boiling the potion might keep it fresh, but the resultant evaporation of volatile ingredients (as evidenced by the smoke) would quickly change the proportion of the mixture, presumably rendering it ineffective, or even dangerous. Hence, you have convinced me that there is NO way that the potion would be efficacious the following day. These raises deeper questions - so why would Snape produce a cauldronful? Why would he produce a potion that he knew would be ineffective the next day, either because it was not fresh (not simmered until the next day) or not mixed in correct proportions (because it WOULD be simmered until the next day)? One possible answer is that Snape was purposefully not helping Lupin, either by physically harming Lupin or by forcing Lupin to resign through uncontrolled lycanthropy. Perhaps that is why Lupin was in such terrible shape after drinking the potion each month, despite it supposedly controlling his condition. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 19:35:35 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:35:35 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169472 > JW: > Continuously boiling the potion might keep it fresh, but the > resultant evaporation of volatile ingredients (as evidenced by the > smoke) would quickly change the proportion of the mixture, presumably > rendering it ineffective, or even dangerous. > > Hence, you have convinced me that there is NO way that the potion > would be efficacious the following day. These raises deeper > questions - so why would Snape produce a cauldronful? Why would he > produce a potion that he knew would be ineffective the next day, > either because it was not fresh (not simmered until the next day) or > not mixed in correct proportions (because it WOULD be simmered until > the next day)? > > One possible answer is that Snape was purposefully not helping Lupin, > either by physically harming Lupin or by forcing Lupin to resign > through uncontrolled lycanthropy. Perhaps that is why Lupin was in > such terrible shape after drinking the potion each month, despite it > supposedly controlling his condition. > Alla: I might say that I had been reading this thread with amusement and fascination. I think it would be the best definition, yes. **Nobody** who reads this board more or less regularly can suspect me of any love for the Snape character, LOL. But I think Snape having grand conspiracy plan to harm Lupin by preparing bad potion **deliberately** for a year, no less is a bit of a stretch, no? I mean, do not get me wrong, I sincerely believe that it is a big possibility that *ALL* of Snape deeds that could be read in more or less noble light can be reread differently in light of HBP. Somebody mentioned how differently things could be read in earlier books when we have info that we have and I agree with it. And that is why I can totally see something like Snape attempting to save Harry in PS to be totally self serving, etc,etc. But but this Snape is not just evil, this Snape is, I do not even know how to call him. And again, do not get me wrong. Any discovery that Snape committed another evil deed is fine by me, I just think it is stretching a little bit. JMO, Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Tue May 29 19:46:33 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) Message-ID: <12802336.1180467993473.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169473 JW: >Continuously boiling the potion might keep it fresh, but the >resultant evaporation of volatile ingredients (as evidenced by the >smoke) would quickly change the proportion of the mixture, presumably >rendering it ineffective, or even dangerous. Bart: You are making an assumption, here, that the volatile ingredients have already boiled off, and that the potion is a solution, rather than a unified substance that boils off evenly. Or, it could be that the only volatile ingredient is water, and that the dosage doesn't have to be that exact (although one may speculate that, if one COULD control the dosage exactly, it would allow Lupin to actually do useful things in wolf form, rather than just resting). Perhaps Beel could take a swig of it before eating one of his mother's meals... Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue May 29 19:59:38 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:59:38 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169474 > JW: > Continuously boiling the potion might keep it fresh, but the > resultant evaporation of volatile ingredients (as evidenced by the > smoke) would quickly change the proportion of the mixture, presumably > rendering it ineffective, or even dangerous. > > Hence, you have convinced me that there is NO way that the potion > would be efficacious the following day. These raises deeper > questions - so why would Snape produce a cauldronful? Why would he > produce a potion that he knew would be ineffective the next day, > either because it was not fresh (not simmered until the next day) or > not mixed in correct proportions (because it WOULD be simmered until > the next day)? > > One possible answer is that Snape was purposefully not helping Lupin, > either by physically harming Lupin or by forcing Lupin to resign > through uncontrolled lycanthropy. Perhaps that is why Lupin was in > such terrible shape after drinking the potion each month, despite it > supposedly controlling his condition. Magpie: Maybe that was just another one of Snape's passive-aggressive digs. Just as Lupin is making a power play by telling Snape to just put the Potion down and he'll drink it when he gets to it, Snape is pushing how important it is that he drink it. So he's all, "I made a whole cauldron full," indicating that he's taking extra precautions for Lupin in case he forgets or spills it on himself. He wants Lupin to know if there's one thing Snape's got a lot of as long as Lupin is at the school, it's Wolfsbane Potion. Wouldn't want to be caught without too much Wolfsbane, no sir. Lupin won't be able to skip it. In fact, if he'd like to take two doses to make sure he doesn't become a ravening beast, Snape's made extra! That sort of thing. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 29 20:51:09 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 20:51:09 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169475 Neri: > In that case you can reasonably imagine both Lupin and Snape, under > the stress of the unexpected events, losing track and forgetting that > tonight is the night. Pippin: I don't think so. Lupin shouldn't forget because he is keeping his lycanthropy a secret from the kids. He wouldn't want to unexpectedly transform in public. Snape shouldn't forget because potion brewing is affected by moon cycles. If Snape knew that Lupin's transformation was going to occur when it did, then then he knew there was plenty of time for Lupin to get back to the castle and take his dose if they left at once. IMO, Snape had to brew an entire cauldronfull because there had to be some for Lupin to steal and take secretly before he went out to the Shrieking Shack. However, it could simply be that, as with polyjuice potion, one brews the base by the cauldronfull, then adds certain ingredients to the goblet, which might start the breakdown process in this case. Or perhaps the potion keeps well as long as it's too hot to drink but starts to break down as it cools. JKR did do quite a lot of research on alchemy, so she could have become familiar with some chemical processes. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 21:07:26 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 21:07:26 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169476 > >>lizzyben04: > > To me, it seems like the books give lip-service to "tolerance" > and "unity" while actually embodying the opposite. > Betsy Hp: I've had the very same worries, lizzyben04. And I usually look to Pippin to pull me back from the depths of despair. (Though she may not realize I do so. ) In another thread, Pippin pointed out this quote of JKR's: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169384 > >>Pippin: > Here's what Jo has to say about Hermione: "Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she's trying to help. She offends them." Betsy Hp: To which Pippin commented: > >>Pippin: > I'm not trying to villify Hermione, just agreeing with the > author that some of her actions are offensive. > Many of the characters seem to go through a dangerous > phase where they have the powers of an adult but the > shortsighted vision of a child, and some of them do > ruthless and unjust things. > Betsy Hp: The combination of which got me thinking. (Those who want to run for the hills: now's the time. ) Children can be very intolerent of anything or anyone different or outside themselves; the "other" for want of a better word. I believe (and this is not my field of study by any stretch, total lay person here) that it's fairly understood that up to a certain age the ability to empathize, to place oneself into the role of "other" isn't hardwired into a child's brain. Which is part of the reason children aren't tried as adults in courts of law. They may inflict pain (or even death) on someone else without realizing what they have done, because they have a hard time understanding that "other's" can feel pain. The comedian, Eddy Izzard has a funny bit where he talks about being an "executive transvestite" since birth but not telling the other little children because he didn't want to be "beaten with sticks". I think most of us can remember how damaging being "different" can be in the school yard. I've started to think that perhaps JKR is exploring this phenomenon and using the Potter series (not in a preachy way) to say something about it. Because, IMO, she's got a lot of odd juxtapositions in the books. And I can't help but think JKR knows that they're there. For example, Harry is the epitome of the "outsider" within his muggle family, so excessively different they hide him away in a closet. Then Harry gets the wonderful news that he's not really weird, there's a whole world with people just like him. Then he gets the not so wonderful news (from Draco) that he may possibily still be an oddity, an "other" within that new world. And this is where things get a bit strange, IMO. Hagrid doesn't tell Harry that it's okay to be a bit odd, that it's okay to be "other". Instead, Hagrid assures Harry that he's just as much an insider as Draco. In fact more of one because in actuality, Draco's family comes from an "other" grouping within the WW: Slytherin, where all the "bad wizards" come from. Another juxtaposition is Hermione, a defined "other" by her muggle blood, cutting herself off from her family more and more until she barely spends any holiday time with them. While Ron, with his worries about not being "good enough" for his world ("other" by virtue of his weaknesses), is very quick to point out the "otherness" of others, physical (Eloise Midgen) or political (various members of Hufflepuff in CoS; Seamus in OotP). And of course, there's the juxtaposition of the WW. On the one hand you've got the uber-obvious Voldemort and the Death Eaters, models of the extremes fear of "other" can lead to. On the other, the rest of the WW, whose fear of Voldemort and the Death Eaters leads to the premature judging of anyone acting "other" according to their definition. (ie Lee Jordan's certainty the Heir was a Slytherin in CoS; Scrimgoer locking up Shunpike in HBP; Umbridge in general.) > >>lizzyben04: > What's worse, because Slytherin = evil, behavior by Gryffindors > towards Slytherins is automatically excused because they're "the bad > guys." Draco's ferret bouncing, Montague's vanishing, etc. I find > this actually disturbing. Gryffindor apparantly = good, no matter > what one of them does. > Betsy Hp: It disturbs me as well. But I wonder if it's maybe *supposed* to be disturbing on some level? It's very convenient, IMO, that Draco is turned into an animal before he's thrown repeatedly to the ground. One of the first things propagandists try to do is remove the humanity of the other side. That Draco has his humanity removed in *actuality* suggests, to me, that perhaps JKR knows what she is doing. And with both Montague and Marietta, none of the trio know those students. Not really. It's easy to deprecate the pain of someone you never really see or interact with. (The same could be said about the trio's view of Crabbe, Goyle, and Malfoy.) The childish shortsightedness of the trio allow them to be as ruthless and unjust (to paraphrase Pippin's quote above) as they want to be because they're not hurting actual people, they're just hurting the "other". > >>lizzyben04: > What's the lesson here - It's OK when "we do it"? That's total > moral relativism. It teaches that you can instantly label someone > based on their background or party, and feel justified by any > immoral actions you take against that person. Betsy Hp: I'm holding out hope that DH will show the "moral relativism" the trio engages in as the problem that I think it is. Dumbledore spent all of HBP teaching Harry to look at Tom Riddle in a new way; to see the man behind the monster. At least, it seemed to me that he was pleased that Harry was able to dredge up some sympathy for young! Tom. And we also have Harry facing the fact that Draco feels pain, both physical and emotional. By the end of HBP Harry seems to be holding on to that lesson. Hopefully, Hermione and Ron will learn that lesson as well, and DH will end by showing children that just because someone is different or "other", it's really not okay to beat them with sticks. Or you know, there's always the woodchipper. Betsy Hp From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Tue May 29 21:16:26 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 21:16:26 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <12802336.1180467993473.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169477 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > JW: > >Continuously boiling the potion might keep it fresh, but the > >resultant evaporation of volatile ingredients (as evidenced by the > >smoke) would quickly change the proportion of the mixture, presumably > >rendering it ineffective, or even dangerous. > > Bart: > You are making an assumption, here, that the volatile ingredients have already boiled off, and that the potion is a solution, rather than a unified substance that boils off evenly. Or, it could be that the only volatile ingredient is water, and that the dosage doesn't have to be that exact (although one may speculate that, if one COULD control the dosage exactly, it would allow Lupin to actually do useful things in wolf form, rather than just resting). > Bart > JW: Quite the opposite, Bart. The volatile and semi-volatile chemicals would boil off over extended simmering, and would not necessarily effect the first day's dosage. Please note that the potion is SMOKING. Smoke is a mixture (as are most if not all potions we have seen), not a solution. Smoke comprises a particulate, which is a solid, suspended (mixed, not dissolved) in a gas, typically water vapor. As the boiling continues, the proportion of the remaining non-volatized liquid mixture is subject to change as volatized ingredients boil off. Thus, the second day's potion may have a different proportion of ingredients than the first day, raising the issue of possible inefficacy. If the only volatile ingredient were water, you would NOT have SMOKE, you would have STEAM, which is water vapor without suspended particulates. Of course, the result would be even WORSE in this case. If the so-called "smoke" were actually steam (water vapor), leaving everything else in the cauldron, then over time the remaining mixture would thicken into a syrup, goo, sludge, or a caked and partially crystallized solid. For example, try gently simmering salt water (a solution, not a mixture, in this case) over an extended period. You will see steam, which is the water vapor that is boiling off. If you test the salinity of the remaining liquid, you would see that it consistently increases, because the dissolved salt is relatively non-volatile. As the simmering continues, you would observe that the fluid volume decreases measurably. Finally, you would wind up with a dry cauldron, errr... pot, with only caked or semicrystaline salt on the bottom and sides. Another illustration of this is growing crystals of salt, sugar, alum, and other simple materials at home. IIRC, this is often included in middle-school science courses. I have also made tiny quantities of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) in a chemistry lab using a similar technique. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Tue May 29 21:20:50 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 21:20:50 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169478 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > JW: > > Continuously boiling the potion might keep it fresh, but the > > resultant evaporation of volatile ingredients (as evidenced by the > > smoke) would quickly change the proportion of the mixture, > presumably > > rendering it ineffective, or even dangerous. > > > > Hence, you have convinced me that there is NO way that the potion > > would be efficacious the following day. These raises deeper > > questions - so why would Snape produce a cauldronful? Why would > he > > produce a potion that he knew would be ineffective the next day, > > either because it was not fresh (not simmered until the next day) > or > > not mixed in correct proportions (because it WOULD be simmered > until > > the next day)? > > > > One possible answer is that Snape was purposefully not helping > Lupin, > > either by physically harming Lupin or by forcing Lupin to resign > > through uncontrolled lycanthropy. Perhaps that is why Lupin was > in > > such terrible shape after drinking the potion each month, despite > it > > supposedly controlling his condition. > > > Magpie: > Maybe that was just another one of Snape's passive-aggressive digs. > Just as Lupin is making a power play by telling Snape to just put > the Potion down and he'll drink it when he gets to it, Snape is > pushing how important it is that he drink it. So he's all, "I made a > whole cauldron full," indicating that he's taking extra precautions > for Lupin in case he forgets or spills it on himself. He wants Lupin > to know if there's one thing Snape's got a lot of as long as Lupin > is at the school, it's Wolfsbane Potion. Wouldn't want to be caught > without too much Wolfsbane, no sir. Lupin won't be able to skip it. > In fact, if he'd like to take two doses to make sure he doesn't > become a ravening beast, Snape's made extra! That sort of thing. > > -m JW: Very well said. To put it in my own words, it could just be an example of Snapistic dry and sarcastic wit. (But I still question whether this tricky brew would still be effective a day or more later.) From dragondancer357 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 21:25:53 2007 From: dragondancer357 at yahoo.com (Anna) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 21:25:53 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169479 At the beginning of OotP, Harry, Ron, and Hermione are in the train compartment and Malfoy walks in and says "I, unlike you, are a prefect, and I can dish out punishment." Harry replies "Yeah, but you, unlike me, are a git!" LOL! Hey someone mentioned starting a thread about favorite Ron moments. Ok if I go ahead? Here's one that comes to mind: His very well-played game of human-sized chess in SS. After Moody turns Malfoy into a ferret, Ron says tells Hermione to be quiet because he wants to remember that for the rest of his life, and he smiles. Ron is indignant after he fails his Apparition test because of "half an eyebrow! As if that matters!" Anna From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 22:23:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:23:22 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169480 JW wrote: > Quite the opposite, Bart. The volatile and semi-volatile chemicals > would boil off over extended simmering, and would not necessarily > effect the first day's dosage. > > Please note that the potion is SMOKING. Smoke is a mixture (as are > most if not all potions we have seen), not a solution. Smoke > comprises a particulate, which is a solid, suspended (mixed, not > dissolved) in a gas, typically water vapor. As the boiling > continues, the proportion of the remaining non-volatized liquid > mixture is subject to change as volatized ingredients boil off. > Thus, the second day's potion may have a different proportion of > ingredients than the first day, raising the issue of possible > inefficacy. > > If the only volatile ingredient were water, you would NOT have SMOKE, you would have STEAM, which is water vapor without suspended > particulates. Of course, the result would be even WORSE in this > case. If the so-called "smoke" were actually steam (water vapor), > leaving everything else in the cauldron, then over time the remaining mixture would thicken into a syrup, goo, sludge, or a caked and partially crystallized solid. Carol responds: Of course, the ingredients in the potion are magical, so maybe the RW rules don't apply. :-) Or, more likely, JKR is no more aware of chemical processes than she is of history (I still cringe every time I read a reference to NHN's ruff. Sorry, no one wore those in 1492.) In any case, I think we may be reading in more than necessary into Snape's making a cauldronful. If he were trying to poison Lupin, he wouldn't advise him, in front of Harry, to drink it right away before it loses its effectiveness (a fact that Lupin could easily verify were he inclined to doubt Snape's veracity on this point). At any rate, Lupin, who should know, tells Harry in HBP that he's grateful to Severus for making the potion *and* making it perfectly. Those words, for me, say it all. Carol, not sure that Harry, whose observations are being recorded, would know the difference between smoke and steam in any case (I think the potion simply looked too hot to drink, and *Harry* thought that Snape might try to poison Lupin) From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Tue May 29 22:31:21 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:31:21 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a Vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169481 "Donna" wrote: Thanks for the welcome and replies. As for Snape out during the day, you got to remember that he is potions master. If he can whip up a concoction to prevent Lupin from becoming a werewolf, he might be able to make a potions to help himself cope with vampire limitations. Just like Dumbledore hired Lupin under certain circumstances as to make him safe to work with students, Snape could have the same agreement. I know this is alot of speculation on my part, but they are feasible. My rebuttal > Ryan: > > Yes, Snape is a potions master. However, the wolfsbane potion does > not prevent a werewolf from transforming. It helps them retain > something of their human personality when they're transformed. > Lupin said something to the effect of the wolfsbane potion allowing > him to curl up in his office and sleep on the nights he transformed. > > Second, JKR has all but said "Snape is not a vampire," so I don't > believe you line of speculation is feasible. There may be some > vampires using potions to walk around during the day, but Snape's > not one of them. > Anne Squires now: I have to agree with Ryan here. Snape is not a vampire. The JKR quote that confirmed this for me is found in the MuggleNet/Leaky Cauldron interview with Emerson Spartz and Melissa Anelli on July 16, 2005. At one point the three of them are discussing fans and the various theories that can come about. JKR explains that she encourages theorizing but that sometimes she has to step in when she feels that fans are wasting their time on ideas that will essentially lead nowhere. The example JKR gives as an unprofitable line of inquiry is this very issue, the Snape is a vampire issue: JKR: "No, I see that, and yeah, I follow your line there. I can't - I mean, obviously, there are lines of speculation I don't want to shut down. Generally speaking, I shut down those lines of speculation that are plain unprofitable. Even with the shippers. God bless them, but they had a lot of fun with it. It's when people get really off the wall - it's when people devote hours of their time to proving that Snape is a vampire that I feel it's time to step in, because there's really nothing in the canon that supports that." From dragondancer357 at yahoo.com Tue May 29 22:55:34 2007 From: dragondancer357 at yahoo.com (Anna) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:55:34 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a Vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169482 "Donna" wrote: If [Snape] can whip up a concoction to prevent Lupin from becoming a werewolf, he might be.... Sure, I suppose he could, but remember, that potion Snape makes for Lupin doesn't -prevent- him from transforming -- it only makes him a tame wolf, so he can stay in his office and doesn't bite or hurt anyone. Anna From celizwh at intergate.com Tue May 29 23:36:31 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 23:36:31 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169483 Magpie: > Maybe that was just another one of Snape's > passive-aggressive digs. Just as Lupin is making > a power play by telling Snape to just put the Potion > down and he'll drink it when he gets to it, Snape is > pushing how important it is that he drink it. Carol: > In any case, I think we may be reading in more than > necessary into Snape's making a cauldronful. houyhnhnm: I'd go with Magpie's interpretation. All Snape actually says is "You should drink that directly, Lupin." As in "before you forget, Lupin." What people are reading in to it is the idea that Lupin needs to drink it before it loses its effectiveness. Lupin is being dismissive. "Very good, Jeeves, just leave it on the chiffonier and then you may go." Snape is subtly reminding him that he, Lupin, is the one with the secret, which Snape is keeping--for the time being. That still doesn't answer the question of why missing one dose on the night of the full moon would allow Lupin to transform into a vicious as opposed to a tame werewolf if he had been taking it the week before, as he says he needs to. Maybe there is a dosage effect and Lupin that night, in his transformed state, was not as violent as he would have been without any Wolfsbane at all the previous week, but neither was he as harmless as he would have been if he had taken the final dose. From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Tue May 29 23:49:33 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 23:49:33 -0000 Subject: Favorite Ron moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anna" wrote: > Hey someone mentioned starting a thread about favorite Ron moments. > Ok if I go ahead? Here's one that comes to mind: > > His very well-played game of human-sized chess in SS. > > After Moody turns Malfoy into a ferret, Ron says tells Hermione to be quiet > because he wants to remember that for the rest of his life, and he smiles. > > Ron is indignant after he fails his Apparition test because of "half an > eyebrow! As if that matters!" > > Anna > Dondee: My favorite Ron moment is more of a trio moment: the scene in OotP following the kiss. It is too much to write all down here so I will just give the highlights... >>Ron made a triumphant gesture with his fist and went into a racus peal of laughter... A reluctant grin spread over Harry's face as he watched Ron rolling around on the hearthrug... >>"Well?" Ron said finally, looking up at Harry. "How was it?" >>Harry considered for a moment. >>"Wet," he said truthfully... >>..."Are you that bad at kissing?" >>"Dunno," said Harry... "Maybe I am." >>"Of course your not," said Hermione absently... >>"How would you know?" said Ron in a sharp voice. >>...Cho crying, Cedric dying, bad Quidditch playing, etc... >>A slightly stunned silence greeted the end of this speech, then Ron said, "One person can't feel all that at once, they'd explode." And then later the whole Krum jealousy is revisited... >>"Who are you writing the novel to anyway? "Ron asked Hermione, trying to read the bit of parchment now trailing on the floor. >>Hermione hitched it out of site. >>"Viktor." >>"Krum?" >>"How many other Viktors do we know?" ...later... >>"What does she see in Krum?" Ron demanded as he and Harry climbed the boys' stairs. >>"Well," said Harry,considering the matter, "Is'pose he's older, isn't he... and he's an international Quidditch player...." >>"Yeah, but apart from that," Ah, one of JKR's best writing moments, IMHO of course :) Cheers, Dondee From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed May 30 00:03:09 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 00:03:09 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169485 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > To me, it seems like the books give lip-service to "tolerance" > and "unity" while actually embodying the opposite. For instance, I'm > still patiently waiting for a good Slytherin. In the first few > books, it was easier to overlook Harry's Sytherin-hatred, because I > assumed that the books would become more complex, and introduce > some "sympathetic Sytherins" to lessen this bias. Now, 6 books > later, Sytherin still equals evil. That's so incredibly simplistic. > What's worse, because Slytherin = evil, behavior by Gryffindors > towards Slytherins is automatically excused because they're "the bad > guys." Draco's ferret bouncing, Montague's vanishing, etc. I find > this actually disturbing. Gryffindor apparantly = good, no matter > what one of them does. I feel disturbed when Ginny rams into > Zacarias Smith, but I'm not sure that JKR thinks that we should. And > that really bothers me. What's the lesson here - It's OK when "we do > it"? That's total moral relativism. It teaches that you can > instantly label someone based on their background or party, and feel > justified by any immoral actions you take against that person. One set of examples that gives me hope are the attacks on the train. At the end of GOF, Malfoy and friends say very insulting things to Harry and friends on the train and are severely attacked and left unconscious in the train corridor for the remainder of the trip, the Trio and other stepping over the unconscious bodies as they leave the train. Then in a similar event at the end of OOTP, Draco and friends attempt to ambush Harry (in partial retaliation perhaps?) and the DA members help out, once again hexing Draco and friends into unconsciousness for the remainder of the trip, this time binding them into a luggage rack, and neglecting to tell anyone of the predicament of the boys once the Trio and DA disembark. The readers are encouraged to cheer on Harry and friends as they score a "victory" over Draco and his friends, and of course Harry and his friends are completely unconcerned about the unconscious state of the other students. They are "evil" after all -- clear because apparently having nasty thoughts and making nasty remarks, or having an evil father, makes it completely okay for someone else to do the wizarding equivalent of beating you into unconsciousness and leaving you for many hours without help. But then at the start of HBP, Harry is back on the train and attempts to eavesdrop on Draco's conversations. This time, Draco actually catches Harry and this time hexes Harry, binds him, kicks him in the face, and leaves him without help. At least Harry wasn't left unconscious, although silenced and invisible, perhaps Draco thought he was. In any case, one has to ask what JKR was up to here? Was she really trying to say that it was completely okay for Harry and his friends to attack Draco and friends and leave them unconscious, but horrible for Draco to do the same to Harry? A friend living in Scotland tells me that for a number of years, attacks on Scottish trains have made headlines and been the cause of public concern (I just googled this, and this is true). JKR lives in Scotland. In the midst of public concern about *real* attacks on trains, would she really include *two* train attacks by her heroes on other students and *really* think it was fine, because they are the "good guys?" I don't think so. I think the third attack, this time by Draco on Harry in HBP, illustrates that *all* of the attacks were wrong, not just Draco attacking Harry. I'm very hopeful that in DH, she'll make these sorts of things much more clear. wynnleaf From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed May 30 00:03:55 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 00:03:55 -0000 Subject: Favorite Ron moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169486 zgirnius: My very favorite Ron moment (why, exactly, was it necessary to give this moment to Hermione in the medium that must not be named?!) > PoA: > Ron, however, spoke to Black. > "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too!" he said fiercely, though the effort of standing upright was draining him of still more color, and he swayed slightly as he spoke. > Something flickered in Black's shadowed eyes. > "Lie down," he said quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even more." > "Did you hear me?" Ron said weakly, though he was clinging painfully to Harry to stay upright. "You'll have to kill all three of us!" From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed May 30 00:35:39 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 00:35:39 -0000 Subject: The Knight of Walburga In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169487 Goddlefrood: > Walburga is drooling, has rolling eyes and yellowing skin > to boot. Not the ideal of a respectable, in wizarding world > terms, middle aged woman. Also not a depiction she herself > could have approved IMO. Back then to Kreacher, but also to > how portraits come about. The only instance we have of a > portrait being created is Dumbledore's after his death in > HBP, if that is a typical example of how portraits come to > be then we have been shown no portraitist who painted it. > The impression I formed is that they come about after death, > and also that not every dead wizard or witch merits one. > > The Black household has many portraits, as the above quoted > portion coupled with Phineas's portrait in the bedroom Harry > uses attests. Suggestive that it is a family where a portrait > would be merited, in whatever way that works in the wizarding > world. If I'm correct then these portraits appear after death > and depict the sitter (even though we do not know if there is > an artist) at or around the moment of death. Jen: I hesitate to discount Sirius not noticing anything was amiss with the portrait of his dear mum since he serves an expository role in sections of POA and GOF. He can be very dismissive of those he doesn't like though and when OOTP starts, Sirius is in a self- absorbed funk and thinking only about the bad memories connected to his family. Any other ideas how to reconcile that piece of information? Goddlefrood: > What we may find out about the Blacks I believe will be that > they were active in their opposition to Lord Voldemort, while > disapproving of certain other of his resisters. Mrs. Black > had something to do with the obtaining of the heavy locket > that would not open, in other words. She should have been a > contemporary of Tom Riddle at school, albeit two possibly > three school years above him. If Regulus is R. A. B., as now > appears the case, even though I hold out hope he won't be, > then Mama will be the person from whom he learned the secret > referred to in the letter left with the fake locket in the > cave. Jen: Walburga having a connection to young Riddle and perhaps providing useful information is a much better fit than the person I was considering - Eileen Prince. Walburga is accessible via her portrait as well as information Kreacher might have. Plus she likely had contacts with Voldemort sympathizers through her own circle and Regulus in the DEs. As an aside: no matter what's revealed about Walburga's involvement or not with a Horcrux, I believe she learned more about Regulus' death than Sirius did as he was her favored son and she had the means to get information. The two never compared notes since Sirius claimed not to have contact after leaving home. Here's another point I'd like to reconcile for myself: If Walburga actually gave Regulus the information about the Horcruxes and perhaps accompanied him to the cave, drinking the potion and thus giving rise to dooling, eye-rolling, yellowing woman in the portrait (it's really difficult to believe a middle-age witch would look like this and especially the mother and aunt of two people described as good- looking!), why did Regulus say in his note that he would be dead? It's all speculative I know, but LV didn't find out his Horcrux had been tampered with if the fake was still in the cave. Well, unless he did know, had Regulus killed for it and vaporized before locating the real Horcrux? And then felt overconfident about how well his plan had worked when he rebirthed and didn't prioritize finding the missing Horcrux. Jen From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 30 00:50:27 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 00:50:27 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169488 > > >>lizzyben04: > > > > To me, it seems like the books give lip-service to "tolerance" > > and "unity" while actually embodying the opposite. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I've had the very same worries, lizzyben04. And I usually look to > Pippin to pull me back from the depths of despair. (Though she may > not realize I do so. ) Pippin: Why, thank you! It's nice to be appreciated :) Here's another JKR quote I found enlightening: Interviewer: One of Goblet's biggest themes is bigotry. It's always been in your books, with the Hitlerlike Lord Voldemort and his followers prejudiced against Muggles (nonmagical people). In book 4, Hermione tries to liberate the school's worker elves, who've been indentured servants so long they lack desire for anything else. Why did you want to explore these themes? JKR: Because bigotry is probably the thing I detest most. All forms of intolerance, the whole idea of "that which is different from me is necessary evil." I really like to explore the idea that difference is equal and good. But there's another idea that I like to explore, too. Oppressed groups are not, generally speaking, people who stand firmly together ? no, sadly, they kind of subdivide among themselves and fight like hell. That's human nature, so that's what you see here. This world of wizards and witches, they're already ostracized, and then within themselves, they've formed a loathsome pecking order. Interviewer: You don't think this a little heavy for kids? JKR: These are things that a huge number of children at that age start to think about. It's really fun to write about it, but in a very allegorical way. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0800-ew-jensen. > > > >>lizzyben04: > > What's worse, because Slytherin = evil, behavior by Gryffindors > > towards Slytherins is automatically excused because they're "the bad > > guys." Draco's ferret bouncing, Montague's vanishing, etc. I find > > this actually disturbing. Gryffindor apparantly = good, no matter > > what one of them does. > > > > Betsy Hp: > It disturbs me as well. But I wonder if it's maybe *supposed* to be > disturbing on some level? Pippin: Oh, yes, I think so. We see that Draco is just as frightened of Dementors, Greyback and evil Giants as other wizards are, and where would he have gotten those fears from, except his family? We see that Mrs. Black has similar attitudes, so how is it that Voldemort can make his wizard followers think that such creatures are their natural allies? And what makes Voldemort's non- wizards think that Voldemort's wizards would help them? It seems that the fear of oppression by the massively, blunderingly, fiercely intolerant wizarding society, whose values the Trio are unconsciously adopting even as they consciously struggle to oppose them, is so great that Voldemort can use it to weld all these traditional enemies together. I am hopeful that the Trio will come to see this. Of course it wouldn't do for them to figure it out too soon, or we wouldn't have seven books :) Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 30 01:04:06 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 01:04:06 -0000 Subject: The Knight of Walburga In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169489 > Goddlefrood: > > > Walburga is drooling, has rolling eyes and yellowing skin > > to boot. Not the ideal of a respectable, in wizarding world > > terms, middle aged woman. Also not a depiction she herself > > could have approved IMO. > > Jen: I hesitate to discount Sirius not noticing anything was amiss > with the portrait of his dear mum since he serves an expository role > in sections of POA and GOF. He can be very dismissive of those he > doesn't like though and when OOTP starts, Sirius is in a self- > absorbed funk and thinking only about the bad memories connected to > his family. Any other ideas how to reconcile that piece of > information? Pippin: Maybe Kreacher's company was no more salutary for Walburga or her portrait than hers was for him. Not to mention that at the time of her death she had lost her husband, one of her sons had been murdered and the other was considered the worst outlaw, next to Voldemort, that the wizarding world had ever seen. Stress like that would make anyone old beyond their years, and she must not have been terribly stable to begin with. My thought is that Regulus used a switching spell like the one Harry used to conceal the Prince's book to swap lockets while the horcrux was still in Bella's possession. Dumbledore before he died reversed the spell. IMO wherever the locket that was in GP has got to, it now bears its rightful cover and the Slytherin S. Pippin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 30 01:18:27 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 01:18:27 -0000 Subject: The Knight of Walburga In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169490 > Jen: > I hesitate to discount Sirius not noticing anything was > amiss with the portrait of his dear mum since he serves an > expository role in sections of POA and GOF. He can be very > dismissive of those he doesn't like though and when OOTP > starts, Sirius is in a self-absorbed funk and thinking only > about the bad memories connected to his family. Any other > ideas how to reconcile that piece of information? Goddlefrood: Sirius and his dear old mum have had an acrimonious falling out somewhere back in their history. Sirius left home to go and live with the Potter parents before he finished school. That may or may not have something to do with the prank, I believe it does, fwiw. Extrapolating from that we could divine that Sirius has no respect for his mother, and that is also reinforced by his attitude towards her portrait as well as by certain things he says. He has burned his bridges where his mother is concerned methinks. Therefore he would not care what her portrait looked like and make no comments on it. iirc Sirius does not refer to the appearance of the portrait of his mum at all in OotP. Or perhaps he saw it as a representation of her inner being ;-) > Jen: > As an aside: no matter what's revealed about Walburga's > involvement or not with a Horcrux, I believe she learned > more about Regulus' death than Sirius did as he was her > favored son and she had the means to get information. Goddlefrood: Quite right, she would have been far more in the know about what happened to Regulus and that may well have increased her resentment towards LV, if she made a link between his death and LV. Belonging as she did to the Black family, with their fierce pride, which IMO is easily discerned from what we do know of them, she would have taken some steps against LV I think. > Jen: > Why did Regulus say in his note that he would be dead? Goddlefrood: It's a tricky one indeed. He may have been already wanted by LV for leaving his service by the time he went to the cave and knowing ewven more about the DEs than would his brother, who has told us that being a DE is a lifetime of service or death, or thereabouts, Regulus feared he would be found and killed by those who perceived he had betrayed them. Quite a resonable fear as it turned out, IMO. Goddlefrood From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Wed May 30 01:49:58 2007 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 01:49:58 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's First Interview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karlii26" wrote: > Like I said, I understand the inference, but I do not agree that it > is a fact. There have been too many times, when we are led down > paths of inference.. to have it tossed back in our faces at the end > of the book. That said, I think that it is ok, to keep a step back > from this, and not assume that we should take it at face value. "K": I do take it at face value. We are heading into the last book and though I'm expecting surprises, I don't believe we are going to find out Snape was not the eavesdropper. It serves no purpose. Why leave us in suspense after OoP only to have Dumbledore lie to us in HBP? From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed May 30 01:51:11 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 01:51:11 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing (was: Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169492 > > Neri: > > In that case you can reasonably imagine both Lupin and Snape, under > > the stress of the unexpected events, losing track and forgetting that > > tonight is the night. > > Pippin: > I don't think so. > Lupin shouldn't forget because he is keeping his lycanthropy a secret > from the kids. He wouldn't want to unexpectedly transform in public. Neri: But he knows he won't transform in public, because about two weeks previously he checked the lunar chart (he must have, to know when he has to start taking the potion) and found that full moon this month will occur late at night. So this month keeping track isn't critical as long as he's alone in his office during nights (and I'm assuming that generally he *would* keep track, only not when friends who died 12 years ago drop for a visit). Had he found two weeks ago that his transformation this month occurs during the day he'd remember it, if only because something would have to be done about his classes that day. BTW, the Halloween day case fits this well: we see Lupin taking his potion during the day, and several days later he misses his class. At the Shrieking Shack night he was supposed to take the potion at night, and the transformation occurs during the night. > Pippin: > Snape shouldn't forget because potion brewing is affected by moon > cycles. If Snape knew that Lupin's transformation was going to > occur when it did, then then he knew there was plenty of time for > Lupin to get back to the castle and take his dose if they left at once. > Neri: This whole discussion started because Mike pointed out that Snape's behavior in the Shack seems rather strange if he knows a violent transformation is coming, and I have to agree. And there isn't plenty of time ? there's most likely less than an hour, Snape has only tied the werewolf with rope, and he isn't even consulting his watch. He also doesn't say to Harry "you'd better shut up and move because this is a full moon night and your dear friend here is turning into a rabid monster in several minutes" although this would certainly give him an edge in the argument. > Pippin: > IMO, Snape had to brew an entire cauldronfull because there had to be > some for Lupin to steal and take secretly before he went out > to the Shrieking Shack. Neri: Ah yes, the poor schemes of ESE!Lupin . The best plan he could come up with was to appear as if he forgot to take his potion so he'd lose his job. I still don't get why wouldn't he simply leave Snape a note that he had taken his potion tonight, so Snape wouldn't bother him while he's going to, erm commit whatever heinous crime he has in mind at that particular moment (I can never keep track with ESE!Lupin's objectives, they seem to change by the hour). > houyhnhnm: > > I'd go with Magpie's interpretation. All Snape actually > says is "You should drink that directly, Lupin." As in > "before you forget, Lupin." What people are reading in > to it is the idea that Lupin needs to drink it before it > loses its effectiveness. > > Lupin is being dismissive. "Very good, Jeeves, just > leave it on the chiffonier and then you may go." Snape > is subtly reminding him that he, Lupin, is the one with > the secret, which Snape is keeping--for the time being. > Neri: The potion losing its effectiveness quickly isn't required at all for my original argument (that Lupin has to take his potion several times during the week before the full moon, and therefore both Lupin and Snape in the Shack don't remember that this is a full moon night). But I'd point out that Lupin *does* take the potion directly. He takes it immediately after Snape leaves, and moreover in front of Harry. > houyhnhnm: > That still doesn't answer the question of why missing > one dose on the night of the full moon would allow Lupin > to transform into a vicious as opposed to a tame werewolf > if he had been taking it the week before, as he says he > needs to. Neri: The simplest answer (and the one best fitting with canon) would be that he has to take it daily during the week preceding full moon, and if he misses even one day the potion doesn't work. Sounds pretty reasonable pharmacologically as well as magically. I'd assume you need to keep the aconite level in the blood high enough throughout the sensitive period in order to prevent some process from being triggered. Neri From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 30 01:59:35 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 21:59:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wolfsbane Dosing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <465CDA87.6010706@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169493 jmwcfo wrote: > Please note that the potion is SMOKING. Smoke is a mixture (as are > most if not all potions we have seen), not a solution. Smoke > comprises a particulate, which is a solid, suspended (mixed, not > dissolved) in a gas, typically water vapor. As the boiling > continues, the proportion of the remaining non-volatized liquid > mixture is subject to change as volatized ingredients boil off. > Thus, the second day's potion may have a different proportion of > ingredients than the first day, raising the issue of possible > inefficacy. Bart: Hey, if the potion wants to go out into the back and have a cigarette, it's none of our business (or, in other words, "smoking" has more than one meaning). > If the only volatile ingredient were water, you would NOT have SMOKE, > you would have STEAM, which is water vapor without suspended > particulates. What do you call it if the liquid is something other than water? Bart From dougsamu at golden.net Wed May 30 02:16:14 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:16:14 -0400 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169494 Simon: My understanding is that you need a very powerful magic item. Would the item need to be in your hand? doug: A powerful magical item doesn't seem to be required. In fact I should think the more innocuous the better. Voldemort wanted founders items as aggrandizement. All the suggested items seem to be objects that contact the body, though this hasn't been suggested as a requirement for the horcrux item. ___ __ From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 30 03:12:39 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 03:12:39 -0000 Subject: Wolfsbane Dosing In-Reply-To: <465CDA87.6010706@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > jmwcfo wrote: > > Please note that the potion is SMOKING. Smoke is a mixture (as are > > most if not all potions we have seen), not a solution. Smoke > > comprises a particulate, which is a solid, suspended (mixed, not > > dissolved) in a gas, typically water vapor. As the boiling > > continues, the proportion of the remaining non-volatized liquid > > mixture is subject to change as volatized ingredients boil off. > > Thus, the second day's potion may have a different proportion of > > ingredients than the first day, raising the issue of possible > > inefficacy. > > Bart: > Hey, if the potion wants to go out into the back and have a cigarette, > it's none of our business (or, in other words, "smoking" has more than > one meaning). > > > If the only volatile ingredient were water, you would NOT have SMOKE, > > you would have STEAM, which is water vapor without suspended > > particulates. > > What do you call it if the liquid is something other than water? > > Bart JW: Generally, vapor, as in water vapor. When alcohol is used as a solvent, you would get alcohol vapor. Kids, do not try this at home. Many organic solvents (toluene, trichloromethane, ...) are anywhere from mildly to deadly toxic. Others are merely combustible and/or carcinogenic (benzene) or otherwise environmentally hazardous. And you thought magical potions could be nasty! From juli17 at aol.com Wed May 30 03:21:41 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 23:21:41 EDT Subject: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169496 Harry, Ron and Hermione were certainly aware of it and the monstrous nature of Marietta's offense. The other members of the DA seem to understand this too as none of them (except Cho) are very upset at her fate. As for Marietta herself, all of the defenses of her are variations on this theme: Marietta should not be held responsible for committing a very evil act because the ideas bouncing around in her head were ignorant and or stupid. I just don't buy that as an excuse, when your ideas are that astronomically wrong you have to pay the consequences. Unfortunately all Marietta got was acne. Eggplant Julie: You seem to have a problem accepting that many of us DON"T consider Marietta's act of a "monstrous" nature, nor "very evil" (nor even just "evil"). Thus she should *not* be held accountable for such acts as she did not commit such acts. However, Voldemort, Fenrir, Bellatrix, Wormtail, and Umbridge, to name a few, can be held accountable for monstrous and very evil acts, since they have actually committed such acts! What Marietta did was betray her schoolmates to possible detention and expulsion from school, not to torture nor execution. (We have NOT a shred of evidence that anyone besides the Trio knew about Umbridge's form of punishment on Harry's hand, and even those three don't know she sent the Dementors to Harry's house). What she did *was* betrayal, but in a school setting, not a war setting. She was wrong, but her act was hardly evil. And she more than paid for it, in a manner I would say is probably typical of WW schoolyard justice. I agree most of the DA didn't question Marietta's punishment, but teenagers do tend to take *any* slight or betrayal deeply to heart, and at Hogwarts no one blinks at fellow students locked up in cabinets, stuffed in toilets, hexed, cursed or laid up in the infirmary for weeks being cured of various magical retributions brought on by real or perceived slights and betrayals. So why would they ponder the relative fairness or morality of Marietta's punishment? Still, I guess you're free to equate a school club formed illegally to learn a forbidden subject with the French Resistance in the midst of an actual war, and label Marietta as a MONSTROUS, VERY EVIL 15 year old who should have been executed. You might consider though that very few others here (if any?), even those who think Hermione's vengeance was well-played and well-deserved, seem to agree with your view. Could it be that your view is a little too extreme? Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 30 03:29:16 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 03:29:16 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, doug rogers wrote: > > Simon: > > My understanding is that you need a very powerful magic item. Would > the item need to be in your hand? > > > doug: > > A powerful magical item doesn't seem to be required. In fact I should > think the more innocuous the better. Voldemort wanted founders items > as aggrandizement. All the suggested items seem to be objects that > contact the body, though this hasn't been suggested as a requirement > for the horcrux item. > > ___ > __ > JW: The exception might be LV's snake. Large poisonous snakes do not often come into contact with the human body - unless you are a well- compensated exotic dancer. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed May 30 05:33:29 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 05:33:29 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169499 > Julie: > What Marietta did was betray her schoolmates to possible detention > and expulsion from school, not to torture nor execution. I think you vastly underestimate the threat of expulsion. It's not like they can go to the high school on the other side of town. Hogwarts is the only magic school on their island. they'd have their wands snapped. its not out of the question that getting kicked out would lead to a complete exile from the magical world since they aren't allowed to do magic and haven't sat for their owls. In a world with a Voldemort in it, that can get them all killed. Think objectively about what it would really mean for Harry to have his wand snapped and banned from Hogwarts. Think about how easily Voldemort would steam roll over the Wizarding World without the unknown threat of Harry hanging over his head? Those of us who think Marietta committed a serious wrong/betrayal are thinking about that and that's why we can't forgive her. > Still, I guess you're free to equate a school club formed illegally to learn > a forbidden subject with the French Resistance in the midst of an actual > war, and label Marietta as a MONSTROUS, VERY EVIL 15 year old who > should have been executed. she banned a self defense class. Even if she honestly believed that Voldemort wasn't real, the Wizarding World is still a dangerous enough place that it borders on criminal negligence. Since we know Voldemort is around, it's almost like a Army Basic Training instructor refusing to teach someone how to shoot a gun. And most, if not all of the students did believe that Voldemort was back which does at a legitimate element of resistance fighting to their class. Harry even managed to shut up Zack Smith with his crack about Expelliarmus working when he dueled Voldemort. phoenixgod2000 From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed May 30 06:06:26 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 06:06:26 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169500 juli17 at ... wrote: > What Marietta did was betray her > schoolmates to possible detention > and expulsion from school, And cause the death of Sirius Black. I'm sorry if I can't find any tears for Marietta's acne. > not to torture nor execution. >(We have NOT a shred of evidence that > anyone besides the Trio knew about > Umbridge's form of punishment There is not a shred of doubt that Marietta DID betray her classmates to someone willing to engage in torture and murder, but you say that's OK because she had all sorts of erroneous ideas in her head when she did it. Well, when you're wrong you have to pay a price for it, especially when you're as colossally wrong as Marietta was. And I'm supposed to start blubbering about her acne? Again and again I see the same defense, not just of Marietta but for Snape too, that it's OK to do evil things as long as you're sincere; personally I think sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue. I'll pick someone insincerely right over someone sincerely wrong any day. Eggplant From aorta47 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 03:17:10 2007 From: aorta47 at yahoo.com (aorta47) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 03:17:10 -0000 Subject: A few words, once again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169501 > > > justcarol67 wrote: > > > Another favorite moment, one that makes me smile, is Harry > > > remembering "Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak," > > Bart: > > Am I STILL the only person who does NOT think it's a > > coincidence that those 4 words contain the > > letters, "D,U,M,B,L,E,D,O,R and E"???? > Julie: > Those 4 words also contain the letters T,O,M,R,I,D,D,L,E. > Coincidence? Maybe it's the letters that are missing that are important: C,F,G,H,J,P,Q,S,V,X,Y,Z Wow HJP the initials of our hero. Important, who knows? Cedric dies. Fred? George, Ginny? Harry, Hermione, Hagrid? James dies. Percy? Quirrel dies. Sirius dies. XYZ could be an [insert character here] thing (Dumbledore?) Mark From natashacarpina at yahoo.com.ph Wed May 30 07:16:30 2007 From: natashacarpina at yahoo.com.ph (tassy carpina) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 00:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: favorite Harry moments? Message-ID: <139149.87061.qm@web57307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169502 Fave Harry moments . . . . . . . . . Well . . . . . . . >The kiss with Cho Chang >The fight with Voldemort in the GoF >"... it is lie..." Umbridge said " it's not a lie I saw him!" Harry exclimed >" I'm not weak!" Harry said " Then prove it." Snape said That's all . . . . . . . . . . . . Tassy From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed May 30 09:19:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:19:25 -0000 Subject: The Knight of Walburga In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169503 > Pippin: > Maybe Kreacher's company was no more salutary for Walburga or > her portrait than hers was for him. Not to mention that at the > time of her death she had lost her husband, one of her sons > had been murdered and the other was considered the worst > outlaw, next to Voldemort, that the wizarding world had ever > seen. Stress like that would make anyone old beyond their > years, and she must not have been terribly stable to begin > with. Goddlefrood: It's a possibility, but Walburga was really not old at all by WW standards. The degeneration noted in her portrait is, IMO, far more than simply stress or worry induced. I also would disagree that she was unstable. A pure blood extremist and married to her second cousin, yes, but not necessarily unstable. One surprising link that I kept in reserve follows. Mrs. Black's first name is found at thinkbabynames (although there are rather few Walburgas around apparently). That is here: http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Walburga The pertinent part says: "The girl's name Walburga \wa-lbur-ga, wal-bu-rga\ is of Old German origin, and its meaning is "strong protection". Saint Walburga (eighth century) was a missionary in Germany. Walburga has 3 variant forms: Walberga, Wallburga and Walpurgis." I found this intriguing as JKR has said that the Death Eaters were once called the Knights of Walpurgis. Was this a name LV himself dubbed them in homage to Mrs. Black for whatever reason? The relevant snippet: "But some of it has backstory in it like this - in here is the history of the Death Eaters and I don't know that I'll ever actually need it - but at some point - which were once called something different - they were called the Knights of Walpurgis." Extracted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_3004000/3004878.stm Add to that the fact that Mrs. Black's namesake Saint Walburga died in the year 777 and we have some ties to Tom that lend some weight to my theory that she knew a little more about the situation with LV and one of his Horcruxes than might be so far suspected. Perhaps she knew quite a lot about it and as I said before encouraged or assisted Reugulus to destroy / retrieve one. Perhaps the name was changed only after LV announced his agenda and prior to that Walburga had found some amusement in the similarity of her name to LV's followers. I'll go even further and say that because of that Regulus was urged by her to sign up with the Knights bearing her near name (in blood or otherwise). Is this completely off the wall (not Dorien Grey's portrait ;-), or does anyone think there may be something in it? Goddlefrood From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Wed May 30 10:46:34 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:46:34 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: <139149.87061.qm@web57307.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169504 I somehow seem to have more "Favourite moments" for Snape, Hermione, Ron and others (even Neville and the Weasley twins), than for Harry. Of the ones I have, Harry's clashes with Umbridge and his mastering of the Patronus charm are wonderful. Of course, Harry vs Snape is always exciting to read. And now, back to Lurkville for me. Regards Sridhar From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed May 30 12:01:47 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:01:47 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169505 Pippin: > It seems that the fear of oppression by the massively, > blunderingly, fiercely intolerant wizarding society, whose > values the Trio are unconsciously adopting even as they > consciously struggle to oppose them, is so great that > Voldemort can use it to weld all these traditional enemies > together. I am hopeful that the Trio will come to see this. > Of course it wouldn't do for them to figure it out too > soon, or we wouldn't have seven books :) Jen: Right, and the message that only by realizing 'differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open' is the antithesis to the oppression that Voldemort has created. I see the message of tolerance coming on the macro level more than the micro. The Trio, like Dumbledore before them, will welcome people at their table as long as they are on the right side because the stakes are so high. Those who oppose Voldemort will become allies and those who don't will fall the way of the Ministy. Being able to *work* together to defeat a common enemy doesn't mean at a personal level they are going to like all they work with or advance to the point of seeing others values as being equally good to their own. Dumbledore is being held up as highly advanced in the WW when it comes to opposing bigotry in all forms and seeing what is in someone's heart. I don't see the Trio advancing to that level myself although they will make inroads. They have, what, another 120 years or so to grow?! If Draco does 'come over to the right side,' (and he will in my reading), he'll have a seat at the table. What the Trio can't do separately supposedly they are doing together. Harry has seen enough of what Draco is made of now, Dumbledore has *shown* him what Draco is made of, for Harry to find some tolerance in his heart. Hermione has all along been the one most willing to trust Snape and cemented her position when she said, "'Evil' is a strong word"; I see her being the one to help them towards tolerance of Snape and willingness to see he also opposes Voldemort for whatever reasons are in his heart. Ron? I'm not sure. Maybe his tolerance will come at the micro level? Zacharias, Percy - there are some relationships where he could make personal movement forward as well as accepting the judgement of the other two when it comes to Draco and Snape. He's already shown he can put aside some of his entrenched beliefs that he heard growing up in the WW, like about giants and werewolves, to accept Lupin and Hagrid (made easier by liking them). That's at the core of what I see coming: can the Trio work with individuals they don't like and who don't like them? They'll learn they must in order to defeat Voldemort. Jen From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed May 30 12:45:33 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:45:33 -0000 Subject: The Knight of Walburga In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169506 > > Pippin: > > Maybe Kreacher's company was no more salutary for Walburga or > > her portrait than hers was for him. Not to mention that at the > > time of her death she had lost her husband, one of her sons > > had been murdered and the other was considered the worst > > outlaw, next to Voldemort, that the wizarding world had ever > > seen. Stress like that would make anyone old beyond their > > years, and she must not have been terribly stable to begin > > with. > > Goddlefrood: > > It's a possibility, but Walburga was really not old at all by WW > standards. The degeneration noted in her portrait is, IMO, far > more than simply stress or worry induced. I also would disagree > that she was unstable. A pure blood extremist and married to her > second cousin, yes, but not necessarily unstable. Jen: Much as I like this idea Pippin - it really would be an example of JKR's sometimes dark humor - there's an element of the tragic to the Black family that goes beyond their personal losses. The Fall of the House of Black was complete when Sirius died and the idea of there being only small cracks that led to that tragedy, in the form of Sirus opposing his family and Regulus being killed, doesn't quite do justice to what has happened to them. To discover their downfall was in part due to the matriarch actively opposing Voldemort would explain more how they came to be a dusty tapesty on the wall of a crumbling house. Almost the reverse of what happened to the Crouch family in a way. Hey, I just had a thought. I wouldn't see Walburga's motives as idealistic if she opposed Voldemort, they would need to have a basis in who she appeared to be as a person. Was the 'secret' referred to in the note the discovery Voldemort was a half-blood? JKR makes a point of showing Bellatrix isn't aware of that fact. That would be *huge* to a family like the Blacks, likely more huge than a Horcrux given the dark nature of the family history. I'm not proposing anything new here as there have been other posts on the subject, but this idea fits better for me of a half-blood 'secret' if Walburga was behind the plot to destroy the Horcrux. Back to the portrait, obviously the potion only increasingly weakened Dumbledore as far as we saw, there was no evidence of drooling, eye- rolling and yellowing skin. However, Dumbledore did say the potion wouldn't kill immediately; LV would want to keep the person alive long enough to find out how the defenses were penetrated. It's possible after the weakness and such, another effect would start to take place that we aren't aware of since Dumbledore died so quickly. Goddlefrood: > "The girl's name Walburga \wa-lbur-ga, wal-bu-rga\ is of Old > German origin, and its meaning is "strong protection". Saint > Walburga (eighth century) was a missionary in Germany. Jen: Walburga did appear to be the protector of her own family, protecting what to her was essential - their heritage. Could she also have stepped in an attempt to protect her favored son when he got in too far with Voldemort? Goddlefrood: > Walburga has 3 variant forms: Walberga, Wallburga and > Walpurgis." > > I found this intriguing as JKR has said that the Death Eaters > were once called the Knights of Walpurgis. Was this a name LV > himself dubbed them in homage to Mrs. Black for whatever reason? > Perhaps the name was changed only after LV announced his > agenda and prior to that Walburga had found some amusement > in the similarity of her name to LV's followers. I'll go > even further and say that because of that Regulus was > urged by her to sign up with the Knights bearing her near > name (in blood or otherwise). Jen: I find it interesting in a symbolic way although since Voldemort's Death Eaters were named that as far back as when Dumbledore first took office as headmaster, I don't see how it could have literally been true. Jen From random832 at fastmail.us Wed May 30 13:02:05 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:02:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1180530125.1328.1192509093@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169507 > Simon: > > My understanding is that you need a very powerful magic item. Would > the item need to be in your hand? The Diary doesn't appear to have been be a 'very powerful magic item' pre-horcruxing. Nor, for that matter, does the snake, if it indeed is a horcrux. I could be mean and point out that we don't even have any idea if any of the others were either, they could simply be mundane items that were owned by the founders. I mean, Albus Dumbledore is a powerful wizard, but his lemon drops (surely what someone wanting to make a horcrux of an artifact of Dumbledore would choose) are perfectly ordinary. Can you explain further where you got the idea that a very powerful magic item is needed? --Random832 -- random832 at fastmail.us From celizwh at intergate.com Wed May 30 13:22:22 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:22:22 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169508 Jen: > The Trio, like Dumbledore before them, will welcome > people at their table as long as they are on the right > side because the stakes are so high. Those who oppose > Voldemort will become allies and those who don't will > fall the way of the Ministy. > [...] > That's at the core of what I see coming: can the > Trio work with individuals they don't like and who > don't like them? They'll learn they must in order to > defeat Voldemort. houyhnhnm: What happens after Voldemort is defeated? This is the problem I have with a standard of morality that defines goodness and badness according to whether or not one is on the "right" side (assuming the "right" side is not open to interpretation, which in the case of Voldemort and his followers I am perfectly willing to concede, but not in every case.) If people are not good or bad according to their acts--bullying versus fair play, lying versus truthfulness, etc.--but only as they oppose the Big Bad of the day or not, then when Voldemort is gone, there will be no standard of right and wrong, just a chaos of everyone for him or herself, alliances constantly breaking and reforming, until finally a new evil Dark Lord emerges to restore a sense of order again. With this system of morality there must always be a Dark Lord. Without a Dark Lord, there is no North, South, East or West. I will accept anyone who is one my side? That is not tolerance. Tolerance is a commitment to the the belief that *everyone* has a right to be. From random832 at fastmail.us Wed May 30 13:41:08 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:41:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1180532468.6220.1192516359@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169509 phoenixgod2000: > Since we know Voldemort is around, Random832: Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here. _We_ know Voldemort is around. Anyone else has nothing but Dumbledore's and Harry's word against that of the Ministry. I don't think we can fault Marietta, or even Umbridge (Don't get me wrong; Umbridge has plenty of other things to answer for), for not believing Voldemort has returned. phoenixgod2000: > And most, if not all of the students did believe that Voldemort > was back Random832: Not in evidence. We're only told what a few of them believe as far as I know > juli17: > > What Marietta did was betray her schoolmates to possible detention > > and expulsion from school, eggplant107: > And cause the death of Sirius Black. Random832: WhoaHoldonWaitaminuteWHAT?!?!?! I can see absolutely NOTHING to indicate that, no matter what other danger she caused or should or should not have understood would be caused by her actions, I can see nothing to indicate either that she contributed in any way to Sirius's death, or that the events at the department of mysteries would not have happened exactly the same way without her doing what she did. Even if you can justify it, it's not nice to drop a bomb like that with no explanation. -- Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 13:46:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:46:25 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169510 > houyhnhnm: > > What happens after Voldemort is defeated? This is > the problem I have with a standard of morality that > defines goodness and badness according to whether or > not one is on the "right" side (assuming the "right" > side is not open to interpretation, which in the case > of Voldemort and his followers I am perfectly willing > to concede, but not in every case.) > > If people are not good or bad according to their > acts--bullying versus fair play, lying versus > truthfulness, etc.--but only as they oppose the Big > Bad of the day or not, then when Voldemort is gone, > there will be no standard of right and wrong, just a > chaos of everyone for him or herself, alliances > constantly breaking and reforming, until finally > a new evil Dark Lord emerges to restore a sense of > order again. > > With this system of morality there must always be > a Dark Lord. Without a Dark Lord, there is no > North, South, East or West. > > I will accept anyone who is one my side? That is > not tolerance. Tolerance is a commitment to the > the belief that *everyone* has a right to be. > Alla: Well, sure, everyone has a right to be on the *right* side, I agree and should be accepted if they want to. But what if somebody does not want to? Do their beliefs and actions still have to be tolerated? For the record, I do believe that Malfoy's redemption is coming, yes, hate him as I am. But what if it does not? After all in book 6, he at the best was wavering, was he not at the end? So, suppose Malfoy decides that being with DE and Lordie Voldy suits his fancy better. Does that mean that Trio should applaud him and accept his choice? I mean, applaud probably is the wrong word, but you know what I mean. Are they still obligated to think that he is a wonderful person to be considered you know, tolerant? I mean, I would not respect any of them if they do so, personally. Malfoy on the side of death eaters to me means that he decided to carry out Lordie ideas and actions. He IS an enemy then, is he not? Not saying that he should not be forgiven if he decides to come back, but if he is choosing to be with DE, um, that's his choice, but with all the consequences, no? Sure, in the time of peace people morality should not be defined just by whether they are opposing Voldie or not, I agree. But it is not just that they oppose him is what defines their morality, no? Supposedly, they support better ideas, yes, more tolerant ideas, equality for species - meaning following some of DD ideas, etc. So, I do not know, I think even in the time of peace it is defining for the person whether they supported Dumbledore or Voldemort at least partially. IMO, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed May 30 13:53:05 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:53:05 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169511 > houyhnhnm: > What happens after Voldemort is defeated? This is > the problem I have with a standard of morality that > defines goodness and badness according to whether or > not one is on the "right" side (assuming the "right" > side is not open to interpretation, which in the case > of Voldemort and his followers I am perfectly willing > to concede, but not in every case.) > With this system of morality there must always be > a Dark Lord. Without a Dark Lord, there is no > North, South, East or West. > > I will accept anyone who is one my side? That is > not tolerance. Tolerance is a commitment to the > the belief that *everyone* has a right to be. > Jen: I agree with everything you've said here personally, I'm just not sure it's within the scope of the books or the trajectory of the Trio to make it *all* the way there by the last book? Starting to get there, yes, making movement forward. I don't see a 180 reversal coming for them or the WW when there's been such deep-seated bigotry and entrenched ideas about others that *have* spawned at least two dark lords. There needs to be a starting point in all revolutionary change when eyes are opened; having a cause to unify so many different types of beings in the WW seems like a huge start to me. I mean, wouldn't it be a very abrupt character development for Harry to suddenly not only see Draco as an ally but a great guy in one swoop? For Draco to view Harry and his friends that way? I wouldn't expect such great resentment as found between the two of them to suddenly be swept away but I do expect this generation will do a *better* job than the Marauders and Snape seemed to do with their hatreds and resentments. Harry is surrounded by people who have been victims of Voldemort's oppression, including his pure-blood Slytherin brothers and sisters, and reaching across that divide in some way, even if it's 'just' a cause to rally around, is an opportunity previously unheard of to see each other with new eyes. I guess what seems like provisional tolerance to you looks like the possibility of bridging a huge chasm to me. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed May 30 14:17:07 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:17:07 -0000 Subject: Marietta/On Children and the Other In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169512 Eggplant: > Again and again I see the same defense, not just of Marietta but for > Snape too, that it's OK to do evil things as long as you're sincere; > personally I think sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue. I'll pick > someone insincerely right over someone sincerely wrong any day. Magpie: It's not "okay" to do anything just because you're sincere. It has nothing to do with making it "okay." It's acknowledging that other people have their own points of view and their own experiences different from your own and you have to deal with that whether you like it or not. Everyone isn't secretly walking around knowing that you're right and everything you know is what they know, so they must be wrong, because you never can be wrong, and if they're disagreeing with you it's to be evil. Some of us think part of the lesson here is that it's better to have that understanding and act accordingly than to get off on beating your breast about how evil the other person was and how much punishment they deserved after the fact, all while still refusing to have any understanding about them, or what you might do better next time. This kind of thread ought to be proof of that in itself. Many things that you have set out as truths that are so self-evident that not a single jury in the world or person in the world would disagree with you on, do not seem that way to me. I wouldn't assume that if you were in a book you'd be one of the good guys. Alla: So, suppose Malfoy decides that being with DE and Lordie Voldy suits his fancy better. Does that mean that Trio should applaud him and accept his choice? I mean, applaud probably is the wrong word, but you know what I mean. Are they still obligated to think that he is a wonderful person to be considered you know, tolerant? Magpie: I don't think tolerance ever has to do with thinking someone is a wonderful person or with applauding all their choices. As a reader I know I would still have compassion for him, since I alredy do. But you don't have to like anyone. Ginny Weasley is on the right side, but I can still hate her just as you can hate Draco--I don't applaud all her choices. But it's still better, imo, if you can have some understanding of the other person, even if you dislike them--though I think understanding the person often makes it harder to hate them. (Not always, but sometimes.) I hope Harry makes some strides in this direction. I mean, it wouldn't be so great if we had Harry just allowing the inferior people to help out with Voldemort while still mentally seeing them as a different breed than his friends and himself. There are always going to be people he doesn't like and even people he can't respect because of their beliefs, but I think he can still gain more understanding than the kind he has now. Again, I'd think the list makes that clear. We don't all have the same reactions to the characters or to individual actions. If we were in the books ourselves we'd bring those different points of view with us. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 30 14:28:33 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:28:33 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169513 > > houyhnhnm: > > What happens after Voldemort is defeated? > If people are not good or bad according to their > acts--bullying versus fair play, lying versus > truthfulness, etc.--but only as they oppose the Big > Bad of the day or not, then when Voldemort is gone, > there will be no standard of right and wrong, just a > chaos of everyone for him or herself, alliances > constantly breaking and reforming, until finally > a new evil Dark Lord emerges to restore a sense of > order again. Pippin: The story is very clear on what the ultimate act of evil is -- it's murder. The identical aim that Dumbledore is talking about isn't the defeat of Voldemort, it's the prevention of murder, IMO. The open heart seems to be the recognition that everyone who is not a murderer has a right to be what they are, even if what they are is a great bullying git. Dumbledore seems to think that those who have risked their own lives to prevent murder and refused to become killers themselves are worthy of some honor, whatever else they may have done. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 14:31:15 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:31:15 -0000 Subject: Marietta/On Children and the Other In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169514 > Magpie: > I don't think tolerance ever has to do with thinking someone is a > wonderful person or with applauding all their choices. As a reader I > know I would still have compassion for him, since I alredy do. But > you don't have to like anyone. Ginny Weasley is on the right side, > but I can still hate her just as you can hate Draco--I don't applaud > all her choices. > > But it's still better, imo, if you can have some understanding of > the other person, even if you dislike them--though I think > understanding the person often makes it harder to hate them. (Not > always, but sometimes.) I hope Harry makes some strides in this > direction. I mean, it wouldn't be so great if we had Harry just > allowing the inferior people to help out with Voldemort while still > mentally seeing them as a different breed than his friends and > himself. There are always going to be people he doesn't like and > even people he can't respect because of their beliefs, but I think > he can still gain more understanding than the kind he has now. > Again, I'd think the list makes that clear. We don't all have the > same reactions to the characters or to individual actions. If we > were in the books ourselves we'd bring those different points of > view with us. Alla: I am talking only about unrepentant Voldemort supporters. Those who kill and torture for whatever reasons they have. I mean, I am not saying that Harry and any of the good guys should go out and kill them for sport. But understand their reasons? I mean, if they wish to study psychopaths for a living, maybe. Otherwise, why? Again, I am not talking about simply liking or disliking the person. Why do they need to understand their reasons for killing and torture? To me, they are not going to become worse people or better people if they could care less, frankly. Do you know what I am saying? I think we had shown plenty of normal people whom Harry and Co should understand better. Like Zach Smith doubting Harry for example, something like that. If former DE is remorseful, same thing, you know? But if not, why? Like if Malfoy comes to the right side, I sincerely doubt that he is going to like Harry and vice versa, that is totally understandable. They then IMO should live and let live. But if Malfoy would practice killing and torture for living, what understanding? JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 14:38:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:38:07 -0000 Subject: /On Children and the Other/Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169515 >> Magpie: I mean, it wouldn't be so great if we had Harry just > allowing the inferior people to help out with Voldemort while still > mentally seeing them as a different breed than his friends and > himself. Alla: Wasting post again - Ugh, because did not add this sentence. YES, that is precisely what I am talking about. Harry should go as far as respecting all people who **help** him with Voldemort IMO. I think Malfoy will always remain the disgusting snob I thought of him when I read about him first, but IF he helps with Voldemort, he deserves respect from Harry and Trio, no matter how much they will dislike each other, if he **does not**, then he deserves no respect whatsoever in my view, because being with Voldemort is being on the unconditionally bad side. IMO. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 14:22:06 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:22:06 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169516 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > I'm holding out hope that DH will show the "moral relativism" the > trio engages in as the problem that I think it is. Dumbledore spent > all of HBP teaching Harry to look at Tom Riddle in a new way; to see > the man behind the monster. At least, it seemed to me that he was > pleased that Harry was able to dredge up some sympathy for young! > Tom. And we also have Harry facing the fact that Draco feels pain, > both physical and emotional. By the end of HBP Harry seems to be > holding on to that lesson. Oh, was THAT the purpose of all that annoying and pointless filler in HBP? The stuff that advanced the plot not at all except to introduce horcruxes? The problem with charges of moral relativism is that the definition is, frankly, relative. I guess that proves the point in a way. Is it moral relativism for the trio to hex the Slytherins and it be good whereas for the Slytherins to hex the trio is bad? Depends on what your morals are relative to. If the trio were to decide "well, we don't like you but you are okay if you are against Voldy," that is as "relative" a morality as one that says Gryffindors good, Slytherins bad. It is in effect saying, "I don't care if you do whatever," yes, including abuse of children, "as long as you are on the right side." Not a very laudable moral message, that. In fact, I'd say it's downright contemptible. "Nice is not the same as good?" Oh, yes, I think, it is. Now, there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils (or three or six or five hundred). But the lesser of two evils is still evil, and can't be called good. It it is, or it is dismissed as morally unimportant, once again, I'd say that's contemptible. > > Or you know, there's always the woodchipper. > Sure. And I suspect there will be more than a few people that want to use one. Any messages sent in DH are apt to be contradictory, at the very least. Or perhaps it will just devolve into preaching. As I say, wood chippers are expensive, but less so than using the books as they should be if they end up approving of child abuse -- as bathroom equipment. Lupinlore, who's willing to sell time on his woodchipper, and will even let you keep the mulch From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 30 15:05:26 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:05:26 -0000 Subject: The Knight of Walburga In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169517 > > Pippin: Stress like that would make anyone old beyond their > > years, and she must not have been terribly stable to begin > > with. > > Goddlefrood: > > It's a possibility, but Walburga was really not old at all by WW > standards. The degeneration noted in her portrait is, IMO, far > more than simply stress or worry induced. Pippin: What degeneration? She's described as "old", with yellowing skin (the artist in me thinks the varnish must be deteriorating -- the curtains would indicate that the medium is sensitive to light) and drooling. Harry is fifteen, and at that age everybody over forty looked old to me. Her hair is apparently hidden by a cap, so I suppose he's judging by the appearance of her skin and eyes. That can deteriorate very rapidly with stress. Of course one can drool at any age. Goodlefrood: I also would disagree that she was unstable. A pure blood extremist and married to her second cousin, yes, but not necessarily unstable. Pippin: If she was ranting like that in life, and she must have been, because she was apparently acting much the same when Sirius left home at sixteen, then surely she was unstable. Madness in the family would make it easier to understand why people thought Sirius had gone mad, too. I thought JKR meant the Knights of Walpurgis were the Death Eaters in an earlier version of the story, not in an earlier time *in* the story, if you know what I mean. Like Strider was once a Hobbit called Trotter. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed May 30 16:01:45 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 16:01:45 -0000 Subject: Marietta/On Children and the Other In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169518 > Alla: > > I am talking only about unrepentant Voldemort supporters. Those who > kill and torture for whatever reasons they have. > > I mean, I am not saying that Harry and any of the good guys should go > out and kill them for sport. > > But understand their reasons? I mean, if they wish to study > psychopaths for a living, maybe. Otherwise, why? Magpie: I didn't think that was even an issue. Harry liking Bellatrix or even Lucius Malfoy doesn't seem like anything he's being asked to do by anybody. II don't think Harry particularly needs to understand their reasons for killing and torturing--though I think he would do well to think about how his society may have wound up with so many of these people and their supporters. There wouldn't be anything wrong with his wanting to know. If Malfoy decides he's rather kill and torture for a living (despite the story about how he decided he would not like that) I don't think Harry would be called upon to have much understanding. Then, yes, I think it's enough to just understand that other people need to be protected from him. But I don't see where this is an issue in the book at all, which is why I don't think people are thinking about it much. If this is a coming of age story, coming of age doesn't usually mean dealing with psychopaths, because they are outside of most peoples' experience. But of course, somebody could enjoy killing and torturing and be against Voldemort too. It's interesting that in discussions of groups that people are watching to see who they'll side with it doesn't always come down to them being murderers. Alla: Wasting post again - Ugh, because did not add this sentence. YES, that is precisely what I am talking about. Harry should go as far as respecting all people who **help** him with Voldemort IMO. Magpie: Voldemort will be defeated in a year, and plenty of people in the world will never have had much to do with him. I suspect it's more important how Harry deals with people in general, and people who are different than he is, regardless of Voldemort. Which it actually does seem will be having some understanding of DEs. Not DEs like Bellatrix, maybe, but the ones who got in and wanted out. And I wouldn't count out Loyal Barty Crouch as not having anything to teach Harry at all, even if I'm not quite sure what it is. Barty's still quite popular with the kids even after his outing as a DE. So being a DE doesn't actually seem like a deal-breaker when it comes to being a guy the good guys like. He was nice to them and they learned loads. Alla: I think Malfoy will always remain the disgusting snob I thought of him when I read about him first, but IF he helps with Voldemort, he deserves respect from Harry and Trio, no matter how much they will dislike each other, if he **does not**, then he deserves no respect whatsoever in my view, because being with Voldemort is being on the unconditionally bad side. Magpie: Probably I'll always think Ginny is the awful person I think she is-- but I would still think she deserves a certain level of respect as a human being (more, it seems, than many people think some other characters deserve that they don't like). But I don't give her that respect or compassion because she helped against Voldemort. Lupinlore: If the trio were to decide "well, we don't like you but you are okay if you are against Voldy," that is as "relative" a morality as one that says Gryffindors good, Slytherins bad. It is in effect saying, "I don't care if you do whatever," yes, including abuse of children, "as long as you are on the right side." Not a very laudable moral message, that. In fact, I'd say it's downright contemptible. Magpie: Actually, I kind of agree. I think the problem is that it's just not that simple. There are no clear groups of good or bad. Every single character is just different. If Snape is DDM and has and did great things in the war against LV, that doesn't make his petty bullying of Harry in class part of that fight. Likewise, Snape's petty bullying of Harry in class doesn't cancel out any heroics on the good side. Even Quirrel doesn't deny Snape hates Harry, he just says that he also doesn't wish him dead...while Quirrel, who does not hate Harry, does want him dead. Barty Crouch was nice to Harry and is still a popular teacher, regardless of his being a very loyal DE who wanted Harry dead. JKR's strength seems to lie much of the time in creating characters built around a central conflict, perhaps because that way they can ram up against each other and do whatever they need to do for the plot for believable (sometimes) reasons. In the first book she pretty much threw down the gauntlet for nice vs. good if "good" meant working in the interest of bringing down Voldemort. She has said Snape is "deeply horrible," but that doesn't mean she's never had sympathy or empathy for him. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 16:10:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 16:10:43 -0000 Subject: A few words, once again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169519 Carol earlier: > > > > Another favorite moment, one that makes me smile, is Harry > > > > remembering "Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak," > > > > Bart: > > > Am I STILL the only person who does NOT think it's a coincidence that those 4 words contain the letters, "D,U,M,B,L,E,D,O,R and E"???? > > > Julie: > > Those 4 words also contain the letters T,O,M,R,I,D,D,L,E. Coincidence? > Mark: > > Maybe it's the letters that are missing that are important: > > C,F,G,H,J,P,Q,S,V,X,Y,Z > > Wow HJP the initials of our hero. Important, who knows? > Carol responds: For the record, I listed the "few words" as a favorite Harry moment because they caused Harry to smile amid his tears at Dumbledore's funeral. They're also one of my favorite Dumbledore moments because they so brilliantly illustrate his eccentric sense of humor (as does his Gryffin-door knocker). I think, like the Drooble's gum wrappers that Alice Longbottom gives Neville, that they convey a sentiment, a character trait, in a single, brilliant, memorable stroke. I don't think they're an anagram for anything, and I don't think they need to be. I do think the moment is important as it's part of our first glimpse of Dumbledore and first impressions are lasting impressions, right or wrong. (We see only a few of his many facets, but we don't forget that eccentric sense of humor even in HBP. And at those few times when the twinkle in his eyes goes out, we feel the intensity of the anger that overwhelms his gentler side and sense the power concealed beneath the twinkle.) Go ahead and search for anagrams if you must. Sigh. I know you're not deliberately trying to spoil the moment for me. But I do think it's a coincidence that "Dumbledore" and all those other words are contained in that collection. I think JKR chose "a few words" that she loves for their oddness and comic value to illustrate the same traits in Dumbledore as he (mischievously and deliberately, IMO) takes the phrase literally (and notes with satisfaction the surprise or amusement on various faces). Carol, wondering what would happen if a politician tried the same joke in Parliament From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 16:43:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 16:43:35 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: <1180530125.1328.1192509093@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169520 Simon wrote: > > > > My understanding is that you need a very powerful magic item. Would the item need to be in your hand? > > The Diary doesn't appear to have been be a 'very powerful magic item' pre-horcruxing. Nor, for that matter, does the snake, if it indeed is a horcrux. Carol responds: Dumbledore doesn't say that the item made into a Horcrux *has* to be powerfully magical. He says that Voldemort would prefer such an item, and that consequently the Horcruxes are not going to be mouth organs or tin cans ("You're thinking of portkeys," he tells Harry) but items of significance to Voldemort. and he explains that the diary fits this description--it's the proof that tom is the Heir of slytherin, which suggests that he put the memory of himself that Harry entered (and perhaps others, say using the Basilisk to kill Moaning Myrtle, which he certainly would not have showed Harry) before the diary became a Horcrux. It seems that the diary was created immediately, before he left school for the summer, with the intention of manipulating someone else into using the Basilisk to kill Muggleborns. Even after he had killed his father and grandparents the following summer, he still didn't know how to make a Horcrux, nor did talking with Slughorn provide him with all the information he needed. (The ring wasn't a Horcrux yet; it was still on his hand.) So I would say that the object must first, for Voldemort (not necessarily for Grindelvald or any other Horcrux maked), have personal significance, a connection to his heritage (the ring, the diary, the locket) or to the Hogwarts founders (the locket, the cup, "something from Gryffindor or Ravenclaw"--most likely Ravenclaw) or to his own restoration to bodily form (Nagini, whose venom contributed to the potion that created his fetal form and served as the "milk" that nourished her horrible surrogate child). I'm quite sure that Nagini is no ordinary snake and that she, too, qualifies as "powerfully magical." No ordinary snake would do as Lord Voldemort's familiar. On a side note, I think she may have withstood possession better than ordinary snakes and developed a bond with him even before she became a Horcrux, which may be how Quirrell smuggled Vapor!mort into England.) Logically, it doesn't make sense to use a living creature as a Horcrux, not only because it has a mind of its own, as DD pointed out, but because it's mortal, but perhaps Nagini, being magical, is as long-lived as a Basilisk, in which case she would serve the purpose as well as any object for a thousand years or so, and I don't think Voldemort thinks that far in advance. She would also have built-in protections, unlike rings that have to be hidden and cursed or lockets that have to be surrounded by Inferi and protected by a horrible potion. My own inference (DD says nothing about it) is that even for Grindelwald, who presumably didn't share Voldemort's obsession with relics relating to his wizarding heritage, a Horcrux should be resistant to rotting or weathering or rust, making a golden object (the ring, the cup, the locket) ideal for the purpose, especially if it were magical as well. Carol, hoping that whatever powers the locket and the cup possess can be used for good and not destroyed when whatever protective curse is on them is broken From shmantzel at yahoo.com Wed May 30 15:43:29 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <527224.22812.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169521 Julie: Still, I guess you're free to equate a school club formed illegally to learn a forbidden subject with the French Resistance in the midst of an actual war, and label Marietta as a MONSTROUS, VERY EVIL 15 year old who should have been executed. You might consider though that very few others here (if any?), even those who think Hermione's vengeance was well-played and well-deserved, seem to agree with your view. Could it be that your view is a little too extreme? Dantzel: I think that on these lists, people are not always supported 'vocally' because it's assumed that someone else will do it, but I also think that Marietta earned her punishment. YES it's acne and YES it'll be psychologically damaging... hmm. I think human beings are somewhat selfish, and that in such situations, if you are trying to fight for a cause, you have to protect 'your own', and if someone turns on you, you have a responsibility to the others and yourself to know who it was and to know who you can trust. Now, if Hermione had devised a spell that would chop the sneak's hand or tongue off, that would be more serious. --------------------------------- Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From myladysw at myladyswardrobe.com Wed May 30 16:52:03 2007 From: myladysw at myladyswardrobe.com (Bess Chilver) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:52:03 +0100 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169522 I have been following this thread quite closely. Julie wrote: .. >What Marietta did was betray her schoolmates to possible detention and expulsion from school, not to torture nor execution. (We have NOT >a shred of evidence that anyone besides the Trio knew about Umbridge's form of punishment on Harry's hand, and even those three don't >know she sent the Dementors to Harry's house.. (emphasis above is my own). I would just like to respectfully point out that there is at least one other besides the Trio who has experienced Umbridge's methods of punishment: Order of the Phoenix (British Edition) - Chapter 25 - The Beetle at Bay. Page 486-487. (Quote:) ".'Teachers are hereby banned from giving students any information that is not strictly related to the subjects they are paid to teach. The above is in accordance with Educational Decree Number Twenty-six. Signed: Dolores Jane Umbridge, High Inquisitor' This latest Decree had been the subject of a great number of jokes among the students. Lee Jordan had pointed out to Umbridge that by the terms of the new rule she was not allowed to tell Fred and George off for playing Exploding Snap in the back of the class. 'Exploding Snap's got nothing to do with Defence Against the Dark Arts, Professor! That's not information relating to your subject!' When Harry next saw Lee, the back of his hand was bleeding rather badly. Harry recommended the essence of Murtlap." (Endquote) This episode is sometime before Marietta betrays the DA. It looks to me as though Umbridge uses this particular form of punishment for any student and did not simply use it just for Harry. Therefore, I think it safe to assume that besides Harry and Lee there are probably other students who have experienced this "detention" - its just that Harry has not seen their hands so we the readers don't see them either. In any case, it does show clear evidence that betraying/sneaking/snitching on schoolmates to Umbridge could very well result in torture as a punishment. It seems to me that Marietta's "acne" is very much akin to the punishment Umbridge inflicts. There has been a lot of comment as to how unfair it would be if Marietta's acne does not clear up. Well, Harry's "I must not tell lies" are very much a permanent part of him now. Its clear that the words have been seared into the back of his hand for all time. I doubt very much if anyone will be able to remove those! I'm going back to lurking now - and patiently (or not) waiting for the days to go by to the final book - except I have one extra week to wait because I will be in Chicago when the book comes out. Best wishes all, Bess Chilver (www.myladyswardrobe.com ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 17:10:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:10:51 -0000 Subject: Marietta/On Children and the Other/Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169523 > Dantzel: > Now, if Hermione had devised a spell that would chop the sneak's hand or tongue off, that would be more serious. > Alla: I think you said another thing which just makes me support Hermione action even more. Hermione designed the spell that will punish **sneak**, she did not design the spell ( or found the spell) that would specifically target Marietta or anybody else for that matter. She came up with punishment for the **action**, NOT targeting specific person. I think under circumstances it was understandable and to me acceptable. IMO of course. It is like when McGonagall humiliated Neville for losing passwords in front of everybody. I think it was **Horrible**, but I hesitate to call it abuse of Neville, because I am pretty sure that no matter who would have answered hers " what incredibly foolish person", would have gotten the same tongue lashing. IMO of course. I do not think Hermione's action was horrible (not perfect, excessive - maybe), but I think loose analogy holds, for me anyways. > Magpie: > I didn't think that was even an issue. Harry liking Bellatrix or > even Lucius Malfoy doesn't seem like anything he's being asked to do > by anybody. II don't think Harry particularly needs to understand > their reasons for killing and torturing--though I think he would do > well to think about how his society may have wound up with so many > of these people and their supporters. There wouldn't be anything > wrong with his wanting to know. Alla: I thought that Harry was asked to understand Malfoy and I was saying that if he *Malfoy** ends up like Bella or his dad, Harry does not have to do that IMO. Sure, there is nothing wrong with his wanting to know, IF he wants to. I was saying it will not decrease his worth as "person" to me if he would not. Magpie: > If Malfoy decides he's rather kill and torture for a living (despite > the story about how he decided he would not like that) I don't think > Harry would be called upon to have much understanding. Alla: I have not read that story yet, personally. I read the story of him planning the assassination and then lowering his wand when standing in front of Dumbledore that was it so far. But that's good that we agree on this point. > Magpie: > Probably I'll always think Ginny is the awful person I think she is- - > but I would still think she deserves a certain level of respect as a > human being (more, it seems, than many people think some other > characters deserve that they don't like). But I don't give her that > respect or compassion because she helped against Voldemort. Alla: Well, I guess we differ then, if I understand you correctly. Sorry if I do not. I mean, my **default mode** of existence is obviously to give respect and compassion to human beings, or at least try to. But if I learn that person did awful things, the fact that person is a human being does nothing really to increase my respect. I need to see that person to try and mitigate the awful things he/she did and then such person will get my respect. I respect Ginny as character sort of by default because I think she has plenty good qualities and did good things, although she did some bad things too. I do *not* respect Malfoy as a character yet at all, because I think he did plenty awful things and nothing to mitigate them. I **may** respect some of his actions in book 7 or not, we shall see. > Lupinlore: > If the trio were to decide "well, we don't like you but you > are okay if you are against Voldy," that is as "relative" a morality > as one that says Gryffindors good, Slytherins bad. It is in effect > saying, "I don't care if you do whatever," yes, including abuse of > children, "as long as you are on the right side." Not a very > laudable moral message, that. In fact, I'd say it's downright > contemptible. > > Magpie: > Actually, I kind of agree. I think the problem is that it's just not > that simple. There are no clear groups of good or bad. Every single > character is just different. If Snape is DDM and has and did great > things in the war against LV, that doesn't make his petty bullying > of Harry in class part of that fight. Likewise, Snape's petty > bullying of Harry in class doesn't cancel out any heroics on the > good side. Even Quirrel doesn't deny Snape hates Harry, he just says > that he also doesn't wish him dead...while Quirrel, who does not > hate Harry, does want him dead. Barty Crouch was nice to Harry and > is still a popular teacher, regardless of his being a very loyal DE > who wanted Harry dead. Alla: LOL. I was waiting someone to ask in response to my remark about Malfoy whether Harry should respect Snape if he helps him against Voldemort? I may as well address it here, sort of related argument. I would say that then Harry should respect Snape's action, sure. But there is no way Harry should in my opinion respect Snape other actions towards him, since indeed one has nothing to do with one another IMO. Hmmm, if I am saying that, does it mean that Harry should not give Malfoy complete respect even if he is on the right side? No, probably not, I think that what Snape did against Harry is truly evil and nothing will cross it out completely. I think Malfoy did evil towards other people ( I do think for example that Hagrid will be fully justified in not respecting Malfoy ever), but what he did towards Harry is at least not as horrible as what Snape did to him. Hmmm, have to think about it. JMO, Alla. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed May 30 17:22:42 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:22:42 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: <1180532468.6220.1192516359@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169524 random832 at ... wrote: > I can see nothing to indicate either > that she contributed in any way to > Sirius's death, or that the events at > the department of mysteries would not > have happened exactly the same way > without her doing what she did. If Marietta had not betrayed them Dumbledore would not have been not have been forced to leave Hogwarts, and if Dumbledore was still there Voldemort could never have fooled Harry into going to the Ministry. But that's OK I can already hear you saying, she's not responsible for her evil act because her head was full of wrong ideas. I tend to think root cause of all evil acts is wrong ideas. I don't care if she thought she was doing the right thing because she was dead wrong about that too. Let me ask you something, if you were Marietta and after the betrayal you learned the true nature of the situation would you still feel ill used? Far from continuing to complain about my acne I'd fall to my knees and beg for forgiveness. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 17:24:41 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:24:41 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169525 Lupinlore wrote: > The problem with charges of moral relativism is that the definition is, frankly, relative. I guess that proves the point in a way. Is it moral relativism for the trio to hex the Slytherins and it be good whereas for the Slytherins to hex the trio is bad? Depends on what your morals are relative to. > > > "Nice is not the same as good?" Oh, yes, I think, it is. Now, there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils (or three or six or five hundred). But the lesser of two evils is still evil, and can't be called good. It it is, or it is dismissed as morally unimportant, once again, I'd say that's contemptible. Carol responds: I'm not going to toss around terms like "contemptible" for ideas I disagree with, nor am I going to dispute your assertion that nice is the same as good except to say that that's a matter of opinion and not one I share. But I'd like to ask what you think of Ginny Weasley, who is certainly on the right side but does not strike me as nice (with one or two exceptions), especially in OoP and HBP--lying to her mother about the dungbombs, hexing Zacharias Smith at every opportunity--and note that Zach is a Hufflepuff and fellow DE member, whose only "crime" is not taking Harry's (and Dumbledore's) word that Voldemort is back. For that matter, the Twins aren't nice either--great bullying gits who inflict a ton-tongue toffee on a helpless Muggle they don't even know because that they've heard he's a bully. A bit hypocritical, I'd say, and not at all nice. But they're Harry's friends and opposed to Voldemort. Sod does that make them good, in your view? Carol, who doesn't like Ginny or the Twins but is trying to avoid simplistic moral judgments and is curious as to LL's view of them > From sherryb at derry.lib.nh.us Wed May 30 17:24:00 2007 From: sherryb at derry.lib.nh.us (lytabunny) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:24:00 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169526 (New poster, here...) It seems to me that someone making a Horcrux would choose an item which seems relatively benign BUT which has enough intrinsic value or interest to be preserved and not discarded casually or otherwise put in jeopardy. Powerful magical objects would qualify, among other things. Sherry Bailey From random832 at fastmail.us Wed May 30 17:43:02 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:43:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1180546982.11223.1192565203@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169527 eggplant107: > If Marietta had not betrayed them Dumbledore would not have been not > have been forced to leave Hogwarts, and if Dumbledore was still there > Voldemort could never have fooled Harry into going to the Ministry. I find both of these assertions just a little hollow. Umbridge would have found another way to force DD out, eventually, and I don't see any indication that Harry would have gone to him with this regardless. -- random832 at fastmail.us From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 17:55:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:55:23 -0000 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169528 Bess Chilver wrote: > I would just like to respectfully point out that there is at least one other besides the Trio who has experienced Umbridge's methods of punishment: Lee Jordan had pointed out to Umbridge that by the terms of the new rule she was not allowed to tell Fred and George off for playing Exploding Snap in the back of the class. > > 'Exploding Snap's got nothing to do with Defence Against the Dark Arts, Professor! That's not information relating to your subject!' > > When Harry next saw Lee, the back of his hand was bleeding rather badly. Harry recommended the essence of Murtlap." (Endquote) > > This episode is sometime before Marietta betrays the DA. It looks to me as though Umbridge uses this particular form of punishment for any student and did not simply use it just for Harry. Therefore, I think it safe to assume that besides Harry and Lee there are probably other students who have experienced this "detention" - its just that Harry has not seen their hands so we the readers don't see them either. > Carol responds: If Harry didn't see their hands, it seems probable that Marietta didn't, either. Harry didn't tell anyone except Ron and Hermione about his punishment, and it isn't common knowledge even among the DA members. similarly, Marietta would not have been in Lee's DADA class since she's a Ravenclaw and apparently a sixth-year like Cho (which explains why she shows no concern about her DADA OWL), not a Gryffindor seventh-year like Lee. If such punishments were well-known, I don't think students would be laughing at that particular decree. Bess: > It seems to me that Marietta's "acne" is very much akin to the punishment Umbridge inflicts. There has been a lot of comment as to how unfair it would be if Marietta's acne does not clear up. Well, Harry's "I must not tell lies" are very much a permanent part of him now. Its clear that the words have been seared into the back of his hand for all time. I doubt very much if anyone will be able to remove those! Carol: True. But Umbridge, not Marietta, is responsible for them. Carol, thinking that "Torturer" spelled out in permanent "purpustules" on Umbridge's face might be an appropriate punishment for *her* but still sees a similar punishment for Marietta as excessive (not "evil") From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 18:22:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 18:22:14 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169529 Eggplant: > If Marietta had not betrayed them Dumbledore would not have been not have been forced to leave Hogwarts, and if Dumbledore was still there Voldemort could never have fooled Harry into going to the Ministry. > But that's OK I can already hear you saying, she's not responsible for her evil act because her head was full of wrong ideas. I tend to think root cause of all evil acts is wrong ideas. I don't care if she thought she was doing the right thing because she was dead wrong about > that too. > > Let me ask you something, if you were Marietta and after the betrayal you learned the true nature of the situation would you still feel ill used? Far from continuing to complain about my acne I'd fall to my knees and beg for forgiveness. Carol responds: If characters are responsible for the unintended and unanticipated consequences of their actions, then Trelawney is responsible for the consequences of the Prophecy and Harry is responsible for both Wormtail's restoration of Voldemort (along with Cedric's murder) because he showed Wormtail mercy and Sirius Black's death because he listened to the fake vision. (Obviously, I don't hold any such view.) Really, Eggplant, I understand that you hate Marietta and view her as a traitor, but realistically, the only consequence she could have anticipated was expulsion for her fellow students. Hate her for that, if you will, but let's not exaggerate. She didn't know that Voldemort was back, and as far as she was concerned, Sirius Black was a wanted murderer and Voldemort supporter who was still at large. The people responsible for his death are Bellatrix, Voldemort, the Malfoys, and Kreacher, and not even they anticipated his fighting Bellatrix on the dais with his back turned to the Veil. As for still feeling ill-used after learning the consequences of her action, that's going to be a bit difficult given the memory charm, but no one was expelled and DD *chose* to go into hiding and take the blame. Those are the only direct consequences that Marietta would need to feel sorry about, so, no, I don't think she'd be begging for forgiveness. She might, however, have regretted her action if she'd retained her memory and had the SNEAK hex on her forehead for a week, but the longer she suffers from it, IMO, the less likely she'll be to regret her actions. And even if she gets her memory back, the last thing she's going to blame herself for is the death of sirius Black. If Harry and his friends had actually been expelled and had fallen victim to Voldemort, it would have been another matter, and she would certainly be suffering terrible remorse--if she had her memory and knew what she had done. But that didn't happen. All that happened was a petty tyrant taking over Hogwarts and being made a fool of by the Weasley Twins. Carol, thinking that Marietta, like Percy, is deluded rather than evil and should be judged accordingly, especially given her youth From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 18:14:56 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 18:14:56 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: <1180546982.11223.1192565203@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169530 > eggplant107: > > If Marietta had not betrayed them Dumbledore would not have been not > > have been forced to leave Hogwarts, and if Dumbledore was still there > > Voldemort could never have fooled Harry into going to the Ministry. random832: > I find both of these assertions just a little hollow. Umbridge would > have found another way to force DD out, eventually, and I don't see any > indication that Harry would have gone to him with this regardless. > -- Would Umbridge have forced DD out regardless? Being a counterfactual, that's impossible to prove one way or another, but I don't think it really has anything to do with Marietta's guilt for her role in forcing DD out. Everyone will die someday, but that doesn't make murder okay -- even if the death is relatively imminent (which is one reason I don't think the "DD was dieing anyway" defense of Snape holds any moral water, sorry). Now, the second part of the assertion, that Harry probably would not have gone to DD, is something I go along with. It is, of course, DD's fault, however, it is not Marietta's. Having said that, once again I don't think that lessens Marietta's guilt for her role in forcing DD to leave. Lupinlore From jajaredor at yahoo.com Wed May 30 17:21:34 2007 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (Jaja Redor) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SHIP Re: Why did JKR not explore H/Hr as canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <768711.50655.qm@web61223.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169531 kmrhapsody: To add to this fire, I must also say that her public diss of Hermione was just rotten. To effectively shun the one person who has bothered to notice and in her own way encourage the development of the "new beloved Ginny" for the purposes of getting some cool points with Harry was a pretty lousy move. Jaja: Agreed. I just cannot comprehend why Ginny has to attack the person who has helped her to get along with Harry? She embarrased Hermione in front of the others and for what? IMO, just so she can show to Harry that she'll back him up to whatever and wherever he'll do, which is not saying much at the end of HBP. Very contradicting.. kmrhapsody: Speaking of which, that is also the reason why I am still on the fence on whether or not Hermione does have a crush on Ron, at the same level as Ron does for her. She is always rooting for the underdog and made many moves throughout the series to keep Ron in the fold and to minimize his feelings of alienation. In return, Ron treats her rather cruelly. She is never capable of doing anything right in his eyes and is always at odds with him. That is why I think she attacked him with the birds. I would have done the same. Jaja: Speaking for myself, I have been in a company of guys so I can relate to Hermione, actually, my best friend is a guy.. Honestly speaking, I get jealous whenever my best friend has GF but not because I want him for myself but because we'll have less time together. I read Hermione basically the same, at platonic level. So I don't think Hermione attacked Ron because of romantic issues. It could be interpreted by tons of of reasons and alibis, like she's annoyed of Ron because of his choice of GF (IMO, yes, it was very annoying that Won-won and Lav-lav were acting that way, it wasn't funny). Jaja From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed May 30 18:47:19 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 18:47:19 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169532 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > random832@ wrote: > > > I can see nothing to indicate either > > that she contributed in any way to > > Sirius's death, or that the events at > > the department of mysteries would not > > have happened exactly the same way > > without her doing what she did. > > If Marietta had not betrayed them Dumbledore would not have been not > have been forced to leave Hogwarts, and if Dumbledore was still there > Voldemort could never have fooled Harry into going to the Ministry. > But that's OK I can already hear you saying, she's not responsible for > her evil act because her head was full of wrong ideas. I tend to think > root cause of all evil acts is wrong ideas. I don't care if she > thought she was doing the right thing because she was dead wrong about > that too. > > Let me ask you something, if you were Marietta and after the betrayal > you learned the true nature of the situation would you still feel ill > used? Far from continuing to complain about my acne I'd fall to my > knees and beg for forgiveness. > > Eggplant JW: It is said that good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from BAD judgement. The oppressive regime represented by Fudge and Umbridge is tyrannical, inflexible and cruel. Marietta knows this through the progressively fascistic education decrees, and the intrinsic nature of the Inquisitor position. Therefore, by exposing people to the retribution of a petty tyrant, Marietta has shown bad judgement. As a result of her bad judgement she has gained some experience. Perhaps JKR will now allow this character to exercise good judgement. One example of good judgement would be for Marietta to understand the complete nature of the war, the role played by the ministry leadership, and to seek (or, minimally, accept) rapprochement with the trio in order to resist and overcome all adversaries. From jajaredor at yahoo.com Wed May 30 17:38:55 2007 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (Jaja Redor) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SHIP Hermione fancies Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <174139.61821.qm@web61218.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169533 Dondee: ..... She probably can't explain herself why she likes him, which is probably another reason why she gets annoyed with him. What she is really annoyed with is how he makes her feel - something our beloved control-freak-Hermione can't control... Jaja: And probably why, if Hermione likes Ron so much, can't she lower her temper everytime they have a banter.. Hermione gave good advice to Ginny, why can't she do something about her feelings towards Ron? I see Hermione as hard headed, strong. I don't see her changing her personality just to fit to Ron's.. so I don't see them together in the long run Jaja From bartl at sprynet.com Wed May 30 19:57:18 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:57:18 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Concerning Horcuxes Message-ID: <20352504.1180555038751.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169534 Sherry Bailey: >It seems to me that someone making a Horcrux would choose an item which >seems relatively benign BUT which has enough intrinsic value or >interest to be preserved and not discarded casually or otherwise put in >jeopardy. Powerful magical objects would qualify, among other things. Bart: Of course, you must remember that it takes a specially sick mind to create a Horcrux in the first place; someone so cut off from their own soul that they don't even miss it when a chunk is missing. While murder may tear the soul apart, it can be repaired. But once a horcrux is created, the repair can no longer be made. Theoretically, that would make it a fate worse than death. But Voldemort doesn't even notice the difference. And that is why he is irredeemable. He has lost so much of his soul that he is little more than an animal now. With the soul comes the ability to make choices; he can no longer do so, but is trapped on the path he created for himself. Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed May 30 21:05:55 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:05:55 -0000 Subject: Marietta/On Children and the Other/Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169535 > > Magpie: > > Probably I'll always think Ginny is the awful person I think she is- > - > > but I would still think she deserves a certain level of respect as > a > > human being (more, it seems, than many people think some other > > characters deserve that they don't like). But I don't give her that > > respect or compassion because she helped against Voldemort. > > Alla: > > Well, I guess we differ then, if I understand you correctly. Sorry if > I do not. I mean, my **default mode** of existence is obviously to > give respect and compassion to human beings, or at least try to. But > if I learn that person did awful things, the fact that person is a > human being does nothing really to increase my respect. I need to see > that person to try and mitigate the awful things he/she did and then > such person will get my respect. > > I respect Ginny as character sort of by default because I think she > has plenty good qualities and did good things, although she did some > bad things too. I do *not* respect Malfoy as a character yet at all, > because I think he did plenty awful things and nothing to mitigate > them. I **may** respect some of his actions in book 7 or not, we > shall see. Magpie: I guess we might. I already respect Malfoy as a character more since I like the character, of course. Though it also probably just comes down to things we enjoy reading even if we "shouldn't." I don't enjoy Marietta's hexing, though at this point I'd probably get great satisfaction if Hermione woke up with her own purple pustules and a note that said they would disappear the moment she made Marietta's disappear. Because even if I disagree about what Marietta did, I also disagree with Hermione giving herself that much power--and would think that twice as much if I had signed her paper. Though to be honest I still *wouldn't* enjoy it if the things had a chance of being permenant, because I wouldn't want Hermione marked that way forever either. Likewise just as you see no reason for Hagrid to have any respect for Draco, I see no reason for Draco to have any respect for Hagrid. But I wouldn't want to see either of them maim the other permenantly. There's lines I wouldn't cross for both of them, and different characters seem like they can take more or different types of punishments. I also think for me Draco just demonstrates more interesting and important things because he's forced to face more consequences in the series. I think that's why Snape has even more people interested in him as well. When Snape treats others badly it's both seen as Snape treating them badly and (usually--I know seen people defend everything he does or blame it on someone else etc.) as a character flaw on Snape's part that's got to do with his issues. Ginny seems to embody exactly the trouble I have with the whole question, which reads more like just treating others with casual contempt as long as you don't consider them innocent because you're awesome, obviously. I don't like feeling like there's a consistent subtext about the general worthlessness of some people in canon beyond what I feel myself, and I also sometimes find it unrealistic that this doesn't always bring its own punishment on the good guys the way it does with other characters. So for instance, Hermione can carry out extreme revenge schemes and get away with it, imo because at least so far Rowling isn't interested in writing the other person getting revenge back. I don't think there's any character in canon I react to in exactly the same way as another. Everybody brings a whole list of incidents to pick apart and figure out how I felt about it and why. But on the other hand, JKR doesn't always do that. It's hard for me to completely separate the Marauders' arrogance from their failures and with Snape she does show that casual cruelty can lead to problems later on because the people on the receiving end have their own point of view. Not only might they not fall on their knees and ask forgiveness, they might be able to accurately list the faults of the other person as quickly as could be done for them. Other people do seem to get how they're thought of by others. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 21:10:02 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:10:02 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169536 > >>houyhnhnm: > > What happens after Voldemort is defeated? This is > > the problem I have with a standard of morality that > > defines goodness and badness according to whether or > > not one is on the "right" side... > > > > I will accept anyone who is one my side? That is > > not tolerance. Tolerance is a commitment to the > > the belief that *everyone* has a right to be. > >>Alla: > Well, sure, everyone has a right to be on the *right* side, I agree > and should be accepted if they want to. > Betsy Hp: Ah, but houyhnhnm is saying everyone has a right *to be*. Your political choices shouldn't determine whether or not you have the right to exist as a human being. Whether you share basic human rights like a right to a fair trial, etc. And that is something the Trio has shown they don't have a grasp of yet. Marietta, for example, has been punished without benefit of a trial. Hermione removed Marietta's right. IOWs, as per Hermione, Hermione is more equal than Marietta, because Marietta is "other" and not quite as human as Hermione is. Harry and Co. think they can dictate what all is involved in being on the "right side". And apparently it's not merely being against Voldemort. One must also be against the Ministry, for Dumbledore, for the Gryffindor quidditch team, personally positive towards Harry and his friends, and I *think* that's everything. Oh, and of course, you need to be willing to turn on your family the *moment* they question any of the above. Then you come close to rating as being on the "right" side. > >>Magpie: > > I don't think tolerance ever has to do with thinking someone is a > > wonderful person or with applauding all their choices. > > > >>Alla: > I am talking only about unrepentant Voldemort supporters. Those who > kill and torture for whatever reasons they have. > Betsy Hp: Which is easy. Of course Bellatrix and Fenrir and Voldemort are bad and deserving of punishment. One doesn't tolerate the killing of children, torture, murder, etc. (Though that doesn't or shouldn't allow one to torture and murder in turn.) But Marietta is not a Voldemort supporter. Zach Smith is not a Voldemort supporter. Rita Skeeter is not a Voldemort supporter. And yet, Harry and co. all enjoy (and sometimes seem to rather relish) the physical and emotional pains they put those characters through. Why is that okay? Because they're different enough, in their beliefs, in their methodologies, that they register as "other". Imagine if someone blackmailed Hagrid into quitting his job. Imagine if Hermione had a word written across her face in purple pustules. Imagine if Ron was hexed and then assulted by a member of an opposing quidditch team. Would that be okay? What if the perpetraters thought their actions valid? What if Hagrid was forced to quit by someone genuinely bothered by Hagrid's willingness to deal in illegal dragon raising (Charlie Weasley)? What if Hermione triggered a house-elf hex after hiding clothes under random bits of trash (Hogwarts elf)? Um, Ron, being a Gryffindor is harder to do. None of the other teams are seen as "real" by Harry and co. So just imagine it's someone who really, really supports their own team, and overheard Ron badmouthing them. Would Harry be okay with his friends being treated that way? Even if they kind of asked for it (per the perpertraters anyway)? Or would he see the punishment as intolerant and over the top, an example of someone taking the law into their own hands? I doubt Harry would be pleased or even resigned. As far as Harry is concerned his friends are human, so they should be treated as such. The problem is, Harry and his friends have a hard time seeing that other people are just as human as they are. > >>Lupinlore: > > The problem with charges of moral relativism is that the definition > is, frankly, relative. I guess that proves the point in a way. Is > it moral relativism for the trio to hex the Slytherins and it be > good whereas for the Slytherins to hex the trio is bad? Depends on > what your morals are relative to. > Betsy Hp: Exactly. Not so easy, is it? And if Hermione (for example) is not operating from a *moral* highground, which she can't be sure she's doing (all things being relative), than she's merely operating from a *stronger* ground. Her kung fu trumps Marietta's. For now. That could change tomorrow. For Harry it *did* change. On the train ride into Hogwarts in HBP, Draco's kung fu trumped Harry's, and it was Harry lying alone and forgotten in a dark train compartment. Which is why, IMO, anarchy (or the lack of basic, agreed upon laws) devolves into might makes right, and morals get determined by who holds the biggest, well, wand. That's Voldemort's way. And unfortunately, it's been the Trio's way, too. And I think it's hinted that Crouch, Sr. felt that way too. The other way, is a rule of law where *everyone* is understood to have the same basic rights, no matter their political beliefs or quidditch team. And no one, *no one*, is free to take the law into their own hands. I *think* that's the way Dumbledore is supposed to be going. (I'll admit that sometimes it's hard to tell. ) But it is the way the books will hopefully support in the end. Otherwise, the woodchipper! Betsy Hp From amis917 at hotmail.com Wed May 30 21:13:23 2007 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (amis917) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:13:23 -0000 Subject: SHIP Hermione fancies Ron In-Reply-To: <174139.61821.qm@web61218.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169537 Jaja: And probably why, if Hermione likes Ron so much, can't she lower her temper everytime they have a banter.. Hermione gave good advice to Ginny, why can't she do something about her feelings towards Ron? I see Hermione as hard headed, strong. I don't see her changing her personality just to fit to Ron's.. so I don't see them together in the long run Amis917 now: Oh you people, it's romance!!! LOL It doesn't really need a reason. (as someone said earlier in the thread "because JKR said so". While JKR may not be a very good romance writer (which is why some people are unconvinced) I don't think it's a very big strech to see them together. And anyway, as much as people try not to admit to it, they frequently get into relationships that are similar to those of their parents'. Isn't Mrs. Weasly pretty bossy, and hard headed?? She orders Mr. Weasly around for the most part. But their relationship seems pretty solid. I see Ron and Hermonie having a relationship very similar to theirs. In HBP we seen Hermonie often blowing up at Ron because she's getting her feelings hurt. She tries to hurt him back, but really isn't cut out for it. I think the way both of them act is well within their characthers and appropriate for their ages. I don't think it necessarily reflects the way she'd treat him in a bf/gf relationship. Amis917 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 21:24:39 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:24:39 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169538 > >>houyhnhnm: > > > Tolerance is a commitment to the the belief that *everyone* has a > > right to be. > >>Jen: I agree with everything you've said here personally, I'm > just not sure it's within the scope of the books or the trajectory > of the Trio to make it *all* the way there by the last book? > Starting to get there, yes, making movement forward. > Betsy Hp: I meant to include this in my other post, sorry. But yes, I agree Jen that we're not going to get hearts and flowers and utopia in the WW at the end of the series. Though I *do* think we'll get a pretty strong indication that each type of person in Hogwarts has a certain worth. That they are all viable human beings. I think it'll be done through the uniting of the Houses, and I think it'll occur through the horcrux hunt. That the Trio have had negative interactions with people in each house is meaningful I think. (Well, it's been more Ginny against Zach, but Harry may do stand in in his role as Ginny's boyfriend, maybe? Harry certainly enjoyed Ginny's attacking Zach, anyway.) I doubt it will be everyone becoming best friends forever. Especially since the various relationships seem to be trending to remain in house (Harry/Ginny, Ron/Hermione). But I do think there will be a moment of "oh, you are an actual person". Which all it takes, really. Betsy Hp (dashing off, again -- getting kind of tired of the constant dashing really -- hope this makes sense! ) From ida3 at planet.nl Wed May 30 21:26:04 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:26:04 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169539 Eggplant: > If Marietta had not betrayed them Dumbledore would not have been not > have been forced to leave Hogwarts, and if Dumbledore was still > thereVoldemort could never have fooled Harry into going to the > Ministry. But that's OK I can already hear you saying, she's not > responsible for her evil act because her head was full of wrong > ideas. I tend to think root cause of all evil acts is wrong ideas. > I don't care if she thought she was doing the right thing because > she was dead wrong about that too. > > Let me ask you something, if you were Marietta and after the > betrayal you learned the true nature of the situation would you > still feel ill used? Far from continuing to complain about my acne > I'd fall to my knees and beg for forgiveness. Dana: To some level I agree because if Marietta really had a moral problem with holding the secret of this illegal gathering (for instance because he mother is a ministry employee) then she should have gone to either DD or her head of house and not to Umbridge, who herself at that specific time was not a specific *Hogwarts* authority. Marietta did not just sneaked on other students breaking Hogwarts school rules but Ministry rules and her betrayal was therefore not just a mere student ratting out other students. The MoM was on a specific smear campaign against both DD and Harry from the start of the school year and Marietta being the daughter of a MoM employee must have known this, especially because it was her own mother who was in charge of monitoring Floo Network activity. In RL WWII, people in Europe, in occupied territory, snitched on people giving shelter to Jewish people because they were scared of repercussions if the Germans found out through other means. It was not merely thinking about doing the right thing, it was being scared of somehow being associated with those that resisted that occupation. I believe that is what happened with Marietta, her being scared that her involvement in the DA would somehow either backfire on herself or on her mother. To some level this is an understandable reaction but she should have thought about that before she joined the group and made a stand that she rather not be associated with this idea, instead of joining up first and then get scared for her own involvement. In both Harry Potter and in RL people die when people get scared and sell information to the other party. Wormtail did the same thing and it caused more then 2 people their lives, he chose to join LV's side because DD's side was losing the war and Wormtail was scared that his connection to DD and opposing LV could get him killed and he rather sell out his friends then die himself. Many people in the WWII, did the same thing when it seemed Hitler's regime was going to be undefeatable and they actively participated in selling out others so they could gain the protection for themselves and their families. We rather forget this side of war and rather remember the heroic deeds that let to victory and freedom but these stories are very real. Anne Frank's story is probably the most famous of these. She did not have to die, she was not murdered by the Germans but she died of disease just mere weeks before the camp was liberated. The intentions of the person selling the Franks and the other living there, out, might not have been out of pure evil but we should not underestimate the consequences these actions still had. Otto Frank came back from the war alone, he had lost his entire family because of it, no one of the other people, in hiding there, ever returned. As Sirius said in GoF, war brings out the best in some and the worst in others. The MoM might not have been on the side of LV at the time the events of OotP took place but their actions put a lot of people in serious danger. It was actually very comparable with what happened with Hitler when he first started to take over countries. It seemed so innocent at first and no one interfered but these actions caused Hitler to be able to gain strength by taking over richer countries like for instance Austria and making allegiances with Mussolini and when finally the rest of the world realized what Hitler was planning, it was already to late and he overran most countries with relative ease. I think the basis of Harry Potter is the same, if countries before WWII had united and forget about their differences for a moment then Hitler would never have been able to build up his army and hold Europe under his clutches for 5 long years and it wouldn't have cost millions of people their lives. And yes after WWII most countries denied their responsibilities in letting it happen or even in taking care of the havoc Hitler caused, they pulled back and just took care of their own and that was it. No one learned a single lesson from it and it could happen again because people these days are no longer willing to fight for a single cause let alone their fellow human beings. Let others take care of it and let it be as far away from my bed as possible. Marietta's action did sent a rollercoaster of events into action as the removal of DD and him being a fugitive was, in my opinion, directly linked to the removal of Hagrid and with it McGonagall. DD prevented Marietta from putting Harry in direct danger but he could not prevent the indirect implications her actions had in the events of OotP. Hermione's actions are in my opinion not a result of bad judgment on Hermione's part, on the contrary, Hermione knew perfectly well what implications, going against the MoM, could have if they were caught and in a sense, her putting a jinx on the paper, they all signed out of free will and specifically stated that by signing this they'd swore to keep the secret, prevented at least Harry's removal from Hogwarts and as we see in GoF LV specifically states that he could not get to Harry there. Unfortunately DD could not undo the part of Marietta's sell out of the location and the time of the meeting even if Marietta was prevented to implicate Harry further. Marietta's actions had far more implications then just putting some fellow students in trouble, her actions caused an even further rift between DD and the MoM that only could be resolved with LV's exposure. I can only say in our world or Harry Potter's world there does not exist something like pure good and holding characters up to this standard because they are the main characters in a fight against evil is unrealistic to say the least. There is only responsibility for ones actions and some characters seemed to be far less willing to claim their own in events. There is only one evil in JKR's world and that is willingly leading people to their death's for own personal gain (what ever that gain is) and that is what separates the good guys from the bad and put the rest in the middle. No where did I ever see one person being portrayed as flawless just because he is on the side of the supposed good and neither do I think should the reader hold people to these unrealistic standards. Even love is portrayed as something so beautiful and so terrible at the same time that the door in the DoM is permanently locked. Morality is not a static thing but when you hold a specific morality to one group then one should apply that same morality to the other and not apply different moral standards just because people are on different sides of the fence. If one wants to condemn Hermione for putting a jinx on a piece of paper that every one signed out of their own free will then one should apply that same standard to Marietta's actions and then see who's actions had the biggest consequences. JMHO Dana From juli17 at aol.com Wed May 30 21:35:14 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:35:14 EDT Subject: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169540 Eggplant: Again and again I see the same defense, not just of Marietta but for Snape too, that it's OK to do evil things as long as you're sincere; personally I think sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue. I'll pick someone insincerely right over someone sincerely wrong any day. Julie: If intent and sincerity mean nothing, then you are verging into the territory where the end always justifys the means. I realize some do believe this is so, especially when it comes to the "bad" guys versus the "good" guys. While intent isn't everything, it does have weight when it comes to judging someone's actions. At least it does for me. In this case Marietta knew exactly what everyone else knew, and she made her decision based on that information, not based on Umbridge being a torturer and attempted murderer. (Should we also blame Sirius because Peter was an evil turncoat and Sirius talked James into using Peter as his Secret-Keeper? He's sincere and his intent is certainly better than Marietta's, but the end result is much, much worse than Marietta's betrayal--and not because Marietta stopped talking when the hex took effect, but because Dumbledore would have stepped in either way if Umbridge tried to expel the students). There is also a difference between a wrong act and an evil act, IMO. Just when a wrong act becomes an evil act is very much up to individual interpretation, I know. So where you see Marietta committing an evil act, I see her committing a wrong act. OTOH, I think Peter committed an evil act in betraying the Potters because he *knew* exactly what he was consigning them to, which is again where I see a big difference, while you perhaps do not (if you buy the idea that Umbridge's status as a torturer/attempted murderer has any bearing on what she can actually do to the DA students, which I find questionable--Dumbledore interference again). Marietta knew nothing more than expulsion would happen-- and there is NO evidence this includes your wand being broken--or even more realistically in the current expulsion-as-an-empty-threat environment of Hogwarts, she may have assumed detention was more likely. She chose to do the wrong thing and she was wrong, but she didn't choose to do evil nor is she evil, IMO. Julie, resigned to disagreement, but not on the basis that I or anyone else thinks it's okay to commit "evil" acts if one is sincere, but because our definitions of what constitutes an evil act differ. (It's not even okay to commit wrong acts, BTW, but these acts are usually more understandable and forgivable, and generally with less intent to cause suffering, than evil acts.) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 21:39:02 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:39:02 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169541 Alla: > So, suppose Malfoy decides that being with DE and Lordie Voldy suits > his fancy better. Does that mean that Trio should applaud him and > accept his choice? I mean, applaud probably is the wrong word, but > you know what I mean. > > Are they still obligated to think that he is a wonderful person to be > considered you know, tolerant? Montavilla47: No, actually. The definition of tolerance is not thinking that people are wonderful if they aren't. The essence of tolerance is treating with respect people you *don't* think are wonderful. It's the Golden Rule thingy. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, if you would prefer that the Death Eaters not laugh at you when the Dark Lord is Crucio'ing you, you give their children enough respect not to laugh at them when they are being bounced up and down on stone floors. (Please note: I'm am *not* saying Harry deserved anything that happened to him in the graveyard because he enjoyed the ferret-bouncing. He didn't deserve it for any reason. None at all.) A better example: Snape is frustrated because Harry doesn't give him respect. But Harry doesn't give Snape respect because Snape started their relationship by humiliating him. If Snape had showed an even basic respect for Harry, Harry would have returned basic respect in return. Whether they hated each other or not would be irrelevant. Montavilla47 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 21:56:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:56:13 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169542 > > >>Alla: > > Well, sure, everyone has a right to be on the *right* side, I agree > > and should be accepted if they want to. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Ah, but houyhnhnm is saying everyone has a right *to be*. Alla: HA. I definitely misunderstood then. Betsy Hp: Your > political choices shouldn't determine whether or not you have the > right to exist as a human being. Whether you share basic human > rights like a right to a fair trial, etc. Alla: Sure, on the other hand your political choices will often lead to the consequences of them IMO and I do not subscribe to the absolute moral relativism idea ( not saying that you do, just in general) and think that some political choices make you a bad person. So, yeah, every murderer and torturer has a right to fair trial, at the same time if I see enough evidence that this IS a murderer and torturer, then in fiction ( certainly not in RL), I will condemn them freely. I believe (sorry, just bring Snape here for one second) that for example when I read about someone firing Avada in somebody, that for me in fiction truly enough to condemn somebody. It is as if I am eyewitness to the crime. If I am wrong later on, oh well ? it is after all just fiction. Betsy Hp: And that is something the > Trio has shown they don't have a grasp of yet. Marietta, for > example, has been punished without benefit of a trial. Hermione > removed Marietta's right. IOWs, as per Hermione, Hermione is more > equal than Marietta, because Marietta is "other" and not quite as > human as Hermione is. Alla: We will just agree to disagree here, although probably to a degree. I do not subscribe completely to dan(?) idea that JKR supports anarchists values that strongly, but I think to a degree she does. I think she shows that in corrupt system justice needs to be taken in own hands sometimes. Of course there is always question of the degree and when it is taken too far. IMO of course. Betsy Hp: > Harry and Co. think they can dictate what all is involved in being on > the "right side". And apparently it's not merely being against > Voldemort. One must also be against the Ministry, for Dumbledore, > for the Gryffindor quidditch team, personally positive towards Harry > and his friends, and I *think* that's everything. Oh, and of course, > you need to be willing to turn on your family the *moment* they > question any of the above. Then you come close to rating as being on > the "right" side. Alla: See above. > Betsy Hp: > Which is easy. Of course Bellatrix and Fenrir and Voldemort are bad > and deserving of punishment. One doesn't tolerate the killing of > children, torture, murder, etc. (Though that doesn't or shouldn't > allow one to torture and murder in turn.) > > But Marietta is not a Voldemort supporter. Zach Smith is not a > Voldemort supporter. Rita Skeeter is not a Voldemort supporter. And > yet, Harry and co. all enjoy (and sometimes seem to rather relish) > the physical and emotional pains they put those characters through. > Why is that okay? Because they're different enough, in their > beliefs, in their methodologies, that they register as "other". > > Imagine if someone blackmailed Hagrid into quitting his job. Imagine > if Hermione had a word written across her face in purple pustules. > Imagine if Ron was hexed and then assaulted by a member of an opposing > quidditch team. Would that be okay? What if the perpetrators > thought their actions valid? Alla; Nope, to me it is not always okay, but very understandable because their actions are bad to me. I am fully convinced that she knew what Umbridge was capable of and she still went to her. Bad judgment in my opinion, very bad. So, yes, not a Voldemort supporter, but her action IMO is worthy of junior Voldemort supporter. Sure, Zach Smith is a very good example of what trio needs to learn as I mentioned upthread. He did not commit anything which I believe can be characterized as *absolutely bad*, he just questioned Harry. So, here I agree. Rita Skeeter IMO while obviously not a Voldemort supporter was printing deliberate lies for nothing else except profit. I think it is very bad, unless any sort of noble purpose existed there. I think JKR herself enjoyed punished her, but sure she is not a Voldemort supporter. Now,whether it would be okay if somebody blackmailed Hagrid to quit his job. Um, no, it would not be IMO, but if the reason for that would be Hagrid spreading out deliberate lies about somebody else, in other words, committing something that bad, I would totally understand the blackmailer. And hypothetical with Hermione is the easiest - YES, believe me, if Hermione would betray her fellow students to Umbridge, I would say she completely deserved pustules on her face. Snipping everything else, we are so very very different on this. Alla. > Alla: > > So, suppose Malfoy decides that being with DE and Lordie Voldy suits > > his fancy better. Does that mean that Trio should applaud him and > > accept his choice? I mean, applaud probably is the wrong word, but > > you know what I mean. > > > > Are they still obligated to think that he is a wonderful person to be > > considered you know, tolerant? > > Montavilla47: > No, actually. The definition of tolerance is not thinking that people are > wonderful if they aren't. The essence of tolerance is treating with respect > people you *don't* think are wonderful. > > It's the Golden Rule thingy. "Do unto others as you would have them do > unto you." Alla: Um, yes, I know that rule. And as I mentioned upthread to me it is one thing to treat with respect people with different beliefs than yours and totally different to treat with respect the people who commit awful things, who commit evil. So I suppose I think there are some people in Potterverse who do not deserve respect at all ( Voldemort, Bella, Malfoy Sr, I will reserve my judgment on junior, if he does something worthy of respect and yes, Snape in my opinion) Montavilla: > In other words, if you would prefer that the Death Eaters not laugh at you > when the Dark Lord is Crucio'ing you, you give their children enough respect > not to laugh at them when they are being bounced up and down on stone > floors. Alla: Even if that person just tried to attack you before teacher ( or DE masquerading as teacher) came to your help? You still have to show respect to this person? What if Fake Moody did not come on time and Harry got hurt, still he needed to be respectful to Malfoy? I strongly disagree with it. Montavilla: > (Please note: I'm am *not* saying Harry deserved anything that happened to > him in the graveyard because he enjoyed the ferret-bouncing. He didn't > deserve it for any reason. None at all.) Alla: But you just said that if you prefer DE not to laugh at you, you give their children enough respect? So, if you are not saying that Harry deserved Graveyard because he laughed at Malfoy, could you please clarify what **are** you saying? Oh, and of course I respect your right to evaluate any scene as you see fit, I am just trying to see if I have to agree to disagree now or we still have some common ground in this discussion. Montavilla47: > A better example: Snape is frustrated because Harry doesn't give him respect. > But Harry doesn't give Snape respect because Snape started their relationship by > humiliating him. If Snape had showed an even basic respect for Harry, Harry > would have returned basic respect in return. Whether they hated each other or > not would be irrelevant. Alla: I am not sure I understand the relevance of this analogy. Because in my view Snape did not give Harry basic respect precisely because he hated him. So, how can their hatred (now mutual) can ever be irrelevant to the evaluating potential tolerance between them? JMO, Alla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 22:13:06 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 22:13:06 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > eggplant107: > > > If Marietta had not betrayed them Dumbledore would not have been > not > > > have been forced to leave Hogwarts, and if Dumbledore was still > there > > > Voldemort could never have fooled Harry into going to the Ministry. > > random832: > > I find both of these assertions just a little hollow. Umbridge would > > have found another way to force DD out, eventually, and I don't see > any > > indication that Harry would have gone to him with this regardless. > > -- > > > Would Umbridge have forced DD out regardless? Being a counterfactual, > that's impossible to prove one way or another, but I don't think it > really has anything to do with Marietta's guilt for her role in > forcing DD out. Everyone will die someday, but that doesn't make > murder okay -- even if the death is relatively imminent (which is one > reason I don't think the "DD was dieing anyway" defense of Snape holds > any moral water, sorry). > > Now, the second part of the assertion, that Harry probably would not > have gone to DD, is something I go along with. It is, of course, DD's > fault, however, it is not Marietta's. Having said that, once again I > don't think that lessens Marietta's guilt for her role in forcing DD > to leave. > > Lupinlore > Montavilla47: The catalyst that caused Dumbledore leave was the discovery of the parchment list with the name "Dumbledore's Army" listed at the top and the names of the students underneath. Until that evidence was shown, Dumbledore (with Shacklebolt's help), was able to control the situation. So, if we're going to insist that Sirius died because Dumbledore was forced to leave the school (and therefore was unavailable for Harry to check with, assuming that he would), then the blame has to go with the person who left that list tacked up on the wall for anyone to find. That was Hermione. Or, you can put the blame on it on the kids who stayed with the D.A. after it was ruled illegal. If they hadn't kept the group going, then there would have been no illegal group for Umbridge to find out about. Or you can put the blasted blame where it *really* belongs--on Umbridge, who forced through the decrees that outlawed school groups with the *obvious goal* of preventing the D.A. from continuing. Who is also the person who came to Hogwarts with the *obvious goals* of either expelling Harry or forcing Dumbledore out of the school, preferably both. Montavilla47 From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed May 30 22:41:27 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 22:41:27 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169544 > Montavilla: > > In other words, if you would prefer that the Death Eaters not laugh > at you > > when the Dark Lord is Crucio'ing you, you give their children > enough respect > > not to laugh at them when they are being bounced up and down on > stone > > floors. > > Alla: > > Even if that person just tried to attack you before teacher ( or DE > masquerading as teacher) came to your help? You still have to show > respect to this person? What if Fake Moody did not come on time and > Harry got hurt, still he needed to be respectful to Malfoy? > > I strongly disagree with it. Montavilla47: One of the ironies I enjoy about that scene in GoF is that Croody punishes Draco for attack Harry while Harry's back is turned. But if you look at how the scene is described (Harry turns around to see Croody running up to the ferret), it turns out taht Croody was attacking Draco from behind. In other words, he's doing the exact same thing that he's accusing Draco of doing. And yes, I think that the Universal Schoolboy Code says (Section 24.d) that you can still respect an opponent that attacks you while your back is turned--if you have both been in conflict immediately beforehand. Especially if you just took a parting shot at his mother. That falls under the special "Mama" clause (Section 37.a) that states that any insult to one's mother *must* be followed by an equally offensive insult, or else physical attack. One may *not* circumvent an attack by turning one's back. All insults about girlfriends, incidently, are covered under the "Ginevra Conventions." > Montavilla: > > (Please note: I'm am *not* saying Harry deserved anything that > happened to > > him in the graveyard because he enjoyed the ferret-bouncing. He > didn't > > deserve it for any reason. None at all.) > > Alla: > > But you just said that if you prefer DE not to laugh at you, you give > their children enough respect? So, if you are not saying that Harry > deserved Graveyard because he laughed at Malfoy, could you please > clarify what **are** you saying? > > Oh, and of course I respect your right to evaluate any scene as you > see fit, I am just trying to see if I have to agree to disagree now > or we still have some common ground in this discussion. Montavilla47: I'm saying that if you want respect, you give respect. But I'm not going to blame a victim for something that happens to him and try to connect it to another event. I'm simply comparing the two situations and noticing that--in both situations--an adult inflicting physical pain on a children evoked amusement from the onlookers. > Montavilla47: > > A better example: Snape is frustrated because Harry doesn't give > him respect. > > But Harry doesn't give Snape respect because Snape started their > relationship by > > humiliating him. If Snape had showed an even basic respect for > Harry, Harry > > would have returned basic respect in return. Whether they hated > each other or > > not would be irrelevant. > > Alla: > > I am not sure I understand the relevance of this analogy. Because in > my view Snape did not give Harry basic respect precisely because he > hated him. So, how can their hatred (now mutual) can ever be > irrelevant to the evaluating potential tolerance between them? > Montavilla47: Of course Snape didn't give Harry basic respect because Snape hated Harry. What I'm saying (obviously not clearly enough), is that if Snape hated Harry and yet still had shown him some decent human respect in that first class, then the fact that Snape hated Harry would be irrelevant. Because they would have been able to both hate and respect each other in (oh dear) peace. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed May 30 23:19:01 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:19:01 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169545 Alla: > But what if somebody does not want to? Do their > beliefs and actions still have to be tolerated? > For the record, I do believe that Malfoy's redemption > is coming, yes, hate him as I am. > But what if it does not? After all in book 6, he at > the best was wavering, was he not at the end? > So, suppose Malfoy decides that being with DE and > Lordie Voldy suits his fancy better. Does that mean > that Trio should applaud him and accept his choice? > I mean, applaud probably is the wrong word, but you > know what I mean. > Are they still obligated to think that he is a wonderful > person to be considered you know, tolerant? > [...] > So, I do not know, I think even in the time of peace > it is defining for the person whether they supported > Dumbledore or Voldemort at least partially. houyhnhnm: I don't think that anyone is obligated to think that someone else is a wonderful person in order to be tolerant. Tolerance does not require admiration or even approval. I think "applaud" *is* the wrong word. I agree that it is defining for the person whether they chose Dumbledore or Voldemort once there was a Voldemort. That's what I meant about the WW needing to have a Dark Lord. Suppose that Draco does choose to help defeat Voldemort, but at the end of the conflict he still clings to his ancestry worship and feelings of superiorty for being a pure-blood. Would the Trio be obliged to tolerate him even though they disapprove of his beliefs or would they be justified in bullying him? I was disaffected with the word "tolerance" for many years. During the era of the civil rights struggle in the US, I thought of it as a kind of code word for people who were lukewarm about full inclusion of minorities. I mean, how cold to merely tolerate another group when what one should be doing is learning to *appreciate* them. The years have made me see things differently. It is impossible to appreciate everything about people who are different from oneself, so then is it okay to discriminate against what one doesn't appreciate? No it isn't, and that is where tolerance comes in. I've come to the conclusion that it's a pretty good word after all From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed May 30 23:19:42 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:19:42 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169546 > Dana: > To some level I agree because if Marietta really had a moral problem > with holding the secret of this illegal gathering (for instance > because he mother is a ministry employee) then she should have gone > to either DD or her head of house and not to Umbridge, who herself at > that specific time was not a specific *Hogwarts* authority. zgirnius: Yes she was! She was the duly appointed Hogwarts High Inquisitor, by whom the rules being broken were promulgated. > Dana: > Marietta > did not just sneaked on other students breaking Hogwarts school rules > but Ministry rules and her betrayal was therefore not just a mere > student ratting out other students. The MoM was on a specific smear > campaign against both DD and Harry from the start of the school year > and Marietta being the daughter of a MoM employee must have known > this, especially because it was her own mother who was in charge of > monitoring Floo Network activity. zgirnius: She may have known that the Ministry had it is for Dumbledore, but that is rather different from saying she 'knew' there was a smear campaign. What I think it is more likely she heard from her mother was the Dumbledore had gone off the deep end, and was spreading false rumors about Voldemort's return and trying to cause a panic. > Dana: > In RL WWII, people in Europe, in occupied territory, snitched on > people giving shelter to Jewish people because they were scared of > repercussions if the Germans found out through other means. It was > not merely thinking about doing the right thing, it was being scared > of somehow being associated with those that resisted that occupation. zgirnius: I do not understand the relevance of resistance movements in WWII to this discussion, I confess. The rules and regulations were being made by the government of the WW, the same government, run by the same people, who had been running it throught the course of the series. There was no ivasion, coup d'etat, etc. The same government that had been there all along simply decided it was not going to go along with Albus Dumbledore. This was surely a mistake, as we know in ways Marietta and her mother could not hope to, since we see what Harry sees. Dana: > I believe that is what happened with Marietta, her being scared that > her involvement in the DA would somehow either backfire on herself or > on her mother. zgirnius: I think this is entirely possible. However, I am equally convinced she held no sincere belief in the return of Voldemort and the rightness of harry and Dumbledore. (Certainly, we are never shown her doing or saying anything to suggest she believes Harry). So, from her point of view, she had put her mother's livelihood in danger over an illegal study group, and upon realizing this, she decided to rectify this by making sure it did not harm her mother. > Dana: > Morality is not a static thing but > when you hold a specific morality to one group then one should apply > that same morality to the other and not apply different moral > standards just because people are on different sides of the fence. If > one wants to condemn Hermione for putting a jinx on a piece of paper > that every one signed out of their own free will then one should > apply that same standard to Marietta's actions and then see who's > actions had the biggest consequences. zgirnius: It is my own opinion that the ethical value of a choice cannot be determined by looking at its consequences. Terrible things can result from accidents, honest mistakes, or even good actions (who blames Harry for Voldemort's return?), and great good from evil actions (Snape and the vaporization of Voldemort, e. g.). This makes Harry's sparing of Peter's life no less admirable, and Snape's reporting of the Prophecy to Voldemort, his true master at the time, no less evil. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed May 30 23:45:23 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:45:23 -0000 Subject: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169547 lizzyben04: > For instance, I'm still patiently waiting for > a good Slytherin. houyhnhnm: I have been thinking lately that Fleur may be the good Slytherin. I know, she's not a Slytherin , but the fact that the Weasley children call her Phlegm and that there is a whole chapter called "An Excess of Phlegm" may be a pointer that she would have been sorted into Slytherin if she had gone to Hogwarts. Fortunately for her, she attended Beauxbatons and so her nature had a chance to develop naturally, as the children sorted into Slytherin at Hogwarts would do, if the House had not become corrupted. The scene between her and Molly at the end of HBP is one of the best lessons in tolerance in the books and one of my favorites. Neither woman changes. Fleur is still proud and ambitious. She will never learn to like Celestina Warbeck. Molly is still loud and unsophisticated. Her taste in music will never improve. But they have learned to respect each other because they recognize that they both love Bill. I am looking forward to seeing what happens with Fleur in DH. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 31 00:04:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 00:04:42 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169548 Dana: > > I can only say in our world or Harry Potter's world there does not > exist something like pure good and holding characters up to this > standard because they are the main characters in a fight against evil > is unrealistic to say the least. Morality is not a static thing but when you hold a specific morality to one group then one should apply that same morality to the other and not apply different moral standards just because people are on different sides of the fence. Pippin: Oh, I agree. But his actions show that Harry doesn't. I'm sure that if Umbridge had put a similar hex on Dobby, who betrayed her just as thoroughly as Marietta betrayed the DA, Harry would call her an evil hag. He would think it was wildly unfair, and he would be wanting to force her to cure Dobby. And what about Hagrid? If Dumbledore had put a hex like that on everyone who knew about the protections around the Stone, it wouldn't have done a thing to Quirrell, but it would have nailed Hagrid more than once. But Harry wasn't even angry with Hagrid when he found out that Hagrid had let slip the secret of how to get past Fluffy. He *comforted* Hagrid, told him that this was Voldemort and he'd have found out anyway. In his eyes, Hagrid is a well-meaning person who made a mistake. That's much the way Cho thinks of Marietta. Harry's the one with the double standard, IMO. There's one set of rules for his friends, and another for people he doesn't know very well. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Thu May 31 00:51:31 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 00:51:31 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169549 Pippin: > The story is very clear on what the ultimate act > of evil is -- it's murder. The identical aim that > Dumbledore is talking about isn't the defeat of > Voldemort, it's the prevention of murder, IMO. > The open heart seems to be the recognition that > everyone who is not a murderer has a right to be > what they are, even if what they are is a great > bullying git. Dumbledore seems to think that those > who have risked their own lives to prevent murder > and refused to become killers themselves are worthy > of some honor, whatever else they may have done. houyhnhnm: Rowling has shown so many examples of the unchecked action of great bullying gits leading to a spiral that results in death or at least comes close to manslaughter if not murder, though. I think surely she must be taking it a little further than Dumbledore would. Showing the little precipitating acts that lead finally to the ultimate act of evil. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu May 31 01:13:19 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 01:13:19 -0000 Subject: The Knight of Walburga In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169550 > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169506 > Jen (on Knights of Walpurgis / Death Eaters): > I find it interesting in a symbolic way although since > Voldemort's Death Eaters were named that as far back as > when Dumbledore first took office as headmaster, I don't > see how it could have literally been true. Goddlefrood: A valid point and well made. While Dumbledore did refer to LV's Death Eaters back when Tom applied for the DADA post it may have taken a while for that name to take hold in the wider wizarding world. The Blacks may have only known the group as the Knights of Walpurgis, or still thought of them as such, at least up to the point of their discovering LV's true motives. It's nice to speculate on these things, whether or not there is thought to be merit in them :-) > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169506 > > Goddlefrood: > > Walburga was really not old at all by WW standards. The > > degeneration noted in her portrait is, IMO, far more than > > simply stress or worry induced. > Pippin: > What degeneration? She's described as "old", with yellowing > skin (the artist in me thinks the varnish must be deteriorating > -- the curtains would indicate that the medium is sensitive to > light) and drooling. Goddlefrood: Right on, but also she had rolling eyes. Degeneration is meant in that it is defined: "Gradual deterioration of specific tissues, cells, or organs with corresponding impairment or loss of function, caused by injury, disease, or aging." This simply means the agedness noted by Harry and others. As a comparator the extant Minerva is quite a little older than Ma Black was when she died and she shows little signs of aging. I do not recall any occasion when Minerva has been decscribed as old in canon. JKR as at 1995 for Minerva told us she was "a sprightly 70". No more nor less than old and degenration are practically synonyms, in other words. Also we have no information that portraits in the WW deteriorate in the same way as they may in the real world. I'd actually suggest that the portraits remain much as they appear throughout their time as portraits. This is due to the fact that the subjects within the frames move, while those in the real world do not, iirc. Always excepting La Giaconda's eyes, naturally ;-) > Pippin: > If she was ranting like that in life, and she must have been, > because she was apparently acting much the same when Sirius > left home at sixteen, then surely she was unstable. Goddlefrood: I disagree and leave it there on this point, having said my piece earlier. > Pippin: > Madness in the family would make it easier to understand why > people thought Sirius had gone mad, too. Goddlefrood: There are no indicators of madness in the Black family, where did this come from, may I inquire? Sirius himself perhaps? He was hardly an uninterested witness. Sirius was thought mad, IMO, only due to his having been widely believed to have destroyed a street full of Muggles and Peter Pettigrew, which would make a view that *he* was mad precisely because of that incident understandable. There is no need for any prior knowledge in the WW for a firm and natural conclusion to be made that Sirius were mad. > Pippin: > I thought JKR meant the Knights of Walpurgis were the Death > Eaters in an earlier version of the story, not in an earlier > time *in* the story, if you know what I mean. Like Strider > was once a Hobbit called Trotter. Goddlefrood: Your meaning is crystal clear. Let's take a look at the full quote, which I had omitted previously, although not because I wanted to mislead. Here it is: "Jeremy Paxman: And these scraps of paper which you've filed elegantly in a carrier, they're plot ideas or... JKR: Well some of them are totally redundant now because its been written and I keep them out of sentimentality's sake, I suppose. But some of it has backstory in it like this - in here is the history of the Death Eaters and I don't know that I'll ever actually need it - but at some point - which were once called something different - they were called the Knights of Walpurgis. I don't know if I'll need it. But I like knowing it. I like to keep that sort of stuff on hand." That makes it abundantly clear that the Death Eaters *were* known as the Knights of Walpurgis in the wizarding world at some point. The tenses used by JKR also lend support to this. Other matters JKR had in mind may have been discarded as she says but my interpretation is prescient in this instance. The Knight of Walburga aka Goddlefrood From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu May 31 01:17:30 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:17:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rita (was: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) Message-ID: <380-22007543111730909@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169551 Alla: Rita Skeeter IMO while obviously not a Voldemort supporter was printing deliberate lies for nothing else except profit. I think it is very bad, unless any sort of noble purpose existed there. I think JKR herself enjoyed punished her, but sure she is not a Voldemort supporter. Now,whether it would be okay if somebody blackmailed Hagrid to quit his job. Um, no, it would not be IMO, but if the reason for that would be Hagrid spreading out deliberate lies about somebody else, in other words, committing something that bad, I would totally understand the blackmailer. Magpie: Many people who take actions against others are probably angered for some reason. No one can really fault them for *wanting* to do these things things. But just to be clear on what Rita does, exactly (since I think there are plenty of people who actually do what she does in our world), if printing lies is terrible, it's Luna's family Hermione should be blackmailing. Their paper seems to print complete rubbish (when they're not printing the one interview with Harry), much of which includes conspiracy theories about real people, accusing them of bad things. (Hermione considers it rubbish, certainly.) Heck, the Prophet prints lies that are approved by Harry and his friends. (I sort of love the little aside on how they might be covering up the events of CoS.) How come Hermione doesn't want to blackmail Luna's father into bankruptcy for claiming that Fudge is making deals with aliens or whatever they say he's doing? Printing lies for money doesn't exactly describe Rita's job entirely (Mr. Lovegood probably does far more of it than she does). She makes Harry and his friends far angrier not for printing lies but for printing slants they don't like, like saying Arthur and the Ministry aren't doing a good job (kind of like having Zach writing the article instead of Lee), or true things like that Hagrid is a half-giant or iirc that Hermione's been invited to Bulgaria. She sometimes misquotes to get a better story, and sometimes prints true quotes if they go along with her slant. She gets the Harry/Hermione story from Colin Creevey talking about Harry, and lets people draw their own conclusions with a few opinions from people like Pansy. And Hermione doesn't even *care* that Rita did that. She knows perfectly well how tabloid reporting works and she thinks it's just silly. She knows she's not dating Harry and cheating on him with Viktor. She gets upset when Molly thinks less of her, and some crazy people pass judgment on her and--hmmm, may sound familiar--send her stuff that irritates her skin. (Though in her case she can cure it; she doesn't get WHORE written across her face for two years.) Then she decides she deserves to get revenge iirc. Hermione's showing her power against Rita personally, threatening to tell about her being an animagus, though I doubt she'd tell anyone if Ron turned out to be a secret animagus. She would probably scold him to register legally, but not blackmail him--which would be more fair. So however Hermione wanted to blackmail Rita for doing her job, I don't really see any reason why she should have except for the pleasure of it. (It's ironic that it's the *following* year that the press goes after Harry.) Somebody else could decide Hagrid had personally irritated them to the point they wanted to blackmail him to resign--but if I understand and even share the blackmailer's sentiment to a certain extent depending on the circumstances, how far does emphatizing with the anger justify the action? - From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 01:18:23 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 01:18:23 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169552 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > The other way, is a rule of law where *everyone* is understood to > have the same basic rights, no matter their political beliefs or > quidditch team. And no one, *no one*, is free to take the law into > their own hands. I *think* that's the way Dumbledore is supposed to > be going. (I'll admit that sometimes it's hard to tell. ) But it > is the way the books will hopefully support in the end. Hmmm. Well, that would be pretty difficult to do in any unambiguous way. First of all, DD is hardly the one to look for when it comes to abiding by set laws. He takes the law into his own hands at nearly every turn, starting with taking it upon himself to decide Harry's future, to set up a resistance against Voldemort centered on himself, to flat out lieing to the Wizengamot in HBP. He seems to obey the law until it conflicts with what he wants to do, and then out with the law! His code is "what's right over what's easy," which means as far as we can see what DD thinks is right over what DD thinks is easy. What society as a whole thinks is right, as encoded in the laws of the WW, seem to be of DISTINCTLY secondary concern to DD, insofar as he seems to pay any attention to such things at all. Secondly, Harry has to kill Voldy. He isn't going to capture Voldy and bring him in for a trial. He isn't going to read the man his rights. He, from everything we know, is going to kill the Dark Lord. Furthermore, Dumbly flat out told him he was going to have to kill the Dark Lord. No talk of laws or rights or authorities. No attempt even to bring up those issues. Voldy is in the wrong, Harry can stop him, so it is up to Harry to take things into his own hands and get it done. > > Otherwise, the woodchipper! > Well, if you're serious about holding out for some kind of turn to a clear rule of law that would be unambiguously recognizable as such, I'll save some gas for you. I assume this would be a regime in which no one takes it upon themselves to punish others or tries on their own to enforce any kind of moral authority, and like I say I don't see how that's going to happen. Voldy is highly unlikely to get a trial or respect for his rights, nor is he likely to be brought low by anyone empowered by any clear ordinary laws that apply to everyone. The laws enforced will be moral laws and those enforcing them will be acting on their own authority, or at most by the dead authority of Dumbledore who HIMSELF was acting on his own authority. Any treatment of such an issue seems almost certain to be ambiguous and contradictory, considering what Harry has to do in the end. He would be saying "I accept from henceforth that there are laws that apply clearly to everyone no matter what and no one, NO ONE, has the right to take the law into their own hands! Now please excuse me while I, a seventeen- year-old wizard with no formal authority or position at all, proceed to execute this evil person." Like I say, I'll let you keep the mulch. Lupinloreb From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 02:29:01 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 02:29:01 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169553 [Mike: I don't usually join these conversations, so if I fail to plug in those "IMOs and IMHOs" please forgive me. Let me forewarn that everything that follows is my opinion and therefore may sound 'preachy'. Now, on to the fun.] > > > houyhnhnm: > > > I will accept anyone who is one my side? That is > > > not tolerance. Tolerance is a commitment to the > > > the belief that *everyone* has a right to be. > > > Betsy Hp: > Ah, but houyhnhnm is saying everyone has a right *to be*. Your > political choices shouldn't determine whether or not you have the > right to exist as a human being. Mike: Ah, but by that reasoning Voldemort has a "right to be". Alla was saying, and I agree with her, that those political choices will result in other people passing judgement on your *human-ness*. Did Hitler, Tojo, Stalin have a right to be? Were the "others" that disagreed with them wrong for opposing them with the ultimate force they could muster? It *is* a matter of degrees as to what the appropriate response is to those "others". You "tolerate" anyone who has not wronged you. (I agree with Betsy's interpretation of the term "tolerate" and how she applied it versus "appreciate"). If you have no reasonable grounds to oppose the other, you follow the Golden Rule. Once you've been wronged, your response should be measured by what degree that wrong against you rose to. Again, all my opinion. > Betsy Hp: > Whether you share basic human > rights like a right to a fair trial, etc. And that is something the > Trio has shown they don't have a grasp of yet. Marietta, for > example, has been punished without benefit of a trial. Hermione > removed Marietta's right. IOWs, as per Hermione, Hermione is more > equal than Marietta, because Marietta is "other" and not quite as > human as Hermione is. Mike: I think Hermione treated Marietta, and by extension everyone else in the DA, exactly like a human. She held them responsible for their actions when their actions wronged the rest of the DA. Once that educational decree came out, everyone was free to not participate in what was clearly an illegal (by Ministry standards) group. Hermione warned everyone, "So, if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge - or anybody else - what we're up to." (Ootp p.346, US) This was before the group was strictly illegal. If anyone felt queasy about the group after the decree, they *should* have quit but held their tongue. BTW, I agree with Cho insofar as Hermione should have warned the DA that the parchment was hexed. Then it would have been a deterrent, not just a security alarm. > Betsy Hp: > Harry and Co. think they can dictate what all is involved in being > on the "right side". And apparently it's not merely being against > Voldemort. One must also be against the Ministry, for Dumbledore, > for the Gryffindor Quidditch team, personally positive towards > Harry and his friends, and I *think* that's everything. Mike: Why shouldn't Harry and Co. get to choose who they think is on the "right side"? Who would you (generic) have dictate to them who they should agree with? We want them to mature but we aren't ready to allow them to use their own judgement?! Should they be responsible for their choices? Hell yes, just like everybody else. That's being treated like a human, not like some lesser being. This whole DA thing is deadly serious to the Trio. It's about fighting Voldemort, and Hermione caused everyone to spill their drinks when she told them so in the first meeting. If you don't agree with the Trio, walk away. But don't turn on them, because they're not going to take it lying down. > Betsy Hp: > Oh, and of course, you need to be willing to turn on your > family the *moment* they question any of the above. Then you > come close to rating as being on the "right" side. Mike: If you are referring to Marietta - all she needed to do was walk away, she didn't need to turn on her family. If you are talking about Quidditch, you'll have to convince me where any of the Quidditch stuff rose above your average sport rivalries (putting it in the context of a wizarding school). If you are addressing the "liking" Harry or Dumbledore, show me where any of the Trio responded any other than 'in kind' to being on the "right" side. If you are talking about opposing Voldemort - you're damn right, the "others" have the choice of being on the "right" side or not. > Betsy Hp: > > But Marietta is not a Voldemort supporter. Zach Smith is not a > Voldemort supporter. Rita Skeeter is not a Voldemort supporter. > And yet, Harry and co. all enjoy (and sometimes seem to rather > relish) the physical and emotional pains they put those characters > through. Why is that okay? Because they're different enough, in > their beliefs, in their methodologies, that they register > as "other". Mike: Marietta *turned* on the DA. She violated their trust, went back on her word. She suffered the consequenses of her actions. Zach Smith got hexed by Ginny and ran into after the Quidditch match. Big deal. Hexing in the hallways is not a practice restricted to Gryffindors. And who's genius idea was it to allow an opposing Quidditch player to do the commentary on an opponents match? Besides, he didn't exactly get hit by a Crucio. This is kids stuff rising to the level of, well, kids stuff. I don't know that Rita Skeeter isn't a Voldemort supporter. But if she decided to illegally become an anamagus, use it to spy on then write vindictive columns, and was afraid to be found out - then Hermione beat her at her own game. Rita was dealing in other people's secrets and using her secret ability to gain an edge. Rita was free to continue her anti-Harry columns. But Hermione was going to respond in kind and reveal one of her secrets. > Betsy Hp: > > For Harry it *did* change. On the train ride into Hogwarts in HBP, > Draco's kung fu trumped Harry's, and it was Harry lying alone and > forgotten in a dark train compartment. Mike: I'd like to address the previous train scenes that Harry got his *comeuppance* for in the HBP train scene. GoF: Imagine you are out jogging with a friend. Someone kidnaps both of you, drives you to a graveyard, kills your jogging partner, tortures you, and then tries to kill you in some ritualized contest. By some miracle you escape. A week or so later, the sons of the participants in the ritual come into your train compartment and one begins to taunt you, that your experience was just the beginning. Oh, btw, all of you know that these guys fathers have done this before, all of you know that the fathers are members of a terrorist outfit (though the sons have a different view of that outfit, they know what their fathers do). Tell me you wouldn't punch them in their noses? Yeah, I know, the sins of the father. But if the sons don't want retribution, stay away. Don't seek out the kid that your father help torture and begin to taunt him. If you go looking for trouble, sometimes you find it. OotP: This one is rather simple. Draco attempted to ambush Harry. The DA members saw what was happening and pre-empted the ambush. Perfectly legitimate response, imo. > Betsy Hp: > The other way, is a rule of law where *everyone* is understood to > have the same basic rights, no matter their political beliefs or > quidditch team. And no one, *no one*, is free to take the law into > their own hands. I *think* that's the way Dumbledore is supposed > to be going. (I'll admit that sometimes it's hard to tell. ) > But it is the way the books will hopefully support in the end. Mike: And who is Harry suppose to cede "the rule of law" to uphold? The Ministry of Magic? This is the group that spent a year riddiculing Harry, trying to convince everyone he was crazy. This is the Ministry of Umbridge, who takes it upon herself to order Dementors to attack an innocent boy and his Muggle cousin. The same Umbridge that makes Harry write lines in his own blood, who is prepared to use unforgivable curses to get what she wants. And she is the #2 person in this Ministry! The same Ministry that threw Harry's innocent godfather into prison for life without a trial. And they are still imprisoning people like Stan Shunpike for being a loudmouth. This is where Harry is suppose to get Justice? It's all well and good to speak to ideals, but Harry doesn't have that kind of system to fall back on. Dumbledore knows it. He operates his own organization according to his own ethics. Though the Trio falter in places, their goals seem to be ethically based, and they have a better handle on "justice" than the MoM. They aren't out there attacking people that haven't wronged them in the first place. And some may think their responses to those "wrongs" are over-the-top. I don't, in all but one case. IMO, of course. Mike, who leaves his "one case" to the guessing. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu May 31 02:37:15 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 22:37:15 EDT Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169554 >Carol >Until Montague tells his Slytherin friends that he was trapped in limbo between Hogwarts and B&B, no one even knows that he was in the Vanishing Cabinet (except, of course, the Twins and their friends, who don't bother to tell Madam Pomfrey this important information)don't bot doesn't even tell his Slytherin cronies, Crabbe and Goyle, that he's fixing the Vanishing Cabinet in HBP. Neither they nor Snape know what he's up to in HBP. They just think, as the other Slytherin kids do, that Montague's adventure was an entertaining story. Nikkalmati You know what that means don't you? If Hermione had followed her good instincts and revealed how Montague was injured, there would in all likelihood have been steps taken to secure the cabinet. There would have been no repaired cabinet, no DEs in Hogwarts and no death of DD. I think Jo would want her readers to see this little slip, the rejection of the good impulse, leads to bad consequences. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu May 31 03:13:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:13:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? Message-ID: <380-22007543131353675@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169555 Nikkalmati You know what that means don't you? If Hermione had followed her good instincts and revealed how Montague was injured, there would in all likelihood have been steps taken to secure the cabinet. There would have been no repaired cabinet, no DEs in Hogwarts and no death of DD. I think Jo would want her readers to see this little slip, the rejection of the good impulse, leads to bad consequences. Magpie: I think that was why that scene really made me notice it when I read it the first time. It was just too clear the way Hermione specifically brought up passing on information that meant little to them in order to help this other person recover and it was dismissed by all of them. Even Hermione wound up seeming to seem like the impulse was weak to begin with. In fact, I remember once going through that scene on my own looking at the adverbs. JKR tends to go heavy on them, as you've probably noticed, and iirc the adverbs made the scene, if anything, more cold. So when Draco revealed he used the Vanishing Cabinets I felt like the second shoe had finally dropped. - From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu May 31 06:41:18 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 06:41:18 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: <380-22007543111730909@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169556 --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Alla: > > Rita Skeeter IMO while obviously not a Voldemort > supporter was printing deliberate lies for nothing > else except profit. I think it is very bad, unless > any sort of noble purpose existed there. > > ... > > Magpie: > ... > > But just to be clear on what Rita does, exactly (since > I think there are plenty of people who actually do what > she does in our world), if printing lies is terrible, > it's Luna's family Hermione should be blackmailing. > Their paper seems to print complete rubbish ..., ... > bboyminn: Let's be clear there is a big difference between what Rita and the Prophet do and what Luna's father and the Quibbler do. The Prophet prints flat out lies and deception for profit or for convenient political ends. What the Quibbler prints is perceived truth or presumed truth. In other words, Luna and her father really believe all that crap is true. Rita on the other hand knows full well that she is printing bullocks, but as long as it is commercially viable and politically advantageous, who cares? > Magpie: > > Printing lies for money doesn't exactly describe Rita's > job entirely .... She makes Harry and his friends far > angrier not for printing lies but for printing slants > they don't like, ... or true things like that Hagrid is > a half-giant or iirc that Hermione's been invited to > Bulgaria. She sometimes misquotes to get a better story, > ... > bboyminn: To some extent I agree with you, Rita and the Prophet are publishing a /slant/ that Harry and the gang don't like, but more often, it is not slant but a twisted sensationalistic version of the truth that sells paper but in no way reflects realty or actual truth. For example, yes Rita published that Hagrid was a half-giant, that was truth, but she spun the story in a way that made Hagrid seem like a mad killer, a danger to everyone around him, which was not the truth. The may letters of support that Hagrid received from students who remembered him proved that. Rita took a seed of truth and spun it into a functional lie. Luna and her father take pure fantasy which they assume to be true and publish it as if it were true. Surely you must see the difference? Steve/bboyminn From darksworld at yahoo.com Thu May 31 11:44:07 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:44:07 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169557 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Rita took a seed of truth and spun it into a functional > lie. Luna and her father take pure fantasy which they > assume to be true and publish it as if it were true. > Surely you must see the difference? You've hit the nail of the prime dilemma of ethics square on the head. Situations and circumstances matter in ethics. Trying to trim this bit or that bit because it doesn't fit the theory, or even just because you forgot it puts you in danger of making a faulty ethical judgment. One line forgotten or misprinted in a fiction book can jeopardize the whole of the ethic it is trying to get across. Not to offend, as I've some problems with the ethics of the books myself, but we encounter this problem very often in judgments of Snape almost as often as Hermione (and I'm certainly going to be just as at fault as anyone else. We are operating under the two conditions that everyone who undertakes to make a judgment of ethics is hampered by. Our own viewpoints and experiences, and lack of information. We lack many points of information in these stories. We get only occasional glimpses of the minds of characters other than Harry, and therefore do not know their motivations. Motive, at least in the US justice system figures a great deal as to whether an action is legal or not. (Self-defense springs immediately to mind.) I would love to make this a great deal longer, but the workday beckons. (Opinion disclaimer: This post reflects my opinions, and only my opinions. If you take it as pure truth from the mouth of an expert, the fault is yours.) Charles, who hopes he got his point across, but will try and reframe it this evening if he failed. From ida3 at planet.nl Thu May 31 12:10:14 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:10:14 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169558 zgirnius: > Yes she was! She was the duly appointed Hogwarts High Inquisitor, > by whom the rules being broken were promulgated. Dana: No, she didn't have specific Hogwarts authority by the time Marietta ratted on her friends, she was a Ministry official that reported the dealings at Hogwarts to the Ministry and as a result new regulations were appointed by the Minister of Magic. She did not have any specific authority over the students. She could not get Harry expelled on her own suspicions as she needed Fudge for that. > zgirnius: > She may have known that the Ministry had it is for Dumbledore, but > that is rather different from saying she 'knew' there was a smear > campaign. What I think it is more likely she heard from her mother > was the Dumbledore had gone off the deep end, and was spreading > false rumors about Voldemort's return and trying to cause a panic. Dana: Can you explain the difference to me. DD had been someone that was held high by the majority of the WW and then suddenly public opinion changed because the Ministry of Magic portrayed both DD and Harry as lying and attention seeking in the Dailey Prophet. That is called a smear campaign and it has the specific function of dividing public opinion and support. The public is the most powerful ally one can have, without it a government is soon to fall. Many students already had an opinion about Harry or DD due to these campaigns and Marietta coming from a home that supported the MoM would have known this too. That is why she did not go to DD or her head of house to report the illegal DA group but instead went to Umbridge. If Marietta would not specifically have known anything about the smear campaign that was going on, then the highest authority at Hogwarts at that time was still DD and not Umbridge and she therefore should have reported to him instead. zgirnius: > I do not understand the relevance of resistance movements in WWII > to this discussion, I confess. The rules and regulations were > being made by the government of the WW, the same government, run > by the same people, who had been running it throught the course of > the series. There was no ivasion, coup d'etat, etc. The same > government that had been there all along simply decided it was not > going to go along with Albus Dumbledore. This was surely a > mistake, as we know in ways Marietta and her mother could not hope > to, since we see what Harry sees. Dana: It was not the same government as it had always been. This government suddenly felt the urge to control Hogwarts and clearly in the public opinion separate themselves from DD and undermine his authority in the WW. There was an invasion and a coup d'etat, just not at the MoM but at Hogwarts where DD was head. As we see in the relation to the MoM but also LV, Hogwarts has a strong centre in the WW because it is were the young people of the WW are and it therefore is an important military stronghold. The one that controls Hogwarts controls a large part of the WW opinion because essentially the power to win a war is with the young. Marietta did not just made a mistake, she became scared that if the Ministry took over Hogwarts that she would be removed or worse just by her mere association with this organisation. In the WWII people who just lived next to people who gave refuge to Jewish people sold that secret to the Germans because they were scared for repercussions if they found out just by living next to these people. It was the same with underground organisations that fought against the occupation of the Germans, sometimes people were part of this or just learned about it and then got scared for either their direct involvement or the possibility to be associated with it and in an attempt to protect themselves they gave this information to the Germans and this did coast people their lives. It might be hard to compare Hogwarts and an attempt of the MoM to take over control as a sever act of aggression as was seen in WWII but it actually is because students were used as political leverage and just to smoke out a potential enemy of the established order. This is how dictators start taking over a country without initially using military force, they take over schools and dictate what can and can't be taught to the students and they take over the media and begin a propaganda campaign to mould the sheep, so resistance of taking away people's right of truthful information. The resistance is taken out, outside of public view so that the government always seem to act correctly while it actually smothers people's right to speak and defend themselves against an upcoming threat. You might not consider it of any importance because Hogwarts seems so insignificant and the WW so irrelevant but these campaigns happen in RL too with deviating results for people living in these countries and people ratting out opposing groups keep such governments at the height of their power because it makes them able to act before these groups can gain power by convincing others to join them in the fight for their rights to the truth. Fear is how LV rules and in OotP the MoM used the same means to control the students at Hogwarts. Umbridge clearly tries to install fear that one will be punished if one goes against the MoM and why she installs ever so many new rules and has them pinned to the boards of all the common rooms. It had an successful effect on Marietta and it had its consequences just like it has its consequences in real life. These campaigns are not supposed to evoke public up-rise and therefore are very subtle (although Umbridge was anything but subtle) and many people do not notice it until they are no longer allowed to do anything because it could land you a trip to prison and then the power a government holds over its people is so strong that most people just stop thinking for themselves. The MoM had no right to keep information from its people just because the Minister himself was to scared that he could not deal with such a truth. People died because of it as soon as LV knew his rise back to power was no longer a secret and most people were not prepared for it and the MoM was not there to protect them from it and DD's organisation had to much problems of its own to do this as well, even if they tried as hard as they could. Could you imagine what would have happened if LV would have been able to come to full strength behind the scenes? Marietta's action gave both the MoM and LV more power because now DD had to fight both of them. It was not just an innocent "I'm going to tell on some students" and they will just risk detention. > zgirnius: > I think this is entirely possible. However, I am equally convinced > she held no sincere belief in the return of Voldemort and the > rightness of harry and Dumbledore. (Certainly, we are never shown > her doing or saying anything to suggest she believes Harry). So, > from her point of view, she had put her mother's livelihood in > danger over an illegal study group, and upon realizing this, she > decided to rectify this by making sure it did not harm her mother. Dana: Her believe of LV not returning is still taking sides if you like it or not. If she didn't pick a side then she would have reported the dealings of this group to either her head of house or DD but she did not, she went to Umbridge. She clearly no longer believed that Hogwarts business should be dealt with by those that normally dealt with these kinds of things and as I stated Umbridge had no specific authority to deal with anything concerning students being out of bonds. She only could install new rulings because Fudge agreed with her not because she had the authority to install them herself. > zgirnius: > It is my own opinion that the ethical value of a choice cannot be > determined by looking at its consequences. Terrible things can result > from accidents, honest mistakes, or even good actions (who blames > Harry for Voldemort's return?), and great good from evil actions > (Snape and the vaporization of Voldemort, e. g.). > > This makes Harry's sparing of Peter's life no less admirable, and > Snape's reporting of the Prophecy to Voldemort, his true master at > the time, no less evil. Dana: I disagree, terrible accidents still are a consequence of a specific action and choices even if the outcome was unintentional. Mistakes can indeed be honest but that does not mean that the consequences of these mistakes are therefore less real. Ethical choices do come from learning the consequences of specific actions and choices because how else would you know what is ethical if you do not consider the outcome of your choices or actions? Harry did make the right choice because he considered the outcome of what the killing of Peter would mean but it does not make him responsible for the choice Peter made to go to LV and help him back to power and neither does it make him responsible for Peter's escape. It was not his action that would have caused Peter to die, it was his action that prevented Peter's death. Peter going back to LV might have caused LV rise back to power at that specific time but by no means would it have meant LV would never have found another way without Peter at a later date. Harry did not made his choices for his own because if he did then he would have led Sirius and Lupin kill Peter but he considered it more important that they did not become killers and that Sirius had a chance to be set free, instead of having the gratitude of revenging his parents death on Peter. Marietta made a choice to rat on her DA friends because I believe she got scared of being associated with it if Umbridge found out through other means. She must have thought about the consequences but still choose to save her own butt and there were consequences to these actions that reach further then just mere detention for the students involved. If she truly had though about what her actions could mean to others then she either would have reported it to someone else like her head of house or DD or she would have hold her tong. Marietta was not responsible for Umbridge going to RoR but her actions did bring Harry into danger and if DD and Kingsley had not intervened Harry would have lost his safe heaven at Hogwarts and like with Hagrid it might never had been possible to undo this. I do not hold Marietta responsible for the DoM or Sirius death but every action a person takes does have consequences; unintentional good, good, unintentional bad, bad, unintentional evil or just evil, it actually doesn't matter. Ethical choices and actions are made when you consider the consequences of these actions in relation to how these actions effect the people around you and if you make a mistake because you did not think enough about the consequences or because you could not control every single factor that influenced these consequences then you face the responsibility, learn and move on. That is what personal growth means. Hermione's choice to jinx the paper had nothing to do with Marietta personally but just with letting the person know that ratting the DA out will have a consequence that will show you to be the sneak and Marietta shame says enough about her knowing her actions were wrong. JMHO Dana From jnferr at gmail.com Thu May 31 12:36:50 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 07:36:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40705310536v73f602cax69af15352461b8a2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169559 > > Dana: > In the WWII people who just lived next to people who gave refuge to > Jewish people sold that secret to the Germans because they were > scared for repercussions if they found out just by living next to > these people. It was the same with underground organisations that > fought against the occupation of the Germans, sometimes people were > part of this or just learned about it and then got scared for either > their direct involvement or the possibility to be associated with it > and in an attempt to protect themselves they gave this information > to the Germans and this did coast people their lives. > > It might be hard to compare Hogwarts and an attempt of the MoM to > take over control as a sever act of aggression as was seen in WWII > but it actually is because students were used as political leverage > and just to smoke out a potential enemy of the established order. > This is how dictators start taking over a country without initially > using military force, they take over schools and dictate what can > and can't be taught to the students and they take over the media and > begin a propaganda campaign to mould the sheep, so resistance of > taking away people's right of truthful information. The resistance > is taken out, outside of public view so that the government always > seem to act correctly while it actually smothers people's right to > speak and defend themselves against an upcoming threat. You might not consider it of any importance because Hogwarts seems so insignificant and the WW so irrelevant but these campaigns happen in RL too with deviating results for people living in these countries and people ratting out opposing groups keep such governments at the height of their power because it makes them able to act before these groups can gain power by convincing others to join them in the fight for their rights to the truth. Fear is how LV rules and in OotP the MoM used the same means to control the students at Hogwarts. Umbridge clearly tries to install fear that one will be punished if one goes against the MoM and why she installs ever so many new rules and has them pinned to the boards of all the common rooms. It had an successful effect on Marietta and it had its consequences just like it has its consequences in real life. These campaigns are not supposed to evoke public up-rise and therefore are very subtle (although Umbridge was anything but subtle) and many people do not notice it until they are no longer allowed to do anything because it could land you a trip to prison and then the power a government holds over its people is so strong that most people just stop thinking for themselves. montims: While I agree with all this, it is not necessary to go back as far as WW2 - children spying on, reporting on, and being the cause of arrest, torture and even murder of their own families and friends happened in more recent history in China, Soviet Russia, Argentina, and many other places. It is also a fictional concept in futuristic books such as 1984. I would also mention that Umbridge set Dementors on Harry, off her own bat, not knowing that he could fight them off, and not caring who else could have been attacked. If Dudley, why not also Mrs Figg if she was witness to the murder of the boys? This isn't revealed to us until the end, so there is no reason for any of the characters to take this into account, but it colours my opinion of Umbridge on every re-read... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 31 15:26:13 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:26:13 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169560 > houyhnhnm: > > Rowling has shown so many examples of the unchecked > action of great bullying gits leading to a spiral that > results in death or at least comes close to manslaughter > if not murder, though. I think surely she must be taking > it a little further than Dumbledore would. Showing > the little precipitating acts that lead finally to > the ultimate act of evil. > Pippin: I'm not sure what you mean by the spiral. Harry has a tendency to think that bullies just get worse and worse till they turn into killers, while the canon facts show us something much more complicated. The murderers in the story seldom pick on people; they're too busy with their plots. Meanwhile, though a few of the Death Eaters are just as much killers as Voldemort, most of them aren't. Unlike Voldemort, many of the bullies in the story seem to be as revolted by murder as Harry himself, and just as frightened of the murderers. I think JKR shows that bullying creates victims who want revenge. As people who want revenge generally aren't thinking clearly, their vengeance often falls on innocent heads, and metes out more anger than justice even to the guilty. Those who value mercy and justice are most certainly not immune to these errors. But meanwhile, according to Dumbledore, more people fall victim to indifference and neglect than they do to outright hatred. And they too seek revenge. So while bullies are part of the problem in canon, they're not the biggest part. Even Voldemort is not the biggest part. We're told time and again that Voldemort is only to be feared because of the followers he attracts. It's not only bullies he draws on, it's the much vaster ranks of those whom the WW in its self-righteous indifference has judged unworthy of the rights and freedoms they cherish themselves. I think that this is what our heroes have to learn, that people who value mercy and justice have to open their hearts to everyone, not just those whom they would like to have as teachers or friends. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 16:32:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:32:12 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169561 Dana wrote: Many students already had an opinion about Harry or DD due to these campaigns and Marietta coming from a home that supported the MoM would have known this too. That is why she did not go to DD or her head of house to report the illegal DA group but instead went to Umbridge. If Marietta would not specifically have known anything about the smear campaign that was going on, then the highest authority at Hogwarts at that time was still DD and not Umbridge and she therefore should have reported to him instead. Carol responds: We don't know what Marietta knew. I think it's likely that she believed what her mother believed, which would be that DD was trying to take over the Ministry and was therefore a threat. It's possible, however, that she believed the smear campaign, as many other people did, and thought that Dumbledore was losing his grip. Either way, she didn't believe Dumbledore's unsupported assertion that Voldemort was back, and either way it's understandable that she didn't go to him. He was either a power-hungry liar trying to terrify the public or a deluded old fool. And had Marietta gone to her mother, her mother would certainly have informed Umbridge. She could conceivably have gone to Flitwick, her Head of House, assuming that Umbridge had not undermined her trust in him. Unfortunately, however, she would still have had the purple pustules. Hermione tells the not-yet-illegal group, "So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge--*or anybody else*--what we're up to" (OoP Am. ed. 346). So Marietta was up a creek. She was coerced by Cho to to attend a group she wanted no part of, one that was clearly anti-Ministry from its inception and more so as it went along. (She gives Cho a reproachful look before signing the parchment, and certainly would not have done so if she'd been warned about the hex.) True, she was breaking her word not to tell anyone by going to Umbridge, but at the time she gave her word, the group was not yet illegal. She should have been given the chance to walk away. Hermione persuades Ernie to sign by stating that she isn't going to leave the parchment lying around, which may also have been a factor in Marietta's signing (as the lethal-looking sharp instrument in George's hand was possibly a factor in Zach Smith's signing). And ultimately it's the parchment, not Marietta, that gives away the identity of the group. And Cho bears some responsibility for dragging Marietta to the meetings against her will. She should have respected Marietta's wishes in the first place, especially after the meetings became illegal. Carol, not excusing Marietta, just pointing out that she couldn't have told *anyone* what the group was "up to" wothout triggering the hex From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu May 31 16:42:39 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:42:39 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169562 > bboyminn: > > Let's be clear there is a big difference between what > Rita and the Prophet do and what Luna's father and the > Quibbler do. The Prophet prints flat out lies and > deception for profit or for convenient political ends. > What the Quibbler prints is perceived truth or presumed > truth. In other words, Luna and her father really > believe all that crap is true. Rita on the other hand > knows full well that she is printing bullocks, but as > long as it is commercially viable and politically > advantageous, who cares? Magpie: I know the difference between the two, but I think we need to really look at what's going on. Because saying "Well, Luna and her father really believe it!" seems to make the whole thing just personal and I don't think that's the way any rules about journalism would work. Lots of people who actually believe stuff print very hurtful, damaging things. *We* know (or assume--we've never met Luna's father so how do we know?) that they seem to believe this stuff, but that doesn't make it any more true. Many of the people smearing Harry at the Prophet could believe what they were printing was true. We've seen the Prophet print misinformation the Order fed them. The real reason the Quibbler's okay is that it seems so silly nobody would believe it while Rita is more representing interpretations and slants the Trio doesn't like that seemingly could be true. There is *more* truth in what Rita is printing. > bboyminn: > > To some extent I agree with you, Rita and the Prophet are > publishing a /slant/ that Harry and the gang don't like, > but more often, it is not slant but a twisted > sensationalistic version of the truth that sells paper > but in no way reflects realty or actual truth. > > For example, yes Rita published that Hagrid was a > half-giant, that was truth, but she spun the story in > a way that made Hagrid seem like a mad killer, a > danger to everyone around him, which was not the truth. > The may letters of support that Hagrid received from > students who remembered him proved that. Magpie: Well, they proved that not everyone had that opinion of Hagrid. (Though he wasn't a teacher then.) Rita used actual quotes from students in her article (some of which we know were exaggerated), students who would probably agree with the article. Some of the quotes were from Hagrid himself and did not seem like they were necessarily inaccurate. The trouble was she drew the wrong conclusions about Hagrid as far as Harry was concerned. Yes, he bred the Skrewts against whatever regulation etc., but Harry thinks this is one of those wacky Hagrid things we love him for anyway--although the idea that he was a danger to others wouldn't necessarily run *completely* against the feelings of the kids in the class. It would still be exaggerated, but then so would an article saying that Hagrid was loved by all and no one felt safer than in his class--and I think Harry would love that article and think it put things right. Steve:> > Rita took a seed of truth and spun it into a functional > lie. Luna and her father take pure fantasy which they > assume to be true and publish it as if it were true. > Surely you must see the difference? Magpie: Sure I see the difference, but again that's still making a judgement based on the characters of the people involved. Of the two, Rita is dealing more with truth. In the Muggle world she'd probably be writing those lurid stories about the celebrity divorce Petunia reads, or about how Lindsay Lohan's out of control again or how Katie Holmes is brainwashed. The press is made up of many voices competing to tell their version of a story. But that's not really what makes Hermione angry about Rita. For instance, I don't think she'd have an issue with Rita injecting her own opinions in the story if it were in a way that she agreed with. Like, if she did an expose on House Elves using the Crouch and Winky story the way Hermione herself tells it. Even though Winky herself might read the story and be as furious as Harry reading about Hagrid. One of the themes that comes up *a lot* in this universe is competing versions of stories based on biased povs. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu May 31 17:06:55 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:06:55 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169563 juli17 at ... wrote: > If intent and sincerity mean nothing, > then you are verging into the territory > where the end always justifys the means. I believe that is one of the silliest debates in all of philosophy, almost as silly as the one about free will. If the end ALWAYS justified the means then you'd do everything, if the end NEVER justified the means then you'd do nothing. So is it true? It's like asking how long is a piece of string, it depends. > There is also a difference between a > wrong act and an evil act I believe it is a difference only of degree, as both are based on erroneous thoughts, something both of us agree Marietta had in abundance. And I repeat something I said before, if she thought Umbridge and Fudge were better people than Dumbledore and Harry, if she could read all those revolting educational decrees and not realize there was something very seriously wrong with them then Marietta is a moral imbecile. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 17:16:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:16:56 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705310536v73f602cax69af15352461b8a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169564 montims wrote: > > I would also mention that Umbridge set Dementors on Harry, off her own bat, not knowing that he could fight them off, and not caring who else could have been attacked. Carol responds: Are you sure that Umbridge didn't know that Harry could fight off the Dementors? It seems to me that the whole point was to get him to cast a Patronus and be tried for violating the Decree for the Restriction of Underage Wizardry, preferably with a Muggle present, so that he would also be violating the Statute of Secrecy. Umbridge wasn't trying to "murder" Harry, and what would be the point of having a teenage boy soul-sucked? It would turn the whole WW (except the DEs) against the Ministry. She was trying to discredit Dumbledore by discrediting Harry. As Umbridge herself says, "Somebody had to act. They were all bleating about silencing you somehow--discrediting you--but I was the only one who actually *did* something about it" (747). Fudge didn't know that Umbridge had sent the Dementors but was delighted at the chance to expel Harry, "Only you wriggled out of that one, didn't you, Potter?" (same page). Crucioing Harry (or forcing him to tell the truth about DD using Veritaserum) also qualifies as, in Umbridge's view, "an issue of Ministry security" (746). Based on her own explanations and her treatment of Harry (she wants him interrogated, through torture if necessary, not dead), and her opposition to Dumbledore, I think it's safe to say that she *expected* Harry to cast a Patronus, preferably in front of a Muggle, and be viewed as a liar (after all, Fudge knew that the Dementors were in the Ministry's control and would never believe that a Ministry official had sent them). And making Harry look like a liar discredits his story, and DD's, that Voldemort is back. IOW, she's primarily concerned with discrediting Dumbledore and his favorite boy and silencing their "lies" about Voldemort's return (and quite possibly, she really believes that the stories are lies since the only supporing evidence appears, belatedly, in the Quibbler--which has also accused Fudge of murdering goblins and baking them in pies). Now, how would Umbridge know that Harry can cast a Patronus if Fudge didn't know? (I checked PoA to be sure that he doesn't.) I can think of two possibilities, both people that Umbridge knows who could have told her: Percy Weasley (who would have heard it from Ron) and Lucius Malfoy (who could have heard it from Draco). The first seems more likely, since Percy views Umbridge as "a delightful woman" and Draco may not have known what the silver thing was that knocked him down when he was posing as a Dementor. I'm not ruling out the possibility, though, since Lucius would have figured out what the silver thing was if Draco told him the story. Carol, not for a moment defending Umbridge, who is simultaneously ruthless and inept From mros at xs4all.nl Thu May 31 17:38:27 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 19:38:27 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta References: Message-ID: <000c01c7a3aa$804a28a0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 169565 juli17 at ... wrote: > not to torture nor execution. >(We have NOT a shred of evidence that > anyone besides the Trio knew about > Umbridge's form of punishment Eggplant: >>>There is not a shred of doubt that Marietta DID betray her classmates to someone willing to engage in torture and murder, but you say that's OK because she had all sorts of erroneous ideas in her head when she did it. Well, when you're wrong you have to pay a price for it, especially when you're as colossally wrong as Marietta was. And I'm supposed to start blubbering about her acne? <<< Dolores Umbridge: There is not a shred of doubt that Harry Potter DID betray his government by claiming that He Who Cannot Be Named had returned and by training a secret (and possibly terrorist) army which taught its members how to fight trusted government employees, which is seditious, but you say that's OK because he had all sorts of erroneous ideas in his head when he did it. Well, when you're wrong you have to pay a price for it, especially when you're as colossally wrong as Harry Potter was. And I'm supposed to start blubbering about his scarred wrist? Frodo: I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death. Gandalf: Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mros at xs4all.nl Thu May 31 17:39:44 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 19:39:44 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rita - Luna and the Qubbler References: Message-ID: <001301c7a3aa$ad056c10$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 169566 bboyminn: >>>Let's be clear there is a big difference between what Rita and the Prophet do and what Luna's father and the Quibbler do. The Prophet prints flat out lies and deception for profit or for convenient political ends. What the Quibbler prints is perceived truth or presumed truth. In other words, Luna and her father really believe all that crap is true. Rita on the other hand knows full well that she is printing bullocks, but as long as it is commercially viable and politically advantageous, who cares?<<< Marion: Yes, but the point I think sistermagpie was making is that if Rita had printed pure bollocks, and insulting, damaging and vicious bollocks at that, about, say, the Malfoys, then Harry and co would've loved Rita Skeeter. Rita would be seen as an ally and a friend and the fact that she prints lies for profit and political ends would not matter to Harry and Hermione in the slightest. Which brings this discussion back to where we started: in the Potterverse, ethics are fluid and selfserving; it's ok if you do it, but detestable if 'the other', 'the enemy' does it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 17:52:37 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:52:37 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169567 > >>Alla: > > So, yeah, every murderer and torturer has a right to fair trial, at > the same time if I see enough evidence that this IS a murderer and > torturer, then in fiction ( certainly not in RL), I will condemn > them freely. > > If I am wrong later on, oh well ? it is after all just fiction. Betsy Hp: Oh yes, I totally get that it can be fun to cheer for something that occurs in fiction that would be more uncomfortable to cheer for in real life. For example, I chuckled at Snape's "I see no difference" though in real life, it's a horrible thing to say to an actual, real child. But I'm talking about how the fictional characters interact in their own world. So within the book I agree that Snape's comment was wrong. Harry and co. treat those who disagree with them on however a trivial level (quidditch; politics) in a way I'm only comfortable with in a fictional world. IOWs, they treat those around them as "other" or less than human. And they do it often enough, and without any sort of twinge of conscience, that it does come across as wrong to me. > >>Alla: > We will just agree to disagree here, although probably to a degree. > I do not subscribe completely to dan(?) idea that JKR supports > anarchists values that strongly, but I think to a degree she does. > I think she shows that in corrupt system justice needs to be taken > in own hands sometimes. > Betsy Hp: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Has Dumbledore mailed the above type of declaration to the Ministry? Have the Order members, or the DA for that matter, shown themselves willing to be thrown in prision as Martin Luther King, Jr. allowed himself to be? Until such things occur I'm not looking at their attempts to overthrow the Ministry as noble. Though wasn't Dumbledore's entire point in OotP that he was *not* trying to overthrow the Ministry? Wasn't his thrust more towards everyone recognizing their common enemy and dealing with him? > >>Betsy Hp: > > Harry and Co. think they can dictate what all is involved in > > being on the "right side". And apparently it's not merely being > > against Voldemort. One must also be against the Ministry, for > > Dumbledore, for the Gryffindor quidditch team, personally > > positive towards Harry and his friends, and I *think* that's > > everything. Oh, and of course, you need to be willing to turn on > > your family the *moment* they question any of the above. Then > > you come close to rating as being on the "right" side. > >>Alla: > See above. Betsy Hp: I don't get it. You agree that Harry's apparent requirements of absolute personal loyalty to himself and Dumbledore are valid? > >>Alla; > > I am fully convinced that she [Marietta] knew what Umbridge was > capable of and she still went to her. Betsy Hp: Of course you are; only the Prosecution was allowed to testify. We have no *idea* why Marietta did what she did. All we have to go on is a half-spoken testimony from Cho, which the Prosecution objected to pretty much immediately. It's very easy to convince the jury of the defendent's guilt if they're not allowed to defend themselves. See Sirius as a prime example. > >>Alla: > > So, yes, not a Voldemort supporter, but her action IMO is worthy of > junior Voldemort supporter. Betsy Hp: Except for the way that Marietta (and the Ministry) in no way support Voldemort. It's kind of like calling Stalin a junior Nazi. So much for the Soviet Union's role in WWII. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169562 > >>Magpie: > > One of the themes that comes up *a lot* in this universe is > competing versions of stories based on biased povs. Betsy Hp: Exactly. And I think what Harry and co. need to recognize is that an opposing pov is not necessarily a bad thing. And that those who hold to a different pov are not necessarily so bad that they are no longer quite as human as Harry and co. *And* that those with opposing pov's should be allowed to share them without fear of reprisal. (Is that pushing it? I'm not sure...) I think JKR is gearing up to expose the Trio to that sometimes hard to learn fact. I don't think it's an accident that Cho supports her friend. I don't think it's an accident that we were reminded about the brand in HBP. Betsy Hp (posting from work... shhhh) From amis917 at hotmail.com Thu May 31 17:55:51 2007 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (amis917) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:55:51 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: <001301c7a3aa$ad056c10$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169568 > bboyminn: > >>>Let's be clear there is a big difference between what > Rita and the Prophet do and what Luna's father and the > Quibbler do. The Prophet prints flat out lies and > deception for profit or for convenient political ends. > What the Quibbler prints is perceived truth or presumed > truth. In other words, Luna and her father really > believe all that crap is true. Rita on the other hand > knows full well that she is printing bullocks, but as > long as it is commercially viable and politically > advantageous, who cares?<<< > > Marion: > Yes, but the point I think sistermagpie was making is that if Rita had printed pure bollocks, and insulting, damaging and vicious bollocks at that, about, say, the Malfoys, then Harry and co would've loved Rita Skeeter. Rita would be seen as an ally and a friend and the fact that she prints lies for profit and political ends would not matter to Harry and Hermione in the slightest. > Which brings this discussion back to where we started: in the Potterverse, ethics are fluid and selfserving; it's ok if you do it, but detestable if 'the other', 'the enemy' does it. Amis917 now: I think another point to this argument is everyone else's perception of the publications. I think most people seem to take The Quibbler with a grain of salt. People, however, take The Daily Profit as publishing facts of 100% truth. We, as readers, can now understand that the Profit doesn't always print truth. They are being guided by what the Ministry wants that truth to be. I think JKR is making a point here, about not believing everything you read. Even those sources that you think are "ethically" driven to print only factual information. Take Lockhart as another example. I do think this argument is slightly different than the selfserving eithis discussion, but it may be related. One thing I have enjoyed in this argument (as tired as I am reading about Marietta) is the questioning of why people made the choices they make. I guess that's the whole idea. JKR has said as much "It's the choices, Harry.... Amis917 From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu May 31 18:01:21 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:01:21 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40705310536v73f602cax69af15352461b8a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > montims: > > I would also mention that Umbridge set Dementors on Harry, off her own bat, > not knowing that he could fight them off, and not caring who else could have > been attacked. If Dudley, why not also Mrs Figg if she was witness to the > murder of the boys? This isn't revealed to us until the end, so there is no > reason for any of the characters to take this into account, but it colours > my opinion of Umbridge on every re-read... > Ken: I don't agree completely that the characters are unable to take Umbridge's Dementor attack into account correctly. It is true that no one had any way to be certain that it was Umbridge who ordered it or with so much of the Ministry against Harry to even suspect her in particular. But the Dementors were still under the Ministry's control and those who believed Harry would therefore know that someone in the Ministry, as a loose cannon or under orders, had instigated the attack. Furthermore putting Harry before the full Wizangamot for a minor juvenile offense, and changing both the time and the venue with almost no notice was an obvious ploy to hustle him off to Azkaban as quickly as possible and with only the barest hint of due process. What could be the only purpose for this? The purpose is cleverly hidden to the WW public and many readers are fooled too. It *appears* that the purpose is only to discredit Harry and get him out of the Ministry's way. When you consider that someone in the Ministry *had* to have authorized this attack it becomes clear that the real purpose of putting him in Azkaban is so the Dementors can finish the job! In other words to those who believed Harry the report on how the trial was conducted made it dead certain that the Ministry or a faction thereof was doing all it could to *murder* Harry, not just silence him. And it was pretty clear from her conduct at the trial that Umbridge was part of that faction. Of course no one could know until the end of the book that she was that particular sub-faction in its entirety. This last reading of the book made me realize how truly evil Dolores Umbridge is. From Hermione's point of view this would have been obvious all along. I'm not saying that you can't have pity on Marietta, a schoolgirl making the best decision she could. I am saying that Hermione knew this game was being played for all the marbles and she could see that the larger Fudge/Umbridge faction was as big a threat to the WW she wanted to live in as the Death Eaters. She, another schoolgirl, may not have picked the smartest method of dealing with a rat but I would have to say that generally the action she took was justified by the circumstances. The gloves are off in OotP between the Ministry and the loyal opposition and the Ministry is on track to become a totalitarian regime complete with genocide or at least apartheid directed at non-humans, and political murder or a gulag system for their human opposition. This was not a schoolyard prank and it should not be judged as one. Fudge and Umbridge may have started with good intentions but they were stopped just this side of Nazism. At the close of HBP the poison they spread between the Ministry and all the other factions opposed to the DE is still crippling the fight against them. They have done incalculable damage to the Cause. Hermione was right to oppose them by any means she could think of and it is regrettable that Marietta got caught in the cross fire. The choices the both Hermione and Marietta make are the choices that totalitarianism forces on its citizens. Ken From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu May 31 18:01:59 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:01:59 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169570 Betsy Hp: > Harry and Co. think they can dictate what all is involved in being > on the "right side". And apparently it's not merely being against > Voldemort. One must also be against the Ministry, for Dumbledore, > for the Gryffindor quidditch team, personally positive towards > Harry and his friends, and I *think* that's everything. Oh, and of > course, you need to be willing to turn on your family the *moment* > they question any of the above. Then you come close to rating as > being on the "right" side. Jen: Harry and friends have the right to 'be', hold opinions they have formed about the world and choose their own friends as well. As the story has progressed, those who support the MOM or oppose Dumbledore are helping Voldemort, whether intentionally or not, so the examples above appear to tie into which side a person is choosing. There's not much moral relativism at work in HP when it comes to Voldemort (and those who directly or indirectly support him) representing the wrong side and those who support Dumbledore representing the right. And what's an example of Quidditch team preference or not liking someone being the sole reason for the Trio to conclude an individual supports Voldemort? Without other evidence for such a connection, I mean. Even when the Trio questioned Umbridge, which led to the quick chastisement about the world not being divided into good people and DEs, Harry had the instance of connecting to Voldemort's feelings when Umbridge touched his hand and that influenced him to wonder about her allegiance. Betsy Hp: > Which is why, IMO, anarchy (or the lack of basic, agreed upon laws) > devolves into might makes right, and morals get determined by who > holds the biggest, well, wand. That's Voldemort's way. And > unfortunately, it's been the Trio's way, too. And I think it's > hinted that Crouch, Sr. felt that way too. > > The other way, is a rule of law where *everyone* is understood to > have the same basic rights, no matter their political beliefs or > quidditch team. And no one, *no one*, is free to take the law into > their own hands. I *think* that's the way Dumbledore is supposed > to be going. (I'll admit that sometimes it's hard to tell. ) > But it is the way the books will hopefully support in the end. Jen: I'm not sure what they are doing that's tantamount to using Voldemort's and Crouch, Sr.'s, tactics? I don't want to be dismissive of things they've done that aren't ethical (imo) such as Marietta getting the seemingly permanent disfiguration, but I don't see a progression with the Trio that is in any way equal to those particular individuals. I *think* Rowling is looking at instances of abuse of legitimized power over groups as being the greatest concern, so someone like Umbridge using the power of the MOM to take over Howarts would qualify, as would Crouch, Sr., using his position to treat DEs or suspected DEs the same way they are treating innocent citizens. The Inquisatorial Squad is given power legitimized and backed by the MOM although I'm ambivalent about that example because it mostly came down to unfairly docking points. Still, they were backed by a organization and given power. Voldemort and Dumbledore come closest to 'might makes right' because each legitimized his own power over others. The difference between them is meant to be in how they use that power and whether they allow followers to make choices. In that respect, Hermione - while unethical in my belief because she didn't disclose all the consequences- did not force anyone to be part of the DA or sign the parchment. Likewise, most of the examples given in the this thread of the Trio taking away rights are personal examples of revenge or lack of acceptance of others which have no power behind them other than what they possess as individuals or as a group of friends. The fact that Harry has been ostracized twice by large groups of fellow students indicates how little power he holds over others as the Boy Who Lived. Now, I could make a case that he's using his legitimized power as the Chosen One over the MOM in HBP, but since he hasn't actually forced them to do something against their will it doesn't fill the bill of what Rowling seems to be going for as serious wrong in the series. Likewise, any favor Harry receives from Slughorn or being Dumbledore's favorite 'boy' may come across as unfair or frustrating but the instances don't involve Harry abusing power over those with less power as far as I can remember at the moment. He certainly *could* have taken advantage of Slughorn disfavoring any children of DEs and getting in league with him to have power over those he doesn't like, as the Inquisatorial Squad did with Umbridge, but Harry didn't make that choice. That seems to be the key as I understand it: Harry and friends don't possess institutionalized power to oppress those considered in the minority or those conferred with inferior social status (such as house elves, giants, centaurs, etc.). Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 18:35:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:35:22 -0000 Subject: The Epilogue and the post-DH WW Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169571 I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the Epilogue extends only to 2007, which is both the year that the book was finished and published and ten years after the start of DH. My reason for thinking so is that JKR will bring her world up to the present time, with no need to imagine the future. So the Muggle world will be exactly as it is right now, with no Voldemort attacking us unawares and no awareness of the WW (not to mention no unimaginable technology), and the WW will have had time to make some strides forward and recover from the war with Voldemort, but will still be the same in some respects. (Hogwarts, we know, will still exist and one of Harry's friends [surely Neville] will teach there. The Statute of Secrecy will still be in effect (it has to be, or we Muggles would be able to see Hogwarts). If I'm right, HRH will be 27 or 28 years old at the end of the Epilogue, and we'll find out who marries whom and what their careers are and what they name their first child or first few children but not how or when they die. (I'm hoping that all three will go back to Hogwarts a year late to finish their education, which will put them, for better or worse, in the same year as Ginny.) My question is, what do all of you think the WW will be like at that point? Will Scrimgeour still be Minister for Magic, or will it be Mr. Weasley or someone else (Percy, LOL)? I expect that Hogwarts will have made some progress toward House unity, with the stigma removed from Slytherin (please, JKR), but what about the WW? Obviously, Muggles won't be part of it, but possibly there will be an improved Muggle Studies program at Hogwarts that focuses on understanding Muggles and their history and cultural accomplishments rather than presenting technology as a substitute for magic (the Arthur Weasleys of the world may find plugs and "ekeltricity" fascinating, but that's hardly all there is to being a Muggle). More likely, "tolerance" will be actively promoted, with blood purity deemphasized. (I can just see the teachers actively promoting a "multicultural" agenda to counter the training that the purebloods receive at home.) But what about Squibs? Won't some people in the WW still be "more equal than others"? What constitutes fair treatment for Squibs? Werewolves will need free access to Wolfsbane Potion to keep the WW safe and allow them something resembling equal opportunity, and the younger ones can be admitted to Hogwarts so that they can be genuinely equal (with their fellow students taught to "understand how a werewolf's mind works--maybe from the horse's mouth by a reinstated Lupin on his third chance). But what about Muggle werewolves, the Squibs of the werewolf world? Phase them out by making sure they don't bite anybody, but what kind of life can they live? As for nonhuman creatures with "near-human intelligence," what's the best solution? There's no point in giving house-elves wands; they don't need them. And what if they don't want freedom? What about goblins? What would happen if *they* were given wands? Should house-elves and goblins be admitted to Hogwarts? Or should they just be left alone (as I think the Centaurs and Merpeople should be--and someone should teach the Centaurs "tolerance," while they're at it. Even Firenze sees himself as superior to humans.) Peaceful coexistence seems like the best solution to me, but I'm not sure how it would work. As for Giants and Trolls, I somehow don't think it's feasible to turn them all into Grawps or provide a special classroom for them at Hogwarts. I'm afraid the best solution for the Giants, at least, is to leave them where they are and let them kill each other off. (Wicked me, sorry, but some "prejudices"--or fears--are justified, and Ron's characterization of Giants seems to be borne out by Hagrid's observations and experience.) What do you think of this brave new world? Have I got it all wrong? What do all of you think the WW will--or should--be like as of 2007? Carol, who predicts that the Epilogue will end with Harry still alive in what for us is the present rather than projecting his life eighty years into his future and ours From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu May 31 19:36:45 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:36:45 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40705311236r60a67a5dx4be07ce6b0c2bc86@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169572 > > > > houyhnhnm: > > > > I will accept anyone who is one my side? That is > > > > not tolerance. Tolerance is a commitment to the > > > > the belief that *everyone* has a right to be. > > > > > > Betsy Hp: > > Ah, but houyhnhnm is saying everyone has a right *to be*. Your > > political choices shouldn't determine whether or not you have the > > right to exist as a human being. > > Mike: > Ah, but by that reasoning Voldemort has a "right to be". Alla was > saying, and I agree with her, that those political choices will > result in other people passing judgement on your *human-ness*. Did > Hitler, Tojo, Stalin have a right to be? Were the "others" that > disagreed with them wrong for opposing them with the ultimate force > they could muster? It *is* a matter of degrees as to what the > appropriate response is to those "others". Kemper now: The right to be is not the same as the right to do. The right to be, is the right to exist, to live. To do is to act. Hitler had the right to live. He did not have the right to act upon his racist beliefs/thoughts to the point of harming anyone yet alone attempting genocide. Same with Stalin, who I'm sure you recall was a frienemy*, an Ally that helped defeat Hitler only to engage the other Allies in a cold war. Voldemort has the right to live, too. He does not have a right to torture or kill. All of them forfeit their right to be when they violate the rights to be of others... I guess. I would rather see those who kill/torture lose their right to be living the life they want by living a long, lonely life in a penal system dieing from ennui. > > You "tolerate" anyone who has not wronged you. (I agree with Betsy's > interpretation of the term "tolerate" and how she applied it > versus "appreciate"). If you have no reasonable grounds to oppose the > other, you follow the Golden Rule. Once you've been wronged, your > response should be measured by what degree that wrong against you > rose to. Again, all my opinion. Kemper now: I think Stalin was tolerated. He was not appreciated. DD tolerated, barely, the Ministry. He did not appreciate them as a whole. He appreciated some of those who worked for them: Arthur, Tonks, Shaklebolt. My opinion only. Kemper *friend who is an enemy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 19:52:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 19:52:22 -0000 Subject: Possible Ron/Hermione and Severus/Lily parallel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169573 I'm not a fan of the Severus loved Lily theory, but I did notice a similarity in his reaction to Lily's interference and Ron's reaction to Hermione's. We all know Severus's notorious response: It's the only time in the books that he uses the term "Mudblood" (in marked contrast to Draco, who uses it at least once per book from CoS onward). It's intersting to me that Severus's angry retort comes not immediately after Lily intercedes but when James implies that Severus requires her help: "'There you go,' [James ] said, as Snape struggled to his feet again, 'you're lucky Evans was here, Snivellus--'" "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!" (OoP Am ed. 648). If it weren't for James's word here, Severus wouldn't have insulted Lily. He's silent throughout their whole flirtation/confrontation, but these words trigger a venomous response that must be uncharacteristic as it causes Lily to blink in surprise. Similarly, when Harry tells Ron that he didn't really add Felix Felicis to his pumpkin juice, Ron turns on Hermione and imitates her voice, "*You added Felix Felicis to Ron's juice this morning, theat's why he saved everything!* See! I can save goals without help, Hermione!" (HBP Am. ed. 299, italics in original). Then he strides out of the room without allowing her to defend herself or explain. Ron doesn't call her a "Mudblood" (not a word that his family uses), but he does put words in her mouth, stating aloud her implication that Ron scored the goals with the help of the potion and would not have done so on his own. And he punishes her for her tactlessness by not speaking to her and winding himself around Lav-Lav. (Of course, Hermione retaliates with her "Oppugno!" but Lily retaliated by calling Severus "Snivellus"--each trying to hurt or punish the other.) The chief similarity, it seems to me, is the boy's fear that the girl will see him as inadequate and the girl's misunderstanding of her tactlessness in coming to his rescue (in Lily's case) or pointing out the (perceived) inadequacy (in Hermione's). I can just imagine Ron's reaction if he learned that Hermione had Confunded McLaggen! Anyway, I thought I'd point out the parallels in case anyone wants to follow up on them. And, BTW, I noticed another Hermione parallel in the first DA meeting when I was looking up quotes for the Marietta thread. Hermione says to Luna regarding the existence of Heliopaths, "I'm sorry, but where's the *proof* of that?" to which Luna responds, "There are plenty of eyewitness accounts, just because you're so narrow-minded you need to have everything shoved under your nose before you--" (545). Funny that Hermione is placed in the same position as Zacharias Smith, who "narrow-mindedly" refuses to believe that Voldemort has returned without supporting evidence but doesn't see the parallel. Carol, thinking that all of the characters need to open their minds in one way or another and wondering if the parallels are deliberately inserted to make some such point From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Thu May 31 20:38:49 2007 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:38:49 -0000 Subject: Snape's involvement in the murder of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Jen: > I'm particularly interested now in a piece of information > that Kreacher reported which can only be second-hand: "Kreacher's > information made [Voldemort] realize the one person whom you would go > to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black." (The Lost Prophecy > Chapter, p. 831, Am. Ed.) > ronnie: thanks Jen for that quote. I think that it might still play a part in HD. It really matches my beliefs (following the book cover made public) that Harry is going behind that veil to save Sirius. From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Thu May 31 20:50:59 2007 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:50:59 -0000 Subject: (least) Favorite Ron moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > zgirnius: > My very favorite Ron moment (why, exactly, was it necessary to give > this moment to Hermione in the medium that must not be named?!) > > > PoA: > > Ron, however, spoke to Black. > > > "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too!" he said > fiercely, though the effort of standing upright was draining him of > still more color, and he swayed slightly as he spoke. > > > Something flickered in Black's shadowed eyes. > > > "Lie down," he said quietly to Ron. "You will damage that leg even > more." > > > "Did you hear me?" Ron said weakly, though he was clinging > painfully to Harry to stay upright. "You'll have to kill all three of > us!" > ronnie: I must add one of my least favorite Ron moments (although I have to admit ambivalence to Ron: I think he's terrific at times): "'Well, it's nothing to be ashamed of!' said Mrs. Longbottom angrily. 'You shoud be proud, Neville, proud! They didn't give their health and their sanity so their only son woud be ashamed of them, you know!' 'I'm not ashamed,' said Neville, very faintly, still looking anywhere but at Harry and the others. Ron was now standing on tiptoe to look over at the inhabitants of the two beds." (OotP, Chirstmas on the Closed Ward, 454). From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 20:16:39 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:16:39 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169576 > Betsy Hp: > I've had the very same worries, lizzyben04. And I usually look to > Pippin to pull me back from the depths of despair. (Though she may > not realize I do so. ) In another thread, Pippin pointed out this > quote of JKR's: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169384 > > >>Pippin: > > Here's what Jo has to say about Hermione: > > "Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite > self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she > goes through this. She develops her political conscience. > My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, > which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders > towards the very people she's trying to help. She > offends them." lizzyben04: I hope that this means what we think it means, but JKR might simply be referring to SPEW - which is referred to in the text as a well- intentioned, but somewhat patronizing & self-righteous endeavour. However, we never see any criticism in the text of some of Hermione's other actions - like jinxing Marietta, or luring Umbridge, which were actually much more sinister. I guess you could argue it's there in the subtext, but it certainly isn't in the text "canon" as Harry perceives things. That's what worries me. He thinks SPEW is a bit unfair to the elves, but does he ever think that it's wrong to give Dudley a tail, jinx Marrietta, throw away Montague, blow up an Aunt, beat up on Draco? Not that we can see. > >>Betsy Hp: > Children can be very intolerent of anything or anyone different or > outside themselves; the "other" for want of a better word. > I've started to think that perhaps JKR is > exploring this phenomenon and using the Potter series (not in a > preachy way) to say something about it. Because, IMO, she's got a lot > of odd juxtapositions in the books. And I can't help but think JKR > knows that they're there. lizzyben04: Yes, it seems like "others" create their own subgroups of "others" as well. Harry, Ron & Hermione all face prejudice because of their own backgrounds, yet they still feel prejudice towards others. This might be human nature, but is it right? The text certainly says that it isn't right to be prejudiced against Muggles, or wizard kids, or poorer families, but when it comes to the Houses, it gets a bit murkier. Hagrid tells Harry that he SHOULD feel superior to the "other" House, and that message is repeated in many ways by many other adults in the series. Harry's finally a Gryfindor "insider", and he indulges in stereotypes & prejudice towards those that are "outsiders", despite the fact that he was once an outsider himself. Right now, the text seems to say that they SHOULD be prejudiced against the other house, because the "others" are all less worthy. That bugs. > Betsy Hp: > It disturbs me as well. But I wonder if it's maybe *supposed* to be > disturbing on some level? > > It's very convenient, IMO, that Draco is turned into an animal before > he's thrown repeatedly to the ground. One of the first things > propagandists try to do is remove the humanity of the other side. > That Draco has his humanity removed in *actuality* suggests, to me, > that perhaps JKR knows what she is doing. lizzyben04: I hope so, but I'm not sure. Perhaps she is sending a message about the treatment of the "other" w/these juxtapositions & hypocritical behavior. But if that message is in the text, it's so subtle that I'm not sure most children will see it. I care about human rights, but I enjoyed Draco's "ferret-bouncing" until I caught myself & thought about the fact that I was laughing at the torture of a student! Ack! The text NEVER invites us to consider the immorality of this act - indeed, Moody is praised for it, and Ron makes a joke about how he always wants to remember that moment. Same thing goes for Dudley's tail - Hagrid, an authority figure, gives Dudley a permenent injury, and the reader is invited to laugh it up. He deserves it, right? I hate Umbridge, but the trio basically abandoned her to die in the forest, and then laughed at her mental trauma. If you stop for a second, you're horrified by some of these things, but the text never seems to want us to stop & evaluate the morality of these actions. So many times, injuries & humiliations of "the bad guys" are simply played for laughs. Is JKR making an ironic commentary on how we lessen the humanity of "others", or is she actually DOING IT? I'm starting to wonder. > >>Betsy Hp: > And with both Montague and Marietta, none of the trio know those > students. Not really. It's easy to deprecate the pain of someone > you never really see or interact with. (The same could be said about > the trio's view of Crabbe, Goyle, and Malfoy.) The childish > shortsightedness of the trio allow them to be as ruthless and unjust > (to paraphrase Pippin's quote above) as they want to be because > they're not hurting actual people, they're just hurting the "other". lizzyben04: Too true. In the Harry Potter books, Slytherins are portrayed as the ultimate "other", and the heros feel as justified in persecuting Slyherins as the pure-bloods feel in persecuting "mudbloods." They're not "actual people", after all. The comparisons are totally disturbing when you stop to think about it. And it reminds me a bit of the moral relativism we see in our own political world, where we can feel justified using torture or immoral practices against someone because, after all, they're the "bad guys." Just ugh. What kind of lesson is that? If that's not ever changed in these novels, if Harry & co. don't learn the dangers of that kind of black & white thinking, what is the moral message? "It's OK when we do it"? > Betsy Hp: > I'm holding out hope that DH will show the "moral relativism" the > trio engages in as the problem that I think it is. Dumbledore spent > all of HBP teaching Harry to look at Tom Riddle in a new way; to see > the man behind the monster. At least, it seemed to me that he was > pleased that Harry was able to dredge up some sympathy for young! > Tom. And we also have Harry facing the fact that Draco feels pain, > both physical and emotional. By the end of HBP Harry seems to be > holding on to that lesson. > > Hopefully, Hermione and Ron will learn that lesson as well, and DH > will end by showing children that just because someone is different > or "other", it's really not okay to beat them with sticks. > > Or you know, there's always the woodchipper. lizzyben04: I'm hoping against hope that this is true, as well. But so far, the hints in that direction have been very subtle. Did Harry really feel bad about his attack (almost murder!) of Draco? After the initial shock, I didn't see it. Harry still seems to think Draco basically had it coming & he's just upset about how the detentions will interfere with Quidditch. I'm hoping that there will be some moment of "epiphany" for Harry & co., where they realize what their stereotypes & "moral relativism" have led them to do. Some moment where they see that their own fear & hatred of "the other" has led them to adopt some of the same prejudices & cruelty that they're trying to fight against. So far, though, it hasn't happened. Personally, I believe that revelation has to come from Snape. SO much, to me, depends on how Snape is characterized at the end of this novel. That'll basically determine whether I think these novels belong in the classics aisle or the wood-chipper. If it turns out that Harry was wrong about Snape, that could be that moment of "revelation" that would illustrate the dangers of mindless hatred, prejudice & fear of "the other". From the beginning, the trio has sorted Snape into "the other" - as an enemy, dark, less than human, etc. Harry has felt justified using unforgiveable curses & immoral means against Snape & co. because "they deserve it." (just like Sirius said). Harry's become increasingly ruthless, and increasingly driven by hatred & anger. (This from a hero who's strength is supposed to be love). I could see him actually using Crucio against Snape at some point. If it turns out, in the end, that he's actually been using those immoral means against a friend, an ally, it would really cause a moment of horror that would highlight the injustice of using those kinds of means. It would also show the dangers of simply "sorting" people as bad & worthless based on their looks, their house, etc. That moment could serve to topple the message of "moral relativism" that had been built in the past books. But what's the lesson, if Snape really was evil all along? If Slytherin = "the other", the lesson is just awful. It's "the other" = EVIL. Never trust "one of them"? That Dumbledore was a fool to look past appearances, labels & past affinities? That the "others" really are bad & awful & deserve no compassion? That we can just instantly, reliably label someone as evil based only on their party/house/religion/race. UGH. Half the atrocities in this world are caused because people view "the other" as less human, less worthy of respect, than they are. If the Harry Potter books actually reinforce that kind of stereotyping & prejudice, I've got no use for them. lizzyben04 From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 20:41:28 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:41:28 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169577 > >>Carol: > > So Marietta was up a creek. She was coerced by Cho to to attend a group she wanted no part of, one that was clearly anti-Ministry from its inception and more so as it went along. (She gives Cho a reproachful look before signing the parchment, and certainly would not have done so if she'd been warned about the hex.) > True, she was breaking her word not to tell anyone by going to Umbridge, but at the time she gave her word, the group was not yet illegal. She should have been given the chance to walk away. > lizzyben04: I'm wondering if JKR included this whole DA/hex thing as a possible parallel to the Death Eaters? The "hex" Hermione gives is very similar to the "Dark Mark" that Death Eaters are given. Both organizations have a sign that "calls" the members to meet. And both organizations require the members to pledge eternal secrecy - once you're in, there's no getting out. Now, one is "good" & one is "evil", but there are definite similarities in how both are organized. Hermione even mentioned getting some of the ideas from the Death Eaters. These parallels have to be there for a reason. I think we'll find out that there was a "Marietta" in the Death Eaters, as well - someone who was dragged along by a friend, pressured into joining without understanding all of the ramifications & later regretted it. Someone who tried to go to the "proper authorities" and was punished by the Death Eaters - maybe Snape, Draco, Regulus Black? By introducing this parallel, it forces readers to see what things are like when "the shoe is on the other foot". Would we still defend the need for loyalty & secrecy, the need to sacrifice an individual for the "greater cause," when that cause is an evil one? If it was wrong for the Death Eaters to hurt this person, doesn't that make it wrong for Hermione to hurt Marietta? I'm hoping the juxtaposition is intentional, to highlight the dangers of these kinds justifications. lizzyben04 From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 21:12:36 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:12:36 -0000 Subject: Fleur, Molly and tolerance (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169578 > houyhnhnm: > > The scene between her [Fleur] and Molly at the end of HBP is one of the best lessons in tolerance in the books and one of my favorites. Neither woman changes. Fleur is still proud and ambitious. She will never learn to like Celestina Warbeck. Molly is still loud and unsophisticated. Her taste in music will never improve. But they have learned to respect each other because they recognize that they both love Bill. I am looking forward to seeing what happens with Fleur in DH. lizzyben04: Yes, I really liked this scene too. It makes me hope that JKR is sending a message of real tolerance & unity. The kids begin the novel totally prejudiced against Fluer as an "other", but eventually welcome her into their own family. Fleur & Molly learn to respect each other, even if they'll never really like each other. The prejudices & dislike that they've built up totally dissolve in the end as they realize that they both truly love Bill. It was a ray of hope & light in a very dark ending. Meanwhile, Harry still remains lost in anger, hate & despair. Maybe the Fleur encounter was a hint at what it will take for him to heal. lizzyben04 From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 21:31:21 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:31:21 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: <700201d40705311236r60a67a5dx4be07ce6b0c2bc86@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169579 > >>Kemper: > > Voldemort has the right to live, too. He does not have a right to torture or kill. > All of them forfeit their right to be when they violate the rights to be of others... I guess. I would rather see those who kill/torture lose their right to be living the life they want by living a long, lonely life in a penal system dieing from ennui. > >>Mike: > > You "tolerate" anyone who has not wronged you. (I agree with Betsy's interpretation of the term "tolerate" and how she applied it versus "appreciate"). If you have no reasonable grounds to oppose the other, you follow the Golden Rule. Once you've been wronged, your response should be measured by what degree that wrong against you rose to. Again, all my opinion. lizzyben04: See, this is where I disagree, & this is my fundamental problem with the series. Under a real system of laws, EVERYONE is entitled to fairness, respect, rights and tolerance. Everyone is protected by those laws, and they should be applied equally and without prejudice. That's the fundamental basis of our democracy, and our Constitution. "All men are created equal, all endowed with the right to life, liberty & happiness..." The problem is, these fundamental rights don't appear to exist in the Wizarding World. Inequality runs rampant, punishment is arbitrary & biased, and corruption is systemic. There is no real justice. And where there is no system of laws, no system of justice, power becomes the only thing that matters. Both Dumbledore & Voldemort exemplify this philosophy. Laws don't matter to either, because the Ministry is so corrupt that its laws become meaningless. Elves, goblins, other groups that are denied equality will always look for opportunities to get it back. People who are unhappy with the Ministry will still form their own "clubs" & "armies", as Dumbledore & Slughorn did, eventually either furthering the corruption or taking over the Ministry. Even if Harry manages to defeat Voldemort, another Dark Lord will probably rise 10-20 years later. The system almost demands it. Unless the "wizarding system" changes, I'm not sure that the "evil" will ever really go away. lizzyben04 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 22:09:37 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 22:09:37 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169580 > > >>Alla; > > > > I am fully convinced that she [Marietta] knew what Umbridge was > > capable of and she still went to her. > > Betsy Hp: > Of course you are; only the Prosecution was allowed to testify. > We have no *idea* why Marietta did what she did. All we have to go > on is a half-spoken testimony from Cho, which the Prosecution > objected to pretty much immediately. > > It's very easy to convince the jury of the defendent's guilt if > they're not allowed to defend themselves. See Sirius as a prime > example. Alla: Huh? So you are saying that there is an evidence that hidden from us that Marietta did not go to Umbridge and/or she did not know what she is capable of? Could you clarify please? Are we going to discover that Marietta was polijuiced or something? I am not kidding actually, I am confused. There was plenty IMO objective evidence quoted that what Umbridge did was public knowledge - specifically that her Decrees and what is in them was public knowledge. I will grant you that if Marietta could not read, could not hear, she did not know what was going on. And I think the fact that she indeed **went** to Umbridge, I will repeat again - she did **Not** go to her mother, if one argues that one is loyal to her family as defense, she went to **Dolores Umbridge**. She was not even forcefully dragged to Dolores UMbridge, she went on her own. As I also said, I would have been a little bit easier on Marietta, if she went to her mother and confessed. I would have still not liked it, but at least understood. I see what Marietta did as undefensible, regardless of what Marietta has to say for herself. IMO unless we learn additional facts of what happened, facts speak for themselves here. Again IMO. Alla. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu May 31 22:56:35 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 22:56:35 -0000 Subject: On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169581 > lizzyben04: > See, this is where I disagree, & this is my fundamental > problem with the series. Under a real system of laws, > EVERYONE is entitled to fairness, respect, rights and > tolerance. Everyone is protected by those laws, and they > should be applied equally and without prejudice. Goddlefrood: In the real world as of even date this may be a valid poiint, although many in certain less democratic (a word I always use loosely) countries would disagree. The UK as a whole has no Constitution, JKR is from there, she has little regard of how legal systems outside the UK might work. The US justice system has no relevance at all to the WW. This has been stated ad infinitum (mostly by me, I'll grant you ;)). At the point where the book series began there was little Human Rights legislation globally, it is a relatively recent legal development, although the underlying fundamentals of it have been around for some time. When the WW is considered, which we must, and also bearing in mind that it does not exist, as at 1692 the WW went into a state of seclusion from the Muggle world. The Muggle world has no real bearing as of now, or for the last 3 or more centuries, on how the WW has developed its systems of governance (again, for want of a better word). What was said during "The Other Minister" chapter of HBP also has great bearing. That was, roughly, that each of the two protagonist sides in the second rise of Voldemort have similar magical powers. These powers, iirc, do not exist in the Muggle world, even to those who may have taken the QuickSpell course. > Lizzyben04: > "All men are created equal, all endowed with the right to > life, liberty & happiness..." Goddlefrood: Tell that to someone on death row ;-) > Lizzyben04: > Laws don't matter to either, because the Ministry is so > corrupt that its laws become meaningless. Elves, goblins, > other groups that are denied equality will always look for > opportunities to get it back. Goddlefrood: I could not agree with this as there is too little to go on. Each of the sentient beings mentioned above have a liaison office and there is some legislation governing them. That witches and wizards have prejudice against some of these magical beings is not something that can be legislated away. There are sex discrimination laws and race relations laws in the real world that do not always work. Sometimes they go too far too. One rather odd example is the Isles of Scilly Fire Service. Due to positive discrimination there is a requirement that at least one officer of that service should be from an ethnic minority. The thing is there are no ethnic minorities in the Isles of Scilly and this ethnic minority officer has to be uprooted from wherever he or she might reside and placed in the Islands. (They are a real place and both this and the story above can be attested if necessary). > Lizzyben04 > People who are unhappy with the Ministry will still form > their own "clubs" & "armies", as Dumbledore & Slughorn did, > eventually either furthering the corruption or taking over > the Ministry. Goddlefrood: Quite possibly, but where is there a law in the WW of which we are aware that prohibits this? The MoM seems to have no real problem with the Order, and why would it, it is ostensibly opposing a common enemy. That stands whatever else might be said of the MoM or any specific employees of it. I would suggest that the closest we can say about the WW is, not my own, but the words of Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Goddlefrood From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 23:09:46 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 23:09:46 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169582 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Harry and Co. think they can dictate what all is involved in > > being on the "right side". > > > >>Jen: Harry and friends have the right to 'be', hold opinions > they have formed about the world and choose their own friends as > well. Betsy Hp: Oh, of course they do. I don't deny them that at all. It's what they *do* to others that bothers me, really. Though some of their beliefs bother me too, it's the actions and lack of remorse that actually *worry* me in the end. > >>Jen: > As the story has progressed, those who support the MOM or oppose > Dumbledore are helping Voldemort, whether intentionally or not, so > the examples above appear to tie into which side a person is > choosing. > Betsy Hp: Harry going to the DoM unintentionally supported Voldemort. Does that make him a member of the "wrong" side now? Does that mean that Harry is no longer quite as human as those who've been completely obedient to Dumbledore? May we hit Harry with sticks now? I know the answer is "no" of course. But it seems to me that Harry and his friends are allowed to make some mistakes, and yet still remain on the "right" side. Others (or should I say "others" ) are not given as much leniency. Probably, IMO, *because* Harry and co. doesn't recognize them as human or real and therefore susceptible to various pressures and misunderstandings as well. > >>Jen: > > And what's an example of Quidditch team preference or not liking > someone being the sole reason for the Trio to conclude an individual > supports Voldemort? Without other evidence for such a connection, > I mean. > Betsy Hp: I was equating "right" with "human". Harry and co. have a ruler that measures the worth of people much finer than mere support of Voldemort. If folks don't fully measure up than they're wrong enough that it's okay for Hermione to permently disfigure them, or wrong enough for Ginny to hex or smash into with a broom. (Something that wouldn't have mightly offended the Gryffindors if a Slytherin had done the same to Lee Jordan.) > >>Jen: I'm not sure what they are doing that's tantamount to using > Voldemort's and Crouch, Sr.'s, tactics? I don't want to be > dismissive of things they've done that aren't ethical (imo) such as > Marietta getting the seemingly permanent disfiguration, but I don't > see a progression with the Trio that is in any way equal to those > particular individuals. > Betsy Hp: Oh, it's *not* equal of course. Otherwise there wouldn't be space for the Trio to change and grow. (Please, let there be space for the Trio to change and grow! ) I think the Trio have dipped their toes in the pool of tryanny (more because of their childishness than any kind of drive for absolute power), but just a toe. > >>Jen: > Likewise, most of the examples given in the this thread of the Trio > taking away rights are personal examples of revenge or lack of > acceptance of others which have no power behind them other than > what they possess as individuals or as a group of friends. > The fact that Harry has been ostracized twice by large groups of > fellow students indicates how little power he holds over others as > the Boy Who Lived. > Betsy Hp: I think that's where the lack of realism comes in a little. Fellow students don't strike back in the way they would in real life, IMO. Ginny isn't jumped by Hufflepuffs; Hermione isn't jumped by Ravenclaws. Seamus and Dean are weirdly passive when it comes to Ron and Harry. I think it's because (I *hope* it's because) JKR has a sense of where and when the Trio will learn their final lesson on how to treat others. > >>Jen: > That seems to be the key as I understand it: Harry and friends > don't possess institutionalized power to oppress those considered > in the minority or those conferred with inferior social status > (such as house elves, giants, centaurs, etc.). Betsy Hp: Just Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs? And non-prefect Gryffindors? Oh, and adults who aren't in good with Dumbledore. Other than that, yes they're just three lonely, powerless, unpopular students. > >>Alla: > Huh? So you are saying that there is an evidence that hidden from us > that Marietta did not go to Umbridge and/or she did not know what > she is capable of? > Betsy Hp: I'm saying we don't know if there were mitigating circumstances. Gosh, for all we know there was a Ministry member holding Marietta's mother at wand-point. We just don't know because Marietta hasn't been allowed to give her side of the story. > >>Alla: > And I think the fact that she indeed **went** to Umbridge, I will > repeat again - she did **Not** go to her mother, if one argues that > one is loyal to her family as defense, she went to **Dolores > Umbridge**. She was not even forcefully dragged to Dolores UMbridge, > she went on her own. > Betsy Hp: And we know all of the above because... Harry says so? > >>Marion: > Gandalf: > Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And > some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be > too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise > cannot see all ends. Betsy Hp: Oh, I love Gandalf. Poor Dumbledore; no chance to study the master. Sucks to be a wizard, really. (Hee! Sad thing is, pants bring out a similar emotion. Go Muggles! ) Betsy Hp From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu May 31 23:28:24 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 01:28:24 +0200 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? References: Message-ID: <02f201c7a3db$63340f70$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 169583 lizzyben04 wrote: > He's reading this as part of an assignment from Snape. The quote is > repeated TWICE, as Harry wonders if the potion might be used against > Sirius. Again, why go into detail about a potion if it didn't have > some relevance to the events of the novel? This is virtually the only > time that the novel directly quotes from a textbook. Why? I think this > was a clue - so readers could combine the description of a "confusing > & befuddlement draught" w/later descriptions of Montague as "confused > & disoriented." Snape knows how to brew "confusing draughts", and was > one of the first to discover Montague; Montague is confused & > disoriented for months, while he's being fed a blue potion. What if > that potion was the "confusing draught?" That would actually explain > Montague's symptoms. He's apparently confused throughout this time - I > don't know when he told Draco this "great story," - perhaps on the > train home? Maybe he was only befuddled while at the clinic until the > MOM plan could take place? I dunno. Miles: I think this idea is reasonable. There might be other explanations, but I agree that it's unlikely to think that the description of the potion and the scene showing Montague taking a potion while he is confused are coincidential. lizzyben04 wrote: > I actually tend to think that Snape is on the good side, but this > incident nags at me, & almost convinces me that Snape planned this > out. Why Snape? It was Madame Pomfrey who gave him the potion. She is the Healer at Hogwarts. That means, she is not just a nurse that obeys the orders of a doctor (I know real nurses do much more, but I don't want to write an excursus on that here ;) ). I doubt very much that other people, not even Snape would usually interfere with her treatment of people in the hospital wing. Now - what do we know about Madame Pomfrey? Could she possibly be a DE, or imperiused? Or could she act on someone else's orders, maybe Dumbledore's, who wants to keep information secret, which is not necessary anymore after the MoM incident, so the confusement ends then? Many possible explanations without Snape, or without an ESE!Snape. Miles From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu May 31 23:41:33 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 23:41:33 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169584 > lizzyben04: Right now, the text seems to say that they SHOULD be > prejudiced against the other house, because the "others" are all > less worthy. That bugs. Alla: That is of course if one characterises this as prejudice, because IMO the dislike of evil is not prejudice, but well deserved dislike of evil. Slytherin house purebloods are better than anybody else ideology is IMO evil ideology, and unless JKR pulls the rug and portrays Slytherins as misunderstood sweeties, I do not see at all what is so prejudicial about disliking what they stood for. I said many times, I can totally see Houses uniting at the end and doubt that JKR promotes the idea that every single child sorted in Slytherin is evil, totally ridiculous IMO. But I do think that this ideology will be abandoned by leaders of Slytherin house, whoever they will be at least - healing and all that before unity comes. IMO. lizzyben04: I hate Umbridge, but the trio basically > abandoned her to die in the forest, and then laughed at her mental > trauma. If you stop for a second, you're horrified by some of these > things, but the text never seems to want us to stop & evaluate the > morality of these actions. So many times, injuries & humiliations > of "the bad guys" are simply played for laughs. Is JKR making an > ironic commentary on how we lessen the humanity of "others", or is > she actually DOING IT? I'm starting to wonder. Alla: maybe she just enjoys her fictional villains getting her dues? I do think it is very telling that she said that Umbridge is still around because it is fun to torture her. > lizzyben04: And it reminds me a bit > of the moral relativism we see in our own political world, where we > can feel justified using torture or immoral practices against > someone because, after all, they're the "bad guys." Just ugh. What > kind of lesson is that? If that's not ever changed in these novels, > if Harry & co. don't learn the dangers of that kind of black & white > thinking, what is the moral message? "It's OK when we do it"? Alla: Sure, agreed about RW, think that Potterverse employs a bit different standards though. How many times in RL we think that evil escaped punishment again? See, if you do not perseive Slytherin purebloodism as real evil, my analogy is meaningless, but since I do, I think it works. > lizzyben04: > I'm hoping against hope that this is true, as well. But so far, the > hints in that direction have been very subtle. Did Harry really feel > bad about his attack (almost murder!) of Draco? Alla: Um, another intepretation of Harry's **attack, almost murder of Draco** is Harry defending himself from Draco. > Betsy Hp: > Harry going to the DoM unintentionally supported Voldemort. Does > that make him a member of the "wrong" side now? Does that mean that > Harry is no longer quite as human as those who've been completely > obedient to Dumbledore? May we hit Harry with sticks now? Alla: Um, sure if I would agree that Harry going to DoM supported Voldemort in any way, shape or form, LOL. Then I would let you beat him a little ;) Betsy Hp: > I know the answer is "no" of course. But it seems to me that Harry > and his friends are allowed to make some mistakes, and yet still > remain on the "right" side. Others (or should I say "others" ) > are not given as much leniency. Probably, IMO, *because* Harry and > co. doesn't recognize them as human or real and therefore susceptible > to various pressures and misunderstandings as well. Alla: No, IMO that is because the gravity of their mistakes does not go anywhere close to those on Voldemort's side. When Harry and Co will plan to kill someone for a year ( and no, I do not think we can count Voldemort here IMO) for example, then I will cheerfully sign them up for another side. > > >>Jen: > > That seems to be the key as I understand it: Harry and friends > > don't possess institutionalized power to oppress those considered > > in the minority or those conferred with inferior social status > > (such as house elves, giants, centaurs, etc.). Alla: I agree completely. > Betsy Hp: > Just Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs? And non-prefect Gryffindors? > Oh, and adults who aren't in good with Dumbledore. Other than that, > yes they're just three lonely, powerless, unpopular students. Alla: Doesn't JKR pretty much measure adults worth by whether they are good with DD or not? I mean, does she? Epitome of goodness and all that. I trust Severus Snape and all that. So, is DD the ultimate measure of goodness in the books or is he not? But yeah, I believe that on the scale of popularity they did not count very much and dear Draco Malfoy was much higher up there at least till the end of OOP. The son of blood traitors, the muggle born geek and the chosen one, on whom fellow students and whole WW does not have a problem turning off the very second he does something they do not like. IMO. > Betsy Hp: > I'm saying we don't know if there were mitigating circumstances. > Gosh, for all we know there was a Ministry member holding Marietta's > mother at wand-point. We just don't know because Marietta hasn't > been allowed to give her side of the story. Alla: Sure, Betsy as soon as we read about Ministry member holding Marietta mother at gun point, I will cheerfully agree that there are significant mitigating circumstances. I am not sure that is going to happen, but JKR often suprises me. > > > >>Alla: > > And I think the fact that she indeed **went** to Umbridge, I will > > repeat again - she did **Not** go to her mother, if one argues that > > one is loyal to her family as defense, she went to **Dolores > > Umbridge**. She was not even forcefully dragged to Dolores UMbridge, > > she went on her own. > > > > Betsy Hp: > And we know all of the above because... Harry says so? Alla: I thought Dolores Umbridge said so - that Marietta went to her. > Mike: > I'd like to address the previous train scenes that Harry got his > *comeuppance* for in the HBP train scene. > > GoF: Imagine you are out jogging with a friend. Someone kidnaps both > of you, drives you to a graveyard, kills your jogging partner, > tortures you, and then tries to kill you in some ritualized contest. > By some miracle you escape. > > A week or so later, the sons of the participants in the ritual come > into your train compartment and one begins to taunt you, that your > experience was just the beginning. Oh, btw, all of you know that > these guys fathers have done this before, all of you know that the > fathers are members of a terrorist outfit (though the sons have a > different view of that outfit, they know what their fathers do). > > Tell me you wouldn't punch them in their noses? > > Yeah, I know, the sins of the father. But if the sons don't want > retribution, stay away. Don't seek out the kid that your father help > torture and begin to taunt him. If you go looking for trouble, > sometimes you find it. Alla: Oh Mike how much I loved your post :) Now this is IMO a good example of how what Kemper was talking about transforms from Malfoy and his goons are entitled to to what they are not. ( Oh, my hatred of Malfoy increases tenfold every time I reread this scene and discuss it, I really should picture him at the Tower to remember him as powerless wanna be murderer, who succumbs to the will of hurt old man IMO). If these goons decided to talk this crap in their appartment in the closed doors, that is what they would be IMO perfectly entitled to, if they do not act on) They did all you said and invaded Gryffindors space, IMO it is hate speech and beginning of actions as well. From darksworld at yahoo.com Thu May 31 23:43:20 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 23:43:20 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: <001301c7a3aa$ad056c10$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169585 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: > Marion: > Yes, but the point I think sistermagpie was making is that if Rita had printed pure bollocks, and insulting, damaging and vicious bollocks at that, about, say, the Malfoys, then Harry and co would've loved Rita Skeeter. Rita would be seen as an ally and a friend and the fact that she prints lies for profit and political ends would not matter to Harry and Hermione in the slightest. Charles: Excuse me? We have already seen that Harry defends even those who have hurt him. Including Draco Malfoy. In COS, when Malfoy is being accused of being Slytherin's heir, and Harry is asked whether he thinks it is possible, he responds with a resounding no. Hell, Harry could have killed two birds with one stone on a certain night in Little Whinging just by not sending his patronus after the dementor attacking Dudley. Dudley would have been out of his hair for good, and there would have been proof that Harry had been attacked by dementors. Harry most decidedly would not have been on the side of Rita Skeeter. Look at the attitude that Harry has when he reads the Quibbler for the first time. He feels that the most sensible thing in the magazine is the article about Sirius, and that the article on Fudge, who has already become his enemy, is ridiculous. No lauding the Quibbler for telling lies, no feeling of being allied with it. When Hermione decides to get Harry's side of things published in the Quibbler, he is hesitant. His thoughts are, and I quote "[...]it would confirm a lot of people in the view that he was completely insane, not least because his story would be appearing alongside utter rubbish about Crumple-Horned Snorkacks." (OOTP) Doesn't seem like too strong of an alliance to me. Charles, consistently surprised at how many people think Snape is undeniably good and Harry is undeniably evil.