Neville/Wolfsbane/Fluffy/Filk/Snape/Time Travel

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 169371

Nate wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169059>:

<< 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
<http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=84>:

<< 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
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169095>:

<< 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:

<<The door opened, and in came Snape. He was carrying a goblet, which
was smoking faintly, and stopped at the sight of Harry, his black eyes
narrowing.

"Ah, Severus," said Lupin, smiling. "Thanks very much. Could you leave
it here on the desk for me?"

Snape set down the smoking goblet, his eyes wandering between Harry
and Lupin.

"I was just showing Harry my grindylow," said Lupin pleasantly,
pointing at the tank.

"Fascinating," said Snape, without looking at it. "You should drink
that directly, Lupin."

"Yes, 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.

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
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169102>:

<< 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
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169106>:

<< 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
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169112>:

<< 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
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169178>:

<< 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
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169134>:

<< 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?"