From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 00:15:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:15:48 -0000 Subject: A sandwich/House Elf Storyline/JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178754 Magpie wrote: > > The one line doesn't wipe anything out, imo, it's the logical conclusion to the storyline of all those books. CoS introduces Dobby who wants to be free, and Harry frees him. But in GoF we see that Dobby is not a normal House Elf. Those House Elves *do not want* to be freed, so our previous idea that House Elves are like humans enslaved against their will is challenged. We must re-learn House Elves. Trying to free them offends them. Winky, when freed, becomes > a miserable drunk. The question of House Elf freedom is now far more complicated and this is the question for which one solution is offered in the series, imo. Harry freed Dobby because he wanted to be freed; it does not follow that he should necessarily free another Elf if he does not want also to be freed. > > OotP has Hermione continuing to try to trick Elves into freedom, which leads them to refuse to clean the Tower (showing independent thought and action *without* being freed as they always have done). Dobby covers up their protest and does it himself. It's still Dobby vs. every other House Elf. We also meet Kreacher, who also doesn't ask to be freed even though he hates Sirius. (And they wouldn't anyway because it's dangerous.) Hermione continues her "House Elves can't speak for themselves because they're brainwashed" attitude with Kreacher but she can't free him. Dumbledore warns against underestimating House Elves's feelings because they can be tricky when they're only obeying you in the body and not the heart. Dumbledore himself has offered Elves freedom but since they refuse he staffs the castle with the free labor. Carol responds: I was with you in your summary until this point, but I don't recall DD offering the House-Elves freedom, only agreeing to hire Dobby and Winky and offering Dobby better pay and more days off than he wanted, which Dobby talked him out of because he likes work better. Magpie: > HBP does not keep anything in a holding pattern that I can see. How can it be a holding pattern when it's the book where our hero actually inherits his own slave? What will he do with it? He hates it personally, so sends it to Hogwarts--but when he needs somebody to do a dirty job calls on him and not Dobby, which is perfectly correct if he's accepted his role as Kreacher's master. It does not bother Harry that it's going against Kreacher's wishes to do that particular job--he just has to be smarter than Sirius in not giving him any loopholes. Hermione expresses no problem whatsoever with Harry owning a slave or giving him an order, though she counsels him to be polite in giving it. I'm not seeing holding pattern here, I'm seeing some development. Hermione drops SPEW and never mentions it again iirc the same book the problem becomes personal and involves her worthy friend and also the book where her love life gets more important. Carol responds: In the first place, dropping SPEW is a good idea, right, since the House-Elves don't want to be freed against their will? I'm not sure that Hermione's friend owning a House-elf, much less her own lovelife, has anything to do with it. She's never succeeded in converting anyone to her view, not even her best friends. Maybe she just dropped it as a lost cause. She has not, however, stopped caring about House-Elf abuse, as "Kreacher's Tale" shows. > Magpie: > And then there's Book VII. Harry needs something from Kreacher again, and this leads to him hearing his pathetic story. He feels sorry for Kreacher, and gives him a very nice gift--"too much" I believe Ron comically calls it when Kreacher falls all over himself. Carol: Actually, the line is "Overkill, mate." Same idea, but in Ron's own voice. But you're oversimplifying. Harry applies House-Elf psychology (under Hermione's direction) and allows Kreacher to help with the job he's been punishing himself for failing to do for sixteen years. Also, Harry starts out assuming the worst of Regulus (that he would force Kreacher to drink poison) and ends up understanding that Regulus was an ally, fighting the same enemy for different, albeit wholly personal, reasons (though come to think of it, Harry's reasons are largely personal, too, starting with "he killed my mum and dad" and going from there). It's not just a matter of treating him kindly. It's a matter of understanding him (and forgiving his role in Sirius's death, which was, in fact, no part of the original plan to lure Harry to the MoM). Magpie: > Now Harry and Kreacher have a perfectly happy relationship. Kreacher loves serving "Master Harry" and "Master Harry" is waited upon in style while he tries to save the world. And Hermione and Ron benefit too. They live very well with Kreacher until the day they leave the house forever with Kreacher waving to them from the door and promising to have dinner waiting for the chilluns when they get back. > Carol: But the old Mammy character that you're alluding to (a caricature of female slaves in the antebellum South) was a human being. Kreacher is a House-Elf. It's not a fair comparison. Mammy may have thought she was happy or pretended to be happy serving the white master and mistress and their "chillun." Kreacher actually *is* happy, for the first time in sixteen years (or at least twelve years, which is IIRC when Mrs. Black died). House-Elves likes work, miss. And they likes having a good master to work for. They are not people, as the depiction of the three Elf characters makes clear. Even the "free" Elf Dobby *chooses* to work for wizards because it's what he wants to do and all he knows. If a slave owner in the antebellum South gave a slave his or her freedom and that slave didn't want to or could not do the same job as before for pay, that slave could go north and find a job, perhaps as a field hand or a factory worker, and his or her children could get an education and perhaps do better than their parents did. But what opportunities does a House-Elf have? At best, a kind master. Unfortunately, no one wants a House-Elf who "wants being paid." So freedom means disgrace, unemployment, and misery. Magpie: > Dobby dies, but he was never a leader. Perhaps one day there could be a House Elf who would actually change things, or perhaps not. Not this story. There is no movement for House Elf freedom within canon. Carol: But Kreacher, surprisingly, *is* a leader. The other House-elves (who have evidently heard his story and been inspired by it) follow his lead as they never followed Dobby's. "Master Regulus, champion of House-elves" is his rallying cry. And Regulus was not an advocate of freedom for House-Elves but of humane treatment for them. That is what they want. What would a House-Elf *do* with freedom? He would work for wizards for "slave wages" to buy socks as Dobby did, right? The Hogwarts House-elves, whether under Snape or under Dumbledore, don't need or want to be free. They have a home, they have a job they like, they have security (until the DEs breach the castle and threaten their happy lives). > Magpie: > Kreacher, meanwhile, is still a loyal slave when Harry gets back to Hogwarts, and Harry slips back into the Master role again. Carol: Which is exactly what Kreacher wants to be (but no doubt he'd be even happier to go back to 12 GP). The thing is, Harry's treatment of Kreacher in HBP is almost as appalling as Sirius Black's was. He doesn't know what to do with him, he hates and distrusts him, he orders him to do what he doesn't want to do when Kreacher would much rather serve Draco Malfoy (not realizing, probably, how badly the Malfoys abused Dobby). In DH, it's willing servitude of a master he respects (though Harry will never take the place of Regulus in his heart). Kreacher will be down in the kitchens working in any case. Asking him for a sandwich, which he can make and deliver in a twinkling if there's not one already made, is no hardship, as it would be for a fellow human who has to climb all those stairs down to the cellar and back to the top of Gryffindor Tower, the lowest story of which is on the seventh floor. Kreacher can just Apparate there and back. *And* he would be honored to serve the hero of the hour. He would be much more hurt by Harry's attempting to make a sandwich himself than by Harry's requesting him to make (or bring) one. Magpie: > I don't know where that one sentence a the end is supposed to be undoing anything. It doesn't make Dobby any less desiring of his freedom, but Kreacher doesn't want his freedom. Harry is not his > liberator, he's his wonderful master and was before the last scene. > Doesn't seem like it's wiping anything out to me. It just seems like > this is the attitude they ended up with. Harry will become one of > the good masters--like Dumbledore, partially by showing that he > would free these guys if it were practical but it's not. Carol: And what, exactly, is wrong with that, if it's what the House-Elves want? They certainly don't want to be turned from their jobs, wandering the WW homeless and jobless as Winky did. The House-Elves showed their contempt for Hermione's well-meaning but unthinking efforts to free them in GoF. Let's suppose that, with Voldemort dead and the DEs an extinct species (either dead or rounded up by Kingsley and the Aurors and having, in any case, no master to serve) that the new MoM starts to institute reforms. Consider the magnitude of the problem of freeing the House-Elves. The only solution I can think of is to offer payment to any Elf who wants it without taking away his job, allowing them to wear clothes if they so choose, and giving those who want it an occasional day off. But would we suddenly have House-Elf secretaries and healers and reporters and politicians? Would they choose any career except domestic service (as opposed to servitude)? I think not. It's their nature to serve humans, and that can't be changed. To try to change them would be like forcing the native Indians of the Amazon natives to dress like modern people, go to school, hold jobs, and give up their native traditions. And the same is true for the other peoples of the WW. Peaceful interaction and mutual respect is the key. Hermione (who BTW still expresses a desire to free the House-Elves as late as "The Wandmaker" in DH) was wrong. Ron was right. House-Elves aren't people, and it's wrong to impose a human lifestyle on them. On a sidenote, someone asked whether House-Elves are considered animals. They are magical creatures and subject to regulation by the Department of Magical Creatures, which has Beast, Being, and Spirit divisions. Unlike Centaurs, who (rather perversely) choose to be classified as beasts, House-Elves (which are not included in FBAWTFT) are classified as beings. Umbridge, I suppose, would call them creatures with near-human intelligence. Whether she would be right or wrong in that classification, I leave to the individual reader to decide. Carol, who has twice requested a description of the life of a free House-Elf, this supposedly ideal state that certain readers thought would be achieved through Harry's victory, and is still puzzled as to what they mean by "freedom" From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 00:24:44 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:24:44 -0000 Subject: A sandwich/House Elf Storyline/JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178755 > Pippin: > Are the attractions of slavery so seductive that they have to > be swept under the rug lest people wonder why we ever got > rid of it? I think the description of Kreacher's suffering > is sufficiently memorable that Harry is never going to be okay with > it. I'm certainly not. I don't know of any reader who *is* okay with > it. > > > Magpie: > That's a nice argument against slavery from outside the books, but I > don't particularly see how it relates to the books. What's the big, > clever warning against slavery I'm supposed to be getting from HP-- > that the author's actually showing in the story? *I'm* not the one > who inherited a slave and lives in a society where I could own one > who doesn't want to be free. It seems like you're saying I could > write a story about happy slaves--perhaps a nostalgic revisionist > ante-bellum story like one I unfortunately had to read a while back- - > but it would still be an anti-slavery story because that's the part > I'm supposed to bring to it myself as a reader. Not that that > couldn't be done, but I just really don't get that from the House > Elf story in canon at all. I can't get it from canon, actually, > because the House Elves aren't human. Some of the most basic > arguments against slavery don't hold true for them, while some of > the most common arguments for slavery are true for them. And the > idea that JKR is expecting us to see Harry as having become bad > there seems hard to believe. a_svirn: Exactly. I used to argue that the house elves were NOT slaves by nature, because the very concept makes me sick. I took Dumbledore's words about Kreacher having been made what he is by wizards as a proof that their servility was both magically enforced and culturally nurtured. But I was wrong. Dumbledore either lied outright (he *did* say that Hermione was right after all, and the Hermione of OOP held passionately abolitionist views) or evaded the truth as was his custom. (Which comes to the same thing.) Hermione's lecture on elves' nature in DH leaves no doubt of her change of heart ? her updated stand for evlish welfare is that they should be treated kindly, while staying exactly where they are. Harry and Ron have never doubted the truth of this dictum to begin with. So we have it now on the best authorities that elves ARE slaves by nature. Now WHY would Rowling invent such a revolting thing as that? She said in one of the older interviews something about house-elves being a metaphor for slavery in real life or some such (I don't have an exact quote at hand). She said more recently that her books are moral books. What kind of moral lesson Kreacher's story is supposed to teach us? The only one I can discern is that those who are by nature slaves should stay slaves. A responsible and moral person should treat them kindly, but firmly. Frankly I find it disturbing. In real life Great Minds starting from Aristotle have been saying exactly the same thing about various groups of people, but have (fortunately!) been proved wrong. Yet Rowling creates a world where it is right (and all right) to own a slave. If it is supposed to be a metaphor of real life slavery it must mean that she ? metaphorically ? gives her benediction to it. But surely it can't be that, can it? But perhaps Kreacher's story isn't supposed to be a moral one? Then what it is supposed to be? Did she invent house elves simply because she wanted Harry to own one (such useful creatures, and the poor boy has had it too rough) and be OK with it? I am not sure which one is more disgusting. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Nov 1 00:37:39 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:37:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The House Elf storyline in the HP Series In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47291FD3.7000507@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178757 sistermagpie wrote: > Whether or not it's demeaning for House Elves to make Harry > sandwiches is a non-issue. There's nothing inherently demeaning > about making somebody a sandwich. But I don't think it really gets > into the knotty question of slavery of human-like beings. However, house elves can always be literal minded if they don't like the command. I'd hate to have seen what would have happened if Kreacher had made Harry a sand witch. Bart From stephab67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 00:44:36 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:44:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178758 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Ron and Hermione are more a couple than not. Why wasn't Ginny > included in the horcrux hunt? Was it just her emotional ties to > Harry? Why would Ginny being along be any different for Harry than > Ron being along would be for Hermione, or Hermione being along be for > Ron? Each party in the hunt was in danger, after all so why not > include Ginny? > Steph: I'm guessing it's for a few reasons: 1) Harry wants Ginny to stay as safe as possible as he thinks it's a good chance that he might die trying to kill Voldie. He probably doesn't want to take her down with him, and figures she's safer at Hogwarts. 2) The fewer the people who know about the Horcrux hunt the better, and DD told Harry not to tell anyone except Ron and Hermione, anyway. 3) Ginny is underage, which means she has the Trace on her. She'd be useless as she wouldn't be allowed to use magic, and if she did, the DEs would be on them like white on rice. She'd be a detriment rather than a help. Plus, Molly would kill Harry (and probably Ron) herself if Ginny went along. From va32h at comcast.net Thu Nov 1 01:06:08 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:06:08 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand (was: Harry's bed (was Re: A sandwich)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178759 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Geoff: > Having worked a great deal with 11 year-old boys, I would think it is the > last sort of thing they would say, even someone with a track record like Harry. > > When I read it, I could imagine it being said by a slightly older guy than > Harry - say a young soldier of 19 or 20 returning from the First World > War and the horrors of the front somewhere like the Somme or > Passchendaele. > va32h: Well whatever, I guess I'm just an idiot who is incapable of recognizing the great depths of literature that brought us "Accio Hagrid". Wilfred Owen, she's not. From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Nov 1 01:45:31 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:45:31 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178760 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Del comments: > > > I still remember the horrifying moment when I first read about > > > Harry entering the RoR for the first time in DH, and noticing > > > that there is no Slytherin banner in it. My mind reeled with > > > disbelief and shock at that time: this was just so WRONG! > Allie: The Room of Requirement ITSELF changed the hangings to reflect who was living in the room. Neville states, "...when I arrived, it was a load smaller, there was only one hammock and just Gryffindor hangings. But it's expanded as more and more of the D.A. have arrived." (DH 377 US) Which means, to me, that there are no Slytherin hangings because there are no Slytherins hiding out in the room. It's not a statement that all Slytherins are evil. It just says, "No Slytherins live here." From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Nov 1 02:29:51 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:29:51 -0400 Subject: Sweeping the shadows into the corners (Was: A sandwich) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178761 "Carol, who thinks that the idea of magical nonhumans as "races" is misleading and the idea of Giants (or Trolls) becoming civilized (made to act like humans) is unfeasible at best" Precisely. The exact mistake that Hermione, from her Muggleborn perspective, is thinking that the other sentient species are just funny-looking humans. They aren't. Now, Ron, as a pureblood Wizard, makes the opposet mistake--thinking that because they aren't human that they are utterly different from us, have nothing in common with us, and to try to relate to them as equals is futile and a waste of time. The truth is--as it is so often--somewhere inbetween. 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 prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 02:51:03 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:51:03 -0000 Subject: Wish Fulfillment (Or Not) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178762 I wanted to pose the question - name something (minor or major) that you wanted to see in the series, and got, and name something else you wanted to see and didn't - and it doesn't have to just be expectations between HBP and DH. I'd suggest going for less contentious major plot point things (the good Slytherin, Slytherin joins the fight, etc.), but hey, do what you want. I'll go first: The thing I wanted and got? As many of you know - Lee Jordan hosts Potterwatch! :D Lee getting his own radio show in support of the Order was one of my big fan wishes, and I can't believe I got it. I wonder if we'll find out more about his future career in the encyclopedia - hopefully a star personality in the WW. The thing I wanted and didn't get? Ron's chess abilities coming into play in the real world. I thought that his ability to strategize, so superior to Hermione and Harry, would matter at some point. Hermione was meticulous and had tons of information and skill at her fingertips, and Harry was the innate solo hero, but I thought and hoped Ron would come into his own as a leader of others (fulfilling his wish for attention and leadership after being the youngest boy in his overachieving family), orchestrating the final battle against the forces of Voldemort, while Harry pursued his more solo final confrontation with Voldy. I gave up on thinking that would really come true several books ago, but it's always been something I wished for. Anyone else? ~Adam From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 02:54:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:54:44 -0000 Subject: Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR and Slytherins in the final battle. In-Reply-To: <688576.53683.qm@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178763 > Well to ease your mind the lack of the banner doesn not mean there were no Slytherins. Just that they did not advertise themselves with a banner. Unless there is an interview answer to the contrary there is no proof their were no Slytherins there canon wise, just a surface impression. Magpie: A surface impression? The entire world is built with the words on the page and that's it. It's not up to the Slytherins to not be "advertising" themselves, it's the author making it clear there are no Slytherins there! If she wanted Slytherins there she would write them there. As allie posted: The Room of Requirement ITSELF changed the hangings to reflect who was living in the room. Neville states, "...when I arrived, it was a load smaller, there was only one hammock and just Gryffindor hangings. But it's expanded as more and more of the D.A. have arrived." (DH 377 US) Which means, to me, that there are no Slytherin hangings because there are no Slytherins hiding out in the room. Allie again: It's not a statement that all Slytherins are evil. It just says, "No Slytherins live here." Magpie: Which means, at best, that Slytherins are not opposing Voldemort and are maybe not all evil but are not good in this universe. The "true Hogwarts" is in that room, and Slytherins aren't a part of it. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 04:15:06 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:15:06 -0000 Subject: A sandwich/House Elf Storyline/JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178764 > Magpie: > No, it doesn't come up. But the Hermione of GoF and OotP brought up > nothing BUT that. Wanting to send them to safety doesn't mean that > she can't also want them freed, but it also doesn't mean she is > demanding they be freed. She didn't demand it about Kreacher. zgirnius: Hermione in GoF and OotP was always bringing up nothing BUT House Elves being freed. And her heart was in the right place, but she was going about it wrong. We were shown in GoF the plight of an elf who is freed against her wishes. It was not a good thing. Winky was less happy, less productive,just...less. Why? Because freedom was something wizards did to her, without consulting her or respecting her wishes. The real solution is to first have elves want to be free, and then free them. > Magpie: > I thought Kreacher's story made clear they don't think on that > level. Kreacher fought for Voldemort by getting Sirius killed, > because he wasn't fighting against anybody who "would oppress him" > as a political act. He was loyal to people who were kind to him. > None of which has to do with House Elves deciding not to be slaves > anymore, as is obvious when Kreacher fights the battle and is still > mentioned in his old capacity in the last scene. zgirnius: Could you explain, please, which people who were kind to them the Hogwarts House Elves were being loyal to, when they joined in the fight? They are described as being led by Kreacher, who is shouting about the defender of Hosue Elves (Reg, I presume) and fighting the Dark Lord. I have already conceded Kreacher if you want him to be acting only out of loyalty to poor, dead Regulus - why are the rest of them there? > Magpie: > No, I think she means the default assumption is that what's actually > on the page is what's actually in the story. Hermione could have > become the Israeli Prime Minister for all we know, but it's not in > the story because it's not on the page so that's not the ending she > was written. Hermione doing anything whatsoever in her professional > life is not part of the epilogue. The ending written on the page is > that she has babies. zgirnius: Hermione marrying a totally impoverished, and less smart, and less ambitious, and less magically talented Ron, and having babies, seems to call for someone in that family to have a career. Food being an exception to Gamp's law, and all, and there being no mention of Lupin- like marks of poverty affecting her, her husband, or her kids. And how did Ron get that car? Anyway, the canon we do have is Hermione wanting a career (leafing through numerous pamphlets in OotP) and wanting to do some good in the world (DH, in her conversation with Scrimgeour). I would have needed conversation implying stay-at-home-momhood to draw that conclusion. (It's not there). > Pippin: > But the whole point of the passage, as I understood it, is that > no matter how good the master is or how willing the slave, > one of them may make a mistake and the slave will have to > punish himself, just as we saw in canon. > Magpie: > So shouldn't she be opposed to letting Harry act in his position as > slave master at all? zgirnius: There are circumstances in which Harry must act. For example, if Harry's house is on fire, Kreacher probably still needs Harry's permission to leave it. (E. g. Winky was having difficulty running during the DE attack in GoF, because Crouch's orders to her had nto covered that contingency). Next, consider the time at 12 GP. Other than matters directly relating to Horcruxes (and, that actually benefited Kreacher, who was still in the condition of having failed to destroy the locket as ordered) what orders did Harry give to Kreacher? I recall none. So when breakfast appeared on the table for the young master, and Kreacher ordered him to go wash his hands...Harry should go make himself a second breakfast? Of course, Harry could free Kreacher, but even with the issue of Kreacher's loyalties apparently resolved, is this really a good idea? If Kreacher desired it, or to serve a different master, I would agree. But if it led to the disintegration of his personality a la Winky...I could not agree it would be the right thing to do. > Magpie: > That's a nice argument against slavery from outside the books, but I > don't particularly see how it relates to the books. What's the big, > clever warning against slavery I'm supposed to be getting from HP-- > that the author's actually showing in the story? zgirnius: The misery of the three slave figures we meet up close and personal seems a big downside, to me. Dobby suffered at the hands of unkind masters, true, so his story could be taken to have the moral of being kind to slaves, except that he was the one who wanted freedom, got it, appreciated it, and died a hero. But Winky? She seems to have been treated as a member of that family, until she endangered Crouch's reputation. At which point, Crouch did not torture her. He set her free, and she became miserable. Kreacher? His master was so upset about the mistreatment of his House Elf it apparently inspired him to sacrifice himself to make Voldemort mortal once more. In light of what we know of him, I don't think he intended the hell he put Kreacher through for the next 18 or so years. It was the magic that keeps the house-elves slaves that did it to him, really, despite teh good intentions of his kind master. > Betsy Hp: > If that's the case, it means JKR failed as a writer. Her imagery > overwhelmed her message. zgirnius: I walked away with the distinct impression that Slytherin has its good points, and that a number of Slytherins opposed Voldemort. The lack of Slytherins in the DA did nothing to dispell this impression for me. > Betsy Hp: > Heh. When you're writing an epic hero's journey type story? It's > *always* the hero's job. That's how these things work. Ender > (of "Ender's Game") was about thirteen years old (gosh, maybe > younger) when he "saved" humanity. Mary (of "The Secret Garden") was > I think around 10 or so when she healed the darkness of Misselthwaite > Manor. > > Harry didn't need, nor did I expect him to, *lead* the WW. What I > did expect was that he'd *enlighten* the WW. You know, bring some > light into that brutal darkness. Instead, I fear he just made himself > comfortable with the dark. zgirnius: Harry did save the world, in precisely the same sense that Ender did. (Though his methods were different. Ender killed numerous sentient beings in the process, unlike Harry). While Ender did eventually also bring enlightenment to his world, that was as an adult, in...sequels to the hero's journey epic. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 1 07:42:27 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:42:27 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand (was: Harry's bed (was Re: A sandwich)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178765 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > > Geoff: > > Having worked a great deal with 11 year-old boys, I would think it > is the > > last sort of thing they would say, even someone with a track record > like Harry. > > > > When I read it, I could imagine it being said by a slightly older > guy than > > Harry - say a young soldier of 19 or 20 returning from the First World > > War and the horrors of the front somewhere like the Somme or > > Passchendaele. > va32h: > Well whatever, I guess I'm just an idiot who is incapable of > recognizing the great depths of literature that brought us "Accio > Hagrid". Geoff: In which case, join the literary idiot's club; I'm a long-term member. :-) I was merely trying to consider it from a modern real world point of view and the way in which young people I know might express themselves. I also recognise the literary depth of the character development which often brought us '"Yeah," said Ron' - or similar sentences. va32h: > Wilfred Owen, she's not. Geoff: For which, in all seriousness, I am grateful when you consider the conditions which prompted Owen and Sassoon and all the others to express themselves in their poetry. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 12:39:58 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:39:58 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178766 > >>Betsy Hp: > > If that's the case, it means JKR failed as a writer. Her imagery > > overwhelmed her message. > >>zgirnius: > I walked away with the distinct impression that Slytherin has its > good points, and that a number of Slytherins opposed Voldemort. The > lack of Slytherins in the DA did nothing to dispell this impression > for me. Betsy Hp: But it did for others. So for those others, JKR failed as a writer *if* she was trying to show that there's good in Slytherin. Personally, I think Slytherin was supposed to be generic bad guys so the imagery in the RoR in DH was bang on. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Heh. When you're writing an epic hero's journey type story? > > It's *always* the hero's job. That's how these things work. > > Ender (of "Ender's Game") was about thirteen years old (gosh, > > maybe younger) when he "saved" humanity. > > > >>zgirnius: > Harry did save the world, in precisely the same sense that Ender > did. Betsy Hp: Oh goodness, no. On that I cannot agree. Ender used his intelligence (which was massive) and in the end, his compassion (which was massive enough to break him at one point and worry his teachers). Harry was (as per usual) lucky. Also, Voldemort hardly threatened the *world*. Humanity's survival was not at stake. But that's bygones and also personal opinion. > >>zgirnius: > (Though his methods were different. Ender killed numerous sentient > beings in the process, unlike Harry). While Ender did eventually > also bring enlightenment to his world, that was as an adult, > in...sequels to the hero's journey epic. Betsy Hp: Heh. I've never read the sequels. Ender's Game was such a perfect tale I feared an attempt to stretch it out would ruin it. (I've read Bean's adventures, but that's almost like going into a different world, IMO.) So, yeah, everything I read took place when Ender was a kid. As to Ender killing where Harry didn't: the stakes were much, much higher. And *very* unlike Harry, Ender noticed, worried about, and then did his best to heal his equivelent of the screaming and flayed baby. Oh! Another difference: The ending of Ender's Game does push Ender into adulthood and show some of the stuff he accomplished. That's how I know that he did follow through on what he'd learned as a boy. Harry...had two kids. But again, the above is a lot off point. (I like Ender, so it's hard to resist the pull. ) My point is, when you set up an epic journey and then stick a kid in the starring role, it's the kid who's supposed to *be* the hero. Technically, a seventeen year old shouldn't be fighting anyone. That would have *also* been a job for Aurors and other Ministry folk. So you can't just selectively cry RW rules and expect that to appease, IMO. > >>Magpie: > > No, I think she means the default assumption is that what's > > actually on the page is what's actually in the story. Hermione > > could have become the Israeli Prime Minister for all we know, but > > it's not in the story because it's not on the page so that's not > > the ending she was written. Hermione doing anything whatsoever in > > her professional life is not part of the epilogue. The ending > > written on the page is that she has babies. > >>zgirnius: > Hermione marrying a totally impoverished, and less smart, and less > ambitious, and less magically talented Ron, and having babies, seems > to call for someone in that family to have a career. > Betsy Hp: Obviously, after his hot and steamy affair with Mrs. Zabini, and after the failed murder attempt, Ron raked in tons of dough from the out of court settlement. Meanwhile, Hermione was pulling in a good buck working her blackmail gig on Rita (that tell-all book sold like hot cakes). By the time Ron and Hermione got together and had a few kids they had enough to follow their buddy's lead and live off the interest. What? There's nothing to say that *didn't* happen, and I'm using actual canon to build it! > >>zgirnius: > Anyway, the canon we do have is Hermione wanting a career (leafing > through numerous pamphlets in OotP) and wanting to do some good in > the world (DH, in her conversation with Scrimgeour). I would have > needed conversation implying stay-at-home-momhood to draw that > conclusion. (It's not there). Betsy Hp: And I'd need conversation to imply Hermione's working. *Especially* after her bone-headed statement to Scrimgeour in DH. It's not there. And if JKR thought it important, it'd have been easily done. "Hermione! I see the office let you out today," said Harry. "Oh, I had to sneak out the back. Honestly, you'd think the place would implode without me," said Hermione. "That's because it would my brilliant darling." said Ron. That's what, three lines? JKR managed to sneak in the possibility of Teddy joining the OBHWF, tell us Neville is a professor and that Draco is suitably squished. And now we're just supposed to guess that the vision of domestic bliss (circa 1950) includes dramatic political change? Frankly, I figure they're *all* stay-at-home. Ron maybe putzes around somewhere (using his Weasley networks which are pretty formidable) to keep him in golf club dues. There's nothing in the epilogue to suggest anything different. Betsy Hp From janetaba at alltel.net Thu Nov 1 12:02:31 2007 From: janetaba at alltel.net (Janet Tabares) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 07:02:31 -0500 Subject: JKR finished first post Harry Potter book - "The Tales of Beedle the Bard." Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178767 Here's the link to the story. I just hope that she will put it online somewhere for those of us that don't have $62,000+ to buy it. While I understand and agree with her idea of publishing it for charity, those true fans that have been with her for many years will be greatly disappointed at not getting a chance to see this snippet of Harry's world. http://www.ydr.com/livingfull/ci_7338879 Janet From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 14:13:32 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:13:32 -0000 Subject: Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR and Slytherins in the final battle. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178768 > Allie again: > > It's not a statement that > all Slytherins are evil. It just says, "No Slytherins live here." > > Magpie: > Which means, at best, that Slytherins are not opposing Voldemort and > are maybe not all evil but are not good in this universe. The "true > Hogwarts" is in that room, and Slytherins aren't a part of it. Alla: Eh, NO. Not ALL of true Hogwarts is in that room and Slytherins **are** a part of it. True Hogwarts professor duels Voldemort in the final battle, and he is a Slytherin. Another Hogwarts professor walks in the shadows and dies the death of the spy, playing his part in the plan that brings Voldemort's demise. And last time I checked he was a Slytherin too. And Hogwarts student from Slytherin dies while fighting Voldemort. Oh, and you know what is funny? When I think about it now, about resistance I mean, do you know whose stories stand out in my head the most? Of course Harry is the most memorable, but those three are close next. For not being part of the fight, that is some strangely memorable pictures Rowling left in my mind. Alla JMO, Alla From va32h at comcast.net Thu Nov 1 15:13:32 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:13:32 -0000 Subject: JKR finished first post Harry Potter book - "The Tales of Beedle the Bard." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178769 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Tabares" wrote: > > Here's the link to the story. I just hope that she will put it online > somewhere for those of us that don't have $62,000+ to buy it. > > While I understand and agree with her idea of publishing it for charity, > those true fans that have been with her for many years will be greatly > disappointed at not getting a chance to see this snippet of Harry's world. > > > http://www.ydr.com/livingfull/ci_7338879 > va32h: For $16 you can buy the auction catalog which shows each page. No word on whether the $16 goes to charity or to Sotheby's. Not sure why this auction is necessary...surely JKR has $62K to donate of her own? Or could raise more money by selling the book at $16 a pop? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 15:30:21 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:30:21 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178770 > >>Magpie: > > No, I think she means the default assumption is that what's > > actually on the page is what's actually in the story. Hermione > > could have become the Israeli Prime Minister for all we know, but > > it's not in the story because it's not on the page so that's not > > the ending she was written. Hermione doing anything whatsoever in > > her professional life is not part of the epilogue. The ending > > written on the page is that she has babies. > >>zgirnius: > Hermione marrying a totally impoverished, and less smart, and less > ambitious, and less magically talented Ron, and having babies, seems > to call for someone in that family to have a career. > > Betsy Hp: > Obviously, after his hot and steamy affair with Mrs. Zabini, and > after the failed murder attempt, Ron raked in tons of dough from > the out of court settlement. Meanwhile, Hermione was pulling in a > good buck working her blackmail gig on Rita (that tell-all book > sold like hot cakes). > > By the time Ron and Hermione got together and had a few kids they > had enough to follow their buddy's lead and live off the interest. > What? There's nothing to say that *didn't* happen, and I'm using > actual canon to build it! Jen: Hee, well, it would make a good fanfic anyway. Seriously though, I don't get why it's fine to make resonable assumptions about something like the Marietta incident in order to get it work the way a reader was imagining it, but not to say that Hermione would have a career in her lifetime after 7 books worth of character development, including information that Hermione thinks about her future career. One point of fiction is every single moment isn't on page, it requires imagination to get parts of a story to work at times, all stories, every fiction book I've read. It's why they're fiction!! Sure, it's selective on here because there's also the point of building a case for one reading over another, and sometimes to build a case there's a gap to fill. The difference seems to be how someone would choose to fill that gap, not that some people engage in it and others don't. Basically, my opinion is if the 'default assumption' as Magpie puts it is what is literally on page, then imagination gets parked at the door and debate becomes more focused on smaller and smaller portions of 'acceptable' material - and what information is deemed acceptable - rather than engaging with the text on the different levels that fiction promotes. Back to Hermione, the story doesn't end with her as a 17 (18?) year old but 19 years later. Things have occurred that aren't *in the story* and yet the story continues. To me, the point by zgirnius up above is a reasonable point to put up for debate. I understand where someone would say, 'well no, I don't think Hermione ever had a career because remember this, this and this that occurred in the story? That's why I don't think she worked and instead really her greatest hope was to have a family and stay at home with her children.' But for the argument to be 'oh well, you can fill in any old thing you want at that point so there shouldn't be any filling in at all.' Well, no, Hermione's been developed as a certain type like all fictional characters who 'come alive' on the page; it doesn't seem like just *anything* would fill certain spaces, like saying Ron had an affair with Ms. Zabini for instance. ;) If he'd actually met her in the story, had a conversation with her, *something* to indicate he was headed that way then sure, I might debate the possibility. Is anyone debating this point saying they don't think a character developed like Hermione would have a career or that she changed her mind about having a career based on information in the story? I don't think that's the point being made. The point seems to be promoting a certain default assumption that may not be an acceptable rule of engagement for everyone. 'It's not on the page' felt good when I used it one time because it shut down the debate I was having, but my default assumption is something more like: 'people reading fiction fill in text at certain points to make their reading work when there are gaps in the story.' That makes more sense to me since most readings don't have every single moment written in black/white. Jen From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 15:45:26 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:45:26 -0000 Subject: Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR /House Elf Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178771 > > Allie again: > > > > It's not a statement that > > all Slytherins are evil. It just says, "No Slytherins live here." > > > > Magpie: > > Which means, at best, that Slytherins are not opposing Voldemort > and > > are maybe not all evil but are not good in this universe. The "true > > Hogwarts" is in that room, and Slytherins aren't a part of it. > > Alla: > > Eh, NO. Not ALL of true Hogwarts is in that room and Slytherins > **are** a part of it. Magpie: I think the symbolism is pretty powerful there. The school has been taken over by bad guys, but Neville has worked out a room for the refugees who oppose them and are oppressed by them. The fact that it's only three houses very much says to me that the "true" Hogwarts is in this room, the kids who oppose this regime, and Slytherin is obviously not there. I know there are some Slytherins in other roles in the fight. That doesn't change the kids at Hogwarts in that scene for me, and it's so glaring it seems weird to work around it. She could have easily just said that the room had the house banners in there too to indicate that it was a school inside the school. Instead she made clear that this was the room of the opposition to the false leadership of the school. Even if Slytherins aren't all the enemy, they need excuses and exceptions--they don't just stand with the others. zgirnius: Hermione in GoF and OotP was always bringing up nothing BUT House Elves being freed. And her heart was in the right place, but she was going about it wrong. Magpie: Now she's not going about it *at all.* Her heart is still "in the right place" presumably, being sickened by Kreacher punishing himself, but she's no longer telling anybody to free anybody. She just tells Harry to be a good master. zgirnius: We were shown in GoF the plight of an elf who is freed against her wishes. It was not a good thing. Winky was less happy, less productive,just...less. Why? Because freedom was something wizards did to her, without consulting her or respecting her wishes. The real solution is to first have elves want to be free, and then free them. Magpie: That's your solution, perhaps, but Hermione says no such thing. Nor are we ever told that Winky is upset about being free *only because Wizards did it to her.* She herself says it's an inherent disgrace. Of course if she were Dobby and wanted to be free she wouldn't be upset about it, but to her that's like saying "if you were insane you wouldn't realize how awful this is!" Hermione goes from frantically trying to free elves against their will to not protesting at all when her friend inherits one or encouraging him to free him, but rather starts telling him to treat his slave nicely and never mentions SPEW again. Harry already frees Elves who want to be free, that's not the problem. Hermione isn't doing anything in the way of re-educating or counter-brain-washing Kreacher into being more like Dobby, nor do we see her doing that to other elves. zgirnius: Could you explain, please, which people who were kind to them the Hogwarts House Elves were being loyal to, when they joined in the fight? They are described as being led by Kreacher, who is shouting about the defender of Hosue Elves (Reg, I presume) and fighting the Dark Lord. I have already conceded Kreacher if you want him to be acting only out of loyalty to poor, dead Regulus - why are the rest of them there? Magpie: The Hogwarts Elves are treated well at Hogwarts. This is their home and they take pride in it and defend it. I would have always assumed they'd have joined in the battle if they were brave enough to do so. It's not like it's suggested that after the battle they're sitting down discussing their new terms of employment because they fought for their freedom. Voldemort is the enemy of their masters at Hogwarts. I don't think House Elves joining in the battle when their place is being taken over automatically links them to understanding and agreeing with the various political ideas of their masters. I *thought* that was the case with Kreacher, but it wasn't as per DH. zgirnius: Hermione marrying a totally impoverished, and less smart, and less ambitious, and less magically talented Ron, and having babies, seems to call for someone in that family to have a career. Food being an exception to Gamp's law, and all, and there being no mention of Lupin-like marks of poverty affecting her, her husband, or her kids. And how did Ron get that car? Anyway, the canon we do have is Hermione wanting a career (leafing through numerous pamphlets in OotP) and wanting to do some good in the world (DH, in her conversation with Scrimgeour). Magpie: As I said, Hermione could be the Israeli Prime Minister as far as I know. I didn't claim that she had no job whatsoever. I said that in the snapshot of the future we're shown Hermione's job doesn't rate a mention because that doesn't matter to the story. The happy ending is that she has kids with funny names with Ron and they know Harry's kids and Lupin's kid and maybe they'll marry even more children of people we know. The domestic is what's important, not changing any particular situation in the world. zgirnius: There are circumstances in which Harry must act. For example, if Harry's house is on fire, Kreacher probably still needs Harry's permission to leave it. (E. g. Winky was having difficulty running during the DE attack in GoF, because Crouch's orders to her had nto covered that contingency). Magpie: She has changed her views. She says nothing any more about how anyone "must act" to free anyone, just that they "must act" as a responsible slave owner. I don't think Kreacher needing Harry's permission to leave the house in case of fire compares to Harry having to be waited on by Kreacher. Your argument here is perfectly valid, but it's not Hermione's re: House Elves in general in GoF and OotP. In those books House Elves need to be freed, period. Kreacher is a special case at first, perhaps, because of the danger he poses, but even later she never goes back to "free them all!" which would, of course, be a different solution to the "you have to tell him to leave the house if it's burning" problem. If Kreacher is free he doesn't have to ask permission to leave the house. (Not that I think he necessarily does anyway. How does Kreacher get to Hogwarts in DH since Harry left him at Grimmauld Place? If he's not under orders from Harry to stay in the House until he says otherwise I don't think he'd have to stay there even in a fire.) zgirnius: Next, consider the time at 12 GP. Other than matters directly relating to Horcruxes (and, that actually benefited Kreacher, who was still in the condition of having failed to destroy the locket as ordered) what orders did Harry give to Kreacher? I recall none. Magpie: This is a wonderful defense of House Elf slavery. If Kreacher wants to wait on Harry hand and foot and Harry's just eating the stuff he puts in front of him, the fact that Kreacher's magically compelled to serve him and is his property isn't really like slavery at all and really doesn't matter. It's a technicality. Harry's totally not being a slave master in the bad way by letting Kreacher serve him. House Elf slavery is good. They're lesser beings whose natural state is to serve Harry as his natural state is to be served. This is not the same as saying "House Elf slavery is awful and they must be freed right now and if I had the power to free him I would." zgirnius: So when breakfast appeared on the table for the young master, and Kreacher ordered him to go wash his hands...Harry should go make himself a second breakfast? Magpie: If he was refusing to be waited on by a slave? Yeah, that might be what he'd do. And maybe tell him to stop cooking for him. Since he sees no reason to do such (it would only hurt Kreacher's feelings, right?), indeed there is no reason for him to do so since why *shouldn't* Harry be waited on by Kreacher, he doesn't. House Elf slaves: Works for Harry! zgirnius: Of course, Harry could free Kreacher, but even with the issue of Kreacher's loyalties apparently resolved, is this really a good idea? If Kreacher desired it, or to serve a different master, I would agree. But if it led to the disintegration of his personality a la Winky...I could not agree it would be the right thing to do. Magpie: Probably not a good idea to free him...which is why he's not freeing him. This is the whole argument for why for your average House Elf, slavery is *good* and *necessary* and they *should not be freed.* It's the pro-House Elf slavery argument and it makes great sense and works well for everyone involved. It is not a good idea to free House Elves. zgirnius: The misery of the three slave figures we meet up close and personal seems a big downside, to me. Magpie: Dobby is miserable with his bad masters and wants to be free, so he is freed. Problem solved for Dobby the oddity. Dobby is in no way any sort of example for why House Elves in general should be freed, because they don't agree with him. Winky was made miserable by being freed--it wasn't her slavery that made her miserable, but the taking away of her slavery. Kreacher, too, was not made miserable by being a slave. He was made miserable by a bad master. So if a House Elf doesn't want to be freed (which would be almost all of them), being a slave to a worthy master is a perfectly good solution-the one Harry and Kreacher agree on. The magical spells on House Elves are pretty harsh, but that's not the fault of their masters that we know of. Hey, their masters are just easing their suffering by being served by them. Perfectly fine relationship there, right? If every House Elf could be owned by somebody as worthy as Harry, that would be great. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 15:56:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:56:07 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178772 > Jen: Hee, well, it would make a good fanfic anyway. Seriously > though, I don't get why it's fine to make resonable assumptions about > something like the Marietta incident in order to get it work the way > a reader was imagining it, but not to say that Hermione would have a > career in her lifetime after 7 books worth of character development, > including information that Hermione thinks about her future career. > One point of fiction is every single moment isn't on page, it > requires imagination to get parts of a story to work at times, all > stories, every fiction book I've read. It's why they're fiction!! Alla: Yes. I do not get why it's fine to make an assumption that JKR writes revenge story primarily for example based on her interviews or that she did not deliver what she promised us with House unity, BUT when she is telling us in the interviews that Hermione indeed had a career and Harry did and Ron did, that is suddenly makes other people's argument invalid if they reference it. JKR did not give us Slytherins as part of the elements in the book, that was all in one interview, which does not exist, right? I mean, I always loved the interviews and will freely use them to support the argument myself(although more cautiously now), but when the other debater builds the case on **some** interviews and suddenly disregards others, because the information is not on the pages, just does not seem fair to me. So, I mean I have nothing against selective use of the interviews, but when I (generic me) am being told that I cannot use interviews to support my point, NO, only if the interviews will never be used to knock out my point. Jen: > Sure, it's selective on here because there's also the point of > building a case for one reading over another, and sometimes to build > a case there's a gap to fill. The difference seems to be how someone > would choose to fill that gap, not that some people engage in it and > others don't. Basically, my opinion is if the 'default assumption' > as Magpie puts it is what is literally on page, then imagination gets > parked at the door and debate becomes more focused on smaller and > smaller portions of 'acceptable' material - and what information is > deemed acceptable - rather than engaging with the text on the > different levels that fiction promotes. Alla: Agreed, but as I said if one never uses the interviews EVER and limits ONLY to the words on page, always, always, always, well, sure I get this POV, disagree but understand it. But it is frustrating when interviews are freely used and when they are used in response, it suddenly just does not count. If you are saying that Hermione having a career is not supported in canon, interview or not, ONE thing. But Hermione of the seven books based on what she says and does, never ever stroke me as type to sit at home, and as was mentioned, she wants to change the world even in DH. So, whether JKR said it or not, to me it is all **there** in Hermione's character over seven books, JKR was just voicing it. As Zara, it never occurred to me when I read the epilogue that Hermione did NOT have a career. Ginny - actually different story. Based on what I saw of her in canon, I had not heard of her ambitions to change the world, etc, SO yes, I think it can be either way. I could totally see her staying home. But Hermione? Not to me. Jen: > Well, no, Hermione's been developed as a certain type like all > fictional characters who 'come alive' on the page; it doesn't seem > like just *anything* would fill certain spaces, like saying Ron had > an affair with Ms. Zabini for instance. ;) If he'd actually met her > in the story, had a conversation with her, *something* to indicate he > was headed that way then sure, I might debate the possibility. > Alla: Exactly. YES. Oh, oh like for example second point of speculation. SURE, I can consider Hermione blackmailing Skeeter further, why not - seems enough supported. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 16:27:08 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:27:08 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178773 "delwynmarch" wrote: > Slytherin House is explicitely shown > to be the one House that won't oppose "evil" That is true, it is also true that some people (a lot of people actually) do NOT oppose evil, but such people still need a house. Remember there is a reason they are in Slytherin, and if they were not allowed into Hogwarts at all, if they were not exposed to even a little of the good side then they would end up doing even more mischief when they became adults. By the way, why did you put evil in quotation marks? > I still remember the horrifying moment > when I first read about Harry entering > the RoR for the first time in DH, and > noticing that there is no Slytherin > banner in it. [ ]HP was not, had never > been, this shining plea for tolerance > and understanding that I had once thought It was, I do not believe it is outrageous to say that 25% of the population is evil, or at least not very nice. Certainly it is beyond dispute that the least moral 25% is less nice than the more principled 75%. Everybody can't turn into a good guy and having a tolerance for evil is not shining. The hat being a good judge of character sorts all that out. But I must admit that despite the hat's claim that it never made a mistake Dumbledore and at least this reader would disagree. I think Peter Pettigrew was put into the wrong house, and Regulus and Slughorn were not evil; Snape was not evil either, although he was not a nice man and I wouldn't want to spend more time with him than I had to. The Sorting Hat is very good but not quite perfect. > he [Slughorn] openly showed reluctance > to even looking like he might > support the Order! Yes Slughorn was reluctant, I'm reluctant to do something I know to be extremely dangerous too; but the point is Slughorn overcame his fear and even dueled with Voldemort personally! And if that isn't enough to prove he is one of the good guys (even though he's in Slytherin) then I don't know what is. Eggplant From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 17:24:44 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:24:44 -0000 Subject: Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game (WAS Re: JKR's Intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178774 > > >>zgirnius: > > Harry did save the world, in precisely the same sense that Ender > > did. > > Betsy Hp: > Oh goodness, no. On that I cannot agree. Ender used his > intelligence (which was massive) and in the end, his compassion > (which was massive enough to break him at one point and worry his > teachers). Harry was (as per usual) lucky. Also, Voldemort hardly > threatened the *world*. Humanity's survival was not at stake. But > that's bygones and also personal opinion. zgirnius: I love Ender too. Yes, in that book, the planet Earth and humanity faced an existential thread. Whereas Voldemort was an existential threat to the British Wizarding World. He was responsible for wiping out at least one prominent Pureblood family, and at the same time was instituting policies hat would prevent internarriage with Muggles (without which, we are told, the WW cannot survive in the long term). So Harry was the hero in a smaller pond. He was still the hero that saved the world that his story is about. Was Harry as compassionate, or as intelligent, as Ender? Probably not and definitely not, in my opinion, though I have defended the position that compassion is a trait he has, and which pays off for him in the story, on earlier threads. > Betsy Hp: > Heh. I've never read the sequels. Ender's Game was such a perfect > tale I feared an attempt to stretch it out would ruin it. (I've read > Bean's adventures, but that's almost like going into a different > world, IMO.) So, yeah, everything I read took place when Ender was a > kid. As to Ender killing where Harry didn't: the stakes were much, > much higher. And *very* unlike Harry, Ender noticed, worried about, > and then did his best to heal his equivelent of the screaming and > flayed baby. zgirnius: Ender's equivalent of the flayed baby was a very different creature. She/her people felt remorse for their terrible crime of murder long before anybody asked them to, and in fact understood the desire on the part of humanity to wipe them out because of how seriously they took what they had done (once they knew it). Further, she/they reached out to Ender, *not* the other way around. Would Harry have responded as Ender did, had someone reached out to him? Heck yes, he would, in my opinion, but it was not a story in which the villains, or 'villains', did much of that. He did not need even that much, just seeing Draco's misery and inability to kill was enough to make him pity Dracom and to help Draco, when he had the occasion. > BetsyHP: > Oh! Another difference: The ending of Ender's Game does push Ender > into adulthood and show some of the stuff he accomplished. That's > how I know that he did follow through on what he'd learned as a boy. > Harry...had two kids. zgirnius: To the extent that Slytherin is Harry's Other as the buggers were Ender's, the Epilogue does show this as well. Albus *Severus*, as people keep pointing out, together with his assertion that he would be in no way displeased, were his son to be a Slytherin. (And, three kids, right? Ron had two). > BetsyHP: > That's what, three lines? JKR managed to sneak in the possibility of > Teddy joining the OBHWF, tell us Neville is a professor and that > Draco is suitably squished. And now we're just supposed to guess > that the vision of domestic bliss (circa 1950) includes dramatic > political change? zgirnius: I see nothing in that scene to differentiate my domestic bliss from that of Ron and Hermione. I work full time, have two young kids, and am not married to their father, and the year is 2007. Totally not 1950's. You insist on dating it to 1950 and making Hermione a stay-at- home mom, but there is no more evidence of that view than there is of mine. If Rowling wanted to make that point, one snippet between Hermione and Ginny discussing housewifely matters would have helped, no? I mean, Hermione grew up in Muggle Britain of the 1980's/90's, in a two career family. Why is it natural to assume she would adapt to a totally different lifestyle? > Betsy: > Frankly, I figure they're *all* stay-at-home. Ron maybe putzes > around somewhere (using his Weasley networks which are pretty > formidable) to keep him in golf club dues. There's nothing in the > epilogue to suggest anything different. zgirnius: No, there is not, and I like it that way. It was nice and open-ended. There is no obligation on the part of the author to provide a CV of her characters in her Epilogue, if all she wants to show is that her main characters are still alive, well, happy, and still great friends. Since the subject of exams and their implications for future employment has been raised several times for assorted characters on that platform elsewhere in canon, I think they all work. Harry was all eager to be an Auror even after he inherited a second pile of money and a house. Why should I suppose he changed his mind? And why shoudl I care whether he did? From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 17:47:56 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:47:56 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent - epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178775 > > >>Magpie: > > > No, I think she means the default assumption is that what's > > > actually on the page is what's actually in the story. Hermione > > > could have become the Israeli Prime Minister for all we know, but > > > it's not in the story because it's not on the page so that's not > > > the ending she was written. Hermione doing anything whatsoever in > > > her professional life is not part of the epilogue. The ending > > > written on the page is that she has babies. > > > >>zgirnius: > > Hermione marrying a totally impoverished, and less smart, and less > > ambitious, and less magically talented Ron, and having babies, seems > > to call for someone in that family to have a career. > > lizzyben: I think the point is that it doesn't matter what their jobs are. We're all free to assume that HRH have careers, but that wasn't included in the epilogue, because it doesn't matter. Instead, we learn about their marriages & their families, & most especially their children. Because family is what matters, not careers or professional success. This follows through a theme that has been present throughout the series - evil Slytherins care about ambition & success, using "any means" to achieve their goals. "Slytherin loved those of great ambition" "power-hungry Slytherin." This kind of ambition or desire for power is always presented as a bad thing. In contrast, Gryffindors like Arthur Weasley give up professional success, & Percy gives up his ambition & desire for power to rejoin his family. In his Sorting ceremony, the hat tells Harry that he could be great, very great, if he enters Slytherin. But Harry turns down that chance to join his friends in Gryffindor. He chooses family & friends over greatness & success, thereby choosing good over evil. In the end of DH, Harry gives up the Elder Wand, which offers greatness & power, to retrieve his old wand instead. Again, he shows that has no ambition for power, thereby showing his goodness. This theme is simply continued in the epilogue. We learn about Harry's family and friends, because that's what matters, and that's what brings him happiness. We learn about Hermione's husband and children, because that's what's important to her - not her ambition or career success. Only a Slytherin would care more about career than family. IIRC, the original epilogue actually traced the next 20 years of marriages & children, showing the rise of the Noble House of Weasley. Because family is what's truly important. IMO, that theme was one the major reasons for the epilogue. And that's why it doesn't include any information about the Trio's jobs, careers or professional success. Janet: > While I understand and agree with her idea of publishing it for charity, > those true fans that have been with her for many years will be greatly > disappointed at not getting a chance to see this snippet of Harry's world. lizzyben: I bet a carpet book version will show up soon enough! From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 18:04:03 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:04:03 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178776 > >>Jen: Hee, well, it would make a good fanfic anyway. Seriously > though, I don't get why it's fine to make resonable assumptions > about something like the Marietta incident in order to get it work > the way a reader was imagining it, but not to say that Hermione > would have a career in her lifetime after 7 books worth of > character development, including information that Hermione thinks > about her future career. Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think yes we can speculate anything we want. And I think we can have a discussion about whether or not Hermione would work after having kids based on what we know about her character. That's all well and good (and fun). What I'm protesting (and I'll admit I drifted from the main point a bit... it's kind of what I do ) is that we're to base the theme of the books on something that happened off page and was never mentioned. Pippin was arguing that JKR was using the house-elf story-line to show the evils of slavery. I was responding that it seemed an odd way to do it because the last we see, her hero is a happy house-elf slave owner. (If I've mis-spoken, I take comfort in the knowledge that I'll be swiftly corrected. ) And that led Pippin to say that the obvious trajectory of Hermione's story leads to her working on for house-elf rights (and I assume freedom?). To which I replied: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178712 > >>Betsy Hp: > > House-elves became a good excuse to kiss her boyfriend. > And afterwords she has his kids. Nothing about a future of crusading > for anyone's rights. Just a dead freedom seeking house-elf and a > live slave. We can *imagine* Hermione continuing on as a crusader for house-elf rights, but JKR gives us nothing to suggest this actually happens. What *is* important to JKR is that we know who Hermione married, how many children she has, and what their names are. Which doesn't do much to support the idea JKR was going for a message about slavery, IMO. Pippin responded: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178740 > >>Pippin: > Oh, I *see.* So the default assumption is that a woman who gets > married and has kids is politically dead? If JKR wants you to think > otherwise, she has to show you? I kind of hoped we'd moved > beyond that. ::sigh:: Whenever I'm accused of an extreme position (in this case, sexism) I tend to respond in the affirmative. "Well you must hate kids!" "Generally, yes. Unless ground up in sandwiches." Etc. So this is where I started to drift off point a bit. Because I didn't default assume anything. JKR provided the most important (to her) aspect of Hermione's life. She's married, she has children. Nothing about politics. Which again, tells me that JKR wasn't looking to Hermione to provide a wrap up of her anti-slavery theme. (I'll add, just in case, that I don't think JKR is *pro* any sort of real life slavery. Just in this fictional world, there are creatures that love to be domestic slaves and it's very cool to have one. And of course, if you're a good guy, you'll treat the little guys right. I don't think it's meant to say much about RL slavery at all.) If anyone wanted to write a fanfic in which house-elf slavery was a major theme that speaks to RL slavery and so gave Hermione either a Ministry job or a fight the powers that be private sector job, well, more power to them. But you can't expect me to default assume Hermione has such a job in the epilogue and JKR just didn't bother to mention it. *And* use that assumption to help me see that house-elf slavery was a major theme all along. > >>Jen: > > Sure, it's selective on here because there's also the point of > building a case for one reading over another, and sometimes to > build a case there's a gap to fill. > Betsy Hp: You can build a case, IMO, that going by her on-page stuff Hermione either did or did not have a job in the epilogue. It could be a fun exercise, realizing of course that a final definitive answer wouldn't ever occur. But I don't think you'd need a final answer to have an enjoyable discussion. However, the bigger the point to the story, the less gaps there should be, IMO. The last we see of house-elves, our hero is thinking of having his own house-elf get him a sandwich. And that's it. It's not a gap, it's a cliff. There's no other side to jump to. We end with our victorious good guy thinking sweetly simple domestic thoughts (bed and a sandwich) that involve a slave we know he'll never mistreat. And then years later we have our hero, still victorious, engaged in another domestic event, obviously happy, obviously still a good guy. It's an impossibly big leap, IMO, to read a complete negating of that first domestic scene when there's no other side to leap to. (Mind the gap, indeed. ) > >>Jen: > Basically, my opinion is if the 'default assumption' > as Magpie puts it is what is literally on page, then imagination > gets parked at the door and debate becomes more focused on smaller > and smaller portions of 'acceptable' material - and what > information is deemed acceptable - rather than engaging with the > text on the different levels that fiction promotes. Betsy Hp: I think they are two different things. Your imagination is engaged in the realm of fanfic and fun. What if's, wouldn't it be cool if's, etc. But thematic (for want of a better word) debates should depend pretty much solely on what's on the page, IMO. The books are done so the time of unlimited speculation within the realm of debating is also done. (I mean, obviously you can debate however you want to, but there will be fuddy-duddies insisting on text evidence or episode numbers. And, um, sometimes they'll be down right strident. ::glances shiftly at Star Trek fans::) > >>Jen: > Back to Hermione, the story doesn't end with her as a 17 (18?) year > old but 19 years later. Things have occurred that aren't *in the > story* and yet the story continues. To me, the point by zgirnius > up above is a reasonable point to put up for debate. > Betsy Hp: Oh sure, I totally agree about that. But it doesn't work, IMO, if you're trying to tie it into house-elves and the treatment thereof and how this proves JKR had an ongoing (and completed) theme about RL slavery tied into her story. Hermione's part in that business ended long before the epilogue because JKR stopped writing her into it, IMO. To say something otherwise (and convince me), I'd need to see something from the text. > >>Jen: > > Is anyone debating this point saying they don't think a character > developed like Hermione would have a career or that she changed her > mind about having a career based on information in the story? I > don't think that's the point being made. The point seems to be > promoting a certain default assumption that may not be an > acceptable rule of engagement for everyone. > Betsy Hp: Hmmm... The original point was: did JKR address the issue of house- elf slavery? Based on the text, no she didn't, IMO. (Or at least, not in a way that informs much on RL slavery.) The house-elf story line ended with Harry owning a slave and being fine with it. The argument was made that JKR did address the issue because Hermione is breathing 19 years later and so will have obviously fought for their rights. To my mind that's too much speculation. We could create any kind of life for a breathing Hermione, so I don't see that one tiny fact supporting an entire theme. Especially since JKR thought Hermione's political future a fact not worth knowing. Betsy Hp (All of the above is my opinion only and also deals with how *I* personally enjoy debating issues. I'm neither judging nor condemning other forms of debate and the enjoyment thereof. I'm just stating what works for me personally. ) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 18:10:38 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:10:38 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent - epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178777 lizzyben: > In his Sorting ceremony, the hat tells Harry that he could be great, > very great, if he enters Slytherin. But Harry turns down that chance > to join his friends in Gryffindor. He chooses family & friends over > greatness & success, thereby choosing good over evil. In the end of > DH, Harry gives up the Elder Wand, which offers greatness & power, > to retrieve his old wand instead. Again, he shows that has no > ambition for power, thereby showing his goodness. > This theme is simply continued in the epilogue. We learn about > Harry's family and friends, because that's what matters, and that's > what brings him happiness. We learn about Hermione's husband and > children, because that's what's important to her - not her ambition > or career success. Only a Slytherin would care more about career than > family. Jen: If that's the case, then Draco is standing on the platform with his family, upholding the primary virtue of the story, so my reading would be that choosing family transcends things like houses at Hogwarts. Turns out the houses didn't matter that much after all because those who chose family or friends were the 'great' ones, which would include Snape, Regulus, Draco and Narcissa. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 18:11:40 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:11:40 -0000 Subject: Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game (WAS Re: JKR's Intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178778 zgirnius: I love Ender too. Yes, in that book, the planet Earth and humanity faced an existential thread. Whereas Voldemort was an existential threat to the British Wizarding World. He was responsible for wiping out at least one prominent Pureblood family, and at the same time was instituting policies hat would prevent internarriage with Muggles (without which, we are told, the WW cannot survive in the long term). So Harry was the hero in a smaller pond. He was still the hero that saved the world that his story is about. Was Harry as compassionate, or as intelligent, as Ender? Probably not and definitely not, in my opinion, though I have defended the position that compassion is a trait he has, and which pays off for him in the story, on earlier threads. Tiffany: I like Ender a lot as well, but humanity as a whole & Earth faced a threat, instead of just Hogwarts in the HP books. Harry was in the grand scheme of it all, just a small fish in a big sea with respect to the characters in Ender & their plight. It's true that the Muggles are the key to the future survivability of the WW & Potterverse. That appears to be a common thread in both, the fate in the future depends on external sources. Harry didn't have Ender's compassion, but Harry appeared to have been a better hero, overall, IMO. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 18:30:46 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:30:46 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent - epilogue/ JKR blocks companion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178779 > Jen: If that's the case, then Draco is standing on the platform with > his family, upholding the primary virtue of the story, so my reading > would be that choosing family transcends things like houses at > Hogwarts. Turns out the houses didn't matter that much after all > because those who chose family or friends were the 'great' ones, > which would include Snape, Regulus, Draco and Narcissa. > lizzyben: Well, I agree that "choosing family" is represented as an ultimate good (well, expect for Marietta, I guess). But Slytherin values of ambition & seeking power are "evil" in this universe, and the redeemed members of the House like Draco or Snape manage to rise above that by focusing on family or love instead. And it's not so much about individual Slytherins, who often don't seem ambitious, cunning, or power-hungry at all, but that Slytherin House in general represents those evil traits. Family is what matters, not power or success - and that's a consistent theme throughout the series. On another topic... News! Did y'all hear that JKR sued the Harry Potter Lexicon yesterday? It looks like she now plans to block all fan companion books. "Rowling Sues to Block Harry Potter Book" NEW YORK (AP) ? J.K. Rowling and the maker of the "Harry Potter" films are suing a small publisher in Michigan over its plans to release a book version of a popular Web site dedicated to the boy wizard. The suit, filed Wednesday by the author and Warner Bros. in federal court in Manhattan, claims that RDR Books will infringe on Rowling's intellectual property rights if it goes ahead with its plan to publish the 400-page "Harry Potter Lexicon" on Nov. 28. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIGNIcztySvpGhm95iGPhNL7ov1AD8SKS9FO1 >From JK Rowling's website - "Wednesday 31 October 2007 Companion Books It's common knowledge that I love genuine Harry Potter fansites, which is why I created my own award to recognise their creativity and ingenuity. It's also old news that I hope one day to write the definitive Harry Potter encyclopedia, which will include all the material that never made it into the novels, and that I will give the royalties from this book to charity. I cannot, therefore, approve of "companion books" or "encyclopedias" that seek to pre-empt my definitive Potter reference book for their authors' own personal gain. The losers in such a situation would be the charities, that I hope, eventually, to benefit." http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=101 Thoughts, opinions? I'm pretty sure she's got the legal right to do so, but it surprises me considering how supportive she's been of fan sites in the past. lizzyben From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 18:45:18 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:45:18 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent - epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178780 > Jen: If that's the case, then Draco is standing on the platform with > his family, upholding the primary virtue of the story, so my reading > would be that choosing family transcends things like houses at > Hogwarts. Turns out the houses didn't matter that much after all > because those who chose family or friends were the 'great' ones, > which would include Snape, Regulus, Draco and Narcissa. Magpie: I would say that's very explicit in the text too. They aren't the *great* ones, but they're the Slytherins who aren't totally lost. I wouldn't say that means Houses don't matter entirely, because with the Slytherins this is their saving grace. Other characters have far more. Lizzyben: Well, I agree that "choosing family" is represented as an ultimate good (well, expect for Marietta, I guess). Magpie: And Sirius. I mean, Sirius choosing against his family seems like a good choice...though he did suffer for it. I think choosing family has to be understood to be somehow choosing against Voldemort. Snape chose Lily rather than Voldemort. Regulus chose Kreacher rather than Voldemort. Draco, Narcissa and Lucius chose each other over Voldemort. The Slytherins all started out choosing Voldemort. (Marietta didn't intentionally choose Voldemort, but sort of did anyway.) Also, missed these before, but: zgirnius: (E. g. Winky was having difficulty running during the DE attack in GoF, because Crouch's orders to her had nto covered that contingency). Magpie: Winky was having trouble running because she was being restrained by the Invisible Barty Jr., wasn't she? zgirnius: Next, consider the time at 12 GP. Other than matters directly relating to Horcruxes (and, that actually benefited Kreacher, who was still in the condition of having failed to destroy the locket as ordered) what orders did Harry give to Kreacher? Magpie: Orders regarding Horcruxes count. An order is an order whther it benefits Kreacher or not. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 18:47:39 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:47:39 -0000 Subject: House Elf Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178781 > Magpie: > Kreacher, too, was not made miserable by being > a slave. He was made miserable by a bad master. So if a House Elf > doesn't want to be freed (which would be almost all of them), being > a slave to a worthy master is a perfectly good solution-the one > Harry and Kreacher agree on. zgirnius: I do not think we are supposed to consider Regulus Black a bad or unworthy master. Yet he is the master who contributed most greatly to Kreacher's misery, not through conscious choices to do so, but by not understanding the effect his actions and his orders would have over the years. This is why I think Kreacher is the best example of why the enslavement is wrong. He is the one illustration that what you claim is the solution (a kind master who cares for the welfare of his house-elf) isn't. I don't agree that the Hogwarts house-elves would naturally have joined the fight without orders to do so, and I don't see why this should be my default assumption. We've only seen Dobby fight, and only after he was freed, before DH. I expected it to happen in the event we did have a "Battle of Hogwarts", but only because I expected it to be one of the pay-offs of the SPEW and other house-elf storylines. I expected the text to present me with some explanation for why this happened in DH, and the presence of Kreacher leading the charge, is an explanation I find more palatable than the ones I had imagined in my head (like, say, Hermione or Dumbledore or Headmistress McGonagall talking them into it). Instead, I got a house- elf leading other house-elves in the fight, and I thought it a fine conlusion to the storyline. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 18:53:11 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:53:11 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178782 BetsyHp: > What I'm protesting (and I'll admit I drifted from the main point a > bit... it's kind of what I do ) is that we're to base the theme > of the books on something that happened off page and was never > mentioned. Jen: Admittedly I'm not that interested in the house-elf debate at the moment and was taking the thread in a new direction given the information that piqued my interest. The segement I read was an example of an ongoing debate since DH about what counts as 'in the books.' That interests me because it appears to be important for future debates on the list. Betsy HP: > We can *imagine* Hermione continuing on as a crusader for house-elf > rights, but JKR gives us nothing to suggest this actually happens. > What *is* important to JKR is that we know who Hermione married, > how many children she has, and what their names are. Which doesn't > do much to support the idea JKR was going for a message about > slavery, IMO. Jen: This is where I would veer off to say that the last line of a book or an epilogue does not a story make. Others have said it with points from the story so I'll leave them to it.:) > Betsy Hp: > I think they are two different things. Your imagination is engaged > in the realm of fanfic and fun. What if's, wouldn't it be cool > if's, etc. But thematic (for want of a better word) debates should > depend pretty much solely on what's on the page, IMO. The books > are done so the time of unlimited speculation within the realm of > debating is also done. (I mean, obviously you can debate however > you want to, but there will be fuddy-duddies insisting on text > evidence or episode numbers. And, um, sometimes they'll be down > right strident. ::glances shiftly at Star Trek fans::) Jen: I honestly don't see why the cases put forth for the house elf situation are any more or less 'in the books' than someone making the case that Slytherins represent Jewish people, imo. So which case can be presented as in the books and which can't? Who decides? I appreciate you taking time to write everything you did Betsy, really I do, my answer doesn't do your post justice, but what's in the books is perception as far as I can tell and not a fact like a math problem. In my perception that particular idea about Slytherin isn't in the story; in your perception it is. I don't know where it goes from there if the only answer to offer one another is 'it's not in the books.' From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Nov 1 19:22:58 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:22:58 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wish Fulfillment (Or Not) Message-ID: <7383888.1193944978408.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178783 From: prep0strus >I wanted to pose the question - name something (minor or major) that >you wanted to see in the series, and got, and name something else you >wanted to see and didn't - and it doesn't have to just be expectations >between HBP and DH. Things that I wanted that I got: History of Dumbledore Fred & George's success Finding out SOMETHING about Goblins. Snape WAS an antimorty. Things I did not get: OK, here, I'm going to give more details. 1) I was REALLY upset about Slytherin. With the "unite the houses" message, I figured that either some Slytherins would point out that it was in their own self-interest to oppose Morty, or for, at the very least, a failure to include Slytherin would work against Harry. Neither happened. 2) OK, I know it's a cliche, but I was disappointed to see Harry's Quidditch skills to be a red herring. At the very least, he should have used SOME strategy in marshalling the troops. Consider: At the battle of Hogwarts, the missing Firebolt is recovered; Harry, with his own problems, picks a good seeker (Ginny? Draco????) to fly among the giants, confusing them, and getting them to attack their own troops. Just an example. Bart From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Nov 1 19:59:33 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:59:33 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wish Fulfillment (Or Not) In-Reply-To: <7383888.1193944978408.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <7383888.1193944978408.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178784 On 2007, Nov 01, , at 11:22, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > 2) OK, I know it's a cliche, but I was disappointed to see Harry's > Quidditch skills to be a red herring. At the very least, he should > have used SOME strategy in marshalling the troops. Consider: At the > battle of Hogwarts, the missing Firebolt is recovered; Harry, with > his own problems, picks a good seeker (Ginny? Draco????) to fly > among the giants, confusing them, and getting them to attack their > own troops. Just an example. > > Bart But isn't this what happened in the Room of Requirement when they rescued Draco and got the diadem. As I recall, they had to grab brooms to get away from the fiend fire. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 19:59:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:59:54 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178785 > Jen: ... but what's in the books > is perception as far as I can tell and not a fact like a math > problem. Alla: I did not mean to just tag along on your post again Jen, but you said it so beatifully :) I mean, I am sure I mentioned it before that we can come up with things that are for sure there, but as long as things CAN be somehow inferred from canon, indeed it is all in the perception IMO. Like case with Hermione's career for example. For years I hear Hermione yearning for knowledge, wanting to make WW a better place. So we see her in the epilogue being married and having kids? Why would I make an assumption that this is all she is doing? JKR's interview supports it, yes, but this is indeed all in the books for me. OH OH it is like saying that if hypothetically we were not given epilogue at all that Ron and Hermione were not married. And let's say JKR would say in interview that yes, they were, but book ends with no epilogue. Would I acknoledge the validity of the interpretation that they were not married? Sure, of course. But would I agree that me insisting that they are married is based ONLY on interview? No way. I would say that it is where books were going from the book 1 till the logical end, JKR did not HAVE to tell me that they were married to be sure of it. I saw it right away, so interview just voiced what I already saw in the books, like with Hermione's career. JMO, Alla From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 20:00:17 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:00:17 -0000 Subject: Wish Fulfillment (Or Not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178786 I'm going to follow Adam's suggestion to go for the less contentious major plot point things for this one. :) Things I wanted and I got: Percy's back! Yay! I was always pulling for him, because I too grew up believing deeply in a certain set of values, only to find one day that they were terribly inadequate. Snape rocked right until the end. Things I wanted and didn't get: I wanted more Luna. I didn't really like how her main purpose in DH seemed to be as a vehicle to bring her dad into the story to further the Hallows plotline. I really liked her introspectiveness, intuitiveness, and openness to ideas, and was really hoping those qualities would play a key role. Especially after the more pragmatic Hermione dissed her in OoP. I wanted Snape to live (though in my mind, he still does). I wanted BOTH twins to live! Annemehr From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 21:12:46 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:12:46 -0000 Subject: House Elf Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178787 > > Magpie: > > Kreacher, too, was not made miserable by being > > a slave. He was made miserable by a bad master. So if a House Elf > > doesn't want to be freed (which would be almost all of them), being > > a slave to a worthy master is a perfectly good solution-the one > > Harry and Kreacher agree on. > > zgirnius: > I do not think we are supposed to consider Regulus Black a bad or > unworthy master. Yet he is the master who contributed most greatly to > Kreacher's misery, not through conscious choices to do so, but by not > understanding the effect his actions and his orders would have over > the years. This is why I think Kreacher is the best example of why > the enslavement is wrong. He is the one illustration that what you > claim is the solution (a kind master who cares for the welfare of his > house-elf) isn't. Magpie: I meant Sirius. Regulus' orders to Kreacher unintentionally lead to suffering for him, but suffering he gladly went because he wanted to serve him, while *freeing him* would have caused perhaps more suffering and it would have been on purpose. As is shown by the characters themselves, including Hermione, not saying "he's really suffered...we should free him." The House Elf enchantmentcan be harsh and cause suffering for Elves (ironing your hands hurts too) but in the end a kind master is a better solution than freedom, even if that one kind master unintentionally caused the House Elf suffering that he himself was glad to suffer for Regulus and felt he deserved. Since none of the characters sees this as showing that Kreacher should be freed, I don't see why I would take that from the text. The enchantment's there, right? Freeing Kreacher doesn't lift it, it just makes him suffer for sure. There's a number of other answers to "even working for a good master could cause moments of unhappiness as well as happiness" than "free house elves." No system is perfect. The situation with Regulus and Kreacher was a very odd circumstance. zgirnius: > I don't agree that the Hogwarts house-elves would naturally have > joined the fight without orders to do so, and I don't see why this > should be my default assumption. Magpie: Nobody ordered Kreacher to be nasty to the people who moved into Grimmauld Place after his (accepted) masters died. Winky sticks up for her family when Hermione criticizes them. Devotion to one's owners and their causes (if you have accepted them as worthy) is one of the defining features of House Elves. zgirnius: We've only seen Dobby fight, and > only after he was freed, before DH. I expected it to happen in the > event we did have a "Battle of Hogwarts", but only because I expected > it to be one of the pay-offs of the SPEW and other house-elf > storylines. I expected the text to present me with some explanation > for why this happened in DH, and the presence of Kreacher leading the > charge, is an explanation I find more palatable than the ones I had > imagined in my head (like, say, Hermione or Dumbledore or > Headmistress McGonagall talking them into it). Instead, I got a house- > elf leading other house-elves in the fight, and I thought it a fine > conlusion to the storyline. Magpie: The conclusion still being that House Elves, including the one leading the charge, are still slaves. There's no indication that House Elves have any different position than they had before after the Battle. You read the House Elves joining the battle as some wrap up to the House Elf storyline that suggested a change in their status or their attitude; I saw it as totally business as usual. Without your post it never even would have occurred to me that House Elves joining the fight could be taken that way. When given the choice by their masters, they choose to fight. And then after the fight they can be regular House Elves again. If they were free now I think JKR would have said that. (Rather than ending with the line she did.) After everything I've seen of House Elves I can't imagine why they'd need to be talked into anything like this--this is what they do. They support their Wizards. And in this scene (as they do throughout DH) they support Hermione's *new* insight into their minds. Think kindly of them (as Harry does with Kreacher, as Ron does for the Elves at Hogwarts) and you'll be rewarded by their devotion. No House Elves were freed during the course of this war. Nor did any ask to be freed, or anyone try to free them. The last line presents a rosy picture of Harry and Kreacher in their previous roles. They've gotten rid of the people who would have been bad masters and are happy with the right ones. -m From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 21:57:25 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:57:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wish Fulfillment (Or Not) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711011457l3d65faeeud727033b688e0ff5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178788 OK, things that I wanted and that I got: Harry alive and happy and the end of the book. History of Dumbledore's past Snape was working for DD all along H&G, R&H and R&T together. Neville came through the series and showed himself to be a true Gryffindor (the hat knew best again)! Things I wanted and did not get: I wanted to see Remus and Tonks live through the book and raise their son together. I would have liked to see Snape alive at the end of the book as well. And that's about it. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 00:25:05 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:25:05 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_=C2=BFWere_James_Potter_&_Lily_Evans_really_Head-Boy_&_Head-Girl=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178789 > Ceridwen wrote: > Can't help with the interview, sorry. But I do have an idea of why > James became Head Boy. Ron and Hermione were Prefects for Gryffindor. > Harry was the Quidditch captain. He gets the same sorts of privileges > as the Prefects. I suggest that Quidditch captains could also be > considered for Head Boy or Head Girl, and that James was Captain of the > Gryffindor Quidditch team in school. Niru writes: But why would we assume that one has to be a Prefect or a Quidditch captain to be made Head Boy/Girl? There's no canon to suggest that this is the case. It may be common practise for a lot of schools but nowhere does it say that being a Prefect or equal is a pre-requisite for Head boy/Girl-ship at Hogwarts. Real-life example: At my school, the Head Girl and Prefects were chosen by popular vote after their candidateship had been approved by the staff and Headmistress. The only pre-requisite here was that the potential candidates had to have reasonably good grades (so that the added responsibility wouldn't get them to flunk out!), good behavior, and had to be approved by the teachers and Headmistress. The girl who became Head Girl in my year had transferred to the school only a year before and certainly wasn't a Prefect or captain of any of the school sports teams. - Niru From KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 05:48:28 2007 From: KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com (kimberleyelizabeth) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:48:28 -0000 Subject: A ? to ponder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "liatris39" wrote: > Hi all! I have a question, does anyone have a favorite HP > quote? Kimberley: Harry mumbles under his breath after being told he is going to suffer a terrible death yet again by Trelawney (GoF): "Well, I hope it's quick, I don't want to suffer." From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Nov 2 10:34:59 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:34:59 -0000 Subject: A ? to ponder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178791 "liatris39" wrote:> > Hi all! I have enjoyed the many posts and lively discussions! I have a > question, does anyone have a favorite HP quote? > > What are your favorite HP quotes? Potioncat: Well, one of the most fun quotes is from Snape in CoS: "Just the man...The very man. A girl has been snatched by the monster, Lockhart. Taken into the Chanber of Secrets itself. Your moment has come at last." The one that comes up most often in my mind is a partial quote and has to do with "Having the courage to choose what is right over what is easy." but when I went to the end of GoF, I didn't like the wording so well. Does anyone know if DD says that line some other place? In GoF the wording is: "Remember Cedric. Remember if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of LV." From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 2 11:00:47 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:00:47 -0000 Subject: A ? to ponder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178792 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: liatris39: > > What are your favorite HP quotes? Potioncat: > The one that comes up most often in my mind is a partial quote and > has to do with "Having the courage to choose what is right over what > is easy." but when I went to the end of GoF, I didn't like the > wording so well. Does anyone know if DD says that line some other > place? > > In GoF the wording is: > "Remember Cedric. Remember if the time should come when you have to > make a choice between what is right and what is easy remember what > happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he > strayed across the path of LV." Geoff: Interesting that, unlike you, I like the GOF quote. I think your first quote sounds a bit like Dumbledore in the "medium that dare not speak its name" when he speaks to Harry in the dormitory at the end of the film. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Nov 2 11:33:03 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:33:03 -0000 Subject: Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR and Slytherins in the final battle. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178793 > Alla: > Another Hogwarts professor walks in the shadows and dies the death of > the spy, playing his part in the plan that brings Voldemort's demise. Potioncat: That is a very beautiful way of describing Snape....honestly Alla, I would never have expected it of you! ;-) > > And Hogwarts student from Slytherin dies while fighting Voldemort. Potioncat: But here, I'm confused. Who was this? Or do you mean Regulus? From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 2 17:29:22 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:29:22 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178794 > Betsy Hp: > If that's the case, it means JKR failed as a writer. Her imagery > overwhelmed her message. Pippin: If the reader doesn't notice that two of the Irish chasers at the QWC are female, does that mean that JKR failed as a writer, or that she succeeded in showing how an unconscious assumption that star athletes are male can waylay a reader even if the reader wants and expects to see female Quidditch players? If the unconscious assumption that Slytherins are evil captures the imagination and distracts people from the text which explains why the Slytherin banner is not there, is that JKR's failure, or her success in illustrating how prejudice works? Did Shakespeare fail as a writer because it took a few hundred years for people to notice that those vulgar entertainments he wrote to make money were also literary works of subtlety and power? > > Betsy Hp: > What text shows that McGonagalls read of the Slytherins was wrong? Pippin: The text that shows them not doing what she said they would do, sabotage the resistance or take arms against the defenders. Three stay behind to go after Harry, but that does not affect the defense of the castle at all. And despite what Voldemort says, we don't see any Slytherins who left the castle on his side. > > Betsy Hp: > And yet, wasn't Dumbledore supposed to be a power to be reckoned with > for a good while there? IIRC, Lucius's power at the Ministry lasts > for about... two years? Pippin: Lucius was a member of the Hogwarts board of governors until the end of CoS. He had enough influence to get Dumbledore suspended. Dumbledore explained that Lucius had threatened to curse their families if the governors did not support him. GoF mentions that Lucius has a ministry committee in his pocket. As Fudge says in HBP, the other side are wizards too. > Betsy Hp: > Heh. When you're writing an epic hero's journey type story? It's > *always* the hero's job. Pippin: Oh. Oh, no. *Now* I get it. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I think I finally see what you're getting at. Yeah, if I squint and look at it in a funny way, there's this weird, broken limping quest story that either didn't end or ended all wrong. Dobby could have lived, Kreacher could have died, the Slytherin banners should have been in the RoR, Harry wouldn't have let the Slytherins be turned out, the Elder Wand could have put Voldemort's shattered soul together before the end, and we would have seen Snape's portrait in the Headmaster's Office, dictating potions recipes before going off to make wolfsbane potion for the portrait of Lupin. And Snape would have said, "You're still arrogant, Potter." And Harry would have said, "Yes I am" And Snape would have said, "But you can be my wing man any time." Cue the scrolling text that tells what everybody did with the rest of their lives. That's how these things are supposed to work. But... (all the following, of course, is IMO) We left the epic hero's journey behind us, a long time ago and far, far away. It's gone for sure when Dumbledore begins to cry in earnest. Could you see Gandalf doing that? Did Aslan ever ask whether he was any better than the Witch? In Narnia it's a coward's question, or a traitor's, and when it is asked in earnest it brings Narnia to an end. But come to think of it Harry hasn't completed a quest successfully since he won the Tri-Wizard Cup, and that was a bit of a cheat. If there was an epic hero's journey in DH, it was Voldemort's. He went into the dark places and sought the one weapon which would save himself and his people from extinction. He followed his bliss and he never gave up. But Harry? Did he go on a quest and become a hero? I don't think so. He accepted reality...and became a man. The reality is that wizards succeeded in doing what Muggle slave owners have only dreamed of, and made House Elves happy to be their slaves. The reality is Gryffindors didn't want to be united with the Slytherins and vice versa. The Gryffs *like* thinking that only they are truly brave and the Slytherins *like* thinking that only they truly deserve power. The reality is that Voldemort would rather rend his soul to pieces than give up his dream, even if it's the dream of a tortured child and to be a tortured child is the only way he can dream it. Harry knows there wouldn't be an Albus Severus if it weren't for Snape's courage, and Draco knows that Harry's power saved his life. But that doesn't mean that they have to like it or that Albus Severus and Scorpius will see things in a new way. Tolerance isn't for things you approve of, after all. Maybe Hermione and Ginny stayed home with the babies, maybe Ron and Harry did. Maybe they were at the office all day and half the night. Can we tolerate not knowing? Can we be okay with them making *their* choice, or do we have to know they made the one we think is right? Maybe the Elder Wand could have united the Houses and even freed the House Elves from their enchantments. Trouble is, aside from a few visionaries like Hermione and Dumbledore and Dobby, nobody wanted that to happen. The cure, as Aeschylus put it, is in the House and not outside it. House Elves will be freed when the House Elves want freedom, and when wizards realize what a burden their mastery is. The Houses will unite when the children want unity, and when the adults realize what a burden their discord is. And Harry respected that, because, like Dumbledore, he knows that even the Elder Wand doesn't have the power to make other men (or House Elves) see the truth. Pippin whose favorite Pratchett quote is, "The truth is out there. The lies are all inside your head." From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 18:09:56 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:09:56 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178795 > Pippin: > If the reader doesn't notice that two of the Irish chasers at the QWC > are female, does that mean that JKR failed as a writer, or that she > succeeded in showing how an unconscious assumption that star > athletes are male can waylay a reader even if the reader wants > and expects to see female Quidditch players? > > If the unconscious assumption that Slytherins are evil captures the > imagination and distracts people from the text which explains > why the Slytherin banner is not there, is that JKR's failure, or her > success in illustrating how prejudice works? > Prep0strus: This comparison is flawed, and on two counts. The assumption of star athletes being male is one that comes from the real world. People are bringing their biases with them into the story. Slytherins are created by JKR. Any assumptions we have of them come from HER writing, from the world SHE created. So, she has created the prejudice (if it exists at all), not reflected one that exists in the real world. Second, in your first example, JKR shows the other side. She reveals that there ARE female chasers, right in her text. The world may assume athletes are male, but she shows us they are not, in the text. It is the exact opposite with Slytherin - it doesn't matter if she gives a reason why Slytherins aren't there - reasons are easy to come up with. What matters is that they're not there. And they're not shown in the battle (whether we might assume any are there or not). In fact, your entire example pretty much shows the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. The real world assumption about athletes JKR turns around within her text and shows that it is not true. The fake world assumptions about Slytherin, which do not come from real life experience, but from reading the book, she does NOT refute (well, I'm sure for some people she does, but obviously not for many of us), and certainly not in as obvious-yet-nonchalant way as having professional female chasers. If JKR wanted to show Slytherins as equal to other members of society, or even as a morally neutral group, yes, she failed. The fact that we have this discussion supports the failure. (I once saw a poll that asked if George Bush was a uniter or a divider. 50% said uniter. 50% said divider. The humor there is delicious, and the results of the poll obviously show something entirely different from the straight numbers.) We are not having a discussion about whether JKR showed that athletes can be male or female, because she clearly showed that they are. We are having a discussion over whether Slytherins are equal - the prejudice she created, and then failed to refute. Of course, it doesn't bother me as much as some, because now I believe it was never her intent for them to be equal. I think she did a weird job showing us that maybe they were going to be equal, and then not following through on that, because in the end that wasn't really the point. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 2 20:32:54 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:32:54 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178796 > Prep0strus: > > This comparison is flawed, and on two counts. > > The assumption of star athletes being male is one that comes from the > real world. People are bringing their biases with them into the > story. Slytherins are created by JKR. Pippin: The argument I've heard is that if JKR wanted us to think the Slytherins were moral, she'd have made them more sympathetic. That is a real world assumption about characters in fiction. Adam: > If JKR wanted to show Slytherins as equal to other members of society, > or even as a morally neutral group, yes, she failed. The fact that we > have this discussion supports the failure. Pippin: If she wanted to show that it's easy to overlook virtue when it's not presented in a sympathetic light, she succeeded. Harry's story itself is ample demonstration of that. If you prefer to see the Slytherins as a confusing exception rather than a subtle proof, it's okay by me If Regulus sacrificing his life for his House Elf, Slughorn duelling with Voldemort, and Snape keeping his cover to the death are not proof of good Slytherins, I have to say you're setting the bar for being a good Slytherin awfully high. I sure haven't done anything like that, and I'd like to think I'm a good person. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 20:55:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:55:54 -0000 Subject: Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR and Slytherins in the final battle. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178797 > > Alla: > > > Another Hogwarts professor walks in the shadows and dies the death of > > the spy, playing his part in the plan that brings Voldemort's demise. > > Potioncat: > That is a very beautiful way of describing Snape....honestly Alla, I > would never have expected it of you! ;-) Alla: The new canon has a strangest effects on us ;) Alla: > > And Hogwarts student from Slytherin dies while fighting Voldemort. > > Potioncat: > But here, I'm confused. Who was this? Or do you mean Regulus? > Alla: Regulus, yes, I do not think that the fact that he is dead means that his contribution should count as less significant, you know :) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > If Regulus sacrificing his life for his House Elf, Slughorn dueling with > Voldemort, and Snape keeping his cover to the death are not proof > of good Slytherins, I have to say you're setting the bar for being a > good Slytherin awfully high. I sure haven't done anything like that, > and I'd like to think I'm a good person. Alla: I have an idea. :) How about we forget about the words "good Slytherin" for a second and just limit ourselves to Slytherins who actively participated in an antivoldemort resistance. And if we are limiting ourselves to that issue, I find it mind boggling that "current students of Slytherin" not participating in the fight against Voldemort suddenly equals "Slytherin" does not participating in the fight. Not when those stories stand out to me so much, sorry. I see three heroes here and Slytherin still does not count? I just had another revelation. Maybe argument is that unless Slytherins participate in exactly same way as other houses, they do not participate at all? Not stating, just wondering. Well, I never argued that Slytherin House current students will participate the very same way. I have never seen the hidden goodness of the Slytherins. Slytherin House IS starting with lower footing than other houses IMO, but the examples of those three maybe show that indeed not everybody in Slytherin was corrupted by that evil ideology, even though indeed many of the students are? Maybe with those three JKR did show me their goodness? And that people should be judged on individual basis and not on the basis of to which house they belong. Because no matter how you look at it, the next hero I want to applaud and cry for after Harry ( And Ron and Hermione for helping him) is not Dumbledore is not Lupin, is not Tonks, is not even Mad eye, no matter how brave they are. The hero whom I cry for is the boy who went to die from poison and by Inferi for his house elf and this IS a Slytherin boy. And the character whose development I find most striking is none else but Slughorn. And no matter how much I hate Snape for allowing himself to hate a boy of the woman he loved, he did die as a hero, no? I mean, I do disagree with you Pippin on the part of McGonagall being wrong here, I think she made the only possible decision under circumstances. BUT I also think that given a chance maybe some Slytherin students would have stayed. Oh, no I think that Slytherin house's contribution was very significant IMO. And maybe because of that the current students had had a chance to turn their lives around, etc. JMO Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 21:24:00 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:24:00 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178798 > >>Jen: Admittedly I'm not that interested in the house-elf debate > at the moment and was taking the thread in a new direction given > the information that piqued my interest. The segement I read was > an example of an ongoing debate since DH about what counts as 'in > the books.' That interests me because it appears to be important > for future debates on the list. Betsy Hp: Ah, but for me it's *very* important to determine exactly what is being discussed. If we're just talking about where we think Hermione will be in 19 years, there's a different burden of proof, IMO, than if we're talking about what the (or even 'a') theme of the books is. The first, being speculative, can be built off of assumptions to a much greater extent than the second. So, for me, every discussion and debate will have to figure out its own parameters. > >>Betsy HP: > > > > What *is* important to JKR is that we know who Hermione married, > > how many children she has, and what their names are. Which > > doesn't do much to support the idea JKR was going for a message > > about slavery, IMO. > >>Jen: This is where I would veer off to say that the last line of > a book or an epilogue does not a story make. Others have said it > with points from the story so I'll leave them to it.:) Betsy Hp: But it does lend to a conclusion. Stories have an arc, and that arc is important. Where a story ends does a great deal (possibly the greatest) to define a story. So, IMO, ignoring where the arc ends will lead to a misinterpertation of theme. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I think they are two different things. Your imagination is > > engaged in the realm of fanfic and fun. What if's, wouldn't it > > be cool if's, etc. But thematic (for want of a better word) > > debates should depend pretty much solely on what's on the page, > > IMO. > > > >>Jen: I honestly don't see why the cases put forth for the house > elf situation are any more or less 'in the books' than someone > making the case that Slytherins represent Jewish people, imo. Betsy Hp: They aren't. In both cases it's a discussion that has to do with theme, so yes, it needs to be in the books a heck of a lot more than speculation about Hermione's career, IMO. (And um, just to clarify... No one was saying Slytherins represent Jewish people as far as I remember. They were saying that the negative descriptions of Slytherins matched very closely to negative propaganda about Jews in pre-WWII Europe.) > >>Jen: > So which case can be presented as in the books and which can't? Betsy Hp: IMO, what involves actual book content (theme, etc) needs to be backed by "in the books" evidence, whereas speculations can be made with a lot less. (I'd say there should be *something* from the books for speculation too, but frankly, whatever works for those involved in the discussion is cool.) > >>Jen: > Who decides? Betsy Hp: Those involved in the discussion I would think. > >>Jen: > I appreciate you taking time to write everything you did Betsy, > really I do, my answer doesn't do your post justice, but what's in > the books is perception as far as I can tell and not a fact like a > math problem. Betsy Hp: Eep! You just made my right eye-ball twitch. I adore scientists and when possible tend to follow them around like a puppy-dog eager to listen in on discussions about Schr?dinger's cat and the like. But every once in a while one of them will start talking art and/or literature and scoff about those being "real" academics because you can say or make up whatever and call it good. And it drives me batty because that's not true! No, it's not like math in that it's not true/false. But it's not utter chaos either. There *are* wrong conclusions. We're not really allowed to full out say that on these lists, but it's true. Also, some conclusions are more correct than others. Everyone's perceptions are not equal. They just aren't. Some have greater proof from the text and that makes them more correct. (Just to be clear, I'm *not* saying that my ideas or theories are the right ones. I generally *think* they are, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time making them, but I'm not so arrogant as to think I can't ever be wrong. ) I'm not going to say that a perfect consenses will be reached, because again, not true/false. But this idea that it's *all* based on perception... no it's not. If I said that the Potter series is about Hagrid sexually molesting Harry and Harry's subsequent psychological break... I don't care how much I may *perceive* this to be true, there just isn't the text there, IMO, to back up that "perception". > >>Jen: > In my perception that particular idea about Slytherin isn't in the > story; in your perception it is. I don't know where it goes > from there if the only answer to offer one another is 'it's not in > the books.' Betsy Hp: Well, you'd (correctly, IMO) ask for text evidence of Slytherin descriptors that match the negative propaganda about Jews in pre-WWII Europe. I'd either have it or I wouldn't. If I didn't, than my theory is solely my perception and it's mistaken. If I could provide the match than we'd get into a delicious discussion about what that match means exactly (or if it means anything). And we wouldn't necessarily agree on the meaning, which is where perception (tempered by the books) can come into play. Like how both Prep0strus and I agree that Slytherin is described negatively in the books. If asked, I think we'd both point to similar texts to back our views. But as to what that negative description means? I think Prep0strus and I have different views on that, and that's where our perceptions come into play. But if we have a hope of convincing the other (or fellow listies) that our view is valid and maybe even more valid than the other, text still needs to play a part. Betsy Hp (again, this is all my opinion, and people can discuss the books in whatever way they desire as far as I'm concerned) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 22:22:55 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:22:55 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178799 > >>Prep0strus: > > > > The assumption of star athletes being male is one that comes from > > the real world. People are bringing their biases with them into > > the story. Slytherins are created by JKR. > >>Pippin: > The argument I've heard is that if JKR wanted us to think the > Slytherins were moral, she'd have made them more sympathetic. That > is a real world assumption about characters in fiction. Betsy Hp: IMO, if JKR wanted the Slytherins to be moral, she'd have written them as moral. So again, it's what JKR provided not what the reader brought to the table. Weirdly enough, my problem was that I found the Slytherin's too sympathetic to believe they were supposed to be the immoral bad guys. So, to play off your example, it's like I assumed the quidditch player named Robin was a woman, and argued that of course women could play quidditch and look at all the RL woman athletes. Only in the end, Robin was a man and all my arguments were moot. > >>Adam: > > If JKR wanted to show Slytherins as equal to other members of > > society, or even as a morally neutral group, yes, she failed. > > The fact that we have this discussion supports the failure. > >>Pippin: > If she wanted to show that it's easy to overlook virtue when it's > not presented in a sympathetic light, she succeeded. Harry's story > itself is ample demonstration of that. Betsy Hp: Why? Because readers couldn't see any virtue in Harry? That confuses me. I'd guess Snape as the non-sympathetic holder of hidden virtue. Which he almost, sort of, was. If you squinted. It seemed more to me that he was broken by the guilt of what his naturally bad self (ie Slytherin) did and then followed the orders of Dumbledore (the virtue of Gryffindor) in an attempt to atone. Which, going by his not being present with the blessed dead, didn't really work. Though Harry admired his pluck in the end. > >>Pippin: > If you prefer to see the Slytherins as a confusing exception rather > than a subtle proof, it's okay by me > If Regulus sacrificing his life for his House Elf, Slughorn > duelling with Voldemort, and Snape keeping his cover to the death > are not proof of good Slytherins, I have to say you're setting the > bar for being a good Slytherin awfully high. I sure haven't done > anything like that, and I'd like to think I'm a good person. Betsy Hp: The bar was set by JKR. And Slughorn, Snape and Regulus didn't push their house up high enough to reach. So no banner in the RoR and Slytherins banned from taking part on the good side in the final battle. And Regulus wasn't among the blessed dead either that I recall. > >>Pippin: > Did Shakespeare fail as a writer because it took a few hundred > years for people to notice that those vulgar entertainments he > wrote to make money were also literary works of subtlety and > power? Betsy Hp: No. Because subtlety wasn't all he had. No one had to parse his play to bits to figure out Romeo had fallen in love with Juliet. > >>Betsy Hp: > > What text shows that McGonagalls read of the Slytherins was wrong? > >>Pippin: > The text that shows them not doing what she said they would do, > sabotage the resistance or take arms against the defenders. Betsy Hp: Um... because she kicked them out before they could sabotage. Except for... > >>Pippin: > Three stay behind to go after Harry, but that does not affect > the defense of the castle at all. Betsy Hp: Because they failed to nab Harry, which, considering that a big part of the defense of the castle was to keep Harry safe ("Give me Harry Potter...") their actions could be defined as both sabotage and taking up arms against the defenders. > >>Pippin: > And despite what Voldemort says, we don't see any Slytherins who > left the castle on his side. Betsy Hp: Well, they're not all that brave, are they? > >>Pippin: > Lucius was a member of the Hogwarts board of governors until the > end of CoS. He had enough influence to get Dumbledore suspended. > Betsy Hp: Only *after* several students were brutally attacked and nearly killed and no progress was made in finding the culprit. And the suspension didn't last, and IIRC, Lucius lost a lot of political power with that play. (Didn't he get kicked off the board?) So it's not like Lucius was displaying an awesome amount of power there. > >>Pippin: > Oh. Oh, no. *Now* I get it. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I > think I finally see what you're getting at. Yeah, if I squint and > look at it in a funny way, there's this weird, broken limping quest > story that either didn't end or ended all wrong. > Betsy Hp: I totally agree that the Potter series is not what I'd call a successful hero's journey. For one, Harry doesn't learn anything, and for another, nothing changes, IMO. (A brilliantly happy ending and an inhumanly perfect mentor isn't a part of the quest journey either. I think you were thinking romantic comedy, maybe?) But I think JKR would say that's what she was writing. I think she'd say Harry learned about death, and I think she'd say that he changed the world by defeating Voldemort and putting Slytherin in its place. And then she'd burble on about "realism" and how mean people suck (Slytherin) but you can't get rid of them and that's why they still exist at Hogwarts. But they're safely diluted now, so all is well. > >>Pippin: > > House Elves will be freed when the House Elves want freedom, and > when wizards realize what a burden their mastery is. The Houses > will unite when the children want unity, and when the adults realize > what a burden their discord is. > Betsy Hp: But that is a tale for another time, about another hero, to be told by a different bard. Harry's story is done and he is at rest. IOWs, it sounds like a story worth reading, but it's not the one told in the Potter series. It's not a story JKR was interested in telling. So she didn't. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 2 22:38:51 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:38:51 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178800 > > >>Jen: This is where I would veer off to say that the last line of > > a book or an epilogue does not a story make. Others have said it > > with points from the story so I'll leave them to it.:) > > Betsy Hp: > But it does lend to a conclusion. Stories have an arc, and that arc > is important. Where a story ends does a great deal (possibly the > greatest) to define a story. So, IMO, ignoring where the arc ends > will lead to a misinterpertation of theme. Pippin: By that standard, we never find out whether Frodo found peace beyond the Sundering Seas, or whether Sam stopped feeling torn in two and became Mayor of the Shire as Frodo predicted (the appendices were not originally published with The Lord of the Rings.) And yet it's very important for the completion of the story arc that we assume those things. This kind of fictional history starts before the action of the story proper, and can be assumed to continue afterwards. "Don't the great tales never end?" "No, they never end as tales," said Frodo. "But the people in them come, and go when their part's ended. Our part will end later--or sooner." "And then we can have some rest and some sleep," said Sam. He laughed grimly. "And I mean just that, Mr. Frodo. I mean plain ordinary rest, and sleep, and waking up to a morning's work in the garden." --LOTR Harry Ron and Hermione finished their part in the great tale of defeating Voldemort, and then as we saw, they went back to ordinary lives, the lives they'd been planning before the war. In which case, Harry and Ron became Aurors, and Hermione sought ways to improve the condition of House Elves. Her original plans, in GoF, were to Stop The Outrageous Abuse of Our Fellow Magical Creatures and Campaign for a Change in their Legal Status. She wanted fair wages -- if the Elves would rather be paid in kindness than in galleons, is that not their right? Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 22:42:55 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:42:55 -0000 Subject: The "blessed dead" (WAS Re: JKR's intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178801 > Betsy Hp: > The bar was set by JKR. And Slughorn, Snape and Regulus didn't push > their house up high enough to reach. So no banner in the RoR and > Slytherins banned from taking part on the good side in the final > battle. And Regulus wasn't among the blessed dead either that I > recall. zgirnius: Why assume that the people Harry called to him with the Stone are the "blessed dead", and no one else was? I thought it clear enough they were Harry's most dearly beloved dead. In addition to Severus and Regulus, also missing were Tonks, Moody, Fred, Cedric, Colin, and Dobby, all of whom I figured were worthy, but not close enough to Harry, unlike his parents, his godfather, and the teacher other than Albus to whom he was closest. And, of course, Albus was missing (probably because of the small matter that he seemed to be sending Harry to his death after leading Harry to believe he had a chance to live - his presence at King's Cross suggests he too achieved an afterlife, so I see no reason to believe the other dead of the series did not). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 23:41:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:41:15 -0000 Subject: JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178802 Betsy Hp wrote: > Well, you'd (correctly, IMO) ask for text evidence of Slytherin descriptors that match the negative propaganda about Jews in pre-WWII Europe. I'd either have it or I wouldn't. If I didn't, than my theory is solely my perception and it's mistaken. If I could provide the match than we'd get into a delicious discussion about what that match means exactly (or if it means anything). And we wouldn't necessarily agree on the meaning, which is where perception (tempered by the books) can come into play. > > Like how both Prep0strus and I agree that Slytherin is described > negatively in the books. If asked, I think we'd both point to > similar texts to back our views. But as to what that negative > description means? I think Prep0strus and I have different views on > that, and that's where our perceptions come into play. But if we > have a hope of convincing the other (or fellow listies) that our view > is valid and maybe even more valid than the other, text still needs > to play a part. > > Betsy Hp (again, this is all my opinion, and people can discuss the > books in whatever way they desire as far as I'm concerned) > Carol responds: It might help if we use the term used by professional literary critics, "interpretation," rather than "perception." "Interpretation" implies "of the text"--IOW, it's the text itself, which is the same for all readers (setting aside a few minor differences between the British and American editions and ignoring translations, which present problems of their own), that's being interpreted. (We can discuss "perception" in relation to Harry and the other characters, who, for example, *perceive* Snape as evil through most of DH, but that's different from individual readings of the same text. Without the text, we have nothing (except maybe some unreliable statements about authorial intentention). We start with the text, we draw inferences from it, we see how these inferences fit with other canon evidence, and we arrive at an interpretation, not necessarily definitive, not necessarily even our own permanent view of the text, but it's based on canon evidence. We go back and support that interpretation in posts or even essays for other readers, who respond with their own interpretation of the same text. But without the text, there's nothing on which to base our inferences and nothing with which to support our arguments. It all boils down to the words on the page filtered through individual minds and experiences. But, as you say, we can't just say anything we like about the books, for example, that Hermione is a boy in disguise or Aunt Petunia is really Madam Pince because there's simply no evidence for those conclusions. We can, however, speculate on likely futures for the characters--not canonical, not definitive, but likely. All we *know* about the Hermione of the epilogue, for example, is that she's alive, married to Ron, the mother of a witch and a wizard, and still friends with the Potters. But we also have textual evidence about the kind of person Hermione is (highly skilled compared with Harry and Ron, intelligent, prone to looking things up in books and taking matters into her own hands--cf. the beaded bag and Monica and Wendell Wilkins, to name only two instances). We have seen Hermione eagerly looking through career pamphlets in OoP. We know that she earned eleven OWLs (unless that was changed later), all O's except one E in DADA. We know that she has nothing in common with Mrs. Weasley--no domestic skills to speak of, and she resents having to cook when she's no better at it than the boys are. (Ron, of course, has an injured arm, but Harry can cook bacon Muggle style; maybe he should be the cook?). We hear Scrimgeour noting Hermione's familiarity with Wizarding law and asking if she plans to go into that career and Hermione's sanctimonious (IMO) response that she wants to do some good in the world. We see her horror at the new statue in the MoM (she has to point out its significance to the less observant boys). We also see her throughout the book providing what's needed (except food and whatever might have saved Snape)--though, of course, she has her own moments of human fallibility, which I won't list here. Suffice it to say that Harry could never have survived to defeat Voldemort without her (or without Ron, but her rescue of Harry from Nagini nicely balances Ron's rescue of Harry from the well and the Horcrux). She tells the Goblin Griphook that she believes in freedom for House-Elves, indicating that she hasn't given up on that very strange goal--Hermione vs. the entire WW and the House-Elves themselves, apparently (but at least she now has a better understanding of House-Elf psychology than before, to judge by "Kreacher's Tale"). She also expresses a concern for prejudice against Goblins and House-Elves and identifies herself, as a "Mudblood"--her own word--as a member of an oppressed class. Based on all of this evidence, it would be *in character* for Hermione to have some sort of humanitarian career and OOC for her not to do so. And to assume that a highly motivated, highly talented, highly opinionated woman in her late thirties is unemployed, finding satisfaction as a wife and mother, seems at odds with the evidence in the books themselves, which leads to the assumption (admittedly an assumption, but one based on canon and character) that she's a Ministry official or otherwise usefully and lucratively employed. (Slughorn might well have used his influence if it were needed after her role in helping Harry defeat Voldemort. Hermione would hardly have failed to be hired for any position she applied for. And to assume that a married woman with children, one of them old enough to attend Hogwarts, doesn't work outside the home despite two working parents seems just odd. She could choose to be a housewife if she had the temperament, but she isn't Molly or Petunia or Fleur (whom I can imagine making that decision). She's take-charge, "insufferable know-it-all" Hermione, and she's not going to be happy baking cookies and cleaning ovens. I wouldn't be surprised if she has her own freed House-Elf, a second Dobby who "likes being paid," to do her housework and sends her younger child to a Muggle day school. There are ways to work and be a wife and mother, and if anyone can do it, it's Hermione. If you can find any evidence that Hermione might choose to be a Molly Weasley, I mean a stay-at-home mom, other than the mere fact that she married and had two children (notice that she doesn't have a whole brood despite having married a Weasley), please present it. In the meantime, setting aside any extracononical evidence by JKR, it seems to me that an employed Hermione is more likely than a housewife Hermione. Carol, wondering whether Draco is employed or living off the Lestrange inheritance (assuming Dead!Rodolphus) From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Fri Nov 2 19:47:07 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:47:07 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: <000e01c81708$9e53ac00$0301010a@AngelLima> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178803 > Angel Lima wrote: > The problem with this grown up is the manipulation behind this all. She wrote a character that seemed to be above sexual innuendo, he was a bloody puppeteer afterall, then bang 3 or however many months after the finale, the author decides to spring him out of the closet, his imprisonment within apparently a weighty deal on the outcome of the work. If she wanted to trumpet a movement, a theme, heck enlighten us, whatever ... then she should have done it in canon. End of story! > Shaunette now: I too am very disappointed that it wasn't at least hinted at in canon, but I think part of the reason she didn't put anything in the books is her lack of intent to "trumpet a movement" or "enlighten anyone" about the issue. I'm not sure DD was "trapped in the closet" so much as just really, really old. He was most likely quite beyond having a lovelife by the time we reach Harry's tale and it thus didn't really matter at all. It did matter when he was young, it did matter with Grindelwald, and that's a part of the story we should have learned more about, I think. If love is so important, surely Dumbledore's great tragic love matters a little? Shaunette, who regrets her comment about Grownups and really didn't intend to offend anyone personally, and who will try to argue a bit more maturely herself From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 00:17:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:17:18 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178804 Betsy Hp: Betsy Hp wrote: > I'd guess Snape as the non-sympathetic holder of hidden > virtue. Which he almost, sort of, was. If you squinted. It seemed > more to me that he was broken by the guilt of what his naturally bad > self (ie Slytherin) did and then followed the orders of Dumbledore > (the virtue of Gryffindor) in an attempt to atone. Which, going by > his not being present with the blessed dead, didn't really work. > Though Harry admired his pluck in the end. Carol responds: He represents, canonically, the two most important virtues in the books, love and courage. We need only read Harry's public vindication of Snape to see that if we can't see it from "The Prince's Tale" alone. As for not being with the "blessed dead," surely that's because he's not one of Harry's loved ones, not a person whose presence he would want to give himself courage to join them. (Besides, he's just had a cauldronful, I mean a Pensieveful, of Snape's memories.) Dumbledore, you'll notice, isn't there, either, because Harry thinks that DD has betrayed him. Only later, when he wants answers, does he summon DD. He's already learned everything that Snape can tell him, exactly what he needed to know to forgive Snape and willingly sacrifice himself. Now he needs the contributions of other dead people. (Lupin as a beloved dead person is a bit iffy; my own theory is that he needs Lupin's forgiveness, both for his words to him at 12 GP and for his death just as he gained happiness as a husband and father.) That Snape doesn't appear among the "blessed dead" is no indication that he's not redeemed. Dobby doesn't appear there, either, or if House-Elves don't count, neither does Mad-Eye or Cedric or Tonks. Harry summons only those closest to him or whose presence he needs to give him the strength Voldemort without raising his wand to fight back. Remorse could have put Voldemort's soul back together (at least, those parts that haven't already been destroyed). Surely, remorse and nearly seventeen years of atonement have earned Snape a peaceful afterlife. We know, at least, that he earned Harry's forgiveness and respect. You don't give your son the name, even the middle name, of a person that you hold in contempt. Betsy HP: And Regulus wasn't among the blessed dead either that I recall. Carol: Of course not. Harry didn't know Regulus. Which doesn't mean that Regulus isn't "blessed" in the afterlife. It only means that Harry didn't call upon a stranger to give him courage. Instead, it's an intimate little group of friends and the parents he never knew but regarded as an inspiration. They, too, were murdered by Voldemort, as Harry would have been, too, if not for his mother's self-sacrifice. Pippin: > > > > House Elves will be freed when the House Elves want freedom, and when wizards realize what a burden their mastery is. The Houses will unite when the children want unity, and when the adults realize what a burden their discord is. > > > > Betsy Hp: > But that is a tale for another time, about another hero, to be told by a different bard. Harry's story is done and he is at rest. IOWs, it sounds like a story worth reading, but it's not the one told in the Potter series. It's not a story JKR was interested in telling. So she didn't. > > Betsy Hp > Carol: Harry's story was about the conflict between himself and Voldemort. With Voldemort destroyed, there will be no more DEs and Hogwarts, the MoM, and the rest of the WW can get back to normal, not normal as we saw it when Harry entered Hogwarts but normal as it was before Tom Riddle entered the school, recruited fellow Slytherins (and perhaps a few others) fo the DEs and opened the Chamber of Secrets (now emptied of its Basilisk). There are no more Acromantulas in the Forbidden Forest. Kingsley Shacklebolt, who view not only Muggleborns but Muggles as people, is in charge of the MoM. The way is clear for others to do their part. It was Harry's job to destroy the Horcruxes (with help) and to defeat/kill Voldemort. Surely, it's someone else's turn now. And *if* freeing the House-Elves is a good thing, it's surely Hermione, not Harry, who will bring that about. And, yes, the HP books have always been Harry's story. That's why his name is in every title. It's not "The WW and the Wayward House-Elf" or "Severus Snape and the Redemption of Slytherin." JKR likes to place the future in the hands of children or young people. So now, setting aside whatever Harry can do as an Auror (which I read as his future based on canon, not on JKR's absurd statement that he became head of the department at twenty-seven) and Hermione as a reformer, the more distant future, in which Slytherin's bravery can wipe away the stains caused by its association with Voldemort and pureblood supremacy, is in the hands of the Potter and Weasley and Malfoy children and their contemporaries. And meanwhile, Harry Potter's personal saga has the happy ending JKR has always felt that she owed him. And I see nothing wrong with that. Carol, who thinks that Harry Potter is more of a Bildungsroman than a heroic epic and he has as much in common with David Copperfield as with Achilles, Horcruxes and the Battle of Hogwarts notwithstanding From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Nov 3 01:58:31 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:58:31 -0000 Subject: RAB (wasRe: Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR and Slytherins in the final battle. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178805 > Alla: > > > And Hogwarts student from Slytherin dies while fighting Voldemort. > Alla agian:> > Regulus, yes, I do not think that the fact that he is dead means that his contribution should count as less significant, you know :) Potioncat: I'll agree, Regulus is a hero. But did you mean that he died while a student or that he had been a Slytherin while at Hogwarts. I thought he joined the DEs when he was 16, but that he was 18 when he died. We have 2 or 3 stories about him, too, don't we? If the Order members thought LV killed him, I wonder what LV was thinking? How did Lupin and Black get the idea that Regulus was killed because he tried to back out of the DEs? From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Nov 3 02:50:05 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 22:50:05 -0400 Subject: Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR /House Elf Question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178806 "Magpie: Now she's not going about it *at all.* Her heart is still "in the right place" presumably, being sickened by Kreacher punishing himself, but she's no longer telling anybody to free anybody. She just tells Harry to be a good master." I think that Hermione has realized the meaning of the saying "do not let the best be the enemy of the good." House elve liberation as a long term goal is probably her ideal, but IN THE MEANTIME, she realizes that for most house elves the choice would be between a kind master and a cruel one, and a kind one is assuredly better. 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 nirupama76 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 12:15:47 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:15:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178807 > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > > Chapter 6, The Ghoul in Pyjamas > > > > ... > > > > 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in > > this chapter? Niru: Typical Molly behavior. It is understandable but no less annoying. By now Molly should know that the Trio have got into many scrapes at school. Harry, in particular, has faced much, much more than many grown-ups. And it should also be fairly obvious that Harry is somehow at the center of the war... Molly is in the Order after all, she can't be that clueless. > > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be > > dead? If not, why did he argue that? > Niru: Wishful thinking I guess. Mad-Eye seemed like such a survivor. And the absence of a body makes it that much harder to believe that he is dead. > > 3. Did Arthur's explanation to Harry about why Grimmauld place > > cannot be Order headquarters anymore strike you as consistent with > > what we knew about how the Secret Keeper charm works prior to DH?. Niru: It did. It jelled with existing canon. > > 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that > > the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? Niru: Well... as many have said before, Ron wasn't possessed by the horcrux. He was more influenced by it than either Harry or Hermione. Somehow I didn't think JKR would use the 'possessed' card again. > > 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you > > think of the sacrifices they are making? > > bboyminn wrote: > > I think to the extent that they are able to, the understand > what they are getting themselves into, but I think their > understanding is very warped. I'm sure they realize that Harry > is withholding information from them, and that leads them to > believe that he and Dumbledore discussed and exchanged a lot > more information than they actually did. I think they are > surprised to find that Harry is just as lost as they are. > > As to their sacrifice, I think it is very brave and loyal of them. > They certainly know there will be great danger, and they willingly > go to face it. That is commendable. Niru: But Harry wasn't withholding information from them. As he tells Ron during their fight, he was straight with them from the start. They just assumed that Dumbledore would have told Harry more then he did. As for their sacrifices... I expected no less of Ron and Hermione. They've backed up Harry ever since PS and they were there for him again. They are brave and good. True friends indeed. > > 6. What were your thoughts on Hermione's explanations of > > what "Horcrux is a complete opposite of a human being" means? > > Hermione tells Ron that it should be a comfort for him if she kills > > him with a sword and his soul will not be hurt. What did you think > > about it? Niru: Fits right in with the immortal soul theme. > > 7. Where did you think Trio should start their hunt after the > > wedding? Niru: I thought they'd start in Godric's Hollow. That's where the story of Harry's encounters with Voldemort started. So it seemed as logical a place as any. JMHO. Niru From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sat Nov 3 15:16:03 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 07:16:03 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178808 On 2007, Nov 03, , at 04:15, nirupama76 wrote: >> bboyminn wrote: >> >> I think to the extent that they are able to, the understand >> what they are getting themselves into, but I think their >> understanding is very warped. I'm sure they realize that Harry >> is withholding information from them, and that leads them to >> believe that he and Dumbledore discussed and exchanged a lot >> more information than they actually did. I think they are >> surprised to find that Harry is just as lost as they are. >> >> As to their sacrifice, I think it is very brave and loyal of them. >> They certainly know there will be great danger, and they willingly >> go to face it. That is commendable. > > Niru: > > But Harry wasn't withholding information from them. As he tells Ron > during their fight, he was straight with them from the start. They > just assumed that Dumbledore would have told Harry more then he did. > > As for their sacrifices... I expected no less of Ron and Hermione. > They've backed up Harry ever since PS and they were there for him > again. They are brave and good. True friends indeed. I think it is interesting that bboyminn thinks that Harry was withholding information from them and Niru doesn't. I always got the impression that people thought Harry was withholding information, because he was reluctant to talk about things with most people. But I don't think this is the case with Ron and Hermione. He has, throughout the series, told them nearly everything. Sometimes we don't see it on the page - it just says something like "he told them all about his dream", but I never got the sense that he was withholding important information. There are a few times in canon where he withholds a portion of the information. The fact that, in a dream, VM was planning on killing someone, he told them. The fact that it was him, he withheld. But Ron and Hermione are his sounding boards. It seems to me that Harry tells them everything he knows - sometimes after the fact, but inevitably. I do think that Ron and Hermione might be wishfully thinking that there is more to what he knows about the Horcruxes, but, though I think they might expect it, I think it is unfair. But, I also think that both of them would have come along, even if they had realized that they also knew essentially everything Harry knew. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coyandbecky at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 19:17:32 2007 From: coyandbecky at yahoo.com (revaunchanistx) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:17:32 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: <4727777B.6000406@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178809 CJ: > But as others have pointed out, HP is full of unresolved story arcs -- > themes JKR introduces and then just walks away from (the whole > unresolved goblin-wizard feud was another one that left me wondering > what was the point?) -- so the house elves plot is hardly unusual in > that respect. It just strikes me as messy writing. I don't understand how it is messy writing. Sure there are many unresolved story archs in the HP books but there are many unresolved issues in life. 30 years after Martin Luther King and we still deal with racism today. Are we to say the Martin Luther King is a failure and an unresolved story arch. The whole thing that makes JKR's writing so good to me is that it is ersatz to our own world. Grand sweeping story archs and problems like house elves and goblins don't go away within the storyline of a book or in real life. So as a true parralell to slavery and racism the house-elf issue remains unresolved. revaunchanistx From coyandbecky at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 19:52:46 2007 From: coyandbecky at yahoo.com (revaunchanistx) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:52:46 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178810 > > >>Del comments: > > I still remember the horrifying moment when I first read about Harry > > entering the RoR for the first time in DH, and noticing that there > > is no Slytherin banner in it. My mind reeled with disbelief and > > shock at that time: this was just so WRONG! > > > revaunchanistx: If we look at HP's subplots as a commentary on our world as a whole it is very effective. There is no resolution in our lives for all of the problems that arise. Also I see Slytherins, Gryfindors, Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs as being far more complex than the comments made here. Is Slughorn a bad guy, Phineas Nigellus(who genuinly cared when Sirius died) what about Narcissa who after realizing that her son was in danger perpetuated the lie that Harry was dead. As for Gryffindors being the good guys, I don't see Cormac McClaggen as being a good guy. He tried to force himself on Hermione at Slughorn's Christmas party. JKR has repeatedly shown that House affiliation does not reflect a person's intent or adversion to evil. Instead of JKR's bad writing I say it is bad analization, and messy self serving reading. > Betsy Hp: > The last straw for me was the scene where Zacharias Smith flees the > Great Hall just before the final battle, shoving first years out of > his way. It was a totally unnecessary mention. I think it was the > first time Smith even appeared in DH. But it's what cemented my > opinion that JKR was writing for her own personal enjoyment or > wishfulfillment with a sort of cyncial anger, and not worried about > story structure or theme. revaunchanistx: This more than proves my above point. Zacharias Smith the Hufflepuff flees and pushes some first years out of the way. It has everything to do with story structure. Smith is not a Slytherin so the theme that anyone in any house is subject to cowardice and self serving attitudes is fullfilled in that action. Betsy Hp: (When Lizzyben (I believe?) brought up the > idea of "revenge" stories, it put a name to what I saw JKR as having > finally written.) > > [An aside: And of course JKR can write whatever she wants. I'm > just talking about my own personal enjoyment, or lack thereof.] > Throughout the HP books various characters from all houses are shown in less than flattering lights. Dumbledore is shown as a step away from joining Grindelwald and being worse than Voldemort. Slughorn is shown as a jolly old guy who likes comfort but is opposed to evil. Snape is shown as a spy who can work both sides. Nobody is EVIL and GOOD. Even Voldemort is referred to fondly along with Snape when Harry refers to the three as the "Abandoned Boys." Also, I think fair resolution to the idea that Slytherin is bad is Harry's advice to Albus. revaunchanistx From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 22:29:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:29:20 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: <4727777B.6000406@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178811 CJ (aka Lee) wrote: > This is probably the crux of the problem. The whole house-elf/slave storyline was introduced, dealt with across several books, was, by JKR's own admission, a stand-in for slavery and hence a Very Important Message, and then was never resolved on-page. > > As far as we can tell from canon, nothing changes. House elves just go on being house elves as everybody else loses interest in them as an Issue. Sure, canon leaves room to speculate otherwise, but that hardly seems a fitting conclusion to something JKR herself once declared to be a VIM. Hmm, guess it must not have been so Important after all? > > But as others have pointed out, HP is full of unresolved story arcs --themes JKR introduces and then just walks away from (the whole unresolved goblin-wizard feud was another one that left me wondering what was the point?) -- so the house elves plot is hardly unusual in that respect. It just strikes me as messy writing. JKR claims she's had the whole thing planned out for a decade, but it hardly seems possible that in all that time she could have failed to notice all those dangling loose ends. If she introduced them, she should have resolved them; if she never intended to resolve them, she should have left them on the cutting room floor. If she introduced them then later discovered she didn't have room to resolve them, that sounds like poor planning. In any case, Resolve your story arcs! seems like a pretty basic requirement of Good Writing. > Carol responds: I think even the most devoted JKR fan has to concede some sloppy writing in the books, from minor and easily resolved inconsistencies (e.g., the year in which the Statute of Secrecy was passed ow whether Moaning Myrtle lived in an S bend or a U bend) to matters like how Sirius's letter ended up in 12 GP or which spell was actually used on the Muggles at the QWC or Ron's knowing about Draco's Hand of Glory, which Harry saw Lucius refuse to buy for Draco. An author owes it to herself and her readers to conduct consistency checks and consult her own previous books as if they were reference works. However, returning to the House-Elf arc (and ignoring JKR's own statements, which hold as much water, IMO, as a leaky cauldron), maybe we should consider individual character arcs for the three House-Elves we actually know as characters rather than considering "the House-Elf arc," which may be an invention of fans who somehow expected to see hundreds of Dobbys celebrating their freedom at the end of the book despite firm indications by the Hogwarts House-Elves, Dobby, and Kreacher that they didn't want to be free. Dobby's arc begins in CoS, where he is a miserable slave abused by his masters but devoted to his own personal hero, Harry Potter. Dobby is simultaneously a pitiful figure and a comic one, and his attempts to save Harry's life land Harry in hot water (locked in his room, serving detention, or lying in the hospital wing). Harry frees him from the Malfoys, which is good in that he's no longer subject to their tyranny and abuse, but he's also unemployed and disgraced. No one wants to hire a House-Elf; they expect them to work without pay. The consequence is about a year of unemployment for Dobby, who is "freed" at the end of CoS but only comes to Hogwarts after Winky, too, has been given clothes (in her case, something more than a single dirty sock). And even Dobby, it transpires, prefers work to freedom. He only wants token wages and a few days off. His desire for clothes and wages is regarded as disgraceful by the other House-Elves, who regard him as an eccentric (and show their opinion of freedom by refusing to pick up the hats and socks that Hermione has strewn in the Gryffindor Common Room). And, in addition to having exactly the same duties as other Hogwarts House-Elves, he takes on the additional, self-imposed duty of serving Harry. Dobby voluntarily helps Harry out (tricked into doing so by Fake!Moody but that's beside the point) in both GoF and OoP, and when Harry summons the sullen and unwilling Kreacher in HBP, Dobby comes along and in essence does the job for Kreacher (who may be forced to spy on Draco but is not about to say anything bad about him). Dobby's story arc ends (ironically, given Harry's request or order in CoS never to try to save his life again) with Dobby heroically rescuing six wizards and a goblin and paying for his heroism with his life. (Since he's not Harry's slave, his death is not punishment for disobedience; it's merely a sad end to his personal tale.) Harry buries him without magic, mourning for him as he never had a chance to mourn for any of his lost friends except Dumbledore. Maybe his grief for Sirius and Hedwig and the others is finally released in the simple physical act of digging that grave; maybe it's grief for Dobby alone and a belated realization of what he owes the elf. Dobby's rough tombstone is a tribute to his ostensible freedom, which amounts, as far as I can see, to a choice of wizard masters and willing service matching the devotion of Winky to the Crouches or Kreacher to the Blacks, with the difference that he can wear an odd assortment of clothes that he buys himself instead of a tea towel. No other elf that we see in the series has any such ambition. Winky's arc is considerably shorter and begins and ends with GoF (although we're free to assume that she took her place in the Battle of Hogwarts and resigned herself to life as a Hogwarts employee with the right to refuse to be paid). We see her first as a typical House-Elf, devoted to her master(s) and obeying orders even though she's terrified of heights. Granted, Crouch's treatment of her is psychological abuse, but it doesn't match the abuse suffered by Dobby. And, of course, she's honored to be keeping the secret that Barty Jr. is concealed beside her in the seat she's supposedly reserving for Crouch Sr. We see her struggling later with the invisible Barty Fr. (an action misinterpreted by Hermione as the inability to run away) and heartlessly given clothes by her beloved master, ostensibly for disgracing him by being caught with the wand but really for letting Barty Jr. get out of her control long enough to cast the Dark Mark. (His action backfires on him, and he's later Imperiused while his son impersonates Mad-eye Moody and then murdered by that same son. If he had kept Winky with him, perhaps the Voldie/Barty Jr. plot would have been thwarted at the outset.) Winky agrees to look for work along with Dobby and ends up in the Hogwarts kitchens, but apparently the sight of happy House-Elves wearing tea towels is too much for her and the disgrace of her cute little outfit sinks in; she, unlike her fellows, is a disgraced House-Elf. Thoughts of the master who needs her add to her unhappiness and she becomes a hopeless drunk. We see the remnants of her devotion as Barty Jr. tells his tale under the influence of Veritaserum, revealing the secrets that she has so carefully concealed (not to mention that he has murdered his own father). We don't know what becomes of her after that (DD orders Madam Pomfrey to take care of her.) But both of her masters are dead, making her a free Elf by default even if she had not been given clothes. She has a job at Hogwarts if she wants it. Maybe the House Elf's love of work will win out in the end, but as of OoP, when Dobby is still using the RoR to provide a bed for her to sober up in, that hasn't happened yet. (I don't recall Winky's being mentioned in HBP.) Hers is not a happy story. It seems to be a variation on the bad master theme, and yet, in contrast to Dobby, Winky remains a traditional House-Elf in her views. Perhaps she shows the usual fate of "freed" House-Elves. Certainly, she illustrates their psychology (which Hermione quite clearly fails to grasp). Kreacher's arc begins in OoP, where we see yet another variation on the bad master, of all people, Sirius Black, Harry's Gryffindor godfather. That Kreacher is dirty, old, ugly, sullen, apparently useless, devoted to his dead mistress (herself a caricature of pure-blood bigotry and clearly insane) does not, IMO, justify Sirius's contemptuous treatment of him. Neither does Sirius's own unhappiness in that house (which, perhaps, brings out the worst in him) though it makes his attitude more understandable. Surely, he remembers Kreacher at a time when he was clean and served the family well (before the potion and Regulus's death and his own failure to carry out Regulus's last request, followed, perhaps, by his mistress's loss of her mind and certainly by the deaths of both Mr. and Mrs. Black) turned him into the dirty, unhappy creature/Kreacher that Sirius has to live with in 12 GP. Neither makes any effort to understand or cooperate with the other. To Kreacher, Sirius is a blood traitor and a criminal, perhaps a murderer, who broke his mother's heart; to Sirius, Kreacher is a filthy reminder of the pure-blood values that he rejected (along with the Dark Arts apparently practiced to some degree by his family). At least, he resists the temptation to behead Kreacher and add his head to the wall. Kreacher, like Dobby, takes advantage of the opportunity to escape from home and aid the people he thinks are his allies, or rather, his true family, Narcissa and her husband (Bellatrix is in prison when he escapes to the Malfoys' over Christmas break). He provides information that leads to the plot to lure Harry to the MoM (Sirius's death is no part of that plan; the Order is not supposed to show up). As DD (who has just used his Machiavellian tactics to force the truth out of Kreacher) tells Harry, Kreacher is what wizards have made him. The implication, I think, is that it's not fair to blame Kreacher for Sirius's death (which resulted from his own decisions to go to the MoM and fight Bellatrix on the dais). Sirius could not have freed Kreacher even if Kreacher wanted to be freed (evicted from his home and his mad portrait!mistress), and Harry is faced with the same predicament when he inherits Kreacher as part of the Black estate. He solves the problem by ordering Kreacher to Hogwarts (where it's unlikely that he does any work, being both filthy and not a true Hogwarts House-Elf. He subverts the one mission on which Harry sends him by reporting that the pure-blood Malfoy boy, whom he would be happy to serve, goes to classes and meals and his dormitory like any other student. (Dobby, of course, provides the information that Draco is spending much of his time outside the RoR guarded by what appear to be a variety of Hogwarts students.) In DH we find out at last where Kreacher's loyalties lie (with Regulus) and why; Harry gets a lesson in House-Elf psychology; Kreacher gets to fulfill his former master's orders at last by helping to locate the old locket so it can be destroyed (and receives the fake locket as a keepsake). This change in Harry's outlook and apparent alliance between his old and new masters causes a transformation in Kreacher, who is now more than happy to serve Harry (and hit the smelly criminal Mundungus on the head with a saucepan in one of my favorite DH moments). All's well with the newly clean, happy, and useful Kreacher until Yaxley shows up at 23 GP instead of HRH, at which point he flees to Hogwarts and disappears from view until he emerges to lead a troop of House-elves to fight in the name of Regulus, presumably against oppression. (The fate of the House-Elves if Voldemort took over Hogwarts does not bear thinking about.) We can assume that the reformed Kreacher befriended the elves of Hogwarts and joined them in their cooking and cleaning; otherwise, it's unlikely that they would have followed him into battle. Perhaps having Harry Potter as his master gave him status among them, too. (Whether Kreacher and Dobby became friends must be left up to the imagination.) At any rate, alone of the House-Elf arcs, Kreacher's has a happy ending. And, yes, getting Master Harry a well-earned sandwich would make Kreacher happy. As for House-Elf freedom, it was never in the picture--just a misguided dream of Hermione's and the choice of one eccentric House-Elf for whom freedom meant buying his own mismatched clothes and serving the master(s) of his choice. Carol, who thinks there never was a House-Elf arc per se and that we're meant to see SPEW as a misguided attempt at helping those who neither need nor want that kind of help From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 23:24:50 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:24:50 -0000 Subject: Portrayal of MoM in the series VERY LONG BEWARE Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178812 Everything that said below is my interpretation of the canon facts, MY OPINION. I am arguing one side here and not trying to be neutral at all, that does not mean that I think this is the only possible interpretation. "Ministry o' Magic messin' things up as usual" (Hagrid, PS/SS, am.ed. paperback) I always loved how consistently Rowling portrayed corruption of the ministry throughout the series and when I look back now I can also see how elegantly she foreshadowed its fall as well. This post is just an attempt to show the canon support for this and not all inclusive either, so feel free to add if you wish. >From the beginning of the series we get one message pretty clear IMO. Ministry of Magic and its Minister is a bunch of incompetent morons and Minister wants Dumbledore's advice on every single matter. "They wanted Dumbledore fer Minister, o' course, but he'd never leave Hogwarts, so old Cornelius Fudge got the job. Bugger if Here comes Chamber of Secrets and we see no one else but Minister of magic himself taking Hagrid to Azkaban. Was Hagrid convicted of any sort of crime? Was he convicted of attacking muggleborns or anything like that? No, it turns out in WW you can be taken to the prison with most horrible guards as **precaution** simply if Ministry deems so. Oh dear. As precaution. But of course there is a reason why Ministry decided to take Hagrid in prison as precaution and not say Lucius Malfoy for example. In his past Hagrid was framed by lovely Tommy as we know. I guess for Ministry that is enough to think that you are a criminal for life. "Bad business, Hagrid," said Fudge in rather clipped tones. "Very bad business. Had to come. Four attacks on Muggle-borns. Things've gone far enough. Ministry's got to act." "I never," said Hagrid, looking imploringly at Dumbledore. "You know I never, Professor Dumbledore, sir -" "I want it understood, Cornelius, that Hagrid has my full confidence," said Dumbledore, frowning at Fudge. "Look, Albus," said Fudge, uncomfortably. "Hagrid's record's against him. Ministry's got to do something - the school governors have been in touch -" "Yet again, Cornelius, I tell you that taking Hagrid away will not help in the slightest," said Dumbledore. His blue eyes were full of a fire Harry had never seen before. "Look at it from my point of view," said Fudge, fidgeting with his bowler. "I'm under a lot of pressure. Got to be seen to be doing something. If it turns out it wasn't Hagrid, he'll be back and no more said. But I've got to take him. Got to. Wouldn't be doing my duty -" "Take me?" said Hagrid, who was trembling. "Take me where?" "For a short stretch only," said Fudge, not meeting Hagrid's eyes. "Not a punishment, Hagrid, more a precaution. If someone else is caught, you'll be let out with a full apology -" "Not Azkaban?" croaked Hagrid." - Chamber of Secrets, ch.15, paperback, am.ed. TELL ME WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE AND I WILL TELL YOU EVERYTHING ABOUT YOURSELF. Alla: >From CoS to GoF we see Cornelius Fudge and Lucius Malfoy getting closer and closer and closer. I wonder what does it say about Fudge, folks. Here is Lucius Malfoy with the order to suspend Dumbledore in CoS. "Dreadful thing, Dumbledore," said Malfoy lazily, taking out a long roll of parchment, "but the governors feel it's time for you to step aside. This is an Order of Suspension - you'll find all twelve signatures on it. I'm afraid we feel you're losing your touch. How many attacks have there been now? Two more this afternoon, wasn't it? At this rate, there'll be no Muggle-borns left at Hogwarts, and we all know what an awful loss that would be to the school." "Oh, now, see here, Lucius," said Fudge, looking alarmed, "Dumbledore suspended - no, no - last thing we want just now "The appointment - or suspension - of the headmaster is a matter for the governors, Fudge," said Mr. Malfoy smoothly. "And as Dumbledore has failed to stop these attacks -" "See here, Malfoy, if Dumbledore can't stop them," said Fudge, whose upper lip was sweating now, "I mean to say, who can?" "That remains to be seen," said Mr. Malfoy with a nasty smile. "But as all twelve of us have voted -" Hagrid leapt to his feet, his shaggy black head grazing the ceiling. 'An' how many did yeh have ter threaten an' blackmail before they agreed, Malfoy, eh?" he roared. "Dear, dear, you know, that temper of yours will lead you into trouble one of these days, Hagrid," said Mr. Malfoy. "I would advise you not to shout at the Azkaban guards like that. They won't like it at all." ? CoS, ch.15. Alla: I had no doubt myself that Lucius Malfoy's political power is more than Minister of Magic Fudge will ever dream of having. I thought it was clear that Fudge does not want Dumbledore suspended, but whatever Malfoy says goes. "Very strange tales they told me, too .... Several of them seemed to think that you had threatened to curse their families if they didn't agree to suspend me in the first place." - CoS Malfoy gets kicked out of the Board at the end, but in PoA we see that he has enough power to have the whole committee of disposal of magical creatures at his fingertips. And he is being better and better buddies with Minister Fudge it looks to me. We see in GoF that Lucius Malfoy is at Quidditch cup as no less than guest of Minister of Magic himself, because of his generous contribution to St. Mungo Hospital ( GoF, am.ed., p.101, paperback). It looks to me as political and financial power of Malfoy Sr. is on the rise and nothing less as being caught as DE one book later was able to stop it. BACK to the MINISTRY. So, after what happened to Hagrid in CoS I really was not surprised to read about what happened to Sirius. I mean, I was surprised by plot of PoA, do not get me wrong, LOL. I am just saying that when I read the story about man being sent to Azkaban for crime he did not commit, I was not *shocked* by Ministry at all. I was like, oh it is Hagrid all over again, only in more horrifying way. Here they did not find a culprit in days or weeks, so Sirius had to suffer for years. I also think that even good people working at the Ministry get sucked in the atmosphere of corruption of power, no matter how harmless it is to me on the grand scale of things. I love Weasleys by and large, no matter if I sometimes have Molly's issues and Arthur I just love. But eh, writing a law and make a loophole to be able to amuse oneself with muggle car seems just wrong to me. Of course I refuse to think that it means that Arthur will ever write a law that would truly hurt somebody, so to me it is relatively harmless, but I am just saying that it is telling to me of what Ministry of Magic truly is. Of course Arthur does not get to be a personal guest of Minister of magic, he is stuck in the job with low pay for years, so I guess everything is relative, but I think the atmosphere of we can do anything we wish sort of influenced him in this situation. By the way, the fact that he got good seats to World Cup did not bother me one bit. I saw no evidence that he did not pay for them or that because of that somebody did not get their tickets. Maybe Department of Sport official did not want to go and sold the seats given to him to Arthur. Fine by me. As an aside, for the reason that I was absolutely convinced that Ministry is unequivocally portrayed as bad place, despite the fact that several good people work there, I was absolutely sure that no matter how Percy' storyline ends, it will not end with Arthur apologizing to him. I cannot claim that I knew what JKR had in store for Percy, but this one thing I was sure of. I knew that if Percy comes back, he will be the only person apologizing. Since he chose the Ministry, which condemned Sirius' without a trial, Ministry who almost expelled Harry, Ministry who sent Dolores Umbridge to Hogwarts over his family. Again, I do not claim great prediction powers, I thought Percy will die likely enough, but when I thought he would not die, I knew that if somebody will be apologizing, he will be the only one. Of course I think corruption and other weaknesses of the Ministry are shown in all its glory in OOP more than any other books. In the infamous conversation between Dumbledore and Fudge in GoF we finally hear that they have very different ideas of how to fight a war. "You are blinded," said Dumbledore, his voice rising now, by the love of the office you hold, Cornelius! You place too much importance, and you always have done , on the so called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!" ? GoF, p.708, paperback. "Now, see here, Dumbledore," he said, waiving a threatening finger. "I've given you free reign, always. I have had a lot of respect for you. I might have not agreed with some of your decisions, but I have kept quiet. There aren't many who'd have let you hire werewolves, or keep Hagrid, or decide what to teach your students without reference to the Ministry." ? GoF, p.709. Let's read the last line again : decide what to teach your students without reference to the Ministry. And this is connection to Hermione's "Ministry is interfering in Hogwarts" in OOP, isn't it? My disdain for MoM as an institution of power reached all time low with arrival of Dolores Umbridge. Dolores Umbridge is a ministry official after all, let me say it again, Dolores Umbridge is a ministry official. This woman sent Dementors on the student. This woman used blood quill on at least two students. This woman thought that students do not need to learn practical DADA spells in class. This woman actively promoted the "Voldemort is not back" line of the Ministry and did as we all know many horrible things. That woman is a ministry official and not only an official but in the position of leadership. I do not see how the MOM can be viewed with any sort of sympathy till people like Umbridge work there, again despite many good people working there as well. We see MOM actively trying to discredit Dumbledore and Harry and trying to tell wizarding population that No, Voldemort is not back. Of course not, how can he be? He is not back and we will put our head in the sand and leave it there. It is funny how little it takes for the Ministry to finally believe that Voldemort is back. It only takes one person's death, right? "HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED RETURNS `In a brief statement on Friday night, Minister for Magic Cornelius Fudge confirmed that He Who Must Not Be Named has returned to this country and is once more active. "`It is with great regret that I must confirm that the wizard styling himself Lord - well, you know who I mean - is alive and among us again," said Fudge, looking tired and flustered as he addressed reporters. "It is with almost equal regret that we report the mass revolt of the Dementors of Azkaban, who have shown themselves averse to continuing in the Ministry's employ. We believe the Dementors are currently taking direction from Lord - Thingy. "`We urge the magical population to remain vigilant. The Ministry is currently publishing guides to elementary home and personal defence which will be delivered free to all wizarding homes within the coming month. " `The Minister's statement was met with dismay and alarm from the wizarding community, which as recently as last Wednesday was receiving Ministry assurances that there was "no truth whatsoever in these persistent rumours that You-Know-Who is operating amongst us once more"." - OOP, p.845, paperback. So, one would think that now Ministry will do their best to prepare people to war and start doing smart things, right? In HBP we see Fudge telling Muggle prime minister that his junior minister is under Imperius curse. I thought it was a nice foreshadowing of Pius Thickness being under Imperius in DH. In fact, I thought (in retrospect obviously, since I totally did not predict that the Ministry will fall in DH) that one of the reasons JKR wrote this chapter was to stick in some hints that Ministry will fall in DH> I mean, we know DE can get really close to high politicians now, again Quacking minister as an example. Witness DH and just see how close they can get. Witness Voldemort being so kind as personally going after the only strong and powerful witch who is also as we know firmly on the side of good and who probably can resist Imperius, resist bribes, etc. I am of course talking about Voldemort being as kind as personally go and kill Amelia Bones, who put up a fight, but was unable to win. And of course we see that Fudge is being sacked. "My dear Prime Minister, you can't honestly think I'm still Minister of Magic after all this? I was sacked three days ago! The whole Wizarding community has been screaming for my resignation for a fortnight. I've never known them so united in my whole term of office!" said Fudge, with a brave attempt at a smile." ? HBP, ch.1 "I won't deny that morale is pretty low at the Ministry," said Fudge. "What with all that, and then losing Amelia Bones." "Losing who?" "Amelia Bones. Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. We think He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named may have murdered her in person, because she was a very gifted witch and--and all the evidence was that she put up a real fight." ( HBP, ch.1) Alla: Isn't it beautifully done? At the beginning of HBP morale is already pretty low at the Ministry, should it be really wonder how Voldemort and co managed to get in? Funny, JKR mentioned in the interview that in the first war Voldemort could not that far because he was unable to infiltrate the ministry. For those of you who consider interview at least somewhat canonical, why do you think he was unable to infiltrate Ministry in the first war? I mean, from what we hear the atmosphere of mutual distrust and fear was also there. What do you think was different? Well, what happened in DH we all know and of course in the days before the takeover, Scrimgeour shut himself in his office and as many people hoped to work on the plan, but even if he was, obviously plan was not successful? Again, all that I attempted to do was to show that JKR portrayed Ministry or at least its leaders in a very consistent way through the books ? as bunch of corrupted, incompetent and often evil morons. Thanks for reading guys. JMO, Alla From kspilman at hotmail.com Sun Nov 4 01:21:06 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:21:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Portrayal of MoM in the series VERY LONG BEWARE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178813 Katie: Lucius is a big facor in the fall of the ministry I think. Yes he is in Azkaban by the time the MoM falls, but as your post points out he gained a lot of strong friends and influence while LV was "out." This made the MoM easy pickings because it was essentially already infiltrated from the moment LV came back, while before it seems that most people were being recruited into the DEs straight from Hogwarts w/o ever working at the MoM or anywhere else. In reading through your post I noticed something for the first time. In CoS JKR refers to Lucius as Mr. Malfoy but by OoP she refers to him almost exclusively as Lucius or Lucius Malfoy. I wonder why. To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 23:24:50 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Portrayal of MoM in the series VERY LONG BEWARE Everything that said below is my interpretation of the canon facts, MY OPINION. I am arguing one side here and not trying to be neutral at all, that does not mean that I think this is the only possible interpretation. "Ministry o' Magic messin' things up as usual" (Hagrid, PS/SS, am.ed. paperback) I always loved how consistently Rowling portrayed corruption of the ministry throughout the series and when I look back now I can also see how elegantly she foreshadowed its fall as well. This post is just an attempt to show the canon support for this and not all inclusive either, so feel free to add if you wish. >From the beginning of the series we get one message pretty clear IMO. Ministry of Magic and its Minister is a bunch of incompetent morons and Minister wants Dumbledore's advice on every single matter. "They wanted Dumbledore fer Minister, o' course, but he'd never leave Hogwarts, so old Cornelius Fudge got the job. Bugger if Here comes Chamber of Secrets and we see no one else but Minister of magic himself taking Hagrid to Azkaban. Was Hagrid convicted of any sort of crime? Was he convicted of attacking muggleborns or anything like that? No, it turns out in WW you can be taken to the prison with most horrible guards as **precaution** simply if Ministry deems so. Oh dear. As precaution. But of course there is a reason why Ministry decided to take Hagrid in prison as precaution and not say Lucius Malfoy for example. In his past Hagrid was framed by lovely Tommy as we know. I guess for Ministry that is enough to think that you are a criminal for life. "Bad business, Hagrid," said Fudge in rather clipped tones. "Very bad business. Had to come. Four attacks on Muggle-borns. Things've gone far enough. Ministry's got to act." "I never," said Hagrid, looking imploringly at Dumbledore. "You know I never, Professor Dumbledore, sir -" "I want it understood, Cornelius, that Hagrid has my full confidence," said Dumbledore, frowning at Fudge. "Look, Albus," said Fudge, uncomfortably. "Hagrid's record's against him. Ministry's got to do something - the school governors have been in touch -" "Yet again, Cornelius, I tell you that taking Hagrid away will not help in the slightest," said Dumbledore. His blue eyes were full of a fire Harry had never seen before. "Look at it from my point of view," said Fudge, fidgeting with his bowler. "I'm under a lot of pressure. Got to be seen to be doing something. If it turns out it wasn't Hagrid, he'll be back and no more said. But I've got to take him. Got to. Wouldn't be doing my duty -" "Take me?" said Hagrid, who was trembling. "Take me where?" "For a short stretch only," said Fudge, not meeting Hagrid's eyes. "Not a punishment, Hagrid, more a precaution. If someone else is caught, you'll be let out with a full apology -" "Not Azkaban?" croaked Hagrid." - Chamber of Secrets, ch.15, paperback, am.ed. TELL ME WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE AND I WILL TELL YOU EVERYTHING ABOUT YOURSELF. Alla: >From CoS to GoF we see Cornelius Fudge and Lucius Malfoy getting closer and closer and closer. I wonder what does it say about Fudge, folks. Here is Lucius Malfoy with the order to suspend Dumbledore in CoS. "Dreadful thing, Dumbledore," said Malfoy lazily, taking out a long roll of parchment, "but the governors feel it's time for you to step aside. This is an Order of Suspension - you'll find all twelve signatures on it. I'm afraid we feel you're losing your touch. How many attacks have there been now? Two more this afternoon, wasn't it? At this rate, there'll be no Muggle-borns left at Hogwarts, and we all know what an awful loss that would be to the school." "Oh, now, see here, Lucius," said Fudge, looking alarmed, "Dumbledore suspended - no, no - last thing we want just now "The appointment - or suspension - of the headmaster is a matter for the governors, Fudge," said Mr. Malfoy smoothly. "And as Dumbledore has failed to stop these attacks -" "See here, Malfoy, if Dumbledore can't stop them," said Fudge, whose upper lip was sweating now, "I mean to say, who can?" "That remains to be seen," said Mr. Malfoy with a nasty smile. "But as all twelve of us have voted -" Hagrid leapt to his feet, his shaggy black head grazing the ceiling. 'An' how many did yeh have ter threaten an' blackmail before they agreed, Malfoy, eh?" he roared. "Dear, dear, you know, that temper of yours will lead you into trouble one of these days, Hagrid," said Mr. Malfoy. "I would advise you not to shout at the Azkaban guards like that. They won't like it at all." ? CoS, ch.15. Alla: I had no doubt myself that Lucius Malfoy's political power is more than Minister of Magic Fudge will ever dream of having. I thought it was clear that Fudge does not want Dumbledore suspended, but whatever Malfoy says goes. "Very strange tales they told me, too .... Several of them seemed to think that you had threatened to curse their families if they didn't agree to suspend me in the first place." - CoS Malfoy gets kicked out of the Board at the end, but in PoA we see that he has enough power to have the whole committee of disposal of magical creatures at his fingertips. And he is being better and better buddies with Minister Fudge it looks to me. We see in GoF that Lucius Malfoy is at Quidditch cup as no less than guest of Minister of Magic himself, because of his generous contribution to St. Mungo Hospital ( GoF, am.ed., p.101, paperback). It looks to me as political and financial power of Malfoy Sr. is on the rise and nothing less as being caught as DE one book later was able to stop it. BACK to the MINISTRY. So, after what happened to Hagrid in CoS I really was not surprised to read about what happened to Sirius. I mean, I was surprised by plot of PoA, do not get me wrong, LOL. I am just saying that when I read the story about man being sent to Azkaban for crime he did not commit, I was not *shocked* by Ministry at all. I was like, oh it is Hagrid all over again, only in more horrifying way. Here they did not find a culprit in days or weeks, so Sirius had to suffer for years. I also think that even good people working at the Ministry get sucked in the atmosphere of corruption of power, no matter how harmless it is to me on the grand scale of things. I love Weasleys by and large, no matter if I sometimes have Molly's issues and Arthur I just love. But eh, writing a law and make a loophole to be able to amuse oneself with muggle car seems just wrong to me. Of course I refuse to think that it means that Arthur will ever write a law that would truly hurt somebody, so to me it is relatively harmless, but I am just saying that it is telling to me of what Ministry of Magic truly is. Of course Arthur does not get to be a personal guest of Minister of magic, he is stuck in the job with low pay for years, so I guess everything is relative, but I think the atmosphere of we can do anything we wish sort of influenced him in this situation. By the way, the fact that he got good seats to World Cup did not bother me one bit. I saw no evidence that he did not pay for them or that because of that somebody did not get their tickets. Maybe Department of Sport official did not want to go and sold the seats given to him to Arthur. Fine by me. As an aside, for the reason that I was absolutely convinced that Ministry is unequivocally portrayed as bad place, despite the fact that several good people work there, I was absolutely sure that no matter how Percy' storyline ends, it will not end with Arthur apologizing to him. I cannot claim that I knew what JKR had in store for Percy, but this one thing I was sure of. I knew that if Percy comes back, he will be the only person apologizing. Since he chose the Ministry, which condemned Sirius' without a trial, Ministry who almost expelled Harry, Ministry who sent Dolores Umbridge to Hogwarts over his family. Again, I do not claim great prediction powers, I thought Percy will die likely enough, but when I thought he would not die, I knew that if somebody will be apologizing, he will be the only one. Of course I think corruption and other weaknesses of the Ministry are shown in all its glory in OOP more than any other books. In the infamous conversation between Dumbledore and Fudge in GoF we finally hear that they have very different ideas of how to fight a war. "You are blinded," said Dumbledore, his voice rising now, by the love of the office you hold, Cornelius! You place too much importance, and you always have done , on the so called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!" ? GoF, p.708, paperback. "Now, see here, Dumbledore," he said, waiving a threatening finger. "I've given you free reign, always. I have had a lot of respect for you. I might have not agreed with some of your decisions, but I have kept quiet. There aren't many who'd have let you hire werewolves, or keep Hagrid, or decide what to teach your students without reference to the Ministry." ? GoF, p.709. Let's read the last line again : decide what to teach your students without reference to the Ministry. And this is connection to Hermione's "Ministry is interfering in Hogwarts" in OOP, isn't it? My disdain for MoM as an institution of power reached all time low with arrival of Dolores Umbridge. Dolores Umbridge is a ministry official after all, let me say it again, Dolores Umbridge is a ministry official. This woman sent Dementors on the student. This woman used blood quill on at least two students. This woman thought that students do not need to learn practical DADA spells in class. This woman actively promoted the "Voldemort is not back" line of the Ministry and did as we all know many horrible things. That woman is a ministry official and not only an official but in the position of leadership. I do not see how the MOM can be viewed with any sort of sympathy till people like Umbridge work there, again despite many good people working there as well. We see MOM actively trying to discredit Dumbledore and Harry and trying to tell wizarding population that No, Voldemort is not back. Of course not, how can he be? He is not back and we will put our head in the sand and leave it there. It is funny how little it takes for the Ministry to finally believe that Voldemort is back. It only takes one person's death, right? "HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED RETURNS `In a brief statement on Friday night, Minister for Magic Cornelius Fudge confirmed that He Who Must Not Be Named has returned to this country and is once more active. "`It is with great regret that I must confirm that the wizard styling himself Lord - well, you know who I mean - is alive and among us again," said Fudge, looking tired and flustered as he addressed reporters. "It is with almost equal regret that we report the mass revolt of the Dementors of Azkaban, who have shown themselves averse to continuing in the Ministry's employ. We believe the Dementors are currently taking direction from Lord - Thingy. "`We urge the magical population to remain vigilant. The Ministry is currently publishing guides to elementary home and personal defence which will be delivered free to all wizarding homes within the coming month. " `The Minister's statement was met with dismay and alarm from the wizarding community, which as recently as last Wednesday was receiving Ministry assurances that there was "no truth whatsoever in these persistent rumours that You-Know-Who is operating amongst us once more"." - OOP, p.845, paperback. So, one would think that now Ministry will do their best to prepare people to war and start doing smart things, right? In HBP we see Fudge telling Muggle prime minister that his junior minister is under Imperius curse. I thought it was a nice foreshadowing of Pius Thickness being under Imperius in DH. In fact, I thought (in retrospect obviously, since I totally did not predict that the Ministry will fall in DH) that one of the reasons JKR wrote this chapter was to stick in some hints that Ministry will fall in DH> I mean, we know DE can get really close to high politicians now, again Quacking minister as an example. Witness DH and just see how close they can get. Witness Voldemort being so kind as personally going after the only strong and powerful witch who is also as we know firmly on the side of good and who probably can resist Imperius, resist bribes, etc. I am of course talking about Voldemort being as kind as personally go and kill Amelia Bones, who put up a fight, but was unable to win. And of course we see that Fudge is being sacked. "My dear Prime Minister, you can't honestly think I'm still Minister of Magic after all this? I was sacked three days ago! The whole Wizarding community has been screaming for my resignation for a fortnight. I've never known them so united in my whole term of office!" said Fudge, with a brave attempt at a smile." ? HBP, ch.1 "I won't deny that morale is pretty low at the Ministry," said Fudge. "What with all that, and then losing Amelia Bones." "Losing who?" "Amelia Bones. Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. We think He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named may have murdered her in person, because she was a very gifted witch and--and all the evidence was that she put up a real fight." ( HBP, ch.1) Alla: Isn't it beautifully done? At the beginning of HBP morale is already pretty low at the Ministry, should it be really wonder how Voldemort and co managed to get in? Funny, JKR mentioned in the interview that in the first war Voldemort could not that far because he was unable to infiltrate the ministry. For those of you who consider interview at least somewhat canonical, why do you think he was unable to infiltrate Ministry in the first war? I mean, from what we hear the atmosphere of mutual distrust and fear was also there. What do you think was different? Well, what happened in DH we all know and of course in the days before the takeover, Scrimgeour shut himself in his office and as many people hoped to work on the plan, but even if he was, obviously plan was not successful? Again, all that I attempted to do was to show that JKR portrayed Ministry or at least its leaders in a very consistent way through the books ? as bunch of corrupted, incompetent and often evil morons. Thanks for reading guys. JMO, Alla _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ? together at last. ?Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kspilman at hotmail.com Sun Nov 4 01:26:18 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:26:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Portrayal of MoM in the series VERY LONG BEWARE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178814 Katie: Also, semi-retired DEs are people who are obviously drawn to power, so when LV fell the MoM would be the next best place to seek power so people like McNair and the dementors would seek out the MoM so they could have official permission for their unpleasant deeds. The MoM would be the most powerful organization to join after LV fell, but before he fell no one would be drawn to the MoM because LV has less restraints than the MoM does on the actions of those who want power. Just my two cents To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 23:24:50 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Portrayal of MoM in the series VERY LONG BEWARE Everything that said below is my interpretation of the canon facts, MY OPINION. I am arguing one side here and not trying to be neutral at all, that does not mean that I think this is the only possible interpretation. "Ministry o' Magic messin' things up as usual" (Hagrid, PS/SS, am.ed. paperback) I always loved how consistently Rowling portrayed corruption of the ministry throughout the series and when I look back now I can also see how elegantly she foreshadowed its fall as well. This post is just an attempt to show the canon support for this and not all inclusive either, so feel free to add if you wish. >From the beginning of the series we get one message pretty clear IMO. Ministry of Magic and its Minister is a bunch of incompetent morons and Minister wants Dumbledore's advice on every single matter. "They wanted Dumbledore fer Minister, o' course, but he'd never leave Hogwarts, so old Cornelius Fudge got the job. Bugger if Here comes Chamber of Secrets and we see no one else but Minister of magic himself taking Hagrid to Azkaban. Was Hagrid convicted of any sort of crime? Was he convicted of attacking muggleborns or anything like that? No, it turns out in WW you can be taken to the prison with most horrible guards as **precaution** simply if Ministry deems so. Oh dear. As precaution. But of course there is a reason why Ministry decided to take Hagrid in prison as precaution and not say Lucius Malfoy for example. In his past Hagrid was framed by lovely Tommy as we know. I guess for Ministry that is enough to think that you are a criminal for life. "Bad business, Hagrid," said Fudge in rather clipped tones. "Very bad business. Had to come. Four attacks on Muggle-borns. Things've gone far enough. Ministry's got to act." "I never," said Hagrid, looking imploringly at Dumbledore. "You know I never, Professor Dumbledore, sir -" "I want it understood, Cornelius, that Hagrid has my full confidence," said Dumbledore, frowning at Fudge. "Look, Albus," said Fudge, uncomfortably. "Hagrid's record's against him. Ministry's got to do something - the school governors have been in touch -" "Yet again, Cornelius, I tell you that taking Hagrid away will not help in the slightest," said Dumbledore. His blue eyes were full of a fire Harry had never seen before. "Look at it from my point of view," said Fudge, fidgeting with his bowler. "I'm under a lot of pressure. Got to be seen to be doing something. If it turns out it wasn't Hagrid, he'll be back and no more said. But I've got to take him. Got to. Wouldn't be doing my duty -" "Take me?" said Hagrid, who was trembling. "Take me where?" "For a short stretch only," said Fudge, not meeting Hagrid's eyes. "Not a punishment, Hagrid, more a precaution. If someone else is caught, you'll be let out with a full apology -" "Not Azkaban?" croaked Hagrid." - Chamber of Secrets, ch.15, paperback, am.ed. TELL ME WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE AND I WILL TELL YOU EVERYTHING ABOUT YOURSELF. Alla: >From CoS to GoF we see Cornelius Fudge and Lucius Malfoy getting closer and closer and closer. I wonder what does it say about Fudge, folks. Here is Lucius Malfoy with the order to suspend Dumbledore in CoS. "Dreadful thing, Dumbledore," said Malfoy lazily, taking out a long roll of parchment, "but the governors feel it's time for you to step aside. This is an Order of Suspension - you'll find all twelve signatures on it. I'm afraid we feel you're losing your touch. How many attacks have there been now? Two more this afternoon, wasn't it? At this rate, there'll be no Muggle-borns left at Hogwarts, and we all know what an awful loss that would be to the school." "Oh, now, see here, Lucius," said Fudge, looking alarmed, "Dumbledore suspended - no, no - last thing we want just now "The appointment - or suspension - of the headmaster is a matter for the governors, Fudge," said Mr. Malfoy smoothly. "And as Dumbledore has failed to stop these attacks -" "See here, Malfoy, if Dumbledore can't stop them," said Fudge, whose upper lip was sweating now, "I mean to say, who can?" "That remains to be seen," said Mr. Malfoy with a nasty smile. "But as all twelve of us have voted -" Hagrid leapt to his feet, his shaggy black head grazing the ceiling. 'An' how many did yeh have ter threaten an' blackmail before they agreed, Malfoy, eh?" he roared. "Dear, dear, you know, that temper of yours will lead you into trouble one of these days, Hagrid," said Mr. Malfoy. "I would advise you not to shout at the Azkaban guards like that. They won't like it at all." ? CoS, ch.15. Alla: I had no doubt myself that Lucius Malfoy's political power is more than Minister of Magic Fudge will ever dream of having. I thought it was clear that Fudge does not want Dumbledore suspended, but whatever Malfoy says goes. "Very strange tales they told me, too .... Several of them seemed to think that you had threatened to curse their families if they didn't agree to suspend me in the first place." - CoS Malfoy gets kicked out of the Board at the end, but in PoA we see that he has enough power to have the whole committee of disposal of magical creatures at his fingertips. And he is being better and better buddies with Minister Fudge it looks to me. We see in GoF that Lucius Malfoy is at Quidditch cup as no less than guest of Minister of Magic himself, because of his generous contribution to St. Mungo Hospital ( GoF, am.ed., p.101, paperback). It looks to me as political and financial power of Malfoy Sr. is on the rise and nothing less as being caught as DE one book later was able to stop it. BACK to the MINISTRY. So, after what happened to Hagrid in CoS I really was not surprised to read about what happened to Sirius. I mean, I was surprised by plot of PoA, do not get me wrong, LOL. I am just saying that when I read the story about man being sent to Azkaban for crime he did not commit, I was not *shocked* by Ministry at all. I was like, oh it is Hagrid all over again, only in more horrifying way. Here they did not find a culprit in days or weeks, so Sirius had to suffer for years. I also think that even good people working at the Ministry get sucked in the atmosphere of corruption of power, no matter how harmless it is to me on the grand scale of things. I love Weasleys by and large, no matter if I sometimes have Molly's issues and Arthur I just love. But eh, writing a law and make a loophole to be able to amuse oneself with muggle car seems just wrong to me. Of course I refuse to think that it means that Arthur will ever write a law that would truly hurt somebody, so to me it is relatively harmless, but I am just saying that it is telling to me of what Ministry of Magic truly is. Of course Arthur does not get to be a personal guest of Minister of magic, he is stuck in the job with low pay for years, so I guess everything is relative, but I think the atmosphere of we can do anything we wish sort of influenced him in this situation. By the way, the fact that he got good seats to World Cup did not bother me one bit. I saw no evidence that he did not pay for them or that because of that somebody did not get their tickets. Maybe Department of Sport official did not want to go and sold the seats given to him to Arthur. Fine by me. As an aside, for the reason that I was absolutely convinced that Ministry is unequivocally portrayed as bad place, despite the fact that several good people work there, I was absolutely sure that no matter how Percy' storyline ends, it will not end with Arthur apologizing to him. I cannot claim that I knew what JKR had in store for Percy, but this one thing I was sure of. I knew that if Percy comes back, he will be the only person apologizing. Since he chose the Ministry, which condemned Sirius' without a trial, Ministry who almost expelled Harry, Ministry who sent Dolores Umbridge to Hogwarts over his family. Again, I do not claim great prediction powers, I thought Percy will die likely enough, but when I thought he would not die, I knew that if somebody will be apologizing, he will be the only one. Of course I think corruption and other weaknesses of the Ministry are shown in all its glory in OOP more than any other books. In the infamous conversation between Dumbledore and Fudge in GoF we finally hear that they have very different ideas of how to fight a war. "You are blinded," said Dumbledore, his voice rising now, by the love of the office you hold, Cornelius! You place too much importance, and you always have done , on the so called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!" ? GoF, p.708, paperback. "Now, see here, Dumbledore," he said, waiving a threatening finger. "I've given you free reign, always. I have had a lot of respect for you. I might have not agreed with some of your decisions, but I have kept quiet. There aren't many who'd have let you hire werewolves, or keep Hagrid, or decide what to teach your students without reference to the Ministry." ? GoF, p.709. Let's read the last line again : decide what to teach your students without reference to the Ministry. And this is connection to Hermione's "Ministry is interfering in Hogwarts" in OOP, isn't it? My disdain for MoM as an institution of power reached all time low with arrival of Dolores Umbridge. Dolores Umbridge is a ministry official after all, let me say it again, Dolores Umbridge is a ministry official. This woman sent Dementors on the student. This woman used blood quill on at least two students. This woman thought that students do not need to learn practical DADA spells in class. This woman actively promoted the "Voldemort is not back" line of the Ministry and did as we all know many horrible things. That woman is a ministry official and not only an official but in the position of leadership. I do not see how the MOM can be viewed with any sort of sympathy till people like Umbridge work there, again despite many good people working there as well. We see MOM actively trying to discredit Dumbledore and Harry and trying to tell wizarding population that No, Voldemort is not back. Of course not, how can he be? He is not back and we will put our head in the sand and leave it there. It is funny how little it takes for the Ministry to finally believe that Voldemort is back. It only takes one person's death, right? "HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED RETURNS `In a brief statement on Friday night, Minister for Magic Cornelius Fudge confirmed that He Who Must Not Be Named has returned to this country and is once more active. "`It is with great regret that I must confirm that the wizard styling himself Lord - well, you know who I mean - is alive and among us again," said Fudge, looking tired and flustered as he addressed reporters. "It is with almost equal regret that we report the mass revolt of the Dementors of Azkaban, who have shown themselves averse to continuing in the Ministry's employ. We believe the Dementors are currently taking direction from Lord - Thingy. "`We urge the magical population to remain vigilant. The Ministry is currently publishing guides to elementary home and personal defence which will be delivered free to all wizarding homes within the coming month. " `The Minister's statement was met with dismay and alarm from the wizarding community, which as recently as last Wednesday was receiving Ministry assurances that there was "no truth whatsoever in these persistent rumours that You-Know-Who is operating amongst us once more"." - OOP, p.845, paperback. So, one would think that now Ministry will do their best to prepare people to war and start doing smart things, right? In HBP we see Fudge telling Muggle prime minister that his junior minister is under Imperius curse. I thought it was a nice foreshadowing of Pius Thickness being under Imperius in DH. In fact, I thought (in retrospect obviously, since I totally did not predict that the Ministry will fall in DH) that one of the reasons JKR wrote this chapter was to stick in some hints that Ministry will fall in DH> I mean, we know DE can get really close to high politicians now, again Quacking minister as an example. Witness DH and just see how close they can get. Witness Voldemort being so kind as personally going after the only strong and powerful witch who is also as we know firmly on the side of good and who probably can resist Imperius, resist bribes, etc. I am of course talking about Voldemort being as kind as personally go and kill Amelia Bones, who put up a fight, but was unable to win. And of course we see that Fudge is being sacked. "My dear Prime Minister, you can't honestly think I'm still Minister of Magic after all this? I was sacked three days ago! The whole Wizarding community has been screaming for my resignation for a fortnight. I've never known them so united in my whole term of office!" said Fudge, with a brave attempt at a smile." ? HBP, ch.1 "I won't deny that morale is pretty low at the Ministry," said Fudge. "What with all that, and then losing Amelia Bones." "Losing who?" "Amelia Bones. Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. We think He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named may have murdered her in person, because she was a very gifted witch and--and all the evidence was that she put up a real fight." ( HBP, ch.1) Alla: Isn't it beautifully done? At the beginning of HBP morale is already pretty low at the Ministry, should it be really wonder how Voldemort and co managed to get in? Funny, JKR mentioned in the interview that in the first war Voldemort could not that far because he was unable to infiltrate the ministry. For those of you who consider interview at least somewhat canonical, why do you think he was unable to infiltrate Ministry in the first war? I mean, from what we hear the atmosphere of mutual distrust and fear was also there. What do you think was different? Well, what happened in DH we all know and of course in the days before the takeover, Scrimgeour shut himself in his office and as many people hoped to work on the plan, but even if he was, obviously plan was not successful? Again, all that I attempted to do was to show that JKR portrayed Ministry or at least its leaders in a very consistent way through the books ? as bunch of corrupted, incompetent and often evil morons. Thanks for reading guys. JMO, Alla _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Nov 4 12:02:04 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:02:04 -0000 Subject: Portrayal of MoM in the series VERY LONG BEWARE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178815 Alla: > I also think that even good people working at the Ministry > get sucked in the atmosphere of corruption of power, no > matter how harmless it is to me on the grand scale of things. > I love Weasleyscby and large, no matter if I sometimes have > Molly's issues and Arthur I just love. But eh, writing a law > and make a loophole to be able to amuse oneself with > muggle car seems just wrong to me. Ceridwen: Yes, it is wrong that Arthur writes a law to benefit himself at the expense of the spirit or intent of said law. It doesn't hurt anyone physically, but it hurts the society. Society functions on laws and government, to one extent or another. Even if the "law" is a collection of etiquette, even if the "government" is a parent. When laws are written to benefit a few - in this case, Arthur and presumably others who want to play with Muggle cars - that means they are placed above the rest of society. Society becomes unequal. That is the corruption of power. Arthur doesn't mean to add to the imbalance, he's just going along with the way everyone sees the society. If you work for the Ministry, you put in long days, but you get certain perks, such as the law turning a blind eye to your hobbies. Someone gives you tickets to a Quidditch match. I get the impression this is not seen as something wrong in this society. People accept it because that's the way it's always been. The haves, or those who work at the Ministry, are on a different level than everyone else. They are "more equal". If Arthur can do it and get away with it, someone else can do the same thing that actually will hurt someone. Katie mentioned that former DEs probably went for jobs in the Ministry after LV's first fall because that's where the power was (and is). That makes a lot of sense to me. There were thirteen years between the first fall and Voldy's reconstitution. Some of these guys were probably in cushy positions by the time he returned. If Arthur's writing laws to benefit him, I can imagine the once and former DEs are doing the same. Their beneficial laws will hurt others. Look at Dolores Umbridge's laws, and her edicts at Hogwarts, and she isn't a DE. Alla: > Of course Arthur does not get to be a personal guest of > Minister of magic, he is stuck in the job with low pay > for years... Ceridwen: Arthur is head of a department. His pay isn't low, his expenses are high. The Weasleys have seven children to put through school. Even if they get some financial assistance as Tom Riddle did, the Board will expect them to at least foot some of the bill since Arthur is working. Now that we know of exceptions to magic, we know that the Weasleys have to buy food for seven children with large appetites, clothe them, provide shelter, provide utilities like light and water (candles and lamp fluid cost money anyway, not sure if they have access to a well), and they have seven birthdays besides their own to buy for, and seven children expecting Christmas gifts (yarn costs money), so their outlay eats into Arthur's income. I wouldn't suggest Molly go to work, either. A baby-sitter or child- minder would cost more than her income for even four children, which may be all they need tended at one time, given the ages. I know that, for me, back when I was a single parent of two, it was a financial burden to go to work. I know that now, even if our income stays the same, the minute the younger two are out of the house we'll be in pretty good condition. The Weasleys should have had a gradual easing of their financial problems as each child left home. The problem is, once you get used to living on a shoestring for more than a decade, it's hard to realize you can actually spend. Ceridwen. From lkotur at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 12:37:31 2007 From: lkotur at yahoo.com (Damit Lazarus) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:37:31 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with Cannon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178816 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaunette Reid" wrote: > > I too am very disappointed that it wasn't at least hinted at in canon, The Harry Potter canon is complete. It began with The Philosopher's Stone and ends with The Deathly Hallows. That is it. As far as I am concerned about canon, if it isn't in there then JKR has left the canvas blank. I do not need JKR to fill in any blanks or expound on what happened in the time between the Battle for Hogwarts and the Final Chapter years later. I don't need her to reveal anything about the characters' past, present or future. I don't need a backstory or anything else from her. Why? Because I used my own imagination to fill in the blanks based on the "groundrules" set down by the text of the seven books. Sorry, I am not "waiting breathlessly" for the next nugget from JKR in the Harry Potter saga. I reread all seven books in about 10 days and JKR told a great story which she painted in the canvas of my mind, a masterpeice, that I put the finishing touches on where she left the canvas blank, and Hey!, it's a great story ain't it? Damnit Lazarus From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 14:05:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:05:31 -0000 Subject: Portrayal of MoM in the series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178817 > Ceridwen: > Yes, it is wrong that Arthur writes a law to benefit himself at the > expense of the spirit or intent of said law. It doesn't hurt anyone > physically, but it hurts the society. Society functions on laws and > government, to one extent or another. Even if the "law" is a > collection of etiquette, even if the "government" is a parent. Alla: Isn't this pretty much what I said in my post? You do not have to explain to me how and why it hurts the society, really. I am aware of it. But read along. Ceridwen: When > laws are written to benefit a few - in this case, Arthur and > presumably others who want to play with Muggle cars - that means they > are placed above the rest of society. Society becomes unequal. > > That is the corruption of power. Arthur doesn't mean to add to the > imbalance, he's just going along with the way everyone sees the > society. If you work for the Ministry, you put in long days, but you > get certain perks, such as the law turning a blind eye to your > hobbies. Someone gives you tickets to a Quidditch match. I get the > impression this is not seen as something wrong in this society. > People accept it because that's the way it's always been. The haves, > or those who work at the Ministry, are on a different level than > everyone else. They are "more equal". > > If Arthur can do it and get away with it, someone else can do the > same thing that actually will hurt someone. Alla: Well, first and foremost let's look at the legislative intent of this law, shall we? He wrote the law to **protect the muggles** first and foremost, din't he? He left a **loophole** in it to be able to play with the muggle car. I would say that the general reason of the law should count more than the reason for the loophole. But that's just me. You do not get an argument from me that this is wrong in any event and corruption of power. But let's put it this way, I consider the kind of corruption of power that is shown here to be the **least** harmful of all others that I see from Ministry officials. Arthur wanted to play with the car. So he left a loophole. Yeah, bad Arthur, as I said good people get sucked in the atmopshere of corrupted society too and to some extend may become corrupted as well. Arthur on the other hand tried to protect Muggles contrary to some of his colleagues. He is NOT in Lucius' Malfoy pocket as for example Committee Disposing of the dangerous creatures. He is not concerned with the purity of blood as Cornelius Fudge is. Arthur does not have dark magic artifacts in his home and participates in dangerous raids to take them from dark wizards, what if Mundungus was more succesful with cursing him in CoS? So, yeah, Arthur wanted to play with Muggle car and he left a loophole in the law to benefit himself. Wrong he was. I just cannot look at his misgivings without comparing the ones from his colleagues and then this one shrinks in my eyes. No, not becomes invisible, but shrinks. Ceridwen: Katie mentioned that > former DEs probably went for jobs in the Ministry after LV's first > fall because that's where the power was (and is). That makes a lot > of sense to me. There were thirteen years between the first fall and > Voldy's reconstitution. Alla: Sure, hence witness Lucius Malfoy making friends in the ministry so easily, makes sense to me as well. Ceridwen: >Some of these guys were probably in cushy > positions by the time he returned. If Arthur's writing laws to > benefit him, I can imagine the once and former DEs are doing the > same. Their beneficial laws will hurt others. Look at Dolores > Umbridge's laws, and her edicts at Hogwarts, and she isn't a DE. Alla: Laws? As in plural? What other law did Arthur wrote to benefit himself? And even that one, as I said before I think he was concerned with the protection of Muggles more than benefitting himself, but sure that was one of the purposes. I am sure former DE could have written plenty laws to benefit them, I just do not see how it is connected to Arthur's law. Oh, yes, Umbridge. Good example that is. I do not see Arthur's writing the law that would stop werewolves from getting work for example. > Alla: > > Of course Arthur does not get to be a personal guest of > > Minister of magic, he is stuck in the job with low pay > > for years... > > Ceridwen: > Arthur is head of a department. His pay isn't low, his expenses are > high. The Weasleys have seven children to put through school. Alla: Not that I dispute that his expenses are high, but where did you get that his pay is not low. Isn't his department considered the least prestigious and didn't he just got promoted in HBP? Katie: Lucius is a big facor in the fall of the ministry I think. Yes he is in Azkaban by the time the MoM falls, but as your post points out he gained a lot of strong friends and influence while LV was "out." This made the MoM easy pickings because it was essentially already infiltrated from the moment LV came back, while before it seems that most people were being recruited into the DEs straight from Hogwarts w/o ever working at the MoM or anywhere else. Alla: When I was looking through the books to put this post together, one of the things I was doing was keeping an eye on Lucius dear. I had read several times on list that after CoS Lucius' power just basically non existant. Well, what I saw does not support that idea. Despite being kicked out of the Board of Governors, I see Lucius' star being steadily on the rise among the ministry. Committee of disposal of dangerous creatures? Of course we will do what you say, Mr. Malfoy. Being buddies with Minister of Magic? Of course as long as generous contributions are made. Does Fudge pay any attention to Lucius being at the Graveyard? Of course not, how could dear Lucius still be murderer and torturer? It is much more convenient to decide that Harry is crasy rather than think that person who makes such **generous contributions** is a criminal. NOTHING less than Lucius participating in the raid at MoM forces Ministry morons to have their eyes open. Now they have no choice but to put Lucius to Azkaban. JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 17:26:29 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:26:29 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178818 > Carol, who thinks there never was a House-Elf arc per se and that > we're meant to see SPEW as a misguided attempt at helping those who > neither need nor want that kind of help > a_svirn: While I agree on the whole with your description of the individual house elves arcs, I still don't see why we shouldn't regard them as parts of the whole. Indeed, I am certain we should, for to dissect a story ? any story ? into a set individual "arcs" that bear no relevance to the overall structure would devoid it of any sense whatsoever (and make it utterly unreadable). And if we put these three live histories into the context we'll see that Dobby was, as you say, an oddity, a freak of nature, and that it's probably just as well that Rowling killed him off as she did, for he wouldn't fit the brave new world any better that he fit the old gloomy one. We'll also see that this brave new world is a world where natural slaves (elves) live in perfect harmony with their natural masters (wizards). We can shrug and leave it at that of course, but I for one can't help wondering why Rowling would have it so. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Nov 4 17:55:51 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Nov 2007 17:55:51 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/4/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1194198951.9.74514.m48@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178819 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday November 4, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Nov 4 18:11:22 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:11:22 -0000 Subject: Portrayal of MoM in the series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178820 Alla: > You do not get an argument from me that this is wrong in any event > and corruption of power. But let's put it this way, I consider the > kind of corruption of power that is shown here to be the **least** > harmful of all others that I see from Ministry officials. > Arthur wanted to play with the car. So he left a loophole. Yeah, bad > Arthur, as I said good people get sucked in the atmopshere of > corrupted society too and to some extend may become corrupted as > well. Ceridwen: I totally agree that this shows how deep the corruption runs. Even good people like Arthur get sucked in. I don't think this is bad in this society. I think their standards are different from ours. Arthur could have done much more, to include confiscating Muggle "artifacts" from Obliviated Muggles - cameras, cell phones - the Muggles might have recorded whatever it was they were Obliviated for witnessing. Muggleborns and Half-bloods in the Ministry could alert their colleagues to the potential of these devices. We don't know that Arthur or his colleagues didn't write such laws, but we don't know that they did, either. Yes, the corruption could have been much worse. I'm more interested in your thread (and thank you for starting it!) in maybe discussing the corruption, not just in the Ministry, but in the society that tolerates this sort of mismanagement decade after decade. If the rot in the Ministry goes so deep, what must the rest of society be like? People tolerate a lot of things if they think they'll get some sort of pay-back, or maybe someone turning a blind eye when they do something dodgy. Alla: Arthur on the other hand tried to protect Muggles contrary to some of his colleagues. He is NOT in Lucius' Malfoy pocket as for example... Ceridwen: Right. Arthur isn't nearly as corrupt as his colleagues. In fact, I would say that he's probably considered to be a straight-arrow, maybe even a little priggish, like Percy in his own way. Still, if the best can be suckered into crafting laws, or in this case a law, which benefit them, then it isn't that Arthur did something slightly wrong in the eyes of his society, to me it's more that he's merely acting in an approved and acceptible manner. Alla: Laws? As in plural? What other law did Arthur wrote to benefit himself? Ceridwen: Arthur is capable of either writing laws or of suggesting laws to some legislative body we don't know about. He spent years in that one position. I think it's unlikely he only wrote one law. The books are written from Harry's POV, and without much that isn't only what Harry knows. If Harry doesn't know about a law or a custom, then we don't either, until or unless Harry finds out. Another law would not have had any effect on the story or on world-building, probably, so was not created in the story. If we're looking at a world that, in the stories, is outside of Harry's experience, I would say that Arthur has probably written more than one law. YMMV, of course. Alla: Oh, yes, Umbridge. Good example that is. I do not see Arthur's writing the law that would stop werewolves from getting work for example. Ceridwen: Neither do I. I was using Umbridge as an example of the sorts of laws to "benefit" certain privileged people (in her case, wizards over werewolves) which could be written by former DEs who would be following the same course as Arthur. Not moral course, naturally! But the course of writing laws with loopholes which benefit them. It's the practice itself that is corrupt. As rot, it is not good no matter who writes a law with personally beneifical loopholes, in my opinion. Alla: Not that I dispute that his expenses are high, but where did you get that his pay is not low. Isn't his department considered the least prestigious and didn't he just got promoted in HBP? Ceridwen: If Rowling is writing even slightly realistically, I believe she would show the usual practices of the workplace, government or private. Arthur may get lower wages than the head of a more glamorous department, but he is still the head of a department. He has been at the Ministry for more than twenty years if he began working there before Bill was born. He has a management position, which usually gets a salary, and he has tenure. He would get the big bucks in his department, higher than any employee below him (I can't think of the old guy's name now). He also gets the managerial headaches that this larger and fixed salary is supposed to compensate him for: very long days, being bothered at home or called away from his holiday meal or his bed. We've seen him working long hours and I think we also saw him called on at home, or bringing his work troubles home with him. In HBP, the night Harry arrived, Arthur dragged in around midnight. That was with his new position, sure, but he worked long hours in the old one, too, plus had the misfortune of dealing with exploding toilets. I thought the new position was more of a lateral shift as far as position in the department was concerned, not a promotion. The new department (again, I forget the name, he dealt with those bogus protection charms and such instead of Muggle artifacts) was more important, and at the time more necessary, than his old position, so he probably did get a raise in salary as well. But as head of Misuse of Muggle Artifacts, he would have had a higher salary than a non- managerial drone if Rowling was referencing anything from the real world here, in my opinion, of course. Ceridwen. From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Sun Nov 4 19:05:00 2007 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:05:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Portrayal of MoM in the series Message-ID: <478771.22896.qm@web25611.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178821 Alla wrote: >I always loved how consistently Rowling portrayed corruption of the >ministry throughout the series and when I look back now I can also >see how elegantly she foreshadowed its fall as well. This post is > >I also think that even good people working at the Ministry get >sucked in the atmosphere of corruption of power, no matter how >harmless it is to me on the grand scale of things. I love Weasleys >by and large, no matter if I sometimes have Molly's issues and >Arthur I just love. But eh, writing a law and make a loophole to be >able to amuse oneself with muggle car seems just wrong to me. > >Of course I refuse to think that it means that Arthur will ever >write a law that would truly hurt somebody, so to me it is >relatively harmless, but I am just saying that it is telling to me >of what Ministry of Magic truly is. > >Of course I think corruption and other weaknesses of the Ministry >are shown in all its glory in OOP more than any other books. (much snippage) As I see it, here is the problem with the Ministry which is at the root of all these tendencies: government in the WW is a pure bureaucracy. If you want to enter politics, you join the Ministry and work your way up. Given the longer lifespans (and probable lack of an official retirement age) you could quite easily have a working life in excess of 100 years. This already and of itself makes it highly likely that there will be an atmosphere of intrigue and corruption. There is no external check on it. If someone like Arthur is to write a piece of law that's within his competence and to do it to his advantage, who's to stop him? But I also put a lot of the blame for Voldemort at the door of the Ministry. If all political activity is drawn into the bureaucracy, then what is left for someone who is in opposition to it? There's no political culture. The only alternative is conspiracy and underground subversion. All fairly bleak. And it doesn't give me enormous hope for the future, either. Kingsley is an honest guy who will have done a great deal to cleanse the upper levels and send the Ministry in an honest direction, but without a major political change then what comes after? And given the requirement for secrecy from Muggles, _can_ there be any political change? Pessimistically Ffred ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 19:58:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:58:16 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178822 a_svirn wrote: > While I agree on the whole with your description of the individual house elves arcs, I still don't see why we shouldn't regard them as parts of the whole. Indeed, I am certain we should, for to dissect a story ? any story ? into a set individual "arcs" that bear no > relevance to the overall structure would devoid it of any sense > whatsoever (and make it utterly unreadable). And if we put these > three live histories into the context we'll see that Dobby was, as > you say, an oddity, a freak of nature, and that it's probably just as > well that Rowling killed him off as she did, for he wouldn't fit the > brave new world any better that he fit the old gloomy one. We'll also > see that this brave new world is a world where natural slaves (elves) > live in perfect harmony with their natural masters (wizards). We can > shrug and leave it at that of course, but I for one can't help > wondering why Rowling would have it so. > Carol responds: I'm not sure that I agree with this point of view since, by the same token, we'd have to judge the Death Eaters' arcs as part of a larger "Death Eater arc," and we don't know what happened to the Death Eaters as a group, only to individual DEs whose stories were presented from the outset in some form (notably the Malfoy family and the renegade DE, Snape), or at least foreshadowed in earlier books (Bellatrix Lestrange, Igor Karkaroff, Regulus Black, et al.). I suppose we could say that the Death Eater arc ends with the death of Voldemort because there will be no new DEs, but we still don't know what became of, say, Rabastan Lestrange or even his brother, Rodolphus, who is injured in the Seven Potters incident and is never mentioned again. There's no Wizards' arc, either, only the outcome of the battle and the fates of individual witches and wizards. As for a Goblin arc, all we get is the death of one Goblin and the reappearance of another, who, despite being rescued and healed, nevertheless demands payment for his services with a sword which was paid for by Godric Gryffindor and to which his only claim is that another Goblin made it a thousand years before. We get his individual arc, sort of (he doesn't show up at the battle but we can assume that he lives). Anyway, I don't see why we can't have the stories of three individual House-Elves without an overall "House-Elf arc." Just out of curiosity, I'll ask again a question I've raised several times that has yet to be answered. What would freeing the House-Elves, who want to work for wizards, accomplish? Maybe the MoM or Harry or some influential person or organization could suggest offering freedom to any House-Elf who wants it, but freedom would have to mean something other than a set of clothes, disgrace, and unemployment. Maybe if individual House-Elves had the option of retaining their jobs without fear of being fired and with token wages and the right to wear clothes, a few unusual Houes-Elves would choose that option. Those who were happy with the status quo would not. And abused House-Elves would need some sort of recourse, perhaps a law that forced their masters either to treat them well or to free them. But a freed House-Elf would still be homeless, Knutless, and unemployed. Carol, who really and truly does not understand why posters see House-Elf freedom as in itself a good thing and would appreciate an explanation of the benefits these posters envisioned From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 20:37:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:37:14 -0000 Subject: Portrayal of MoM in the series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178823 > Ceridwen: > I'm more interested in your thread (and thank you for starting it!) > in maybe discussing the corruption, not just in the Ministry, but in > the society that tolerates this sort of mismanagement decade after > decade. If the rot in the Ministry goes so deep, what must the rest > of society be like? People tolerate a lot of things if they think > they'll get some sort of pay-back, or maybe someone turning a blind > eye when they do something dodgy. Alla: Hee, thank you. Well, if that's what you want to discuss, then you should discuss that (corruption in society in general?) and I may even join in, tee hee. **My** reason for starting this thread was more limited though ( and again, please I am not limiting anybody and welcome to taking thread in any direction people wish) - I read more than once the argument that the takeover of the Ministry was unexpected, poorly executed, not foreshadowed, etc. I knew I did not see it way at all. I mean I did not predict Ministry's fall, but when I looked back, I remembered plenty hints and clues, so I went back trying to locate some of them. After I went back, I am even more convinced that she showed rather well that Ministry was infiltrated from within by lovely Lucius and Co for quite some time now and the smallest wind will be enough to take it over. I mean, I now even think that Voldemort had some intelligence in that ugly head of his. Not much, mind you, but some ;) I mean, from all people he went after Amelia Bones? One witch who seemed good and just, etc? And he did not trust any of his goons, but did it himself? Seems to me that he had that plan for quite some time now. > Alla: > Laws? As in plural? What other law did Arthur wrote to benefit > himself? > > Ceridwen: > Arthur is capable of either writing laws or of suggesting laws to > some legislative body we don't know about. He spent years in that > one position. I think it's unlikely he only wrote one law. Alla: Not quite what I meant, I meant that we see no more examples that he wrote another law to benefit himself and even this one I still say was to protect muggles first and for him to play with his car as second purpose. IMO of course. I think it is very reasonable to assume that he wrote more than one law, but no I am not making assumption that he wrote anything else for his own benefit. JMO, Alla From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Sun Nov 4 20:38:53 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:38:53 -0000 Subject: 'Why isn't it clearer Dumbledore is gay' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178824 I know this has been prettymuch 'done to death' on here, but if anyone is interested there was a bit by David BAddiel in the Sunday Times today which might be of interest. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books /article2791981.ece From kspilman at hotmail.com Sun Nov 4 20:48:31 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 14:48:31 -0600 Subject: Lucius as a father figure? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178825 I consider Lucius to be a very interesting character in the series. Now I know some of you don't consider JKR interviews to be canon, but I suspect many of you are aware that she said she decided not to kill Mr. Weasley in OoP because she wanted to leave one strong father figure for Harry. Thats all fine and good, but do you think Lucius is ultimately seen as a good father figure? Obviously he is not a father figure to Harry, but he does show some paternal tendencies. In GoF Draco says that Lucius wanted to send him to Durmstrang, but his mother couldn't bear to have him so far away (some very nice foreshadowing of HBP and DH) from her. In this he shows that he both 1) cares for his son and wants what he sees as the best possible education for him, and 2) is compassionate enough to consider his wife's feelings and make concessions for her (I am wildly assuming that he is the traditional patriarch in his family because he is a DE and Narcissa is not, even though canon suggests that he listens to her and considers her opinion, such as when LV orders him to give over his wand, which he does not do until Narcissa tells him to). The fact that he married someone as lovingly devoted to her son as Narcissa, and the fact that I felt there was the suggestion that he acts as a surrogate father figure to Snape in his Hogwarts days indicates to me that Lucius is a strong father figure. To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 14:05:31 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Portrayal of MoM in the series > Ceridwen: > Yes, it is wrong that Arthur writes a law to benefit himself at the > expense of the spirit or intent of said law. It doesn't hurt anyone > physically, but it hurts the society. Society functions on laws and > government, to one extent or another. Even if the "law" is a > collection of etiquette, even if the "government" is a parent. Alla: Isn't this pretty much what I said in my post? You do not have to explain to me how and why it hurts the society, really. I am aware of it. But read along. Ceridwen: When > laws are written to benefit a few - in this case, Arthur and > presumably others who want to play with Muggle cars - that means they > are placed above the rest of society. Society becomes unequal. > > That is the corruption of power. Arthur doesn't mean to add to the > imbalance, he's just going along with the way everyone sees the > society. If you work for the Ministry, you put in long days, but you > get certain perks, such as the law turning a blind eye to your > hobbies. Someone gives you tickets to a Quidditch match. I get the > impression this is not seen as something wrong in this society. > People accept it because that's the way it's always been. The haves, > or those who work at the Ministry, are on a different level than > everyone else. They are "more equal". > > If Arthur can do it and get away with it, someone else can do the > same thing that actually will hurt someone. Alla: Well, first and foremost let's look at the legislative intent of this law, shall we? He wrote the law to **protect the muggles** first and foremost, din't he? He left a **loophole** in it to be able to play with the muggle car. I would say that the general reason of the law should count more than the reason for the loophole. But that's just me. You do not get an argument from me that this is wrong in any event and corruption of power. But let's put it this way, I consider the kind of corruption of power that is shown here to be the **least** harmful of all others that I see from Ministry officials. Arthur wanted to play with the car. So he left a loophole. Yeah, bad Arthur, as I said good people get sucked in the atmopshere of corrupted society too and to some extend may become corrupted as well. Arthur on the other hand tried to protect Muggles contrary to some of his colleagues. He is NOT in Lucius' Malfoy pocket as for example Committee Disposing of the dangerous creatures. He is not concerned with the purity of blood as Cornelius Fudge is. Arthur does not have dark magic artifacts in his home and participates in dangerous raids to take them from dark wizards, what if Mundungus was more succesful with cursing him in CoS? So, yeah, Arthur wanted to play with Muggle car and he left a loophole in the law to benefit himself. Wrong he was. I just cannot look at his misgivings without comparing the ones from his colleagues and then this one shrinks in my eyes. No, not becomes invisible, but shrinks. Ceridwen: Katie mentioned that > former DEs probably went for jobs in the Ministry after LV's first > fall because that's where the power was (and is). That makes a lot > of sense to me. There were thirteen years between the first fall and > Voldy's reconstitution. Alla: Sure, hence witness Lucius Malfoy making friends in the ministry so easily, makes sense to me as well. Ceridwen: >Some of these guys were probably in cushy > positions by the time he returned. If Arthur's writing laws to > benefit him, I can imagine the once and former DEs are doing the > same. Their beneficial laws will hurt others. Look at Dolores > Umbridge's laws, and her edicts at Hogwarts, and she isn't a DE. Alla: Laws? As in plural? What other law did Arthur wrote to benefit himself? And even that one, as I said before I think he was concerned with the protection of Muggles more than benefitting himself, but sure that was one of the purposes. I am sure former DE could have written plenty laws to benefit them, I just do not see how it is connected to Arthur's law. Oh, yes, Umbridge. Good example that is. I do not see Arthur's writing the law that would stop werewolves from getting work for example. > Alla: > > Of course Arthur does not get to be a personal guest of > > Minister of magic, he is stuck in the job with low pay > > for years... > > Ceridwen: > Arthur is head of a department. His pay isn't low, his expenses are > high. The Weasleys have seven children to put through school. Alla: Not that I dispute that his expenses are high, but where did you get that his pay is not low. Isn't his department considered the least prestigious and didn't he just got promoted in HBP? Katie: Lucius is a big facor in the fall of the ministry I think. Yes he is in Azkaban by the time the MoM falls, but as your post points out he gained a lot of strong friends and influence while LV was "out." This made the MoM easy pickings because it was essentially already infiltrated from the moment LV came back, while before it seems that most people were being recruited into the DEs straight from Hogwarts w/o ever working at the MoM or anywhere else. Alla: When I was looking through the books to put this post together, one of the things I was doing was keeping an eye on Lucius dear. I had read several times on list that after CoS Lucius' power just basically non existant. Well, what I saw does not support that idea. Despite being kicked out of the Board of Governors, I see Lucius' star being steadily on the rise among the ministry. Committee of disposal of dangerous creatures? Of course we will do what you say, Mr. Malfoy. Being buddies with Minister of Magic? Of course as long as generous contributions are made. Does Fudge pay any attention to Lucius being at the Graveyard? Of course not, how could dear Lucius still be murderer and torturer? It is much more convenient to decide that Harry is crasy rather than think that person who makes such **generous contributions** is a criminal. NOTHING less than Lucius participating in the raid at MoM forces Ministry morons to have their eyes open. Now they have no choice but to put Lucius to Azkaban. JMO, Alla _________________________________________________________________ Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf?. Stop by today. http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 20:55:56 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:55:56 -0000 Subject: Expcetion to the "House Rule" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178826 I was thinking about this the other day...was there anyone else in the book besides Sirius, that we know about, that was not in the same house as at least one of their parents if not both? (Wow did I word that right?) TKJ From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 20:59:47 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:59:47 -0000 Subject: Lucious and the diary Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178827 I'm sorry but this may have been covered somewhere already....but do we know WHY exactly Lucious thought it was a good idea to give the notebook to Ginny? If none of the DEs knew about the Horocruxes then why pass it off? What was there to gain from it? Ok sorry if I went on circles there... TKJ From kspilman at hotmail.com Sun Nov 4 21:04:19 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 15:04:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Expcetion to the "House Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178828 I know Padma and Parvatil Patil are in two different houses, and considering their parents order them home during LVs reign, I'm guessing their parents were not in Gryffindor, which likely means Parvati is in a different house from her parents, but this is a lot of assuming. To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 20:55:56 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Expcetion to the "House Rule" I was thinking about this the other day...was there anyone else in the book besides Sirius, that we know about, that was not in the same house as at least one of their parents if not both? (Wow did I word that right?) TKJ _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ? together at last. ?Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Nov 4 21:30:05 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:30:05 -0000 Subject: Lucius and the diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178829 TKJ: > I'm sorry but this may have been covered somewhere already....but do > we know WHY exactly Lucious thought it was a good idea to give the > notebook to Ginny? If none of the DEs knew about the Horocruxes then > why pass it off? What was there to gain from it? Ok sorry if I went on > circles there... Magpie: Lucius didn't know it was a Horcrux, but he did seem to know that the Diary would unlock the Chamber of Secrets using another student. So the idea was to discredit Arthur and fight back against his raids etc. by having his own daughter purge the school of Muggle-borns. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 23:08:15 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:08:15 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > a_svirn wrote: > > While I agree on the whole with your description of the individual > house elves arcs, I still don't see why we shouldn't regard them as > parts of the whole. Indeed, I am certain we should, for to dissect a > story ? any story ? into a set individual "arcs" that bear no > > relevance to the overall structure would devoid it of any sense > > whatsoever (and make it utterly unreadable). And if we put these > > three live histories into the context we'll see that Dobby was, as > > you say, an oddity, a freak of nature, and that it's probably just as > > well that Rowling killed him off as she did, for he wouldn't fit the > > brave new world any better that he fit the old gloomy one. We'll also > > see that this brave new world is a world where natural slaves (elves) > > live in perfect harmony with their natural masters (wizards). We can > > shrug and leave it at that of course, but I for one can't help > > wondering why Rowling would have it so. > > > Carol responds: > I'm not sure that I agree with this point of view since, by the same > token, we'd have to judge the Death Eaters' arcs as part of a larger > "Death Eater arc," and we don't know what happened to the Death Eaters > as a group, only to individual DEs whose stories were presented from > the outset in some form (notably the Malfoy family and the renegade > DE, Snape), or at least foreshadowed in earlier books (Bellatrix > Lestrange, Igor Karkaroff, Regulus Black, et al.). I suppose we could > say that the Death Eater arc ends with the death of Voldemort because > there will be no new DEs, but we still don't know what became of, say, > Rabastan Lestrange or even his brother, Rodolphus, who is injured in > the Seven Potters incident and is never mentioned again. There's no > Wizards' arc, either, only the outcome of the battle and the fates of > individual witches and wizards. a_svirn: I like this "only". Only the fate of the whole of wizardkind at stake, but no "arc" implied. > Carol: As for a Goblin arc, all we get is the > death of one Goblin and the reappearance of another, who, despite > being rescued and healed, nevertheless demands payment for his > services with a sword which was paid for by Godric Gryffindor and to > which his only claim is that another Goblin made it a thousand years > before. We get his individual arc, sort of (he doesn't show up at the > battle but we can assume that he lives). Anyway, I don't see why we > can't have the stories of three individual House-Elves without an > overall "House-Elf arc." > a_svirn: "Arc" is your term, not mine. As for death eaters, of course, there is sort of general story line, behind individual biographies. We know how the young Tom Riddle started to gather followers while still in Hogwarts, we were shown something of the dynamics inside the group, etc. We know roughly what being a death eater entails, so when we are told that one or other minor character is a death eater, we could guess quite a lot of his or her life style even without knowing their "individual arcs". So yes, there is a death eater arc of a sort. It's just not a very interesting one, since the death eaters' role in the HP books is less important than house elves' role. Even Bellatrix's contributions to the overall plot are less crucial than Kreacher's. > Carol: > Just out of curiosity, I'll ask again a question I've raised several > times that has yet to be answered. What would freeing the House- Elves, > who want to work for wizards, accomplish? a_svirn: I am not the one to answer that. I happen to agree with you: in the world of Rowling's creation it would be pointless and perhaps even dangerous to free elves (not to mention cruel). I just don't see why she chose to create a world populated by natural slaves and natural masters. I understand even less why she seems to think that it is a nice place to live in. > Carol: > Carol, who really and truly does not understand why posters see > House-Elf freedom as in itself a good thing and would appreciate an > explanation of the benefits these posters envisioned > a_svirn: I can't say for all the other posters, but I personally think that a world of slaves by nature and natural masters is a very bad thing indeed. Downright disgusting. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Nov 4 23:41:35 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:41:35 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178831 > > Carol: > > Carol, who really and truly does not understand why posters see > > House-Elf freedom as in itself a good thing and would appreciate an > > explanation of the benefits these posters envisioned > > > a_svirn: > I can't say for all the other posters, but I personally think that a > world of slaves by nature and natural masters is a very bad thing > indeed. Downright disgusting. Magpie: Yes, what's complicated is that the question of what good it would do to free the House Elves isn't the question. I think most of us who are puzzled and disturbed by the whole thing basically agree that in the WW freeing the House Elves would do more harm than good. If the House Elves were all like Dobby, including Kreacher, and Harry was still ordering him around we could say that Harry was doing a bad thing by not freeing him but slavery is bad. But in this scenario, being a good slave master is a good thing (that those who would beat them or abuse them are unworthy masters and should have their elves taken away). But then in interviews the author says this is saying something about slavery in our world, and we're introduced to House Elves as if they're more like people via Dobby. Besides that, you've got the regular response of many 21st century readers, which is that owning a slave is a bit disturbing, especially in a book about treating people with respect even if they're different from you. I think if I were living in the 18th century and was a slave-owner, for instance, I would have no problem, and probably see the House Elves as a perfectly good stand-in for my own slaves. There's even the implied idea that people like Harry and Dumbledore would of course free their servants if they wanted it at all. Dumbledore's even willing to pay them all, as if even the economic loss in his case isn't a reason to think he actually likes having slaves. This is also why I see no hint that JKR's really showing us the temptation of slavery here, since there's no hint at all that owning slaves could be corruptive to one's character. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Nov 5 00:55:22 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:55:22 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178832 > Magpie: > Yes, what's complicated is that the question of what good it would do > to free the House Elves isn't the question. I think most of us who > are puzzled and disturbed by the whole thing basically agree that in > the WW freeing the House Elves would do more harm than good. Besides that, you've got the regular response of many 21st > century readers, which is that owning a slave is a bit disturbing, > especially in a book about treating people with respect even if > they're different from you. Pippin: Of course slavery is counter-cultural to the 20th/21st century West, which is why Hermione finds its existence in the WW so hard to accept. The goblins' ideas about property ownership are also counter-cultural. But to see the goblin side of things is comfortably anti-Imperialist, while to see the House Elves' side is not. JKR is demonstrating the biases the leftist outlook brings to the table, not because she's anti-leftist, IMO, but because it was leftists like herself she was planning to reach. The Elves are different than us. They mostly don't like to work for wages and they mostly don't mind being owned. The goblins too have different ideas about the uses of money and different concepts of ownership. But being pro-Goblin flatters our anti-Imperialist notions, and we want them to be right, while being pro-House Elf seems to put us on the same side as Simon Legree. But of course despite some superficial similarities, wizards are not antebellum slave owners any more than Goblins are American Indians. Since no nineteenth century slave owners are going to be reading the books, I think whether they would be happy to identify with the wizard slave owners is irrelevant. But it would be difficult for anyone with normal sympathies to identify with making House Elves punish themselves. That is never shown as a moral practice and it is intrinsic to House Elf slavery, along with the fact, mentioned by Ron in CoS, that House Elves can usually only use their magic with their owner's permission. We see what happens to magical creatures who can't use their magic, so that is a powerful incentive too. Even if some idiot thought that House Elf style slavery would be a good idea in RL, duplicating its conditions is as far beyond our capabilities as creating Eloi and Morlocks. But real people can be conditioned to accept slavery to some extent. That is an inconvenient truth which in no way makes slavery more palatable, but does make it harder to get rid of. JKR was brave to recognize that in her books, IMO. The point of Hermione's storyline, I think, is that well-meaning solutions which are imposed without considering the fact that people do survive under slavery, (and other horrifying conditions) and may not want to be patronized or treated as helpless, are part of the problem. Magpie: This is also why I see no hint that JKR's really > showing us the temptation of slavery here, since there's no hint at > all that owning slaves could be corruptive to one's character. Pippin: Much of wizard-kind has ceased to see the Elves' being forced to punish themselves, or not being allowed to use magic without their masters' permission as anything terrible. To that extent their moral sense has been corrupted. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 5 01:51:40 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:51:40 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178833 > Pippin: > Of course slavery is counter-cultural to the 20th/21st century West, > which is why Hermione finds its existence in the WW so hard to accept. > The goblins' ideas about property ownership are also > counter-cultural. But to see the goblin side of things is comfortably > anti-Imperialist, while to see the House Elves' side is not. JKR is > demonstrating the biases the leftist outlook brings to the table, > not because she's anti-leftist, IMO, but because it was leftists like > herself she was planning to reach. Magpie: Hermione is being a stupid lefty in her trying to force the House Elves to be free, sure. That's obvious. But that doesn't change that she does it in this case by creating slaves that conform to pro- slavery arguments. So anybody who doesn't like Harry the slave owner ending still has the same point they always did. (Oddly, she herself said that Hermione was right and that House Elves was like slavery, meaning in our world.) Pippin: > The Elves are different than us. They mostly don't like to work for wages > and they mostly don't mind being owned. The goblins too have > different ideas about the uses of money and different concepts of > ownership. But being pro-Goblin flatters our anti-Imperialist > notions, and we want them to be right, while being pro-House Elf > seems to put us on the same side as Simon Legree. But of > course despite some superficial similarities, wizards are not antebellum > slave owners any more than Goblins are American Indians. Magpie: The Elves don't just "not mind" being owned or working for people, they seriously want it. House Elves actually conform to the view of slaves that slave owners had. They need to be slaves, and it's fine that Harry owns one. Twenty-first century anti-Imperialist views or anti-slavery views don't hold up in this universe. Not sure what she needed to reach me to tell me there. (Though I doubt she really expected anybody to side with the goblins.) Pippin:> > Since no nineteenth century slave owners are going to be reading > the books, I think whether they would be happy to identify with > the wizard slave owners is irrelevant. But it would be difficult for > anyone with normal sympathies to identify with making House > Elves punish themselves. Magpie: So I sympathize with the House Elves having to punish themselves so...well, nobody's working to lift that enchantment so the solution is just to be a good master that they want to serve so that they don't do anything wrong and have to be punished. Meanwhile, since Harry isn't an ante-bellum slave owner there's apparently nothing potentially threatening to his character about owning one. Harry gets a slave character who fawns over his superior master and talks funny but it's totally okay he's not actually human. Pippin: That is never shown as a moral practice > and it is intrinsic to House Elf slavery, along with the fact, mentioned > by Ron in CoS, that House Elves can usually only use their magic with > their owner's permission. We see what happens to magical creatures > who can't use their magic, so that is a powerful incentive too. Magpie: A powerful incentive to what? For me or the characters to have a few problems with House Elf slavery? There's nothing I or they can do about it so might as well just be good owners and enjoy the good service. It works perfectly well in canon, but I'm not getting any great lessons out of it. Pippin: > > Even if some idiot thought that House Elf style slavery would be a > good idea in RL, duplicating its conditions is as far beyond our capabilities > as creating Eloi and Morlocks. But real people can be conditioned to > accept slavery to some extent. Magpie: So don't try this in your world because it won't work. Only in a fantasy world do you get slaves like this. It's not going to bring slavery back, but it's not saying much against it. Pippin: That is an inconvenient truth which in > no way makes slavery more palatable, but does make it harder to get > rid of. JKR was brave to recognize that in her books, IMO. Magpie: Brave to recognize what? That she hadn't really created a way for House Elves to be realistically freed? She did seem to recognize that but I wouldn't call it brave. Pippin:> > The point of Hermione's storyline, I think, is that well-meaning solutions > which are imposed without considering the fact that people do survive > under slavery, (and other horrifying conditions) and may not want to > be patronized or treated as helpless, are part of the problem. Magpie: Yes, that is the point of it, it seems. So in the end she just joins the system. > Magpie: > This is also why I see no hint that JKR's really > > showing us the temptation of slavery here, since there's no hint at > > all that owning slaves could be corruptive to one's character. > > Pippin: > Much of wizard-kind has ceased to see the Elves' being forced to > punish themselves, or not being allowed to use magic without their > masters' permission as anything terrible. To that extent their > moral sense has been corrupted. Magpie: If you slap that on it yourself. I don't see this shown in canon at all. Maybe it also shows that wizards have been corrupted because the house elves are doing the cooking and nobody ever worries that they haven't learned to cook themselves. The fact that they can't use their magic without their owners' (general) permission *isn't* terrible. And most wizards don't have any dealings with them--who's to say they don't care if they punish themselves? Ron doesn't seem to like it and he's a regular wizard. There's nothing in canon that *shows* this point in any way, that their moral sense has been corrupted that way. The elves are punishing themselves, nobody's doing it to them. And the story ends with Master Harry with his slave and not worried about that stuff at all--and no, I see no indication that that's supposed to be an ominous note. -m From kspilman at hotmail.com Mon Nov 5 02:49:50 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 20:49:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: a sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178834 Why is everyone so worried about house elves yet I don't anyone complaining about the gnome-abuse storyline that was prevalent throughout any time Harry visited the Weasleys. To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 01:51:40 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: a sandwich > Pippin: > Of course slavery is counter-cultural to the 20th/21st century West, > which is why Hermione finds its existence in the WW so hard to accept. > The goblins' ideas about property ownership are also > counter-cultural. But to see the goblin side of things is comfortably > anti-Imperialist, while to see the House Elves' side is not. JKR is > demonstrating the biases the leftist outlook brings to the table, > not because she's anti-leftist, IMO, but because it was leftists like > herself she was planning to reach. Magpie: Hermione is being a stupid lefty in her trying to force the House Elves to be free, sure. That's obvious. But that doesn't change that she does it in this case by creating slaves that conform to pro- slavery arguments. So anybody who doesn't like Harry the slave owner ending still has the same point they always did. (Oddly, she herself said that Hermione was right and that House Elves was like slavery, meaning in our world.) Pippin: > The Elves are different than us. They mostly don't like to work for wages > and they mostly don't mind being owned. The goblins too have > different ideas about the uses of money and different concepts of > ownership. But being pro-Goblin flatters our anti-Imperialist > notions, and we want them to be right, while being pro-House Elf > seems to put us on the same side as Simon Legree. But of > course despite some superficial similarities, wizards are not antebellum > slave owners any more than Goblins are American Indians. Magpie: The Elves don't just "not mind" being owned or working for people, they seriously want it. House Elves actually conform to the view of slaves that slave owners had. They need to be slaves, and it's fine that Harry owns one. Twenty-first century anti-Imperialist views or anti-slavery views don't hold up in this universe. Not sure what she needed to reach me to tell me there. (Though I doubt she really expected anybody to side with the goblins.) Pippin:> > Since no nineteenth century slave owners are going to be reading > the books, I think whether they would be happy to identify with > the wizard slave owners is irrelevant. But it would be difficult for > anyone with normal sympathies to identify with making House > Elves punish themselves. Magpie: So I sympathize with the House Elves having to punish themselves so...well, nobody's working to lift that enchantment so the solution is just to be a good master that they want to serve so that they don't do anything wrong and have to be punished. Meanwhile, since Harry isn't an ante-bellum slave owner there's apparently nothing potentially threatening to his character about owning one. Harry gets a slave character who fawns over his superior master and talks funny but it's totally okay he's not actually human. Pippin: That is never shown as a moral practice > and it is intrinsic to House Elf slavery, along with the fact, mentioned > by Ron in CoS, that House Elves can usually only use their magic with > their owner's permission. We see what happens to magical creatures > who can't use their magic, so that is a powerful incentive too. Magpie: A powerful incentive to what? For me or the characters to have a few problems with House Elf slavery? There's nothing I or they can do about it so might as well just be good owners and enjoy the good service. It works perfectly well in canon, but I'm not getting any great lessons out of it. Pippin: > > Even if some idiot thought that House Elf style slavery would be a > good idea in RL, duplicating its conditions is as far beyond our capabilities > as creating Eloi and Morlocks. But real people can be conditioned to > accept slavery to some extent. Magpie: So don't try this in your world because it won't work. Only in a fantasy world do you get slaves like this. It's not going to bring slavery back, but it's not saying much against it. Pippin: That is an inconvenient truth which in > no way makes slavery more palatable, but does make it harder to get > rid of. JKR was brave to recognize that in her books, IMO. Magpie: Brave to recognize what? That she hadn't really created a way for House Elves to be realistically freed? She did seem to recognize that but I wouldn't call it brave. Pippin:> > The point of Hermione's storyline, I think, is that well-meaning solutions > which are imposed without considering the fact that people do survive > under slavery, (and other horrifying conditions) and may not want to > be patronized or treated as helpless, are part of the problem. Magpie: Yes, that is the point of it, it seems. So in the end she just joins the system. > Magpie: > This is also why I see no hint that JKR's really > > showing us the temptation of slavery here, since there's no hint at > > all that owning slaves could be corruptive to one's character. > > Pippin: > Much of wizard-kind has ceased to see the Elves' being forced to > punish themselves, or not being allowed to use magic without their > masters' permission as anything terrible. To that extent their > moral sense has been corrupted. Magpie: If you slap that on it yourself. I don't see this shown in canon at all. Maybe it also shows that wizards have been corrupted because the house elves are doing the cooking and nobody ever worries that they haven't learned to cook themselves. The fact that they can't use their magic without their owners' (general) permission *isn't* terrible. And most wizards don't have any dealings with them--who's to say they don't care if they punish themselves? Ron doesn't seem to like it and he's a regular wizard. There's nothing in canon that *shows* this point in any way, that their moral sense has been corrupted that way. The elves are punishing themselves, nobody's doing it to them. And the story ends with Master Harry with his slave and not worried about that stuff at all--and no, I see no indication that that's supposed to be an ominous note. -m _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts!? Play Star Shuffle:? the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 03:48:02 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:48:02 -0000 Subject: Information not in the books... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178835 So are there interviews or something with JKR answering questions after the 7th book? I thought I heard someone saying in passing that JKR stated that Hermione did indeed end up being a wizard lawyer. I've heard other things said, I was just wondering where they came from, so I could find it and read/watch it. Thanks TKJ From kspilman at hotmail.com Mon Nov 5 04:34:55 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 22:34:55 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Information not in the books... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178836 JKR did a book tour of the U.S. after the 7th book and she appeared in a television interview with TODAY?s Meredith Vieira. There is a link to the video here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ Transcripts from the book tour are here: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more and there is some info from the new orleans stop on the book tour, but I can't find a transcript To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 03:48:02 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Information not in the books... So are there interviews or something with JKR answering questions after the 7th book? I thought I heard someone saying in passing that JKR stated that Hermione did indeed end up being a wizard lawyer. I've heard other things said, I was just wondering where they came from, so I could find it and read/watch it. Thanks TKJ _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yvaine28 at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 03:54:01 2007 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:54:01 +0800 Subject: Information not in the books... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330711041954r7fe9b195vd22a64ef76a6f6c4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178837 Tandra wrote: So are there interviews or something with JKR answering questions after the 7th book? I thought I heard someone saying in passing that JKR stated that Hermione did indeed end up being a wizard lawyer. I've heard other things said, I was just wondering where they came from, so I could find it and read/watch it. Thanks Meann: You can find transcripts of JKR's post-Book 7 interviews and appearances here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/list2007.html Hope that helps. =) ---*Meann From catlady at wicca.net Mon Nov 5 06:32:22 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:32:22 -0000 Subject: HG-HBP/LegalSystems/Co-Creator(3)/Sandwich/Bed(2)/CHAPDISC(2)/Free HE/Regulus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178838 Delwyn March wrote in : << This was totally out of character, IMO. Even if she were in the deepest throes of jealousy, Hermione Granger would still want to know why and how the Prince's recipes work better than the original ones. She just couldn't help it. No way, no how. Her curiosity would take the better of her, sooner or later. Such an intellectual challenge, such an opportunity for learning, those are things she would be totally unable to pass up. >> I believe young Sevvy put a spell on his book to repel all eyes but his and Lily's. So it repelled Ron by being illegible to him and it repelled Hermione by activating her priggishness. And it didn't repel Harry because, as was said all through the series, he had Lily's eyes. People say "Huh? So why was it important that Harry had Lily's eyes?" and answer "Because the way he got the real memory from Slughorn is because his eyes reminded Slughorn of Lily" or "because that way Snape was able to look into Lily's eyes as he died". I think enabling him to read the Prince's book was more important than either of those. Eggplant wrote in : << As for Kreacher, Harry was far more forgiving than I would have been considering that in any legal system on the planet he would have been imprisoned for being part of a murder conspiracy that caused the death of Harry's godfather. >> Nitpick: not in a legal system that doesn't use imprisonment, only fines, mutilation, or death penalty. And not in a legal 'system' which relies on individuals taking revenge for wrongs to their family members without bothering the government with their petty problems, because Hermione would have stopped Harry from killing Kreachur when he wanted to, and now Harry doesn't want to. More interesting to me: how would Kreachur have been dealt with by a legal system that believes House Elves do not exist? Would the Grand Jury, told by the prosecutor that they can't indict Kreachur because House Elves don't exist, report out that he was an unindicted co-conspirator? And even more interesting to me: in legal systems that recognize that House Elves exist, would they be be regarded something like Muggle legal systems regard dogs? There is a range of ways that Muggle legal systems regard dogs. There have been Muggle legal systems in history that tried, convicted, and hanged dogs for murder or theft. I've never heard of any dogs being burned for blasphemy or treason, but that would seem a logical result of a dog eating a Communion wafer or lifting his leg on a posted Royal Decree. Modern legal system don't convict and execute dogs for malicious intent, just ordered them destroyed for being, however unintentionally, a danger to the public. The wizarding legal system treats House Elves as creatures with more ability to speak English than dogs have, and possibly also as creatures with greater responsibility for their intentions. I don't recall anything from the books about House Elves involved with the wizarding legal system other than poor Hokey, and I don't recall that the court's decision that she accidentally confused (rat poison powder?) for sugar tells us much. Lee Kaiwen wrote in : << The only Dumbledore JKR owns is the DD of her imagination. The DD of *my* imagination was a collaborative effort between us, containing as much of me as of her, and then along she comes after the fact, after I've invested so much of myself in co-creating *my* DD, to tell me that *my* portion of DD isn't worth squat, that it's her imagination and hers alone that counts, and then tries to force-feed me her DD. When JKR says, "He is my character," she is not only wrong, she is offensive. >> What about DEATHLY HALLOWS? In the *text* she made revelations about Albus Dumbledore that *contradicted* the image of him that I had co-created, revelations which I have yet to digest to form a new image. Can I complain that she thus asserted that my imagination is worthless? I wasn't expecting him to be so cold to Severus after Severus had been risking his life for him all those years. That the reason he refused to be Minister of Magic was not that he didn't want to waste his time with bureaucracy nor he thought molding the minds of the next generation was more important, but that he believed he could not be trusted with power. And did he notice that he was quite willing to exercise immense power over all those children and staff at Hogwarts, the members of the Order of the Phoenix, and everyone he could manipulate with beautiful words and understanding what makes them tick? What did it mean, in his life, when his eyes twinkled? Julie wrote in : << Even her comment about DD being "mine" I don't think was meant to imply that she wants to control anyone's individual interpretation of DD, but that she created him (and legally owns him) so has every right to share *her* interpretations of him. >> This is a forbidden 'I agree' post. I agree with you that that's what she meant and I agree that she does have every right to share her unpublished ideas about the Potterverse. Besides, I want to hear them. I may or may not believe them, but I want to find out if what is still in her head is as fascinating as what she put on paper. Lee Kaiwen wrote in : << If somewhere in the future I post my speculations about, say, DD's ex-wives, >> When this list un-bans fanfic and pure speculation, I'll counter your speculations on DD's ex-wives with my speculations on his late wives (the two Muggles who died of old age sequentially can remain; the witch killed fighting Grindelwald will need to be re-written). DH indicates that Kendra Dumbledore was Muggle-born. Unless she was some kind of abused child like Harry, eager to escape from her parents or guardians into the wizarding world, one'd think her children would get to know their maternal grandparents and other relatives, and thus have enough contact with Muggles to learn more than appears to have been taught in Muggle Studies. I liked to think that as a young man he had used his familiarity with Muggles to go into business importing Muggle goods to wizarding shops, but DH suggests that the only profession he ever had was being a magical genius. Anyway, this is something else I've wanted to post about for a long time, when did the name Kendra come into use among Muggles? It's a beautiful name and the wizarding folk may have been using it since 3000BC, but Kendra Dumbledore was born to Muggles a long time ago and I've never heard of anyone else named Kendra from that time. Geoff wrote in : << Supposing Harry had wondered whether Molly Weasley or Hermione or even... Draco(!) might bring him a sandwich in Gryffindor Tower. What would you read into that? >> If he had wondered if Molly, or Hermione, or Ginny, or any female Gryffindor, might bring him a sandwich, that would be read as Rowling approves of men believing that women are automatically their servants. Altho' it wouldn't be out of character for Hermione -- in which book did she bring him a stack of toast when he ran away from breakfast? One of the replies reminded me that Molly had just lost her son, Fred. At some point things will be tidied up enough that the adrenaline of the battle will wear off and she will go into deep grief, probably clinging to Arthur (or to Arthur and George and whichever other of her surviving children she can grab) and weeping big tears. It would be strange for a grown-up to interrupt that to ask her to fetch a sandwich, and stranger to think she might think of it herself while thusly distracted. If Harry had wondered if Draco might bring him a sandwich, some would believe he had gone crazy as shown by forgetting that Draco doesn't know the Gryffindor Tower password, some (such as me) would claim it proved the Harry/Draco ship, some would said it was Rowling's approval of forcing the defeated enemy to work for you without pay, and some would say it was one more proof that Rowling believes that anyone sorted into Slytherin is an unworthy being regardless of what they do after that. afn wrote in : << Rather than running away from school, he purposely chose not to attend his 7th year there. Who's to say an incoming student might have needed Harry's old bed? >> Hogwarts Castle is a magical building. I've always thought it found out how many beds were needed for each dorm (such observing the Sorting to figure out how many beds in the first-year girls and boys dorms in each House) and created them -- I don't think furniture is one of Whoever's Five Principal Exceptions. To me, it would have created new beds for new students, not re-assigned old beds. And while it probably hadn't created a bed for Harry in the seventh-year Gryffindor boys' dorm at the beginning of the school year, it probably did notice him coming up the stairs and created a bed for him then. I wonder if there is a dorm or two in Gryffindor Tower (and each of the other Houses) that creates beds for Old Boys and Old Girls come visiting. Tonks_op wrote in : << It has nothing to do with elf rights or lack or rights. It was a statement about finishing school. Why else would he sleep there? >> He had not long before realized that he was one of three lost little boys (with Snape and Riddle) who had found their only home at Hogwarts. Alla summarized Chapter 6 in : << Molly [snip] keeps Harry, Ron and Hermione very busy with different jobs. Ron thinks she does so to distract them from preparations for the Horcrux hunt >> And stupid me thought, when I read it, that she did so to keep the couples (Ron and Hermione, Harry and Ginny) apart except when she was there as chaperone. << Harry tries to talk Hermione and Ron out of coming with him one more time. >> Which is why I thought it was so unfair of Ron and Hermione, during the camping trip, to get mad at Harry when they discovered that he didn't have a plan and Dumbledore hadn't told him where the Horcruxes were hidden. It's not like he *asked* them to come along. Zara wrote in : << especially combined with the flash of a blue eye Harry saw in the broken mirror in a previous chapter. >> Stupid me, I thought the blue eye in the mirror was Albus in the afterlife using the other mirror that Sirius had taken with him to the afterlife, and was disappointed we would get more Albus instead of more Sirius. Carol wrote in : << has twice requested a description of the life of a free House-Elf, this supposedly ideal state that certain readers thought would be achieved through Harry's victory, and is still puzzled as to what they mean by "freedom" >> I can define it even tho' I don't expect it to come about for decades after Hermione leaves school and starts working full-time on it. Free House Elves choose which human they will work for, and leave whenever dissatisfied, and are paid if they want. A human who abuses a House Elf is punished by law. (So is a House Elf who abuses a human.) If the House Elf and the human agree, the House Elf can do work for the human other than domestic service. There is no magical compulsion on them to punish themselves for disobedience or disrespect, and voluntary group therapy to cure them of any psychological compulsion to do so. Free House Elves can buy a house or shop if they have the money and the desire and can start a business if they want to. In addition, it seems to me that there needs to be some provision for House Elves too old to work other than beheading them. However, the human for whom they work is free to fire them and ban them from the premises owned by the human, and can sue them for damages if they sneak back to 'steal' an artifact 'belonging' to their new master or whatever. As for the bad effects on my morals of having someone else to do all this miserable scut-work, I don't mind. Potioncat wrote in << How did Lupin and Black get the idea that Regulus was killed because he tried to back out of the DEs? >> Maybe after Regulus found out what happened to Kreachur, he asked Cousin Bella some questions that gave her doubts about his loyalty to the Dark Lord. So when he vanished (and perhaps the Blacks have some magical artifact that tells when a person on the Family Tree is dead), she figured that the Dark Lord had killed him for disloyalty, and maybe it was one of the things she shouted about in her nightmares in Azkaban, or maybe she mentioned while being interrogated by the Aurors about her attack on the Longbottoms. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 14:01:55 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:01:55 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178839 > Pippin: > That is an inconvenient truth which in > > no way makes slavery more palatable, but does make it harder to get > > rid of. JKR was brave to recognize that in her books, IMO. > > Magpie: > Brave to recognize what? That she hadn't really created a way for > House Elves to be realistically freed? She did seem to recognize that > but I wouldn't call it brave. > a_svirn: Actually, she does not seem to recognize it. Or rather, she does not acknowledge it. She still insists that slavery is a bad thing, that Hermione was right back in her fourth year when she tried to change things, and that the HP books are about morality and tolerance. But the only thing they teach to tolerate is inequality in its most extreme forms. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 16:11:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:11:23 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178840 a_svirn wrote: > Actually, she does not seem to recognize it [that House-Elves can't realistically be freed]. Or rather, she does not acknowledge it. She still insists that slavery is a bad thing, that Hermione was right back in her fourth year when she tried to change things, and that the HP books are about morality and tolerance. But the only thing they teach to tolerate is inequality in its most extreme forms. > Carol responds: To be fair to JKR, even though I'm not happy with her for a variety of reasons at the moment, perhaps her *intended* message of "tolerance" relates to human characters rather than House-Elves (not that I have any faith at all in the validity of authorial intention as a basis for literary analysis). Just to be clear, I'm only interested in what others think here. For me, what JKR says the books are about is no more relevant than what the Pope (if he's read them) says they're about. And, IMO, even if the books are "about" "tolerance" or "morality" as JKR defines those terms, IOW, even if a reader can find those motifs clearly depicted and derive a clear and consistent message from those depictions, that's not all the books are about. Self-sacrifice, love, courage, death, and "the greater good" all seem to me to be at least as significant, if not more so, whatever JKR says to the contrary. As for the books being about "morality," I don't recall her using that word. Was it in one of the books about the Christian motifs (love and self-sacrifice), and, if so, could you provide a link? Maybe, for her, morality and "tolerance" are not synonymous, as they seem to be for some posters on this list? (Just to inject my own view here, "morality" seems like a broader concept than tolerance, including attitudes toward killing or otherwise harming others, not merely viewing them as equals and avoiding terms that might offend the other group. Opposition to slavery--and what enlightened person doesn't oppose it?--is included, but again, morality is the larger term. I won't even bring in sexual mores, which differ from person to person or group to group, but they would also be included under "morality," in my view.) Instead of being upset about her depiction of imaginary creatures, the nonexistence of which any child old enough to understand the concept of slavery will recognize, perhaps we should look at her depiction of human beings. Clearly, race and sex (not "gender," which is a grammatical term) make no difference in magical ability. Neither does "blood" however much emphasis various characters may place on it. (I've discussed the problems with the seeming helplessness of the Muggle-borns in DH with regard to the message of the other books elsewhere, so I won't go into that here.) I think, however, that most kids will see Muggle-born Hermione as magically superior to Pure-bloods Ron, Neville, and Draco (though Draco is no slouch magically) and to the Half-Blood Harry (except for his skill in casting a Patronus and her ineptitude in dealing with Boggarts, which we can trace back to Lupin's one class on the subject if we so desire). Lily joins Hermione as an example of a magically powerful witch in OoP and HBP (by reputation), and in DH we see that she has much more control of her magic at nine or ten than Harry did at that age. So the message that "blood doesn't matter," along with the use of the term "Mudblood" as a mark of blood prejudice (equated by many readers with racism and certainly indicative of unjustified prejudice), will, IMO, come across to most readers regardless of age. Muggles are perhaps another matter. Hermione's parents and Lily's parents seem decent enough people, "happy to have a witch in the family" to use Petunia's words regarding her own parents, but we see almost nothing of them in the books. Other Muggles, such as the Robertson family in GoF, are depicted chiefly as victims (or overly curious and observant Muggles who need to be frequently Obliviated, in Mr. R's case). The Dursleys, somewhere between negligent and abusive in their treatment of Harry and dangerously indulgent in their treatment of Dudley, and Dudders and his friends, bullies all, are unfavorably depicted (unless we count Dudley's mild transformation in DH), as are the off-page Muggle boys who beat up Ariana in the 1880s for her accidental magic. This unfavorable depiction is balanced--or contradicted, as you prefer, by Kingsley Shacklebolt's statements in DH about Muggles having the same right to life as Wizards and the duty of Wizards to protect them (this idea strikes me as Gryffindor chivalry as Godric Gryffindor intended it--the strong protecting the weak. Then, again, if the Muggles knew what they were facing, perhaps they wouldn't be quite so helpless as the Wizards think). I would say that until the last book, in which the emphasis is on Muggle-borns as victims, the message that prejudice against Muggle-borns is wrong comes through loud and clear. (IMO, JKR is facing the same conflicting desires as feminist writers made in the 1990s--the desire to "empower" the group that has traditionally been discriminated against [women or Muggle-borns] by showing them as equal or superior to those who try to keep them down and the desire to depict them as victims of their oppressors. You can't have it both ways without contradicting yourself.) The message that prejudice against Muggles, and particularly Muggle-baiting, is wrong is, IMO, much more garbled thanks to the Twins' actions against Dudley and the depiction of the most important Muggle characters in the books as bullies. The victimization of Muggles is shown, and criticized by Hermione and Mr. Weasley, but the equality of Muggles and their right not to have their memories Obliviated or otherwise altered is not even considered. (Admittedly, Obliviate is also used against Wizards, but not on principle as a means of maintaining the Statute of Secrecy, itself problematic in ways that JKR probably didn't consider when she invented it.) At any rate, *if* we're going to look at messages of "tolerance" in the books (and, IMO, that theme or motif or "message" is receiving far more attention than it perhaps merits thanks to JKR's own contradictory statements), perhaps we should look at the human characters and not at imaginary beings analogous to no species, human or animal, in the RW. As an aside, someone mentioned the treatment of Gnomes in the books. While I didn't like the "Gnome abuse," either, I think it's clear from the books, if we include FB, that Gnomes (like the Doxies that infest the curtains at 12 GP) are considered "beasts" rather than "beings" like House-Elves and Goblins. Animals in general are rather callously treated throughout the books--Vanishing kittens, for example, or Transfiguring hedgehogs into pincushions, some of which squeal when pins are inserted in them. The only justification I can find is that the books are fantasy; children aren't being encouraged to Stun Gnomes and turn them into Christmas angels or abuse any creature, real or imaginary. If the good characters were shown kicking dogs or drowning kittens, I'd be concerned. (Aunt Marge speaks of drowning runty puppies, but she's a bad guy.) Carol, sure that JKR, whatever her faults as a writer or interviewee, is not advocating slavery or prejudice or any other abuse of human beings or animals in the RW From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 5 17:44:15 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:44:15 -0000 Subject: HG-HBP/LegalSystems/Co-Creator(3)/Sandwich/Bed(2)/CHAPDISC(2)/Free HE/Regulus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178841 > Geoff wrote in > : > > << Supposing Harry had wondered whether Molly Weasley or Hermione or > even... Draco(!) might bring him a sandwich in Gryffindor Tower. What > would you read into that? >> Catlady: > If he had wondered if Molly, or Hermione, or Ginny, or any female > Gryffindor, might bring him a sandwich, that would be read as Rowling > approves of men believing that women are automatically their servants. > Altho' it wouldn't be out of character for Hermione -- in which book > did she bring him a stack of toast when he ran away from breakfast? > > One of the replies reminded me that Molly had just lost her son, Fred. > At some point things will be tidied up enough that the adrenaline of > the battle will wear off and she will go into deep grief, probably > clinging to Arthur (or to Arthur and George and whichever other of her > surviving children she can grab) and weeping big tears. It would be > strange for a grown-up to interrupt that to ask her to fetch a > sandwich, and stranger to think she might think of it herself while > thusly distracted. > > If Harry had wondered if Draco might bring him a sandwich, some would > believe he had gone crazy as shown by forgetting that Draco doesn't > know the Gryffindor Tower password, some (such as me) would claim it > proved the Harry/Draco ship, some would said it was Rowling's approval > of forcing the defeated enemy to work for you without pay, and some > would say it was one more proof that Rowling believes that anyone > sorted into Slytherin is an unworthy being regardless of what they do > after that. Magpie: Maybe I'm misreading your tone in this reply, but I hear people argue in this way all the time . Meaning that when someone has a criticism of something or didn't like it, the reply is that if JKR had done it differently she'd be lambasted for that even more so one thing is as bad as any other. The implication that anything the person said is meaningless because they were just throwing a tantrum. I'm not objecting to any jokes about fandom and how somebody is always going to object to something if that was your only point here, but I often hear it as an actual argument against whatever somebody is bringing up. Harry didn't ask any of these people to make him a sandwich so it does matter what we imagine somebody might have said if he did. If he had expected Molly to bring him one it would have pretty ridiculous, imo, as would him wondering if Draco would. It's not ridiculous for him to think of having Kreacher do it, which is why Kreacher is the one he's thinking of--because he's his slave, and that's apparently just fine. > Carol wrote in > : > > << has twice requested a description of the life of a free House- Elf, > this supposedly ideal state that certain readers thought would be > achieved through Harry's victory, and is still puzzled as to what they > mean by "freedom" >> Catlady: > I can define it even tho' I don't expect it to come about for decades > after Hermione leaves school and starts working full-time on it. Magpie: Hermione is not, canonically, doing any such thing, so I don't see why you're speaking as this is a given. There's not a hint in canon of how any of the things you're talking about could even come about. Hermione talks about taking SPEW further in fifth year when she's obsessed with SPEW, but her interest in it disappears in the last two books where she never brings it up even with regards to Kreacher. When dealing with the individual Elf Kreacher she more just gives lessons on the proper way to deal with them as a master. Catlady: > As for the bad effects on my morals of having someone else to do all > this miserable scut-work, I don't mind. Magpie: Nobody's said anything of there being a bad effect of having other people do your scut work. That's not what slavery is. -m From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 19:15:49 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:15:49 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: a sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472F6BE5.2020109@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178842 revaunchanistx: CJ: > But as others have pointed out, HP is full of unresolved story > arcs ... It just strikes me as messy writing. > > I don't understand how it is messy writing. Sure there are many > unresolved story archs in the HP books but there are many unresolved > issues in life. revaunchanistx: > The whole thing that makes JKR's writing so good to me is that it is > ersatz to our own world. Umm, sorry, but you consider a story about witchcraft and wizardry an ersatz for the RW ?! Imagine if the HP saga had just ended abruptly after, say, OotP, with DEs and good guys still battling for control of the WW with no resolution in sight. Or worse, DH ending that way. THAT would be like the RW, too. More so, in fact. But nobody would read it. Or they'd read it, then complain long and hard about what a stupid book it was. ("What the --- ? But who WINS?") HP is a work of fiction. Works of fiction are intended to be neatly wrapped, self-contained packages full of conflict AND resolution. RL doesn't have plots and climaxes and denouments or resolved story arcs. Fictional works do, and that's exactly why we read them -- to escape the messiness of RL. The second or third thing you learn in Writing Basics -- at least it was the second or third thing *I* learned -- is that story arcs resolve. Stories move forward. They have clearly defined conflicts, goals and directions -- and resolutions. An author must set -- and then meet! -- readers' expectations. Unresolved story arcs not only don't contribute to the forward motion of your story. Far worse, they confuse the reader with chaff. And a confused reader is the kiss of death for an author. So what was the *first* thing I learned? That a well-crafted story doesn't contained more than two or -- for highly experienced authors only, three -- story arcs. Because it's the rare author who can juggle more than three arcs without fatally muddling the story. Ninety nine times out of a hundred, if you have more than two arcs, you're really trying to tell more than one story, and it's time to re-evaluate your goals as an author. It'd be far better for the author, the reader, and the story arcs themselves to save the extra arcs for another time. In a word: Clarity. It's the most fundamental principle of story-telling. Tossing in a half-dozen story arcs, and then not resolving them, is the antithesis of clarity. If I want an ersatz for the RW full of unresolved story arcs and un-concluding conclusions, I'll just read the newspaper. --CJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 19:24:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:24:38 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178843 People seemed up in arms over the idea that after a long night, great stress and strife, little sleep and little food, Harry is tired and hungry. Well,(he says sarcastically) if that isn't a surprise. You can not be condemned for your thoughts, and if society reaches that level, then we are all doomed. Harry was tired and hungry, and he thought about how he might get a sandwich. He thought maybe Kreacher might bring him one because that is what Kreacher does. But, and this is a very big but, there is no evidence that he actually asked Kreacher to do this. So, how can his actions be deemed wrong, when there were no actions? Once again, if we start condemning people for their thoughts, we are all in very great trouble. As to the whole concept of Kreacher, Harry, and slavery, I think people are taking an unrealistically simplistic view of the situation. Harry does not like owning a slave, but a slave was forced upon him, and he has to deal with it. What should he do; let Kreacher go? You realize that would probably kill Kreacher. So Kreacher dead of dispair is apparently better that Kreacher doing what he likes to do? In the time and circumstances that are available to Harry, there is really very little he can do about Kreacher. Harry certainly has higher priorities at the moment; say priorities like...oh, I don't know...VOLDEMORT. Harry views Kreacher as a problem. That is, he views Kreacher as being his slave and/or servant as a problem, and I'm sure at some point in time, he will try to find a way to deal with the problem. Maybe at some point he does free Kreacher. Maybe at some point, he allows Kreacher to earn a salary for his work. Maybe he realizes that Kreacher is old and set in his ways, and the most merciful thing to do it let him live out the remainder of his short life doing what the wants to do, which is, of course, serving respectful and kind humans - meaning Harry and family. But these are all very delicate actions, that must be carefully thought out and even more carefully executed. Regardless of how we feel, Kreacher is not going to react well to anything that smacks of freedom or dismissal. To preserve Kreacher's comfort, as I said, Harry is going to have to proceed slowly and delicately. The results of not doing /this/ carefully, could be disastrous for Kreacher. Further, on the whole subject of slavery, let me note the the USA has still not fully recovered from its episode of slavery. Its effects are still coloring and distorting our world today about a 150 years after slavery was abolished. Also note that the world's record in general is even more abysmal that the USA's. Slavery and equivalent to slavery still exists all over the world today. There is a chance that some of the objects that you own were made by what is the modern day equivalent of slavery. It seems completely unrealistic to think that the house elf problem could be completely resolved by the end of the books. JKR said in an interview that Hermoine went to work in Dept. of Magical Law, and greatly expanded the right of House Elves and other magical creatures. What more could one person do in a society that is so resistant to change? What more could we expect? As to Harry and Kreacher, Kreacher is only a slave if Harry treats him like property. If Harry is willing to allow Kreacher to come and go as he pleases, and Kreacher chooses to stay, how is that slavery? If Harry treats Kreacher with kindness and respect, how is that slavery? As I've said many times before in House Elf/Slavery discussions, we don't know the nature of what holds House Elves to their Masters. We assume it is by brute force and coercion of that Masters, but it could just as likely be Elfin Honor. When an elf makes a commitment to a family, it could be that the Elfin Honor of that Elf and future generations of that Elf, hold them bound to their commitment. THEY make an oath (real or figurative) of loyalty that they will not break. Consequently, they are willing to suffer abuse and misuse to uphold that oath of honor and loyalty. In this case, it is not wizards who are holding Elves in slavery, it is Elfin Honor that holds them. Now, don't get me wrong, even if it is Elfin Honor, I'm absolutely sure that wizard exploited that Honor in the most egregious and self-serving way. Perhaps even to the point where House-elf oppression has been ingrained into the Elves over centuries of abuse. My point is, that I think playing the Human Slavery card, when discussing elves is misguided. True Dobby calls himself 'enslaved' but we don't know the foundation, nature, or context of that 'enslavement'. With out that context, I think comparisons to human slavery are flawed. Note, we see nothing in the books about the buying and selling of House Elves. However, we do see a House Elf Relocation Office, which I assume gets new jobs for House Elves that have become redundant or have been dismissed. As a broad metaphor, I think comparisons to human slavery are valid, but when we lose that broad and general context and get down to the nitty-gritty, I think it is flawed and of limited value to the discussion. House Elf 'enslavement' is not a direct parallel to human slavery. We don't see Elves being captured in the wild. We do not see them being bought and sold. We do not know the nature of those enchantments that hold them. Note, when Dobby speaks of those enchantments, I believe he refers to them as 'the enchantments of our kind', meaning elfin enchantments. There are very real and critical differences between House Elf 'enslavement' and human slavery, and I think we are misguided if we lose sight of that. So, knowing Harry, I see no problem with him 'owning' Kreacher, because I assume at some point he will deal with the situation is the best possible way. I also have no problem with Harry wanting a sandwich and thinking of Kreacher because thoughts aren't crimes. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn PS: the subject title is a re-write of Henry V- Act 3- Scene 1. The speech ends with 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George'. Just thought you might like to know. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 19:48:06 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:48:06 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178844 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > a_svirn wrote: > > Actually, she does not seem to recognize it [that House-Elves can't > realistically be freed]. Or rather, she does not acknowledge it. She > still insists that slavery is a bad thing, that Hermione was right > back in her fourth year when she tried to change things, and that the > HP books are about morality and tolerance. But the only thing they > teach to tolerate is inequality in its most extreme forms. > > > Carol responds: > > To be fair to JKR, even though I'm not happy with her for a variety of > reasons at the moment, perhaps her *intended* message of "tolerance" > relates to human characters rather than House-Elves (not that I have > any faith at all in the validity of authorial intention as a basis for > literary analysis). a_svirn: Then, what is the point of house elves? We sympathise with their plight (impossible not to), we are repeatedly treated to the discussion of the evils of their situation and for what? So that in the end we would accept those evils as necessarily ones? Not only it seems like a rather anticlimactic lesson from that great Gospel of Tolerance, I don't see where exactly the necessity really lies. If she invented natural slaves simply because they are very useful creatures to own it's well, not very commendable. > Carol: > As for the books being about "morality," I don't recall her using that > word. a_svirn: She said her interviews that her books are moral books. Here are a couple of links that a quick google search yielded: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3215099.stm http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-oregonian-baker.htm > Carol: > Muggles are perhaps another matter. a_svirn: hear, hear! > Carol: The message that prejudice > against Muggles, and particularly Muggle-baiting, is wrong is, IMO, > much more garbled thanks to the Twins' actions against Dudley and the > depiction of the most important Muggle characters in the books as > bullies. The victimization of Muggles is shown, and criticized by > Hermione and Mr. Weasley, but the equality of Muggles and their right > not to have their memories Obliviated or otherwise altered is not even > considered. (Admittedly, Obliviate is also used against Wizards, but > not on principle as a means of maintaining the Statute of Secrecy, > itself problematic in ways that JKR probably didn't consider when she > invented it.) a_svirn: Exactly. They use their power to victimise muggles simply because it's expedient and they can do it. As in that old adage about ends and means. Hermione even messes with her own parents' minds, because it's simple and economical solution of her problem. What they may think about this identity theft does not even merit a question from her best friends. Her parents are only muggles, after all. And while it is all very understandable and sensible from the wizarding point of view attitude, it can hardly be called tolerant. > Carol, sure that JKR, whatever her faults as a writer or interviewee, > is not advocating slavery or prejudice or any other abuse of human > beings or animals in the RW a_svirn: She may not advocate it, but she seems ready to tolerate it. Whenever it is convenient for her to do so. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 5 20:09:46 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:09:46 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178845 Steve: > People seemed up in arms over the idea that after a long night, > great stress and strife, little sleep and little food, Harry > is tired and hungry. Well,(he says sarcastically) if that > isn't a surprise. Magpie: No they aren't. They're just commenting on the last line calling attention to Harry owning a slave. Whether or not he actually asked him for the sandwich or not isn't really an issue--it's highlighting Harry's situation and what he might do in it. Nobody's said Harry's bad for being tired and hungry. Steve: > As to the whole concept of Kreacher, Harry, and slavery, I > think people are taking an unrealistically simplistic view > of the situation. Harry does not like owning a slave, but > a slave was forced upon him, and he has to deal with it. Magpie: I think it is simplistic and you and others are describing why: Harry does want to own a slave at all. Oh no, he doesn't want to in the least. He'd let him go if only Kreacher didn't need him to be his master, because House Elves really are born slaves. Harry's just taking on his responsibility and perks as one of the masters of his world. He's totally not like a slave owner in the real world, because Kreacher needs and wants to be a slave. (Sure many slave owners made these arguments about their own slaves in the past but in Harry's case it's true so he's not them.) The benefits aren't really anything he can do anything about. Steve: > It seems completely unrealistic to think that the house > elf problem could be completely resolved by the end of > the books. JKR said in an interview that Hermoine went > to work in Dept. of Magical Law, and greatly expanded > the right of House Elves and other magical creatures. > What more could one person do in a society that is so > resistant to change? What more could we expect? Magpie: Nothing. Who needs change, after all? The House Elves don't, so Wizards like Harry will just have to go on kindly being their masters. However, I would say that being "unrealistic" doesn't matter because none of it is unrealistic. JKR could have had somebody discover the secret behind the enchantment and lift it by DH and it would be no less realistic than Harry having a magical imp waiting on him. Steve: > As to Harry and Kreacher, Kreacher is only a slave if > Harry treats him like property. If Harry is willing to > allow Kreacher to come and go as he pleases, and Kreacher > chooses to stay, how is that slavery? If Harry treats > Kreacher with kindness and respect, how is that slavery? Magpie: It's slavery because Harry owns him as property and for all the reasons House Elf slavery works. You can treat your slave with kindness and respect and still have him be your slave. House Elves *want* to be slaves as long as they accept you as their master. Once that happens you don't have to worry about letting them come and go as they please, because they please to serve you. Steve: > > As I've said many times before in House Elf/Slavery > discussions, we don't know the nature of what holds House > Elves to their Masters. We assume it is by brute force and > coercion of that Masters, but it could just as likely be > Elfin Honor. Magpie: I don't assume it's brute force of their Masters. It seems canonical that it is Elf Honor. And an enchantment, the origin of which we don't know. That's why elves are so awesome as slaves. You don't have to use brute force, you just have to be worthy in the slave's eyes. It's like they love you. Steve: > In this case, it is not wizards who are holding Elves in > slavery, it is Elfin Honor that holds them. Magpie: Exactly. So the only Wizards doing anything wrong are those that "exploit" the honor by being mean to the Elf (though I'm sure they would explain they're not doing wrong either). If you're just letting them cook and clean for you and stuff you're not doing anything wrong. Steve: > My point is, that I think playing the Human Slavery card, > when discussing elves is misguided. Magpie: JKR did it. But yes, real humans are not House Elves so it's inaccurate to project the feelings and thoughts enslaved humans would have onto House Elves. House Elves do, as it happens, conform to the idea of slaves that plenty of slave owners have had--the sort of cozy, everyone happy in their role and they can't take care of themselves as free agents sort of thing--only it's real for them. Harry is a 20th century boy from the suburbs who ends up living that particular dream while remaining somebody who doesn't support slavery (he'd totally free Kreacher if it wouldn't be far far worse for him). He's a sympathetic, p.c. slave-owner. It's a great fantasy- -something like...I dunno...like creating a guy who is totally respectful of women and wants nothing more than to be faithful to his wife only then there's this race of big-breasted babes who will be miserable if he doesn't sleep with them all (and he's really awesome at it). Darn it! Steve: > So, knowing Harry, I see no problem with him 'owning' > Kreacher, because I assume at some point he will deal with > the situation is the best possible way. Magpie: If there's no problem to his owning (He does own him. He inherited him.) Kreacher what does he have to deal with at some point in the best possible way? Isn't he already doing that? What's missing that people think Harry and Hermione ought to do in the future that we're not told they're doing or do? -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 20:15:40 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:15:40 -0000 Subject: HG-HBP/LegalSystems/Co-Creator(3)/Sandwich/Bed(2)/CHAPDISC(2)/Free HE/Regulus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178846 > Magpie: > Hermione is not, canonically, doing any such thing, so I don't see > why you're speaking as this is a given. There's not a hint in canon > of how any of the things you're talking about could even come about. > Hermione talks about taking SPEW further in fifth year when she's > obsessed with SPEW, but her interest in it disappears in the last > two books where she never brings it up even with regards to > Kreacher. When dealing with the individual Elf Kreacher she more > just gives lessons on the proper way to deal with them as a master. zgirnius: To me, the words "Oh, don't you see how sick it is, the way they've got to obey?" are not a commentary on Harry's treatment of Kreacher, or advice to Harry. They are a criticism of the House Elf enslavement iself, either of its very existence, or of the specific form it presently takes. She has accepted since OotP the security reasons for why Kreacher cannot be freed. When she did so, she did not also drop the idea of freeing House Elves in priciple. This is why she focuses on his treatment in HBP and DH. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 21:29:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:29:42 -0000 Subject: Portrayal of MoM in the series VERY LONG BEWARE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178847 Alla wrote: > "Ministry o' Magic messin' things up as usual" > > I always loved how consistently Rowling portrayed corruption of the ministry throughout the series and when I look back now I can also see how elegantly she foreshadowed its fall as well. This post is just an attempt to show the canon support for this and not all inclusive either, so feel free to add if you wish. > > From the beginning of the series we get one message pretty clear IMO. Ministry of Magic and its Minister is a bunch of incompetent morons and Minister wants Dumbledore's advice on every single matter. Carol responds: Thanks for introducing a new topic, Alla, and an important one at that. There's no question, IMO, that political satire is an important element of the HP books, especially OoP. I suspect that Umbridge is at least in part a savage caricature of Margaret Thatcher, but not being British (or particularly interested in politics), I can't be sure. (I'd welcome opinions on the topic on the OT list, however.) Alla: > From CoS to GoF we see Cornelius Fudge and Lucius Malfoy getting closer and closer and closer. I wonder what does it say about Fudge, folks. > I had no doubt myself that Lucius Malfoy's political power is more than Minister of Magic Fudge will ever dream of having. I thought it was clear that Fudge does not want Dumbledore suspended, but whatever Malfoy says goes. > Malfoy gets kicked out of the Board at the end, but in PoA we see that he has enough power to have the whole committee of disposal of magical creatures at his fingertips. > > And he is being better and better buddies with Minister Fudge it looks to me. Carol responds: I agree with you about Lucius Malfoy, who is using everything he has--name, blood, money, ruthlessness that he conceals from Fudge, and a slippery personality (he can be charming or intimidating, rather like some other Slytherins we know, depending on whom he's manipulating). Even in DH, stripped of his wand and humbled, he manages to survive. I'm not sure about his becoming better and better buddies with Fudge, however. I think he's just using Fudge and buying influence with him by giving gold to good causes, at the same time appearing to be a respectable citizen concerned about the welfare of the students at Hogwarts and the WW at large. IMO, Fudge *wants* to believe that Lucius was under the Imperius Curse during VW1 just as he *wants* to believe that Voldemort has not returned. However, it's just possible that Fudge's Senior Undersecretary dolores Umbridge, who appears from her words to Harry in OOP to be a friend of Lucius Malfoy's (and who, just possibly, has a DE who walked free as a relative, if the Selwyn connection is real), is increasingly influencing Fudge. We see in GoF that she's persuaded Fudge's junior secretary, Percy Weasley, that she's a delightful woman. Perhaps Fudge, who includes her on the panel of judges at Harry's hearing, is under the same delusion. To speak plainly, I think that Malfoy and Umbridge are working together to pull the wool over Fudge's eyes and manipulate him to their own ends, whether it's hiding a DE background and the return of Voldemort or passing anti-werewolf legislation and undermining Dumbledore's credibility through Harry. I don't know whether Umbridge believes that Voldemort has been restored to a body and is about to return or not, but she seems to have a vested interest in making Fudge fear that DD is spreading lies in an effort to take over the Ministry. Fudge, being vain and weak and seeing nothing wrong with the pure-blood supremacy ethic in itself as long as it doesn't lead to terror and violence, could easily be manipulated into seeing danger from DD rather than LV. I'm sure it's Umbridge who persuaded him that DD is raising an army to overthrow him. (And Percy, ambitious and blind to any faults in high Ministry officials, goes along with the official position, at least through the end of OoP, when neither he nor Fudge can deny that Voldemort is really back.) That Umbridge retains her position as Undersecretary even after Fudge is fired is rather disturbing. Maybe it shows that she has other fooled besides Fudge (and Marietta?). At any rate, I rather like Fudge, weak and manipulable and capable of self-delusion though he is. Even at Harry's hearing, where he's at his worst, he really believes that Harry has violated important laws without good reason. (Unaware that Umbridge ordered the Dementors to attack Harry, he believes that the attack is yet another wild story invented by Harry--which does not, of course, justify a full trial for a juvenile offense, much less sending Harry to Azkaban, both of which I speculate were Umbridge's idea since she sent the Dementors.) He thinks he's in charge but he's been deceived by Umbridge (and he's outmaneuvered not only by DD but by the incorruptible Madam Bones, who manages to bring about a fair verdict despite both Fudge and Umbridge). "The Other Minister" in HBP shows Fudge making repeated effort to keep the Muggle Prime Minister informed of developments in the WW that might endanger the Muggles and telling him the truth about what happened to his own assistant, the quacking Herbert Chorley. As this chapter shows, he's not wholly ineffectual, despite being deceived by both Umbridge and Malfoy (and, for that matter, Macnair, another DE employee of the Ministry), and the kindly persona we see in PoA seems to me to be more natural to him than the angry, defensive blustering at the hearing (in which fear and anger get the best of him). I like his humility at the end of "The Other Minister," and it's a shame that we don't see him in DH. Killed? Imperiused? Fled? Quietly conforming to the new regime? We never find out. Alla: > BACK to the MINISTRY. > > I also think that even good people working at the Ministry get sucked in the atmosphere of corruption of power, no matter how harmless it is to me on the grand scale of things. I love Weasleys by and large, no matter if I sometimes have Molly's issues and Arthur I just love. But eh, writing a law and make a loophole to be able to amuse oneself with muggle car seems just wrong to me. > > Of course I refuse to think that it means that Arthur will ever write a law that would truly hurt somebody, so to me it is relatively harmless, but I am just saying that it is telling to me of what Ministry of Magic truly is. Carol: But Arthur also wrote the Muggle Protection Act, which, IIRC, is a different and wholly well-intentioned law (one opposed by Lucius Malfoy, who nevertheless could not prevent its being passed). No loopholes in that one, to my knowledge. (Arthur does, however, ignore his sons' violation of the Statute of Secrecy when they fly his car. A bit of corruption there?) > As an aside, for the reason that I was absolutely convinced that Ministry is unequivocally portrayed as bad place, despite the fact that several good people work there, I was absolutely sure that no matter how Percy' storyline ends, it will not end with Arthur apologizing to him. I knew that if Percy comes back, he will be the only person apologizing. Since he chose the Ministry, which condemned Sirius' without a trial, Ministry who almost expelled Harry, Ministry who sent Dolores Umbridge to Hogwarts over his family. Alla: > Of course I think corruption and other weaknesses of the Ministry are shown in all its glory in OOP more than any other books. > My disdain for MoM as an institution of power reached all time low with arrival of Dolores Umbridge. > > Dolores Umbridge is a ministry official after all, let me say it again, Dolores Umbridge is a ministry official. This woman sent Dementors on the student. This woman used blood quill on at least two students. This woman thought that students do not need to learn practical DADA spells in class. > > This woman actively promoted the "Voldemort is not back" line of the Ministry and did as we all know many horrible things. That woman is a ministry official and not only an official but in the position of leadership. > > I do not see how the MOM can be viewed with any sort of sympathy till people like Umbridge work there, again despite many good people working there as well. Carol: Absolutely, the rise of Dolores Umbridge, whether or not she she know that Voldemort is returning, is a harbinger of worse to come. She represents bureaucracy at its most callous and hypocritical; she's self-serving, power-hungry, ruthless, cold, and cruel, but she wears a facade of maternal helpfulness, telling the students that sh'e their friend and that she's protecting them against lies. She also seems to me to represent government interference in schools, teaching to the test rather than providing useful information and skills that the students can apply in their daily lives once they leave Hogwarts, but as I'm not familiar with the British school system or the efforts of the government to regulate it, I could be mistakenly imposing an American perspective here. (Again, I'd be interested in responses to this idea in OT Chatter. Does "The Ministry is/are interfering at Hogwarts" strike a nerve with British readers in relation to government interference in British schools, either public or state-run, where the hand of the government might be more heavily felt?) However, Ministry employees run the gamut (IMO) from genuinely evil characters like Umbridge and Macnair to Crouch Sr., who tries to fight evil by cracking down on civil liberties and authorizing the Aurors to use Unforgiveable Curses through well-meaning but inept bureaucrats like Fudge who are more concerned with image than efficiency and fear their own loss of power to the likeable and good-hearted but slightly corrupted Arthur Weasley to the powerful and incorruptible Amanda Bones. Somewhere in between, you have the ambitious and deluded but not evil Percy and the efficient but not wholly scrupulous Scrimgeour, who made the mistake of being sidetracked by DD's will, enabling Yaxley to Imperius Thicknesse and paving the way for his own murder and the takeover of the Ministry. IOW, the MoM is a cross-section of the WW (as we see again in the contrasting characters of Cattermole and Runcorn that Ron and Harry impersonate, one the husband of a victim and the other the snitch who forced Dirk Cresswell to flee by revealing him as a Muggle-born, and various other minor characters, including the girl sneering at Umbridge without a second thought about the contents of the pink pamphlets she's assembling on Umbridge's orders). Not very different from a real-life bureaucracy in an unstable political environment, probably. > Alla: > We see MOM actively trying to discredit Dumbledore and Harry and trying to tell wizarding population that No, Voldemort is not back. Of course not, how can he be? He is not back and we will put our head in the sand and leave it there. Carol: Unless Fudge and the others are willing to take DD's word for it, there's really no evidence other than Cedric's death, which DD does *not* explain, at least to the Hogwarts students, other than saying that LV murdered him (leaving out Wormtail and all the other improbable details). I can't say that I blame Fudge for believing that it's yet another wild story of a dead man coming back to life. Who would believe that a man who lived as a rat for thirteen years after framing his ex-friend for his own murder resurrected a wizard who had existed as vapor for those same thirteen years by giving him a fetal form and dropping that fetal form (itself capable of murder) into a boiling potion whose key ingredients were blood, bone, and a human hand and that Cedric was murdered by the rat on the fetus's orders? The only convincing evidence was Snape's Dark Mark, which Fudge found both revolting and unconvincing. Yes, he stuck his head in the sadn because he didn't want to believe that LV was back, but he wasn't present for Barty Jr.'s confession. All he had was the word of DD, the injured Harry, and a staff member (Snape) who wasn't present at the graveyard scene. Maybe, if Umbridge hadn't been the most important official working directly under him and, no doubt, a trusted advisor, Fudge would have come to believe at least some parts of the story. But given the short time between the end of GoF and the beginning of OoP and the abrupt change in his attitude during that time (from stunned disbelief to active opposition) and Umbridge's own confession that she was trying to discredit DD by sending the Dementors and "what Cornelius knows won't hurt him," I'd say she's responsible for his belief that DD is not only mistaking but actually lying to the wizarding public in an attempt to take over the MoM. (Her agenda, apparently, is her own rise to power; whether she's also working with Lucius to prepare Voldemort's takeover is debateable. Given the useless DADA classes, I wouldn't be at all surprised.) > Alla: > It is funny how little it takes for the Ministry to finally believe that Voldemort is back. It only takes one person's death, right? Carol: Well, no. It took a lot more than one death to open Fudge's eyes. In GoF, Fudge refused to believe that Cedric's death had anything to do with Voldemort's return, and Sirius's death (and loyalties) had to be taken on faith, given that his body had disappeared beyond the Veil (OoP). What convinced Fudge was seeing the resurrected Voldemort disappearing from the atrium of the MoM, taking Bellatrix with him, amid the ruins of the demolished fountain, which was obviously the scene of a battle. Once he went down to the Department of Mysteries, he would have seen the wreckage caused by the battle between the Order and the DEs (now bound by DD's jinx to keep them from Disapparating), many of them escapees from Azkaban. Under the circumstances, he could hardly deny that DEs (Lucius Malfoy among them) had broken into the Hall of Prophecy and that Voldemort had returned. That's rather different from hearing an improbable tale of a man everyone thought was dead restoring another man that everyone thought was dead in a giant stone cauldron in an unidentified graveyard, witnessed only by Harry. Fudge can deny DD's version of events when there's no evidence to back him up, but he can't deny it when he sees the evidence all around him, including a glimpse of LV himself, also witnessed by Aurors. Alla: > So, one would think that now Ministry will do their best to prepare people to war and start doing smart things, right? Carol: Well, you know politicians. Fudge can't help but admit the truth under the circumstances (meanwhile hoping that Harry will raise public morale by supporting the Ministry), and sending out pamphlets advising the public on how to prepare themselves is better than nothing. (It's what most governments would do, right, even if it's not much more use than the old "duck and cover" messages during the Cold War?) Propaganda, pamphlets, and arresting a few people. As for "doing the smart thing," putting Scrimgeour in charge certainly *seemed* like a smart move, and I don't think they could have anticipated the murder of a gifted witch like Amelia Bones. What do you think they should have done instead (or in addition), other than informing the Wizarding public about the second mass escape from Azkaban (between HBP and DH), which they certainly should have done? (I really don't know the answer; I don't think they suspected Umbridge as a link to the DEs, and we don't know anything about Thicknesse except that he must have been an acquaintance of Yaxley's. Ideas, anyone?) > Alla: > In HBP we see Fudge telling Muggle prime minister that his junior minister is under Imperius curse. > > I thought it was a nice foreshadowing of Pius Thickness being under Imperius in DH. In fact, I thought (in retrospect obviously, since I totally did not predict that the Ministry will fall in DH) that one of the reasons JKR wrote this chapter was to stick in some hints that Ministry will fall in DH> > > I mean, we know DE can get really close to high politicians now, again Quacking minister as an example. Witness DH and just see how close they can get. Carol: Well, yes, it was foreshadowing (unrecognized by most of us, probably) but Herbert Chorley was a Muggle who'd never heard of Voldemort, so it would be easier to place him under an Imperius Curse than it must have been to do the same with Thicknesse (a wizard, however "thick," and one who certainly knew that LV was back, whatever his loyalties). Getting near enough to a Muggle bureaucrat to Imperius him would merely require getting past Muggle security measures (which wouldn't be triggered by a wand). Any DE not in Azkaban could have done it, even a stupid one, and considering that the curse was botched, it probably was a stupid one. And afterwards, Scrimgeour placed Kingsley Shacklebolt on the Muggle Prime Minister's staff, so, ironically, the Muggle PM had better security than Scrimgeour himself. (Being an ex-Auror, he probably didn't think he needed it.) Alla: > Witness Voldemort being so kind as personally going after the only strong and powerful witch who is also as we know firmly on the side of good and who probably can resist Imperius, resist bribes, etc. I am of course talking about Voldemort being as kind as personally go and kill Amelia Bones, who put up a fight, but was unable to win. Carol: Yes, that was a clue, all right. I just thought that he was killing off a powerful enemy. Should have known he was preparing a Ministry takeover, but I was caught by surprise. > Alla: > And of course we see that Fudge is being sacked. Carol: I'm not sure how sacking Fudge fits in if you're still talking about foreshadowing. The WW thought (with good reason) that Fudge had failed and/or misled them, so of course they clamored for his resignation. And the tough, efficient, not wholly scrupulous Scrimgeour was a logical replacement. I guess JKR had to kill him off so that the DEs could run rampant through DH. His death was as necessary to the takeover as Amanda Bones's. > Alla: > Isn't it beautifully done? At the beginning of HBP morale is already pretty low at the Ministry, should it be really wonder how Voldemort and co managed to get in? Carol: I'm not sure about the low morale at the Ministry itself once Scrimgeour was in office. Are you referring to the Dementors spreading depression and gloom everywhere? Amanda Bones's supporters and staff would be upset, certainly, and outspoken enemies of Voldemort (if any) might fear for their lives (though most of them were Order members). But until the death of Dumbledore, Voldemort's return didn't seem all that catastrophic. A murder or disappearance here, a "hurricane" or collapsed bridge there, shops going out of business, the opal necklace scare at Hogwarts, but no significant murders between the Bones and Vance murders and DD's supposed murder, IIRC. Voldie seemed to be biding his time, though maybe he was making some behind-the-scenes preparations, including plans for the Azkaban breakout when the time came. IMO, he was wasn't just biding his time waiting for Draco to fail so he could punish the Malfoys. He really wanted DD dead, which is why he was getting angry and making threats as the end of term neared and Draco still hadn't gotten the DEs into Hogwarts. He was counting on Snape to do the job not if but when Draco failed. The Hogwarts takeover was a key element in his plans, and the death of DD would also make taking over the MoM easier. He might not even have regarded the takeover as possible while Dumbledore lived, given the results of the MoM battle in OoP. > Alla: > Funny, JKR mentioned in the interview that in the first war Voldemort could not that far because he was unable to infiltrate the ministry. For those of you who consider interview at least somewhat canonical, why do you think he was unable to infiltrate Ministry in the first war? > I mean, from what we hear the atmosphere of mutual distrust and fear was also there. What do you think was different? Carol: I don't consider the interview canonical, but canon makes it clear that he didn't fully infiltrate the Ministry despite having Rookwood as a spy and DEs like Macnair as Ministry employees. And I think the reason is "the only one he ever feared." As long as DD lived, he could only fight a small-scale war involving murders and terorism and small battles between DEs and Order members, spreading fear and discord. But kill DD and he could take over the WW. I think that would have been his next step after killing baby!Harry: kill DD, steal the Sword of Gryffindor and use it to make his last Horcrux (with Harry's or DD's murder; it wouldn't matter); take over Hogwarts; then take over the WW. Fortunately for the WW but not for LV, it didn't work out that way. In a word, what was different was Dumbledore: alive in VW1, dead, supposedly on LV's orders, in VW2. That, IMO, is what enables the war to escalate from the scary but endurable conditions of HBP to the chaos of DH. (Of course, I still think the takeover of the MoM and the small number of DEs should not have been sufficient to send such a huge number of Muggle-borns into panic mode so quickly, but I've said everything I have to say on that topic in another post. > Alla: > Well, what happened in DH we all know and of course in the days before the takeover, Scrimgeour shut himself in his office and as many people hoped to work on the plan, but even if he was, obviously plan was not successful? Carol: I'm not sure what you're saying her. Do you think that Scrimgeour was working on a plan? I thought he was studying the will and trying to solve the mystery of the book, the Snitch, and the Deluminator. Whatever he was doing, he ought to have been keeping an eye on his own employees, notably Pius Thicknesse and Dolores Umbridge, and watching out for people like Yaxley who pled the Imperius Curse after Godric's Hollow 9which partially answers my own question above, but I still wonder what else people think he ought to have been doing). Alla: > Again, all that I attempted to do was to show that JKR portrayed Ministry or at least its leaders in a very consistent way through the books ? as bunch of corrupted, incompetent and often evil morons. Carol: I've gotten a bit away from this idea since I don't consider either Fudge or Scrimgeour to be evil, flawed though they are in different ways, nor do I consider them to be morons. Fudge is to some degree self-deluded; he's also weak and easily manipulated. Nevertheless, he seems to be a genuinely decent man and I liked him a lot in "The Other Minister." Scrimgeour is tough, shrewd, intelligent, and, at a guess, normally efficient. He's too concerned with public image, he sould have spoken up about the second Azkaban breakout, and he certainly should not have spent so much time in his office at such a crucial period. But it would have been better if he'd remained the head of the Auror office rather than being promoted to Prime Minister. I doubt that he was influenced, as Fudge was, by Malfoy and Umbridge, but he certainly failed to see Umbridge, at least, for what she was (and how Harry expected him to know that the scars on his hand were from Umbridge's quill, I really don't know). Even Barty Crouch Sr. does not strike me as evil despite Sirius Black's view of him as "ruthless." I think he made a serious mistake in judgment, pursuing vengeance at the expense of justice, and paid the price. Umbridge, however, is without question, ruthless, cruel, corrupted, and evil. It's possible that she really believes what she's saying in OoP (Voldemort is not back and DD is just making a bid for power), but it's also possible that she knew the truth and was preparing the way for him, along with Lucius Malfoy, unknown to Fudge, who trusted them both. At any rate, absolutely, OoP is an attack on corrupt bureaucracy, but there's a lot more to it. Maybe JKR believes that corruption, which leads to bad laws and loss of freedom (Harry's trial, Sirius's and Hagrid's arrests, government-controlled newspapers), paves the way for dictatorship. (The Nazis, of course, were hardly the only party or faction to do such a thing. Communists, military juntas, radical Islamic factions--it happens all the time, even in Europe.) Just what sort of political statement JKR is making with regard to Britain, I can't say. (Again, I'd welcome answers on OT Chatter.) But she's no fan of bureaucracies or big government, or of government-controlled schools, if I'm judging correctly. Leaving JKR out of it, we can simply say that the WW is clearly not a democracy, its laws are too easily and too arbitrarily changed, and civil liberties appear to have little protection. Not such a wonderful place to live after all, wnad or no wand. Carol, not sure what her point is and just responding to Alla's post From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 5 22:02:02 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:02:02 -0000 Subject: HG-HBP/LegalSystems/Co-Creator(3)/Sandwich/Bed(2)/CHAPDISC(2)/Free HE/Regulus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178848 > > Magpie: > > Hermione is not, canonically, doing any such thing, so I don't see > > why you're speaking as this is a given. There's not a hint in canon > > of how any of the things you're talking about could even come > about. > > Hermione talks about taking SPEW further in fifth year when she's > > obsessed with SPEW, but her interest in it disappears in the last > > two books where she never brings it up even with regards to > > Kreacher. When dealing with the individual Elf Kreacher she more > > just gives lessons on the proper way to deal with them as a master. > > zgirnius: > To me, the words "Oh, don't you see how sick it is, the way they've > got to obey?" are not a commentary on Harry's treatment of Kreacher, > or advice to Harry. They are a criticism of the House Elf enslavement > iself, either of its very existence, or of the specific form it > presently takes. > > She has accepted since OotP the security reasons for why Kreacher > cannot be freed. When she did so, she did not also drop the idea of > freeing House Elves in priciple. This is why she focuses on his > treatment in HBP and DH. Magpie: Sure those words are a criticism of the situation, but freeing the elves also creates its own problems. Freeing Kreacher would have also stopped "how sick it was" in that scene, but she didn't suggest it either when security reasons were an issue or after he was on their side, or at the end of the book--there are reasons it's bad to free the House Elf. Though the last line links the more positive parts with ordinary comforts like a warm bed. Of course someone could write a fanfic where Hermione spent the rest of her life on this problem, but it's not part of the story that she did. We've no more idea how one would lift that compulsion without throwing them all into massive depressions than we did back in GoF. People presumably thought that lifting this compulsion or spell would be part of the story. Instead it ends with the resolution that as sick as it is to watch House Elves punish themselves that hasn't changed, and this particular House Elf belongs to Harry, with a focus on the nice bits. It's a problem that's there, that Hermione makes noise about, but does not find any solution for, that still goes on being there at the end of the book--but it's also got some pleasant sides to it and that's the last image of it we see. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 5 22:06:25 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:06:25 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178849 "Carol" wrote: > For me, what JKR says the books are > about is no more relevant than what > the Pope (if he's read them) says > they're about. That is a good line, that is a VERY good line! I just wish I had written it. Once an author publishes her work readers are free to make of it what they want, and if the author doesn't like it then that's just tough. An author just gives birth to a character, and no parent can be certain where her offspring will eventually end up. > Clearly, race and sex (not "gender," which > is a grammatical term) make no difference > in magical ability. Neither does "blood" > however much emphasis various characters > may place on it. Another good point. > The message that prejudice against Muggles, > and particularly Muggle-baiting, is wrong > is, IMO, much more garbled thanks to the > Twins' actions against Dudley I respectfully disagree. The twins felt insulted when their father said they baited Dudley because he was a Muggle! They baited him because he was a stupid git; and they believed he was a stupid git because they liked and respected Harry and believed his stories about Dudley. But in Dudley's defense I think if I had grown up in his environment I would have been an insufferable little bastard too, and book 7 proves he is a better person than either of his parents. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 22:01:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:01:03 -0000 Subject: Resolutive endings WAS: Re: a sandwich In-Reply-To: <472F6BE5.2020109@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178850 > revaunchanistx: > > The whole thing that makes JKR's writing so good to me is that it is > > ersatz to our own world. CJ: > Umm, sorry, but you consider a story about witchcraft and wizardry an > ersatz for the RW ?! Alla: Cannot speak for another poster, but personally while I do not consider it to be ersatz for RW, I certainly consider some issues there to be reflections of RW to larger or smaller degree - metaphorically often, often not even metaphorically. IMO of course. CJ: > Imagine if the HP saga had just ended abruptly after, say, OotP, with > DEs and good guys still battling for control of the WW with no > resolution in sight. Or worse, DH ending that way. THAT would be like > the RW, too. More so, in fact. But nobody would read it. Or they'd read > it, then complain long and hard about what a stupid book it was. ("What > the --- ? But who WINS?") Alla: Hmmm, I would read it. And while I cannot remember of the top of my head the book that ends major war conflict as unresolved, I know plenty of works of fiction as I brought before that end their arcs unresolved and you know, many read and love them. CJ: > HP is a work of fiction. Works of fiction are intended to be neatly > wrapped, self-contained packages full of conflict AND resolution. RL > doesn't have plots and climaxes and denouments or resolved story arcs. > Fictional works do, and that's exactly why we read them -- to escape the > messiness of RL. Alla: Says who? I guess it is good that plenty of great writers did not follow writing 101 rules then. Let's leave my beloved War and Peace alone and take a look at "Three sisters" or "Cherry orchid" by Checkhov. There IS no resolution for main characters at the end and that was sort of the point, I think. There are plenty of books that have the resolution at the end, but it is certainly NOT a requirement for the great work of fiction IMO. Oh, Oh and what is the resolution in the Eugene Onegin by Pushkin? It seemed that initially Pushkin intended him to join Decembrists, but abandoned this idea in favor of you know, unresolved ending. His love storyline gets resolved, but societal one not at all IMO. While we are at it, how is Lermontov resolved the searchings of his Pechorin in the "Hero of our time"? Did Pechorin search for his place in society came to any satisfactory conclusion? I mean, he dies without figuring out pretty much anything, no? IMO of course and other russian speakers could be in disagreement obviously. And people are still loving this book, despite the fact that it does not come in neat little package full of resolution. And that is why I can so second what this list member said. I do think that it mirrors the realities of the society - that many smaller arcs leave hanging, just as everything did not get neatly resolve in the RL. It IS often satisfactory I agree when larger arcs are resolved, even if they are not in RL, that is why IMO Harry v Voldemort was resolved completely, but I am very happy that JKR did not do all conflicts resolution in one book. And yes, I consider House Elves to be among those unresolved ones in favor of showing RL reflections to some extent. CJ: > The second or third thing you learn in Writing Basics -- at least it was > the second or third thing *I* learned -- is that story arcs resolve. Alla: See above, I guess I am just very happy that many of my all time favorite writers did not attend Writing Basics. CJ: > If I want an ersatz for the RW full of unresolved story arcs and > un-concluding conclusions, I'll just read the newspaper. Alla: To each their own, I will go to russian literature for unresolved story arcs and will still enjoy the books tremendously. I think in this JKR had great teachers. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 23:24:32 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:24:32 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178851 --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Steve: > > People seemed up in arms over the idea that after a long > > night, great stress and strife, little sleep and little > > food, Harry is tired and hungry. Well,(he says > > sarcastically) if that isn't a surprise. > > Magpie: > No they aren't. They're just commenting on the last line > calling attention to Harry owning a slave. Whether or not > he actually asked him for the sandwich or not isn't really > an issue--Nobody's said Harry's bad for being tired and > hungry. > bboyminn: There is a certain preceived ...hummm...bitterness???... to you're response of such that I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic, or perhaps a blend of both. Here is my point, the last line IS NOT about Harry owning a slave, nor is it intended to call attention to Harry owning a slave. It is about a hungry boy wanting a sandwich and speculating on possible ways to get one. People are objecting to Harry 'wondering if /Kreacher/ would bring him a sandwich'. And that is one valid way to get a sandwich. Yet, and I think this is very relevant, it is unlikely that Harry actually followed through on that thought. Again, thoughts are not crimes, yet that is exactly what I see people implying; that it is a crime that Harry /thought/ of asking Kreacher to get him a sandwich. Further, thinking of Kreacher, is not a crime because that is what Kreacher does, he brings food to the table. It is very reasonable to make a logical association between Kreacher and food. I will concede that IF Harry DID ask Kreacher then he was probably not being very sensitive. Further, if Harry did ask, I certainly don't think it would have been in the form of 'Kreacher I order you to bring me a sandwich', knowing Harry, it would have more likely been, 'Kreacher, if you can, would you bring me a sandwich when it's convenient'. > Steve: > > As to the whole concept of Kreacher, Harry, and slavery, I > > think people are taking an unrealistically simplistic view > > of the situation. Harry does not like owning a slave, but > > a slave was forced upon him, and he has to deal with it. > > Magpie: > I think it is simplistic and you and others are describing > why: Harry does want to own a slave at all. ... He'd let him > go if only Kreacher didn't need him to be his master, ... bboyminn: Yes, exactly. (again...confused...serious or sarcastic?) > Steve: > > It seems completely unrealistic to think that the house > > elf problem could be completely resolved by the end of > > the books. JKR said in an interview that Hermoine went > > to work in Dept. of Magical Law, and greatly expanded > > the right of House Elves and other magical creatures. > > ... What more could we expect? > > Magpie: > Nothing. Who needs change, after all? The House Elves don't, > ... > > Steve: > > As to Harry and Kreacher, Kreacher is only a slave if > > Harry treats him like property. If Harry is willing to > > allow Kreacher to come and go as he pleases, and Kreacher > > chooses to stay, how is that slavery? ... > > Magpie: > It's slavery because Harry owns him as property and for all > the reasons House Elf slavery works. You can treat your > slave with kindness and respect and still have him be your > slave. House Elves *want* to be slaves as long as they accept > you as their master. > bboyminn: Well, again, I can't tell the if you are being seriousness or sarcastic. But there is one very critical point you have to accept, House Elves REALLY ARE different than Human Slavery. Yes, it's true that human slave owners had a long list of excuses for slavery, one being that slaves liked being slaves, but in the case of House Elves that is exactly true and correct. House Elves are a race of creatures that live to server. That is a fact, a fact that does not mirror or parallel itself in the real world. The legend and myth of Helper Elves transends the Harry Potter books, and in all cases, the 'helper elves' choose to labor on behalf of humans; whether it be the tailor's elves or the shoemaker's elves or the common Brownie-House-elf. In all cases, the elves are offended by any effort that acknowledges or attempts to reward their effort. Elves to not want to be slaves in the traditional human sense, but they do very much want to serve wizards, and they do it with generations of honor and loyalty. And their efforts to do this far far predate Harry Potter. It is wizards who have most certainly exploited this nature of house elves, and certain most of them have done it in a self-serving way. But the exploitation by wizards doesn't erase the core nature of elves. > > Steve: > > My point is, that I think playing the Human Slavery card, > > when discussing elves is misguided. > > Magpie: > JKR did it. But yes, real humans are not House Elves so > it's inaccurate to project the feelings and thoughts enslaved > humans would have onto House Elves. ... > bboyminn: Yes, JKR said House-Elves were symbolic of slavery, but symbols are not reality; a symbol of the sun is not the sun. House-elves symbolize something that is similar to the plight of human slaves, and equal, or even more, complicated than human slavery. I believe that was part of the point. That this is a problem, but it does not have any easy solution. Freeing elves DOES go against their very nature. When freed, they seek to encumber themselves with a new wizard/elf association. They do really by their inherent nature want to serve, and that is what makes the situation so complicated, that is what makes it different that human slavery, and that is the very reason Harry can't just cut Kreacher loose. But as I said, knowing Harry, I honestly and truly think he will try to do the very best by Kreacher that he possible can given the complication of the circumstances. It is not as simple as letting Kreacher go. Likely Kreacher would either put himself into a worse situation, or he would die of despair. Neither is a good option. Yes, it would be tidy for Harry, he could wash his hands of Kreacher and make it somebody else's problem. That's good for Harry, but not necessarily good for Kreacher. And, yes, I am aware that Human Slave owners used similar arguments, and in reality, there was a small bit of truth in what they said. But in JKR's case, we are not dealing with humans who came to their slavery the way humans do. We are dealing with a very unique non-human species that does have an inherent desire to serve. > Steve: > > So, knowing Harry, I see no problem with him 'owning' > > Kreacher, because I assume at some point he will deal with > > the situation is the best possible way. > > Magpie: > If there's no problem to his owning (He does own him. He > inherited him.) Kreacher what does he have to deal with at > some point in the best possible way? Isn't he already doing > that? What's missing that people think Harry and Hermione > ought to do in the future that we're not told they're doing > or do? > > -m bboyminn: I see no problem with Harry 'owning' Kreacher /BECAUSE/ I feel confident that Harry will face it and deal with it. As to what Harry and Hermione would or should do in the future that we are not told, well there are huge gaps in their lives that we are not told, and that is because THIS story is over. THAT is another story altogether. We end in the present, the future is left to the imagination, and I and apparently JKR imagine that Harry and Hermione will pursue this issue for their whole lives gradually expending their effort to improve the lot of House-Elves and other magical creatures. Really, what more can they do? No, really? As to discovering the secrets of the enchantment binding house-elves, that to is not this story, that is another story of its own and while it would be nice to know, it has nothing to do with Harry defeating Voldemort. A lot of the so-called unresolved plot points are really just atmosphere carrying the story forward and fleshing out the wizard world, but when it comes to the last couple of books, things need to get focused, and they need to focus on Harry and Voldemort, which they did. Not wanting to offend, but I really couldn't tell if your comments were serious or sarcastic, and consequently wasn't sure how or if I should respond. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From salgal513 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 23:37:40 2007 From: salgal513 at yahoo.com (sally) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:37:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: camping trip Message-ID: <73381.53385.qm@web54205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178852 First comment here. I've been lurking and enjoying the conversation, particularly the debate about the house-elves. I am one of those who found that storyline to be unsatisfying and uncomfortable, to be honest. Catlady <> I've got to defend Hermione here. I don't recall her getting mad at Harry. I remember some grumbling with Ron, but that's to be expected. They're all only human and will have some rough days traipsing around the woods, even without the influence of the Horcrux. But I think she went above and beyond with her loyalty to Harry, what with scavenging, cooking, packing, planning, and staying with him when Ron left. Now Ron is another story. He behaved like a prat. sally From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Nov 5 15:45:48 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Ldiofsky) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:45:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: a sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472F3AAC.1080306@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178853 Katie Spilman wrote: > Why is everyone so worried about house elves yet I don't anyone complaining about the gnome-abuse storyline that was prevalent throughout any time Harry visited the Weasleys. > Bart: It has to do with the fact that the line between animals and people is not quite as strong in the WW as it is in the RW. One major problem is that JKR is not really up on current scientific and philosophical thought on intelligence, and this confuses things even further. In consciousness studies, for example, there is a question, "What would a lion say if a lion could talk?" and the answer most agree on is that if a lion could talk, it would cease to be a lion. Well, JKR gives a number of her animals a much greater understanding of human language (and English in particular) than they do in the real world. Therefore, one can assume that the ability to understand or even use human language in the WW does not connect to intelligence as well as it does in the RW (JKR has probably fallen for the Koko fraud, for example, and confuses, as do many people, speech and language). In any case, the question of "What is a ;person" becomes much more difficult in the WW than it is in the RW. However, it appears that gnomes are treated as if they are on the animal side. They are considered sufficiently high level that they aren't killed outright, but you CAN toss them out of your garden. The problem with house elves is on which side of the border do you put them. Since the history of house elves is not given in canon, we cannot determine whether house elves are people who have been enslaved, or animals with a higher level of consciousness than most. Is Dobby overcoming his programming, or was he driven insane by abuse? We have no idea; we can only guess. My best guess is that house elves need respect more than they need freedom. Bart From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Nov 6 00:36:09 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:36:09 -0000 Subject: question about eye colour Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178854 Hi all, Does anyone know exactly where in canon it says that Harry has green eyes and Draco has grey eyes. Any references would be greatly appreciated. Actually any references to description of Draco's looks would be appreciated as well. My reason is that I've been reading a lot of fanfiction and they always describe Harry's eyes as deep green (or emerald, or jade, or 'absinthe in flame' or any number similar descriptions) and Dracos as grey. I have read the books many times over but don't recall where it says anything about exactly HOW green Harry's eyes are. And I don't EVER recall reading about the colour of Draco's eyes. Obviously I hadn't been paying enough attention? Thanks in advance, Sharon From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 01:30:54 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:30:54 -0000 Subject: RAB (wasRe: Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR and Slytherins in the final battle. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178855 > > Alla: > > Regulus, yes, I do not think that the fact that he is dead > > means that his contribution should count as less significant Mike: I thought I'd leave this in as a quite eloquent statement. Well said, Alla! :) > Potioncat: > I'll agree, Regulus is a hero. But did you mean that he died while > a student or that he had been a Slytherin while at Hogwarts. I > thought he joined the DEs when he was 16, but that he was 18 when > he died. Mike: I had figured that Regulus was both a student and a DE after he joined at 16, the same as Draco I'm presuming. Also, Kreacher said that a year after joining Regulus came to him with Voldemort's request for a house elf. I therefore concluded that Regulus did not wait a full year to exact his revenge and die for the cause. So that would make Reggie only 17 upon his death. > Potioncat: > We have 2 or 3 stories about him, too, don't we? If the Order > members thought LV killed him, I wonder what LV was thinking? How > did Lupin and Black get the idea that Regulus was killed because > he tried to back out of the DEs? Mike: Hey PC, wanna borrow my plot hole filler? I think this falls under the category of "throwing the reader off the scent". And I also think it was a cheat on JKR's part. Based on the story we received in DH there doesn't seem to be any earthly reason for Sirius or Lupin to have come up with those speculations that they gave us in OotP and in HBP. Sirius wasn't living with his brother since before Reggie joined the DEs and was most likely out of school and out in the world when Reggie pulled his vanishing act, if my above timeline is at all accurate. Where would they get a hint that Reggie was thinking of backing out, when Kreacher had no inkling that Reggie had become anti-Voldemort? Even though he witnessed his beloved master's death in a final anti- Voldemort act? And Lupin's guess that Reggie only lasted a few days after turning comes from left field if not the bleachers. Only one sentient being knew what happened to Regulus and he was forbidden to tell. I accept that wild and stupid rumors get started and flourish in the WW, but they usually have some basis, some starting nugget of truth. Speculation on Regulus had nothing to go on until Harry and Dumbledore pulled that locket out of the birdbath of doom. That was purposeful on Regulus' part to protect Kreacher. I'm left to conclude that these pre-DH stories about Reggie were planted by his creatrix to throw us off the scent and therefore fail under closer scrutiny. Mike, who would like a nice bacon sandwich and wonders if Kreacher could get it for him? ;)) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 01:55:15 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:55:15 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178856 bboyminn: Well, again, I can't tell the if you are being seriousness or sarcastic. But there is one very critical point you have to accept, House Elves REALLY ARE different than Human Slavery. Alla: I am obviously not Magpie, and my position as you may or may not know is different from hers. I do not feel that this storyline ended unsatisfactory, in fact I like that it is kept hanging. BUT I personally lost count how many times Magpie wrote precisely what you are asking her to accept. YES, from what I read she really DOES accept that House Elves are different than Human Slavery, she just not comfortable with this all the same. JMO< Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 03:43:13 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:43:13 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178857 > a_svirn: > Then, what is the point of house elves? We sympathise with their > plight (impossible not to), we are repeatedly treated to the > discussion of the evils of their situation and for what? So that in > the end we would accept those evils as necessarily ones? Not only > it seems like a rather anticlimactic lesson from that great Gospel > of Tolerance, I don't see where exactly the necessity really lies. > If she invented natural slaves simply because they are very useful > creatures to own it's well, not very commendable. Jen: I read SPEW as not being about freeing the house elves so much as the Trio, particularly Hermione, learning about the cycles of social activism. Hermione's attempts follow what is a fairly typical pattern for an activist in my own experience, moving from the truly idealistic attempt to free all the house elves by knitting hats, to smaller hopes for the freedom of a few elves such as Winky and Kreacher, to finally attempting to make some small change whenever possible for an elf experiencing injustice in front of her. Raising awareness iow. The storyline read to me as saying it's always more moral to attempt to do something than nothing, especially when the deck is stacked against the activist and the one in need of advocacy. The house elves appear to have the deck stacked pretty far against them when it comes to people caring about them and their issues, particularly when Voldemort's in power. Dumbledore attempting to make the truth known about Hokey was the only act depicted other than Hermione's attempts, so advocates were likely few and far between. But Hermione trying anyway fits in with that idea in PS about "it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time..." (SS, chap. 17, p. 298) I didn't read this particular storyline as having a set beginning and ending within the scope of the series because of the mutable nature of raising awareness. The ripples can play out over time in unexpected ways, like Ron thinking about the house elves during the battle because he's been exposed to some of Hermione's ideas. That type of changed thinking doesn't have an abrupt end like an action might imo. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 03:48:52 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:48:52 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178858 > bboyminn: > > But there is one very critical point you have to accept, > House Elves REALLY ARE different than Human Slavery. > > Alla (snipped): > BUT I personally lost count how many times Magpie wrote > precisely what you are asking her to accept. > YES, from what I read she really DOES accept that House > Elves are different than Human Slavery, she just not > comfortable with this all the same. Goddlefrood: If it is accepted that House-elves are a different kind of slave from a human slave, perhaps exactly how they differ might be worth some expansion. That is, apart from the fact that house-elves are obviously not human. The house-elf, as I see it, is little more than a domestic servant, whereas human slaves were and still are used for a variety of tasks, just one of which is as domestic servant. Additionally, if, as seems to be the case, one is equating house-elves with the slaves typically taken from Africa and transported to North America to work in various agricultural operations and elsewhere, then one has to say that there is a big difference. That both are slaves - a working definition of which would be a being that works for a master without payment - is not really an issue. The issue appears to be whether or not house-elves serving and, importantly, being servile to, a human master is right. With the build-up given to SPEW in book 4 there were many readers, amongst them this one, who were expecting some further exposition on whether house-elves became more like the freed Dobby or whether they remained in thrall to their wizard masters. That Hermione uttered nary a word against the continued enslavement of the house-eleves for the rest of the series after GoF, barring the occasional line here and there, is the issue. That the ideal expressed through her founding of SPEW, however misguided that attempt to manumit the house-elves may have been viewed by many, was effectively abandoned to the point where it was given no further attention is the problem. Had SPEW not existed I feel that the controversy would be lesser. If Ms. Rowling decides one day to say that in the year 2036 the house-elves were freed then, in light of much of her off -page utterances, I would not believe her. That they were freed in the year 2036 is a matter of to be recorded history ;-). Goddlefrood, suggesting that house-elves are more like hobs than brownies. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 04:14:25 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:14:25 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178859 > > Magpie: > > No they aren't. They're just commenting on the last line > > calling attention to Harry owning a slave. Whether or not > > he actually asked him for the sandwich or not isn't really > > an issue--Nobody's said Harry's bad for being tired and > > hungry. > bboyminn: > > There is a certain preceived ...hummm...bitterness???... to > you're response of such that I can't tell if you are being > serious or sarcastic, or perhaps a blend of both. > > Here is my point, the last line IS NOT about Harry owning > a slave, nor is it intended to call attention to Harry owning > a slave. It is about a hungry boy wanting a sandwich and > speculating on possible ways to get one. People are objecting > to Harry 'wondering if /Kreacher/ would bring him a sandwich'. Magpie: I don't feel bitter--and I wasn't meaning to be sarcastic. (I might have been at times--can't remember--but the whole post wasn't supposed to be.) I didn't really care about the House Elves--I didn't like them, and wasn't really invested in them being freed but never thought Harry would end owning one. I've no doubt that last sentence isn't supposed to be about Harry owning a slave but for me at least that's what it says louder than anything else. I think it's just a nice snapshot of Harry back "home" and having a nice snack before bed, and Kreacher just happens to be part of that for him now. This is their relationship. Maybe this reading seems odd to you, but readings where Harry's doing anything but thinking of asking the House Elf he owns and has made meals for his master before seem equally torturous and odd to me. Whether or not Harry followed through on getting his sandwich that's the last image of him I have. I actually do agree with all your arguments about why Harry can't let Kreacher go. That's the thing. I really do think that JKR set it up so that Harry owns Kreacher while still championing the values she wants him to champion. It's not a crime at all for him to think about asking for a sandwich or to order one from Kreacher. It's a happy ending just the way it would be for Ulysses to come home and have the slave bring him wine, only in a book from 2007 that takes place in the present. Steve: > I will concede that IF Harry DID ask Kreacher then he was > probably not being very sensitive. Further, if Harry did > ask, I certainly don't think it would have been in the form > of 'Kreacher I order you to bring me a sandwich', knowing > Harry, it would have more likely been, 'Kreacher, if you > can, would you bring me a sandwich when it's convenient'. Magpie: This just seems like an odd reading to me. First, the text doesn't seem to indicate that Harry or the narrator would consider it insensitive for Harry to ask Kreacher for a sandwich. It seems odd to write the line "wondering if Kreacher might bring him a sandwich there" to mean "wondering if Kreacher might bring him a sandwich there but of course he would never ask such a thing because it would be insensitive." If he thought it would be insensitive I don't think he'd be thinking it and ending the story on it. And "Kreacher, if you can, would you bring me a sandwich when it's convenient" is a bit misleading--Kreacher's magically compelled to fulfill the request and has no other purpose in life. It's like when you say to a waitress, "When you get a chance, can I get some more coffee?" when of course you're just ordering coffee. Only Kreacher doesn't have any other customers and he lives to serve Harry. > > Magpie: > > I think it is simplistic and you and others are describing > > why: Harry does want to own a slave at all. ... He'd let him > > go if only Kreacher didn't need him to be his master, ... > > bboyminn: > > Yes, exactly. (again...confused...serious or sarcastic?) Magpie: Serious. I think the confusion is that you're framing it in terms of Harry doing something bad when the weirdness (for some of us) is in this fantasy of noble slave-holding the author's created. > > Magpie: > > It's slavery because Harry owns him as property and for all > > the reasons House Elf slavery works. You can treat your > > slave with kindness and respect and still have him be your > > slave. House Elves *want* to be slaves as long as they accept > > you as their master. > > > > bboyminn: > > Well, again, I can't tell the if you are being seriousness or > sarcastic. But there is one very critical point you have to > accept, House Elves REALLY ARE different than Human Slavery. Magpie: They are different from human slavery, but they are slaves. Harry does own Kreacher as property. This can't be gotten around, imo. Treating Kreacher as not a slave doesn't change his position, only freeing him does (for the worse, as it happens). Harry knows Kreacher is his property, *his* House Elf, and has since HBP. Kreacher knows Harry is his Master (and calls him that). When Harry does make requests of Kreacher or is served by him, he knows this is so. Steve:> > Yes, it's true that human slave owners had a long list of > excuses for slavery, one being that slaves liked being slaves, > but in the case of House Elves that is exactly true and > correct. House Elves are a race of creatures that live to > server. That is a fact, a fact that does not mirror or > parallel itself in the real world. Magpie: It does mirror that excuse, though, which some people recognize and are made uncomfortable by. House Elves are based on helper elves, but I think they also do have things in common with human slaves--helper elves, as you point out, choose to help humans. House Elves also prefer to serve, but they are not free while brownies and Shoemaker's elves are. JKR introduced that aspect to it in the story and in interviews. Steve:> > Elves to not want to be slaves in the traditional human sense, > but they do very much want to serve wizards, and they do it > with generations of honor and loyalty. And their efforts to > do this far far predate Harry Potter. Magpie: Brownies don't want to be slaves in the traditional human sense but to me it seems like House Elves do. Brownies choose to serve people and leave if they get insulted. House Elves can't leave. They're punished when they disobey. They're owned and inherited. Their situation is different from human slaves in many ways, but when I look at Brownies the word "slave" doesn't come to mind at all, while it does with house Elves. Steve: > > It is wizards who have most certainly exploited this nature > of house elves, and certain most of them have done it in a > self-serving way. But the exploitation by wizards doesn't > erase the core nature of elves. Magpie: No, I agree it doesn't. Which is why it seems like House Elves need good masters more than they need freedom, which can destroy them. > > Magpie: > > JKR did it. But yes, real humans are not House Elves so > > it's inaccurate to project the feelings and thoughts enslaved > > humans would have onto House Elves. ... > > > > bboyminn: > > Yes, JKR said House-Elves were symbolic of slavery, but > symbols are not reality; a symbol of the sun is not the sun. > House-elves symbolize something that is similar to the plight > of human slaves, and equal, or even more, complicated than > human slavery. I believe that was part of the point. That this > is a problem, but it does not have any easy solution. Freeing > elves DOES go against their very nature. When freed, they seek > to encumber themselves with a new wizard/elf association. Magpie: But what kind of symbol? What's the symbol supposed to be saying about human slavery? I usually get how a symbol of the sun represents the sun. I don't quite get what this story is saying about human slavery if you're saying they're a symbol of slavery. I mean, am I supposed to look at human slaves and say, "This problem doesn't have an easy solution because freedom is against their nature that they're born with and if we free them they'll just try to get themselves enslaved again." That's the situation Harry is facing, but I don't know if too many of his readers can really follow his lead there where freeing slaves is too radical. (A position that people have held historically, certainly.) That's what the whole story seems to most logically be saying to me, even if I don't believe that's the author's intention. Steve: That's good for Harry, but not > necessarily good for Kreacher. > > And, yes, I am aware that Human Slave owners used similar > arguments, and in reality, there was a small bit of truth in > what they said. Magpie: I'm not sure what truth you're referring to there. Though as an aside, I'm not so sure it's just good for Harry but not for Kreacher-- it's not like Harry's got a bad deal with Kreacher. When somebody's making you awesome meals and things there's a point where you can't completely pretend it's a sacrifice, as that last line in canon seems to imply. He would let Kreacher go, but it's not so bad eating his cooking. > > Magpie: > > If there's no problem to his owning (He does own him. He > > inherited him.) Kreacher what does he have to deal with at > > some point in the best possible way? Isn't he already doing > > that? What's missing that people think Harry and Hermione > > ought to do in the future that we're not told they're doing > > or do? > bboyminn: > > I see no problem with Harry 'owning' Kreacher /BECAUSE/ I feel > confident that Harry will face it and deal with it. Magpie: I'm asking what that means--just because it seems like he's already doing that. As you say, this story is over. Any radical change in the state of Kreacher or House Elves is another story that isn't written. Do you mean Harry just will be a responsible owner? Steve: > A lot of the so-called unresolved plot points are really > just atmosphere carrying the story forward and fleshing out > the wizard world, but when it comes to the last couple of > books, things need to get focused, and they need to focus > on Harry and Voldemort, which they did. Magpie: Yes, that's how it ultimately seemed to me too. I don't have a problem with House Elves not being freed. I do think it's weird to end with Harry owning one on that happy note, but it does ultimately seem like just atmosphere with the elves providing plot points. He gets Kreacher and a magic wand and other magical stuff. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 05:15:59 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 05:15:59 -0000 Subject: HG-HBP/LegalSystems/Co-Creator(3)/Sandwich/Bed(2)/CHAPDISC(2)/Free HE/Regulus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178860 > Magpie: > People presumably thought that lifting this compulsion or spell > would be part of the story. zgirnius: For the record, I did not. I had no idea where SPEW would go, but I doubted, by the end of GoF (when SPEW was introduced) that it would be freeing the elves. > Magpie: > Instead it ends with the resolution that > as sick as it is to watch House Elves punish themselves that hasn't > changed, and this particular House Elf belongs to Harry, with a > focus on the nice bits. It's a problem that's there, that Hermione > makes noise about, but does not find any solution for, that still > goes on being there at the end of the book--but it's also got some > pleasant sides to it and that's the last image of it we see. zgirnius: It seems to me you are defining what the story is too narrowly. Elves are slaves, this can only be resolved if elves are free. Why is a resolution in which the one main character who sees the problem, manages to pass on her concern to two other main characters, not a resolution? It constitutes a change from the previous situation. It is a step in the right direction (more people caring, more people thinking about it and treating elves better). Jen said it all for me in her post, better than I could, about what I was expecting of this storyline: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178857 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 08:47:56 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:47:56 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178861 --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > .... > > Magpie: > I don't feel bitter--and I wasn't meaning to be sarcastic. > ... I... wasn't really invested in them being freed but > never thought Harry would end owning one. I've no doubt that > last sentence isn't supposed to be about Harry owning a slave > but for me at least that's what it says louder than anything > else. ...edited... bboyminn: OK, now I get it. Actually, I think I might have been projecting a lot of the general tone of the discussion onto your post, which was somewhat unfair of me. But this time, I think you have explained yourself very well. Sadly, I'm cutting much of your excellent post, just to touch on a couple of minor points. > > Steve: > > > I will concede that IF Harry DID ask Kreacher then he was > > probably not being very sensitive. Further, if Harry did > > ask, I certainly don't think it would have been in the form > > of 'Kreacher I order you to bring me a sandwich', knowing > > Harry, it would have more likely been, 'Kreacher, if you > > can, would you bring me a sandwich when it's convenient'. > > Magpie: > This just seems like an odd reading to me. First, the text > doesn't seem to indicate that Harry or the narrator would > consider it insensitive for Harry to ask Kreacher for a > sandwich. ... > bboyminn: We know what Harry thought in that moment, but we don't know what he thought in the NEXT moment. I suspect he was, in his mind, going through possible ways to get himself a sandwich. Kreacher was one choice. One that I suspect he discounted. Another choice was to send someone to the kitchens and have them request that a sandwich be sent up. But again, everyone has just been though a traumatic battle, and I suspect Harry will conclude that asking anyone for a sandwich in that moment would be insensitive. Therefore, I conclude, he will forget it for the moment and leave it until later. Pure speculation, but it seems consistent with what Harry would do. I think in a sense that ending was a reflection of Harry's relief at the outcome. No more sweat, no more fear, no more worries, Voldemort is dead and gone for good. So, Harry's mind turns to the more mundane and normal aspect of life like sleep and a sandwich. 'I'm not a dark wizard fighter, I'm just a kid who's tired and hungry.' For the first time in a long time, Harry is at peace. I think this is the sense that JKR was trying to portray. Though certainly everyone is free to interpret it as they wish. > ...snip several good points... > > > bboyminn: > > > > I see no problem with Harry 'owning' Kreacher /BECAUSE/ I > > feel confident that Harry will face it and deal with it. > > Magpie: > I'm asking what that means--just because it seems like he's > already doing that. ... Do you mean Harry just will be a > responsible owner? > bboyminn: At the moment Harry is dealing with Kreacher the best he can. But I don't think Harry believe that how he deals with it now is the best way to deal with Kreacher in the future. Though admittedly they have, more or less, patched up their relationship. So, what I am trying to say is that I trust that Harry will find the best way possible to deal with Kreacher in the long run. I gave several suggestions. But Kreacher is, I feel, a unique case; if, after Kreacher is gone, Harry decides to employ new house-elves, I think he will from the very start set fair and reasonable ground rules to protect the elves and insure their welfare and well being. You made some good points, thanks for the reply. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 10:52:48 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:52:48 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178862 > Jen: I read SPEW as not being about freeing the house elves so much > as the Trio, particularly Hermione, learning about the cycles of > social activism. Hermione's attempts follow what is a fairly typical > pattern for an activist in my own experience, moving from the truly > idealistic attempt to free all the house elves by knitting hats, to > smaller hopes for the freedom of a few elves such as Winky and > Kreacher, to finally attempting to make some small change whenever > possible for an elf experiencing injustice in front of her. Raising > awareness iow. a_svirn: This is a very bleak outlook on social activism indeed, for in the last two books Hermione gave up on the house elves liberation altogether and concentrated on making a more responsible slave-owner out of Harry. > Jen: > I didn't read this particular storyline as having a set beginning and > ending within the scope of the series because of the mutable nature > of raising awareness. The ripples can play out over time in > unexpected ways, like Ron thinking about the house elves during the > battle because he's been exposed to some of Hermione's ideas. That > type of changed thinking doesn't have an abrupt end like an action > might imo. a_svirn: This is a very good point. But the fact still remains that all this rising awareness business concerns only slave owners. It is useless to rise elves' awareness, because they are what they are ? slaves by nature. Hermione, being a bright girl, accepted it eventually. But I find the idea that Rowling created natural slaves in order to make a point on social activism only slightly less nauseating than idea that she did it because she wanted Harry to have one. Especially since they are not mutually exclusive. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 11:13:53 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:13:53 -0000 Subject: HG-HBP/LegalSystems/Co-Creator(3)/Sandwich/Bed(2)/CHAPDISC(2)/Free HE/Regulus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178863 > > Magpie: > > Instead it ends with the resolution that > > as sick as it is to watch House Elves punish themselves that hasn't > > changed, and this particular House Elf belongs to Harry, with a > > focus on the nice bits. It's a problem that's there, that Hermione > > makes noise about, but does not find any solution for, that still > > goes on being there at the end of the book--but it's also got some > > pleasant sides to it and that's the last image of it we see. > > zgirnius: > It seems to me you are defining what the story is too narrowly. Elves > are slaves, this can only be resolved if elves are free. a_svirn: Which they cannot be because they aren't free by nature. Ergo this situation simply cannot be resolved. > zgirnius: Why is a > resolution in which the one main character who sees the problem, > manages to pass on her concern to two other main characters, not a > resolution? a_svirn: Because it resolves nothing? > zgirnius: It constitutes a change from the previous situation. It > is a step in the right direction (more people caring, more people > thinking about it and treating elves better). a_svirn: The only change I that can see is that Hermione gave up on the idea of freeing them, and concentrated on teaching Harry how to treat Kreacher kindly. It does resolve the Harry-Kreacher situation to their mutual satisfaction, but it doesn't offer any general solution for house-elves. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 12:48:24 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 06:48:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711060448s6f7bfd21gd028fbd01a06a7b1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178864 montims: not quoting anyone, because I tried, and it got too complicated, just to remark: I think SPEW was introduced to show Hermione as an earnest, obsessive teenage girl with a Cause. In the real world, she might have taken up Saving the Whale, or Animal Liberation, or Greenpeace or something. We see, however, that she does not understand the complexity of the matter, and does far too little, far too ineffectually. Like someone who "liberates" minks from a fur farm, into the countryside where they don't belong. She needs somewhere to put her energies and her emotions, and comes up with SPEW. I don't believe JKR expected us to think that life was going to change for house elves overnight just because Hermione took up their cause, any more than she expected us to think that the Houses were going to be abolished because the Hat made one comment one year, when things were going badly... And by equating the elves with animals above, I guess I am referring back to the old discussion of elves as sentient pets - Harry has inherited a very talented dog. Or if that offends people, think of them as robots - R2D2 or whoever it was in Star Wars... They perform as they are supposed to. They can be mistreated by humans, or treated well. If treated well, they are happy to serve. And that is that. The fuss made about the sandwich makes me think of a General or someone in WW1 - after fighting a terribly dangerous and heroic long battle, at the end of said battle, would people blame him for expecting his batman to rustle him up a meal, while he rested? I suppose these days, people would... It's a book, guys... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Nov 6 07:59:06 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:59:06 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178865 snip> > Jen: I read SPEW as not being about freeing the house elves so much > as the Trio, particularly Hermione, learning about the cycles of > social activism. Hermione's attempts follow what is a fairly typical > pattern for an activist in my own experience, moving from the truly > idealistic attempt to free all the house elves by knitting hats, to > smaller hopes for the freedom of a few elves such as Winky and > Kreacher, to finally attempting to make some small change whenever > possible for an elf experiencing injustice in front of her. Raising > awareness iow. > I agree with this. Any social justice movement starts with the ideas/dreams/thoughts of a few individuals who are almost always ridiculed. (Women speaking in public? Voting? The next thing you know they'll be wearing pants). If you look at the rise of civil rights for women in the United States, for example, you'll see that the early campaigners for women's rights were ridiculed and harassed. I don't think that JKR was suggesting that slavery is okay or natural...I think she was suggesting that social change takes a long period of time, and yes, oppressed peoples DO internalize the beliefs of the larger society.... You'll notice that everyone laughed at Hermione when she brought up SPEW.....including Ron...as I recall even people on this list thought she was off the wall because she questioned the house elf system. I think it would have paralleled the real world more closely if she had had more dissatisfaction and rebellion among the slaves, because there have always been more resistance and uprisings than the oppressors want the slaves to believe. Another JKR message is that even the bravest and the most brilliant are flawed. Harry is as close to perfect as anyone in the books, but he only starts to "get it" about house elves at the constant prodding of Hermione. That IS closer to the real world..every great leader of liberation struggles has had major flaws..it's the nature of human beings... Susan From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 13:12:06 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:12:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711060512sca938a6s1626c25019a5e9b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178866 On 11/6/07, a_svirn wrote: > > > Jen: I read SPEW as not being about freeing the house elves so much > > as the Trio, particularly Hermione, learning about the cycles of > > social activism. Hermione's attempts follow what is a fairly > typical > > pattern for an activist in my own experience, moving from the truly > > idealistic attempt to free all the house elves by knitting hats, to > > smaller hopes for the freedom of a few elves such as Winky and > > Kreacher, to finally attempting to make some small change whenever > > possible for an elf experiencing injustice in front of her. > Raising > > awareness iow. > > a_svirn: > This is a very bleak outlook on social activism indeed, for in the > last two books Hermione gave up on the house elves liberation > altogether and concentrated on making a more responsible slave-owner > out of Harry. montims: oh, and in her spare time, helping Harry defeat Voldemort and the DEs... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Nov 6 13:46:24 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:46:24 -0000 Subject: was Re: T-BAY: Plot Hole Filler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178867 George was sitting outside Canon Cottage taking a well-deserved rest when a lone figure approached. The Bay had been very quiet, and no one had been around since Mike dropped off the Plot Hole Filler--- ages ago. George remembered their parting words, > George extended his hand, which Mike took. They shook hands. George > said, "Thanks, I'll see what this thing can do. And I think I will > offer it to the other list members, see if they can make it work any better." He studied the woman as she came nearer. In one hand was a pitcher, filled to the brim, and in the other a glass rimmed with salt. A length of what appeared to be unwound turban looped around her shoulder and attached to a deck chair and umbrella. "Potioncat! Hello!" he greeted, now recalling her name. Potioncat was one of the quieter citizens of Theory-Bay. She had served on or partied among several vessels in the bay. "George? Oh, good. Mike suggested I should come over and have a go at the Plot Hole Filler." George frowned at the pitcher. Potioncat quickly spoke," This is a self-filling margarita pitcher. I thought I'd lost it, but it washed up on the beach along with my deck chair. It never goes empty. It's magic." George thought the real magic was that Potioncat was still standing and he wasn't at all sure that he wanted her working on the Canon Cottage in her state. "Is that pitcher anything like your favorite- beverage-teapot? Can it serve coffee?" "Why would I want?K" Potioncat stared at the former pitcher, now a coffee pot--a good old metal one with a few dents, and at a sturdy coffee-shop mug full of steaming, hot, black coffee. "Thank you," she said politely, but unconvincingly. A few cups later, she was in the cottage with the PHF. Here's the plot hole, and this is what Mike said, Mike: >I think this falls under the category of "throwing the reader off the scent". And I also think it was a cheat on JKR's part. > > Based on the story we received in DH there doesn't seem to be any > earthly reason for Sirius or Lupin to have come up with those > speculations that they gave us in OotP and in HBP. Sirius wasn't > living with his brother since before Reggie joined the DEs and was > most likely out of school and out in the world when Reggie pulled ?? his vanishing act, if my above timeline is at all accurate. Potioncat places the PHF in the hole and struggles for a while. When the hole is filled she looks at the writing in the delicate tool. "Mundungus. Mundungus travels in mixed company. So, he could have heard talk about Regulus and told Black and Lupin." George and Potioncat study the patch. It looks damp. Potioncat pulls a fan from inside the umbrella and aims it at the patch. "This just needs some fan-fixin' to dry it off. Regulus might have expressed some reluctance to continue in LV's service and LV might have suggested in a DE meeting what would happen if he tried to leave. Then Regulus disappears, and a few DEs make assumptions. LV, on the other hand, doesn't know what's happened to Regulus, but wouldn't ask around either. So some DEs might have been speculating about Regulus and Mundungus heard them. George shakes his head, "I'm not sure that will hold." Potioncat.: While we wait, I'll take on this crack over here. It has to do with Regulus's age when he died. Mike thinks 17" >From somewhere overhead Mike's voice speaks, Mike: > I had figured that Regulus was both a student and a DE after he > joined at 16, the same as Draco I'm presuming. Also, Kreacher said > that a year after joining Regulus came to him with Voldemort's > request for a house elf. I therefore concluded that Regulus did not > wait a full year to exact his revenge and die for the cause. So that would make Reggie only 17 upon his death. Potioncat: Mike thinks RAB was 17 when he died. The Lexicon says 18, and while I didn??t check the math, I think that fits with the dates on the tapestry. George sees what Potioncat is going for and tries to stop her. "No, no, the PHF is for real plot holes, not for disputes." Too late, she has plunged the tool onto the end of a very faint crack. The wall vibrates and a large chuck of plaster falls to the floor. Sunlight streams through. George and Potioncat look at each other and said in unison, "If no one knew what happened to him, how was there a date of death on the tapestry!" From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 15:00:45 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:00:45 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178868 > a_svirn: > This is a very bleak outlook on social activism indeed, for in the > last two books Hermione gave up on the house elves liberation > altogether and concentrated on making a more responsible slave- > owner out of Harry. > But the fact still remains that all this rising awareness business > concerns only slave owners. It is useless to rise elves' awareness, > because they are what they are ? slaves by nature. Hermione, being a > bright girl, accepted it eventually. But I find the idea that > Rowling created natural slaves in order to make a point on social > activism only slightly less nauseating than idea that she did it > because she wanted Harry to have one. Especially since they are not > mutually exclusive. Jen: The difference is I don't accept the idea of house elves as natural slaves. The elves read as victims of learned helplessness brought about by the enchantment forcing them to self-punish for generations. When Dumbledore said "Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards" in OOTP, I took that literally, that the forced nature of self-punishment at even the hint of disobedience had finally and completely enslaved the house elves when Harry came to know them. It's the negative reinforcement of Pavlov's dog taken to the extreme. So by the time the storyline made it to DH and the sickness of the enchantment, well it made complete sense to me as the heart of the elf storyline. So I wasn't saying that Rowling created slaves to have a storyline about social activism, but that social activism offers a framework in which to explore a seemingly intractable social problem. Where does one start? At first Hermione thought you started with a mass freeing because that's the ultimate goal right, no more slaves. Makes sense that it should be as easy as that; if something's wrong it should go away. But with no support from other activists, the MOM or even the house elves themselves, that turned out to be a failed proposition. I thought Hermione got to the point where the tide could turn when recognizing that stopping the self-abuse was the first step in the process of changing the lot of the house elves. At some point it became impossible to tell where the house elves' nature ended and 'who they'd been made to be by wizards' began, mainly because the enchantment had worked so thoroughly over time to obliterate free will. From KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 09:08:52 2007 From: KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com (kimberleyelizabeth) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:08:52 -0000 Subject: Wish Fulfillment (Or Not) In-Reply-To: <7383888.1193944978408.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178869 > From: prep0strus > >I wanted to pose the question - name something (minor or major) that > >you wanted to see in the series, and got, and name something else you > >wanted to see and didn't - and it doesn't have to just be expectations > >between HBP and DH. Things I wanted and got (what I was right about): *DD had a plan (a laundry list of things to do althrough Book 6) and Snape was in on it *DD kept Snape's secrets *Snape was (secretly) in love with Lily Potter *Snape and Lily were friends *Neville taking charge, in a leadership role. *Another opportunity for Dobby to say "You must not harm Harry Potter" *Narcissa's maternal instinct to protect Draco and her family. *why DD wore the ring. *Where Olivander went off to *The DA and the Order will come together for one last fight against Voldemort. *The identity of R A B *Ron and Hermione, I knew they's find a way. *I knew we'd see the pensieve again, and it would reveal everything about Snape. *There was more to Snape's worst memory than just what Harry saw James do to Snape. *Harry was going to experience a problem coming to age. Things I didn't get: *The Malfoys; I thought they'd side with Voldemort till the bitter end. They were there for their own reasons, not for Voldemort. *I was sure the DE were going to finish off Voldemort. *I didn't believe Harry was a Horcrux *I didn't really believe Harry and Ginny's relationship. I had to be talked into it. *I thought we'd hear from the Ford Anglia again. *A final word on what happened to the Dursley's after leaving Privet Dr. *Kreature betray Harry. *I thought the prophecy would actually turn out to be about Neville and not Harry after all. *Harry would find out his birthday was not really in July, but in the Winter as asked by Trelawney. kimberleyelizabeth From kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 14:26:43 2007 From: kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com (Katty Geltmeyer) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:26:43 +0100 Subject: pets in the hp-universe Message-ID: <000b01c82081$0f44db60$594377d5@kattyw4j8cy6ca> No: HPFGUIDX 178870 Hi As I posted earlier, Hedwig was one of my favourite characters. I don't have an owl as a pet, of course, but I remarked Harry didn't need instructions concerning how to care for his pet: i mean, what to do if the owl is ill, how to keep fleas, ... away, ... I mean, everything seems so easy in the hp-books concerning how to care for the pets. Even Hermione never mentioned Crookshanks had fleas, or having to visit a ???healer, ... At Hogwarts, you can study care for magical creatures, but there's no lesson concerning how to care for owls or other pets. More info about owls you can find on http://www.lauraerickson.com/bird/Species/Owls/HarryPotter/HarryPotter.html If you want to answer, please, do so off-list, because I only receive special notices. Best Katty From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 15:51:35 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:51:35 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: >> Jen: The difference is I don't accept the idea of house elves as > natural slaves. The elves read as victims of learned helplessness > brought about by the enchantment forcing them to self-punish for > generations. When Dumbledore said "Kreacher is what he has been made > by wizards" in OOTP, I took that literally, that the forced nature of > self-punishment at even the hint of disobedience had finally and > completely enslaved the house elves when Harry came to know them. lizzyben: It actually wouldn't surprise me if the wizards literally *made* house elves in order to finally get some good servants. Ah, magic. Jen: > So I wasn't saying that Rowling created slaves to have a storyline > about social activism, but that social activism offers a framework in > which to explore a seemingly intractable social problem. Where does > one start? lizzyben: I thought that Hermione finally realized that house elves aren't people, they don't want to be free & only want to be treated kindly. They're more akin to pets than people. They're happy when their owners are happy & unhappy when they're mistreated. That's where it starts and ends. I truly don't think that you can use a social activism framework to resolve the house elf problem. That was Hermione's problem - first she approached it from a social activism/civil rights perspective & alienated everyone (including the house elves). Then, in "Kreacher's Tale", she and Harry were educated on how house elves really think & what they really want - they don't want freedom, just humane treatment. And Hermione finally accepts that. Trying to free the elves would be like trying to free all the dogs of Britain. I certainly don't think house elves should be freed - and by the end of DH, neither does Hermione. That's the arc she went through. It also means that Harry, Hermione, & the reader are asked to accept a crazy world in which slavery is actually justified, slaves don't want to be free, & they actually just love being good servants to their masters. Harry can be a slaveowner without any guilt, because his slave really just wants to be a slave & can't function any other way. And I want to rebel against that, but I can't, because that's how this world is. lizzyben From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 16:08:18 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:08:18 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katie Spilman wrote: > Why is everyone so worried about house elves yet I don't anyone complaining about the gnome-abuse storyline that was prevalent throughout any time Harry visited the Weasleys. lizzyben: Not to mention the mandrake-abuse! I sort of cringed when we read about the cute little mandrake babies that cry, grow up, throw wild parties, go through adolesence, and are then chopped up in little pieces for mandrake potion. The wizarding world is a very weird place. It seems like the problem is that JKR makes these plants/animals/creatures into sentient beings that can talk, show emotion, and feel pain - and then turns around to treat them as non- sentient beings when the plot requires. It just doesn't work that way. Either house elves want freedom or they don't. Either mandrakes can feel pain or they can't. But the combining & switching of roles creates a very schizophrenic outlook. lizzyben From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 16:52:02 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:52:02 -0000 Subject: was Re: T-BAY: Plot Hole Filler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178873 > Potioncat: > "Mundungus. Mundungus travels in mixed company. So, he could have > heard talk about Regulus and told Black and Lupin." > Regulus might have expressed some reluctance to continue in LV's > service and LV might have suggested in a DE meeting what would happen > if he tried to leave. Then Regulus disappears, and a few DEs make > assumptions. LV, on the other hand, doesn't know what's happened to > Regulus, but wouldn't ask around either. So some DEs might have been > speculating about Regulus and Mundungus heard them. > George and Potioncat look at each other and said in unison, "If no > one knew what happened to him, how was there a date of death on the > tapestry!" zgirnius: "You've got it all backwards!" a voice behind George and Potioncat exclaimed disgustedly. They jumped in surprise, and spun around to see, standing behind them, a figure not unlike a taller Molly Weasley with dark hair. Her black sleeves were spattered with the remains of someone's breakfast, and her brow was furrowed in thought. "Zara! What are you doing here?" Potioncat asked. "Oh, is that her name?" George grumbled, wiping spilled coffee of his robes. "Sorry, I was just thinking aloud," Zara replied. "I didn't mean to startle anyone." "That's alright, it is nice to see you here" Potioncat replied. "How do you mean, backwards?" George glowered at the new arrival, but did not venture to contradict Potioncat's welcome. "It seems to me you have all the right ideas to fill this hole, you are just putting them together in the wrong order," Zara said. "See, I think the tapestry is magical. So the *first* thing that happened, was that the date of Regulus's death appeared on the tapestry, at the very moment of his death." "Sirius would not have access to the tapestry, so I don't see how this helps us," Potioncat pointed out, her face falling. "No, you are right, but Ma Black would have. And she doubtless took steps. A memorial service (sans body, for obvious reasons), a large obituary notice in the Daily Prophet, you get the picture. Sirius would have heard of one or more of these steps, and thus have learned of the sad event. It is at that point that he may have had recourse to the rumor mill and put together the version of the story that he and Lupin conveyed to Harry." Potioncat offered Zara the tub of Plot-Hole Filler, though she did not look entirely convinced. "You want *me* to use that stuff?" Zara asked, looking nervously at the pot and trowel, as she furtively moved her hands away from Potioncat. "You need to see my attempts at home improvement to believe them. This is a task for Uncle John's Handyman Service...except that if I call him handyman and ask him to come *here*, he will probably conclude I am nuts, and then where will I be the next time something at home needs fixing?" --zgirnius, attempting her first visit to T-Bay... From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 17:35:24 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:35:24 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178874 > lizzyben: > It actually wouldn't surprise me if the wizards literally *made* > house elves in order to finally get some good servants. Ah, magic. Jen: I think you're kidding but not sure. ;) > lizzyben: > I thought that Hermione finally realized that house elves aren't > people, they don't want to be free & only want to be treated > kindly. They're more akin to pets than people. They're happy when > their owners are happy & unhappy when they're mistreated. That's > where it starts and ends. I truly don't think that you can use a > social activism framework to resolve the house elf problem. Jen: True, if looking at social activism as a resolution, which I'm not. I'm only looking at how I understood the parts of the house-elf storyline that were presented. There's no way to determine whether the house elves Harry meets are the way they are by nature, from the effects of learned behavior or a combination of factors imo, so I'll go with the one that makes the most sense to me given the laser-focus on self-punishement in the final act. It's a stark image to watch Kreacher beating himself. It's hard not to think of how many times a day, week, month, year, decade, century that similar behavior has gone on in house elf families. I can't say it has no effect on who they've evolved to be. In fact, I'm certain it has had an effect because house elves would never have needed to be enchanted at all if they were happy, obedient little slaves by nature. The idea that someone out there cared enough about the house elf situation to research their history and attempt to make some headway with helping others understand the psychology they present looked like progress to me from when the story started. That's all I know. > That was Hermione's problem - first she approached it from a social > activism/civil rights perspective & alienated everyone (including > the house elves). Then, in "Kreacher's Tale", she and Harry were > educated on how house elves really think & what they really want - > they don't want freedom, just humane treatment. And Hermione > finally accepts that. Trying to free the elves would be like trying > to free all the dogs of Britain. I certainly don't think house > elves should be freed - and by the end of DH, neither does > Hermione. That's the arc she went through. Jen: Humane treatment is a good step in the right direction for a being who's been battered into submission. It's the ultimate physical and psychological weaponry that house elves beat themselves - 'you're so bad and unworthy that we won't even bother to beat you, you can beat yourself.' When you have absolutely zero control such as is the case with this 100% consistent punishment routine since it's magical, most beings would submit and become what someone else tells them they are. Ergo, stopping the self-punishment & offering humane treatment are a step in the right direction imo. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 18:25:37 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:25:37 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711060448s6f7bfd21gd028fbd01a06a7b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178875 > montims: > The fuss made about the sandwich makes me think of a General or someone in > WW1 - after fighting a terribly dangerous and heroic long battle, at the end > of said battle, would people blame him for expecting his batman to rustle > him up a meal, while he rested? I suppose these days, people would... > > It's a book, guys... Magpie: True, but as one of the "fussers" (I assume) I just want to make clear that I do agree that this is what it is, especially with your description (I think it was yours) that this is like Ulysses having a slave bring him a cup of wine--that's what the slave does, and that's perfectly proper. I made a similar connection with Frodo and Sam--if at the end of LOTR Frodo had stayed in the Shire and he'd been thinking of Sam bringing him some mushroom soup in bed, I would see him expecting his valet and former batman to bring him a meal. Having a problem with this might indicate somebody is projecting their p.c. standards on a world where they don't exist (though I do think it's a valid question to ask what's so appealing about these kinds of hierarchies that are recreated in the WW with non-humans). However, I think so does re-interpreting the line so that Harry isn't doing that require projecting of p.c. standards onto a world where they don't exist. To use another LOTR example, I think when Sam and Rosie move in with Frodo at the end of the book and are "taking care of" him it means just that--they're working there. He's the master of the house until he leaves it to Sam. They're not living together as roommates a la Chandler and Joey on Friends (as people have argued they are, sometimes because it bothers them that Frodo would regard Sam as a servant). I prefer the LOTR version because it is what it is without a sort of modern p.c. overlay onto it. I admit, the HP version is weird to me. I mean, it is a book, but I'm talking about what the book says. I don't think it's going to cause young readers to start enslaving each other, but I do think it's nostalgic about that kind of society. Jen: The difference is I don't accept the idea of house elves as natural slaves. The elves read as victims of learned helplessness brought about by the enchantment forcing them to self-punish for generations. Magpie: Maybe, maybe not. We don't know anything about the true origins of House Elves. Maybe thinking they're not natural slaves and just victims of learned helplessness--although I don't know if that's the right term for elves embracing their role as slaves--is incorrect. Perhaps they're like women who think their place is in the home with no rights and think women who think otherwise are shameful--or maybe they're not like people at all and the attitude goes deeper than culture. It gets into the same trouble Hermione originally had--we project our own ideas about their behavior onto them. We don't know that Wizards put the enchantment on them. So who's to say we shouldn't accept them as natural slaves? Jen: I thought Hermione got to the point where the tide could turn when recognizing that stopping the self-abuse was the first step in the process of changing the lot of the house elves. Magpie: Could be, but I don't see it presented that way in canon myself. All JKR would have to do is show it and she didn't. She showed Hermione's plans about SPEW all the time in books 4 and 5. Then suddenly in 6 SPEW completely disappears and Hermione's just all about treating them okay when it comes up. This, too, is a perfectly realistic evolution for a social activist. You can be very liberal in your youth and very conservative in your adulthood or anywhere in between. You can go through a fad. It's possible Hermione decided on a new plan for freeing House Elves via good treatment (most of the elves we see in canon are well-treated already), but she doesn't say this is what she's decided (and it's IC for Hermione to do so), she isn't shown talking to Kreacher in such a way that shows it, she no longer says anything about trying to do stuff with the House Elf situation in general (and yes, I know she's got Voldemort to worry about so I wouldn't expect it to be her main concern during DH...though god knows she had enough time to talk about it when she was sitting in a tent doing nothing for months--we could have heard a throwaway line about Harry having to hear all about it), she's not researching their history to find out where that compulsion comes from so she can lift it. I don't even have reason to think that Hermione knows she was doing wrong before. As far as we know in OotP Hermione thinks her hat knitting is working just fine. They're disappearing and elves are freeing themselves (Hogwarts elves are never shown punishing themselves that I remember). She doesn't know Dobby's the one taking the hats, that the Elves have stopped cleaning the Tower because of it and nobody ever tells her that we know. Frankly I wondered in HBP if Hermione had convinced herself that she'd *solved* the House Elf problem to a great extent. zgirnius: It seems to me you are defining what the story is too narrowly. Magpie: I'm not sure what this means--I was defining the story by what's in the books. zgirnius: Elves are slaves, this can only be resolved if elves are free. Why is a resolution in which the one main character who sees the problem, manages to pass on her concern to two other main characters, not a resolution? It constitutes a change from the previous situation. It is a step in the right direction (more people caring, more people thinking about it and treating elves better). Magpie: I wouldn't say the only resolution is freeing them--I think there could be a number of resolutions and the book finds one of them. I don't think Hermione passes on any concerns to Harry and Ron. Harry and Ron already had the same concerns they do at the end of the story (in fact it seems like Hermione comes around to Ron's way in at least one regard). They're not bothered by House Elves being enslaved, but don't like them abused. I don't know of anyone else who has gone from less caring about House Elves to more caring, or treating them better. I don't see most people interacting with House Elves, and most elves aren't abused in the story. The only person who really seems to change her outlook to me is Hermione, who starts off making the House Elves into a revolutionary cause of One, continues to do stuff for that cause without it having an effect, and then stops doing that. I guess she sort of reminds me of somebody who was a loud vegan for a couple of years as a teenager and eventually became somebody who just didn't eat a lot of red meat. If Ron inherited a House Elf I don't immediately think Hermione would have a problem with using it. She might treat it in an unorthadox way--or not. Lizzyben: It also means that Harry, Hermione, & the reader are asked to accept a crazy world in which slavery is actually justified, slaves don't want to be free, & they actually just love being good servants to their masters. Harry can be a slaveowner without any guilt, because his slave really just wants to be a slave & can't function any other way. And I want to rebel against that, but I can't, because that's how this world is. Magpie: That was pretty much my conclusion. There's no point in complaining about it within the story because this is the way it is. Without actual information about it how it came to be like this for thousands of years, I don't have the first clue as to how it would be solved any differently or how any of these characters would. It's like Slytherin too. I could think of some ways to attack the problem if I were in this universe, but I've no idea what would work and it doesn't seem like canon gives me a place to start. I feel like this is what it is. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 18:46:10 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:46:10 -0000 Subject: Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game (WAS Re: JKR's Intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178876 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > As to Ender killing where Harry didn't: the stakes were much, > > much higher. And *very* unlike Harry, Ender noticed, worried > > about, and then did his best to heal his equivelent of the > > screaming and flayed baby. > >>zgirnius: > Ender's equivalent of the flayed baby was a very different > creature. She/her people felt remorse for their terrible crime of > murder long before anybody asked them to, and in fact understood > the desire on the part of humanity to wipe them out because of how > seriously they took what they had done (once they knew it). > Further, she/they reached out to Ender, *not* the other way around. > > Would Harry have responded as Ender did, had someone reached out to > him? Heck yes, he would, in my opinion, but it was not a story in > which the villains, or 'villains', did much of that. > Betsy Hp: It's probably kind of telling (and not so much a surprise ), but I saw Draco as reaching out to Harry for at least a good three books. I think it's only by OotP that Draco finally gave up. (Though I've had to conclude that this was all stuff JKR stuck in by mistake. She didn't *mean* to make Draco that deep.) But in the end, yes, the bad guys in Potterverse were no good to the bone, and in Enderverse there weren't really any "bad guys" after all. Which is funny because OSC was writing such a militant book about war and the waging thereof, while JKR was trying to say something about... I don't know... life, or something? Anyway, I got the sense she thought she was saying something vital and deep. And that comes down to the authors, IMO. OSC created these perfect "bad guys" but then couldn't leave it at that. He had to figure out the whys and wherefores and, in the end, so did his protagonist. JKR created these "bad guys" and seemed to give them depth and heart, but then in the end, figuring out the whys and wherefores was silly (or unrealistic, I guess?) and her protagonist just... won. In the end, one sort of story touched me deeply, and the other I found quite repulsive. The bizarre thing? One featured genocide and the other domestic bliss, but my reactions don't play that out. > >>BetsyHP: > > Oh! Another difference: The ending of Ender's Game does push > > Ender into adulthood and show some of the stuff he accomplished. > > That's how I know that he did follow through on what he'd learned > > as a boy. Harry...had two kids. > >>zgirnius: > To the extent that Slytherin is Harry's Other as the buggers were > Ender's, the Epilogue does show this as well. Albus *Severus*, as > people keep pointing out, together with his assertion that he would > be in no way displeased, were his son to be a Slytherin. (And, > three kids, right? Ron had two). Betsy Hp: Oops, yes. I forgot about Lily. But no, a middle name after a guy his kid's never heard of, and an assurance that little Al can *choose* his house isn't my idea of Harry delving deep into the Slytherin mind, seeing they're not that alien after all, and sharing that news with his people. The Slytherins are still weird, their designated attributes still not seen as virtues (Severus was *brave*), and they're still not worthy to breed with (as per Ron). > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And now we're just supposed to guess that the vision of domestic > > bliss (circa 1950) includes dramatic political change? > >>zgirnius: > I see nothing in that scene to differentiate my domestic bliss from > that of Ron and Hermione. I work full time, have two young kids, > and am not married to their father, and the year is 2007. Totally > not 1950's. You insist on dating it to 1950 and making Hermione a > stay-at-home mom, but there is no more evidence of that view than > there is of mine. > Betsy Hp: I agree that we can see whatever we want in that scene as far as what everyone's doing with their lives. (Which is why I cannot accept Hermione's mere presence as proof of social justice for all. ) And Carol did a good job enumerating the reasons for a working! Hermione theory. I date the scene to the 1950's though, because we've got two couples made up of high-school sweethearts, and at least one where the girl set her cap for her mate back when she was 10 (or 9, even). And I also tend to chuckle at the idea of JKR as a feminist when I think she's anything but. So that's me expressing myself. Betsy Hp (behind but not wanting to miss this one) From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Nov 6 17:36:30 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 12:36:30 -0500 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich). Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178877 Eggplant: "I respectfully disagree. The twins felt insulted when their father said they baited Dudley because he was a Muggle! They baited him because he was a stupid git; and they believed he was a stupid git because they liked and respected Harry and believed his stories about Dudley." Precisely. If Dudders had been a wizardling git, they'd have pranked him too, although not, perhaps, in exactly the same way. That being said, I agree that the Twins showed poor judgment in what they did to Dudley, but we can't expect ole heads on young shoulders, can we? 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 Tue Nov 6 17:40:57 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 12:40:57 -0500 Subject: a sandwich Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178878 Bart: "The problem with house elves is on which side of the border do you put them. Since the history of house elves is not given in canon, we cannot determine whether house elves are people who have been enslaved, or animals with a higher level of consciousness than most. Is Dobby overcoming his programming, or was he driven insane by abuse? We have no idea; we can only guess. My best guess is that house elves need respect more than they need freedom." And what if, originally, they had been animals who had been enhanced by wizards to be the "hewers of wood and drawers of water"? JKR does not say, so we can speculate as we wish as long as we don't insist that everyone else accept our speculations as fact. 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 Tue Nov 6 17:55:23 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 12:55:23 -0500 Subject: a sandwich Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178879 Carol: "Just out of curiosity, I'll ask again a question I've raised several times that has yet to be answered. What would freeing the House-Elves, who want to work for wizards, accomplish? Maybe the MoM or Harry or some influential person or organization could suggest offering freedom to any House-Elf who wants it, but freedom would have to mean something other than a set of clothes, disgrace, and unemployment. Maybe if individual House-Elves had the option of retaining their jobs without fear of being fired and with token wages and the right to wear clothes, a few unusual Houes-Elves would choose that option. Those who were happy with the status quo would not. And abused House-Elves would need some sort of recourse, perhaps a law that forced their masters either to treat them well or to free them. But a freed House-Elf would still be homeless, Knutless, and unemployed." The parallel between House-Elves and enslaved humans is not perfect, of course, as House-Elves aren't funny-looking humans, but a different species. IMHO, House-Elves are more like highly intelligent dogs with hands. (I've known some Border Collies, for example, who seemed nearly as smart as House-Elves.) That being said, I've read some things about the situation in Morocco that might be applicable. Morocco is one of the few countries that still has chattel slavery; they believe that as slavery is sanctioned by the Koran, that they cannot abolish it altogether (remember, the King of Morocco is a direct descendant of the Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam)--but they CAN regulate it. The law, from what I read, is very strict on how slaves are to be treated; severe mistreatment will result in the government confiscating the slave, fining the masters, and the ex-slave getting a large portion of the fine to start his new life. Also, anyone wanting to sell a slave must give the King right of first refusal, and the King has declared that he will free any new slave he acquires. This sounds a bit like the scheme Carol is suggesting for the WW. 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 Tue Nov 6 19:58:17 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:58:17 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178880 > a_svirn: > This is a very bleak outlook on social activism indeed, for in the > last two books Hermione gave up on the house elves liberation > altogether and concentrated on making a more responsible slave-owner out of Harry. > Pippin: Hermione's activism does succeed with the DA, where she tackles a problem that affects her directly, and enlists the help of experts like Harry and Rita instead of trying to do it all herself. And Kreacher becomes an activist in DH, leading the house-elves into battle. The battle for elf-rights does not disappear. Instead, primary responsibility for elf-rights is assumed by an elf, as, Rowling implies, it should be. I think Hermione's 'zinger' to Scrimgeour in DH is part of the explanation for her apparent lack of interest in elf-rights in HBP. Unlike him, she was not about to bury herself in legal maneuvering while Voldemort was on the rampage. It also shows that she's adopted what appears to be Dumbledore's and Arthur's position, that the most important thing wizards could do for elf-rights was to keep Voldemort from taking over. There's no denying we saw little improvement in the general status of house-elves. But thinking about house-elf status as a major plot arc can only lead to frustration since no house-elves are major characters. The major character concerned is Hermione. Looking at it from that point of view, we do have a story with a resolution and IMO, a positive moral outlook. The plot arc is Hermione discovering that her view of Elves and of how to get wizards interested in helping them is mistaken, but with the right information and the right tactics she can accomplish some of her goals. Here's her original program: "Our short-term aims," said Hermione, speaking even more loudly than Ron, and acting as though she hadn't heard a word, "are to secure house-elves fair wages and working conditions. Our long-term aims include changing the law about non-wand use, and trying to get an elf into the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, because they're shockingly underrepresented." -- GoF ch 14 SPEW was problematic from the beginning, as the name should tell us. Hermione's activism was based on a false premise: "[Goblins are] very clever. They're not like house-elves, who never stick up for themselves." -- Hermione, GoF ch 24 By DH Hermione has discovered that despite their slave status, cute names, diminuitive size and imperfect English, house-elves aren't helpless little woobies who need wizards to protect them. They can be clever enough to outwit shrewd wizards like Lucius Malfoy, Mundungus and Sirius and to see through Hermione's simple trick. They *can* stick up for themselves. Amusingly, in DH Hermione talks like she has held this view from the beginning: "I've said all along that wizards would pay for how they treat house-elves. Well, Voldemort did...and so did Sirius." DH, ch 10. The story also shows that Hermione's initial tactics were faulty. Everyone tuned out her harangues about elf-rights except the already converted (and Ron, whom we may suspect of ulterior motives.) But we are shown that a live demonstration of how wizard treatment leads to elfish misery and rebellion worked. This is foreshadowed in HBP when Dumbledore's account of Hokey's fate raises more sympathy in Harry for SPEW than all of Hermione's lecturing or Dumbledore's own preachments about Kreacher. By the end of the story, Hermione has learned how to accomplish one of her original aims for the elves, fairer working conditions. She has also been shown that fair wages were unrealistic as a short-term aim -- even Dobby did not want what she would consider fair wages. She taught Harry and Ron the danger and immorality of giving orders to elves. Harry, although he knows that Kreacher is going to treat any request of his as an order anyway, does phrase what he wants as a request, and honors Kreacher with the gift of the locket. (Hmmm, it seems that Elves will accept payment as long as it isn't offered as such.) Harry went from treating Kreacher with neglect except when he needed a dirty job done (much the way Petunia treated Harry himself) to concern for him. Ron vetoes Harry's idea of ordering the Elves to fight and Harry accepts that he was wrong. The sandwich, IMO, is meant to parallel Dudley's cup of tea at the beginning of DH. Harry was unable to conceive that Dudley would ever want to be nice to him and assumed that the cup of tea (I started to type 'sandwich') was a booby trap. At the end Harry trusts and understands Kreacher as well as a human can understand a house-elf. He no longer thinks of him as lying and foul, and the thought of being brought a sandwich is comforting. Meanwhile Kreacher learned to admire Harry and even to respect his choice of friends. There's no hint in canon that Kreacher would resent knowing that Harry thought of him as a sandwich-bringer. But if he did, he would certainly let Harry know. Unlike Dobby, Kreacher has *never* had a problem speaking ill of his masters. That is what the HBP fight between Dobby and Kreacher was about. And Harry has learned that he would be wise to pay attention. The reconciliation between enemies that everyone hoped we would see in DH? We got it. It just wasn't with a character that most of us thought we'd like for a friend. Which was the point, IMO. It's much harder to make peace when it doesn't seem there will be any advantage in it. Pippin From CreativesMuse at aol.com Tue Nov 6 20:09:24 2007 From: CreativesMuse at aol.com (CreativesMuse at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:09:24 EST Subject: a sandwich Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178881 > Pippin: > That is an inconvenient truth which in > > no way makes slavery more palatable, but does make it harder to get > > rid of. JKR was brave to recognize that in her books, IMO. > > Magpie: > Brave to recognize what? That she hadn't really created a way for > House Elves to be realistically freed? She did seem to recognize that > but I wouldn't call it brave. > a_svirn: Actually, she does not seem to recognize it. Or rather, she does not acknowledge it. She still insists that slavery is a bad thing, that Hermione was right back in her fourth year when she tried to change things, and that the HP books are about morality and tolerance. But the only thing they teach to tolerate is inequality in its most extreme forms. ~CreativesMuse: Actually, I think Rowling addressed this at the ending of the book where the House Elves came to join the battle. I think the picture Rowling was painting was the inner emergence of the House Elves. For generations they did not stand up for themselves, they did nothing in the wizarding world except serve their masters orders. The House Elves at Hogwarts had been under Dumbledore's care until his demise. When DD offered Dobby sanctuary there, he was willing to recognize his freedom and pay him for the work he did, showing DDs willingness to follow the example set by Hermoine and Harry and open that door for any elf wishing to be afforded the same freedoms. The House Elves were watching Dobby and his relationships with Harry and DD. They said they found it dishonorable but I think that when day was done, they decided Dobby, a free elf, had chosen his path wisely. Voldemort was on their doorstep and they weren't going to take it any more. Kreacher sang out a battle cry that he was fighting for his master, "defender of house-elves". Prior to this the house-elves had nothing to do with the inter-battles among the wizards unless ordered by their masters. This, IMHO, is their beginning of self-realization. Whenever addressed, house elves always had their own belittlement/self-loathing persona going on (I'm sure as a result of centuries of being treated as such by the wizards). When the castle was taken over the Carrows I am quite sure they did not issue an order to the elves to stand against Voldemort. The House Elves were beginning to think independently and they chose which side they openly supported. I guess I just saw that scene as a beginning for them, and the ongoing battle for them a story not yet written (unless there is one out there in FanFic land I haven't yet seen, lol) ~CreativesMuse From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 20:44:18 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:44:18 -0000 Subject: Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game (WAS Re: JKR's Intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178882 > Betsy Hp: > It's probably kind of telling (and not so much a surprise ), but I > saw Draco as reaching out to Harry for at least a good three books. > I think it's only by OotP that Draco finally gave up. (Though I've > had to conclude that this was all stuff JKR stuck in by mistake. She > didn't *mean* to make Draco that deep.) zgirnius: I don't know about three books, but Draco definitely did make sincere attempts to be friends with Harry in the first book. He did not go about it in a particularly good way, and I felt the whys and wherefores of that were made quite clear in the series. To me, Draco shifted to rival mode in PS/SS, with his attempts to get Harry into trouble, and continued this in later books. What happened by end of GoF/start of OotP, as I see it, is not that he finally stopped trying to make friends, but that the rivalry had moved out of school stuff and into the `real world' stuff of the Potterverse, with Draco taking on his family's allegiance to Voldemort, expressed through practical actions in support of the Ministry policy that Voldemort was not back. (Assorted Ministry employees might have believed their own BS ? Draco knew better). As for how "deep" Draco is, I find him a well-drawn and interesting character whose motivations are depicted believably, whom we see grow and change, and whose arc fits into the greater themes and story neatly. He's certainly no cardboard cut-out that never changes, but without some clue as to how deep you thought he was, I have no idea if I agree or not. I have no idea what you refer to when you refer to things about him that were put in "by accident". > BetsyHP: > But in the end, yes, the bad guys in Potterverse were no good to the > bone, and in Enderverse there weren't really any "bad guys" after > all. Which is funny because OSC was writing such a militant book > about war and the waging thereof, while JKR was trying to say > something about... I don't know... life, or something? Anyway, I got > the sense she thought she was saying something vital and deep. zgirnius: In the end, Voldemort was the one bad guy who proved to be no good to the bone. And even for him, we were shown some whys and wherefores. His mother grew up dreadfully neglected and abused and unloved. He was conceived in a loveless marriage. He was left in an orphanage where no one loved him. He likely inherited some genetic predisposition for things a psychiatrist could diagnose, on the basis of what we have seen of his mother's family, and heard about her ancestors. And he became, yes, a monster. But we have plenty of whys and wherefores. The Malfoys can certainly not be described as no good to the bone, in my opinion. This was signaled to us the readers in any number of ways ? Narcissa's instrumentality in Harry's victory, the survival of all three members of the family, and Draco's apparently normal post- war life are just some of the indications to me that we were not supposed to see them as bad to the bone. And of course, we see them having normal, laudable human feelings and concerns, and acting on them. HP also has this class of non-villains mistaken for villains, about whom we also get whys and wherefores (along with the information that they are not actually villains at all). Snape and Regulus to a lesser extent, fall into this group. > BetsyHP: > JKR created these "bad guys" and seemed to give them > depth and heart, but then in the end, figuring out the whys and > wherefores was silly (or unrealistic, I guess?) and her protagonist > just... won. zgirnius: I note that you seem not to object particularly to Voldemort in your comments, yet he is the only character I recognize in your broad- brush descriptions of what happened in the series. If you find the artistic choice of having Voldemort die unredeemed unacceptable, you could save us a lot of time and effort and just say so. Rowling presented us and her protagonist with the whys and wherefores of a number of characters he considered villains. Harry's victory, we can say based on that knowledge, was a victory not only for his side, but for all of those characters. Would Draco Malfoy be standing on the train platform with his wife and son, preparing to send him off to Hogwarts, if Harry had not won? > Betsy Hp: > Oops, yes. I forgot about Lily. But no, a middle name after a > guy his kid's never heard of zgirnius: How do you know that Albus knew nothing about his namesakes? To me, that he has no idea who he is named after or why seems highly unlikely. I knew the story of my naming, and that of my sister, by the time I started elementary school. What I can (and do) credit, is that he may have no idea which Hogwarts House or Houses those two men represent. This would be entirely consistent with what we have seen about adult characters in canon. The ones whose House we can name, are those whose actions as schoolchildren have some relevance to the story, (Snape's housemates, the Marauders, Lily), and the kids of Harry's day) or those with close family relationships to children whose sorting is under discussion (the Blacks, Mr, and Mrs. Weasley, Mr. Potter the father of James), or those who serve as Heads of House at the school. The vast bulk of the random adults from all sides of the conflict are of unknown House. It does not seem to be a necessary bit of information to know about an adult. > BetsyHP: > isn't my idea of Harry delving deep into the > Slytherin mind, seeing they're not that alien after all, and sharing > that news with his people. The Slytherins are still weird, their > designated attributes still not seen as virtues (Severus was > *brave*), and they're still not worthy to breed with (as per Ron). zgirnius: In my opinion, the suggestion that there *is* a Slytherin mind in which to delve is the mistake (and if it were not a mistake, *that* idea might get me to consider that Rowling has written a deeply scary work). The whole point is that there is no "Slytherin mind" any more than there is a "Gryffindor mind". This is a misconception Harry may or may not have harbored at some point, of which I believe him fully cured. There are the minds of individual Slytherins and Gryffindors, each unique products of their own personalities and experiences and choices. Harry has gained a good deal of insight into some of these minds. This is another point of non-analogy to Card's world. The buggers are an alien species occupying a vastly different ecological niche and having very different methods of reproduction and child-rearing. Regarding some things, there *is* far more similarity between the minds of different individuals of the bugger species than with the mind of a human. No bugger queen would consider getting into a spaceship and traveling to an unexplored part of the galaxy, for example. It's insane! While some humans might privately agree, it's something we can at least see as a choice for a more adventurous soul. And, having met us, the bugger queen may perhaps see that it makes some sense *for us*. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Nov 6 21:34:13 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:34:13 -0000 Subject: Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game (WAS Re: JKR's Intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178883 > Betsy Hp: > It's probably kind of telling (and not so much a surprise ), but I > saw Draco as reaching out to Harry for at least a good three books. > I think it's only by OotP that Draco finally gave up. (Though I've > had to conclude that this was all stuff JKR stuck in by mistake. She > didn't *mean* to make Draco that deep.) Pippin: Draco was definitely reaching out to Harry in PS/SS, but he wanted Harry to be his kind of person. (As many, I suspect, hoped that Draco was really Harry's kind of person after all.) Once Draco realized there was no hope of that, he didn't want to be Harry's friend. Betsy Hp: > But in the end, yes, the bad guys in Potterverse were no good to the > bone, and in Enderverse there weren't really any "bad guys" after > all. Pippin: Draco was no good to the bone? As bad as Crabbe, was he? Where do you get that? Betsy Hp: figuring out the whys and > wherefores was silly (or unrealistic, I guess?) and her protagonist > just... won. Pippin: Harry could only win because he had the whys and wherefores figured out. He had magic that Voldemort didn't have, but the only reason he was able to use it was because he understood Voldemort. For example, his understanding of Voldemort allowed him to figure out how Voldemort discovered where the tiara was, and why Voldemort would have hidden it in what would seem to anybody else a ridiculous place. > Betsy Hp: > Oops, yes. I forgot about Lily. But no, a middle name after a > guy his kid's never heard of, and an assurance that little Al can > *choose* his house isn't my idea of Harry delving deep into the > Slytherin mind, seeing they're not that alien after all, and sharing > that news with his people. Pippin: How is naming his son after Severus not sharing that news with his people, and what makes you assume in a world where Harry Potter is still such hot news that children stare out of train windows to look at him, that people are unfamiliar with his history? You can hardly tell Harry's story without mentioning Snape, who in any case would be famous in his own right as a headmaster. That Albus would need to be reminded of the significance of his name despite this is not surprising. Children pick up attitudes from all over, and blithely embrace opinions that completely contradict what they learned from their parents, not always with awareness that they've done so. We see Dudley doing this at the beginning of DH. Betsy Hp: The Slytherins are still weird, their > designated attributes still not seen as virtues (Severus was > *brave*), and they're still not worthy to breed with (as per Ron). Pippin: Ron is *joking*, in poor taste as usual. Only Al's reaction to James's teasing seriously implies that there's anything wrong with Slytherin House (as opposed to Scorpius, whose name implies he may have been indoctrinated with some of his father's attitudes.) Canon shows that Godric had higher moral standards than Salazar, but it does not show that only people with lower moral standards would choose or be chosen for Slytherin. Who was more moral, Peter Pettigrew or Regulus Black? What Harry's choice of 'not Slytherin' showed is that morality mattered to him, and that made him different than Voldemort. But morality mattered to Severus and Regulus too. Houses don't make moral choices. People do. Since Harry can freely say that it makes no difference to him or Ginny whether Al becomes a Slytherin, we can be sure that at the time of the epilogue, it can't be true that Harry thinks present day Slytherins have lower moral standards than the other houses. If he did, he could say so. Why not say that he's glad that Al can see Slytherin is a bad house? Instead he says that *if* Al believes there's a difference, the hat will listen to his choice, as it did when Harry was Al's age. IOW, there was a difference then, but Harry doesn't think there is a difference now. It's clear that in Harry's eyes Slytherins no longer deserve a shady reputation, and that there was a certain Slytherin Headmaster who never did. We have a brave Ravenclaw in Luna and a brave Hufflepuff in Cedric. The argument that Snape's bravery somehow de-Slytherinizes him in Harry's eyes seems like saying anyone who's a good person by mainstream standards isn't Slytherin enough. That doesn't sound like a House unity position to me. It's more like calling a black person who succeeds an oreo. What would the Potterverse term be -- a watermelon? Pippin who isn't sure what marrying your high school sweetheart has to do with the nineteen-fifties From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 01:08:35 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:08:35 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178884 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, CreativesMuse at ... wrote: > ~CreativesMuse: > Actually, I think Rowling addressed this at the ending of the book where the > House Elves came to join the battle. I think the picture Rowling was > painting was the inner emergence of the House Elves. For generations they did not > stand up for themselves, they did nothing in the wizarding world except serve > their masters orders. The House Elves at Hogwarts had been under Dumbledore's > care until his demise. When DD offered Dobby sanctuary there, he was willing > to recognize his freedom and pay him for the work he did, showing DDs > willingness to follow the example set by Hermoine and Harry and open that door for > any elf wishing to be afforded the same freedoms. The House Elves were > watching Dobby and his relationships with Harry and DD. They said they found it > dishonorable but I think that when day was done, they decided Dobby, a free > elf, had chosen his path wisely. Voldemort was on their doorstep and they > weren't going to take it any more. > > Kreacher sang out a battle cry that he was fighting for his master, > "defender of house-elves". Prior to this the house-elves had nothing to do with the > inter-battles among the wizards unless ordered by their masters. This, IMHO, > is their beginning of self-realization. Whenever addressed, house elves always > had their own belittlement/self-loathing persona going on (I'm sure as a > result of centuries of being treated as such by the wizards). > > When the castle was taken over the Carrows I am quite sure they did not > issue an order to the elves to stand against Voldemort. The House Elves were > beginning to think independently and they chose which side they openly supported. > I guess I just saw that scene as a beginning for them, and the ongoing > battle for them a story not yet written (unless there is one out there in FanFic > land I haven't yet seen, lol) Montavilla47: That's a very creative idea. You live up to your name! However, you forget that the Carrows weren't in charge of the castle-- or the elves. The person in charge of them would be Headmaster Snape, wouldn't it? Perhaps he *did* give them orders. :) On a more serious note, while I can see this possibly being a sign that the elves are standing up for themselves, it's one of those things, like Draco's positiveness, that one has to squint to see. The meaning I took from the charge of the House Elves was that Kreacher was still slavishly devoted to his dead master Regulus. This was touching and funny, but it didn't signal anything to me other than that the kindness of Harry's gift had redeemed Kreacher from his earlier disobedience, surliness, and lack of hygene. Which is a nice little moral when you think about it. That gift really costs Harry little in the scheme of things. He kept the locket around as a reminder of what he'd lost in Dumbledore, but it was the other locket he valued. We don't often think how little things we take for granted can be valuable to other people. I had an odd thought today about the Hermione part of this story arc. Do you suppose that JKR simply forgot what Ron's position had been on elf rights previously? Like she forgot that Draco never got the Hand of Glory in book 2? Montavilla47 From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 01:26:35 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:26:35 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178885 > Montavilla47: > I had an odd thought today about the Hermione part of this story > arc. Do you suppose that JKR simply forgot what Ron's position > had been on elf rights previously? Like she forgot that Draco never > got the Hand of Glory in book 2? > > Montavilla47 lizzyben: I think that's exactly what happened. Fomy: What did you feel when you finally wrote the kiss, awaited so much by the fans, of ron and hermione J.K. Rowling I loved writing it, and I loved the fact that Hermione took the initiative! J.K. Rowling: Ron had finally got SPEW and earned himself a snog! JKR seems to be saying that Ron changed his position on house elves & so earned a snog from Hermione. When in fact Ron is just saying the same thing he's always said, while Hermione is the one who has changed her position on freeing house elves. It's not so much that Ron got SPEW as that Hermione got Ron. lizzyben From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 03:39:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:39:36 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178886 Jen: The difference is I don't accept the idea of house elves as natural slaves. The elves read as victims of learned helplessness brought about by the enchantment forcing them to self-punish for generations. Magpie: Maybe, maybe not. We don't know anything about the true origins of House Elves. Maybe thinking they're not natural slaves and just victims of learned helplessness--although I don't know if that's the right term for elves embracing their role as slaves--is incorrect. Perhaps they're like women who think their place is in the home with no rights and think women who think otherwise are shameful--or maybe they're not like people at all and the attitude goes deeper than culture. It gets into the same trouble Hermione originally had--we project our own ideas about their behavior onto them. We don't know that Wizards put the enchantment on them. So who's to say we shouldn't accept them as natural slaves? Alla: We **all** are projecting our own ideas to the characters to some degree IMO and why not? Whether one thinks that Draco is sympathetic because he reminds the list member of herself in the childhood to some degree ( as Betsy I think once wrote), or when I who comes from country who unjustly imprisoned **millions** during its history and that is why partially I will be especially sympathetic to Sirius because I cry for all people who were unjustly imprisoned by soviet regime and his story sort of resonates in me. Or if Jen sees house elves as victims of learned helplessness because that is one of the things it reminds her because of her area of expertise, because of what she is trained to do. The symptoms of that behavior is right there in the books. Elves punishing themselves, elves being under echantment, which we do not know indeed how came to be. What Jen does IMO is using her RL experinces to imagine WHY elves do those things and how story worked out and maybe will continue to work out in some hypothetical imaginary future. Why not, I wonder? It is indeed not like she is using her imagination to imagine Harry going to Mars or something. If nothing about it is in the books, then sure, not fair to discuss, but I so think that what she described is plausible. Just as many other possibilities of course. As to why we should not accept them as natural slaves, well we can of course, but people who are reminded of what Jen described may not to accept it for that reason, you know? JMO, Alla From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Nov 7 11:11:04 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:11:04 -0000 Subject: Lucius and the diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178887 > TKJ: > > do we know WHY exactly Lucious thought it was a good idea to > > give the notebook to Ginny? > > Magpie: > Lucius didn't know it was a Horcrux, but he did seem to know that > the Diary would unlock the Chamber of Secrets using another student. > So the idea was to discredit Arthur and fight back against his raids > etc. by having his own daughter purge the school of Muggle-borns. aussie: Dumbledore told Harry 3 reasons in HBP chap 23 ... - discredit Arthur (who was conducting the raids) by giving it to Ginny - get Dumbledore kicked out of the school - get rid of a Dark Object that could incriminate the Malfoys Lucius didn't know it was a Horcrux, but knew it would help open the Chamber of Secrets again. aussie From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 13:23:19 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:23:19 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178888 > Jen: The difference is I don't accept the idea of house elves as > natural slaves. The elves read as victims of learned helplessness > brought about by the enchantment forcing them to self-punish for > generations. When Dumbledore said "Kreacher is what he has been made > by wizards" in OOTP, I took that literally, that the forced nature of > self-punishment at even the hint of disobedience had finally and > completely enslaved the house elves when Harry came to know them. > It's the negative reinforcement of Pavlov's dog taken to the > extreme. So by the time the storyline made it to DH and the sickness > of the enchantment, well it made complete sense to me as the heart of > the elf storyline. a_svirn: Yes, that's how I saw it too. But obviously I was wrong, since Hermione gave up her crusade. She neither does nor even *says* anything about lifting the enchantment. Presumably, it means that self- punishment is not forced and there has never been any enchantments imposed on the elves. It's just what they are and what they do. There is no other way to account on Hermione's (and everyone else's) silence on the subject. Oh, she is still appalled by all this (who wouldn't be?), but there is no indication that she is going to *do* anything about it. > Jen: > So I wasn't saying that Rowling created slaves to have a storyline > about social activism, but that social activism offers a framework in > which to explore a seemingly intractable social problem. Where does > one start? At first Hermione thought you started with a mass freeing > because that's the ultimate goal right, no more slaves. Makes sense > that it should be as easy as that; if something's wrong it should go > away. But with no support from other activists, the MOM or even the > house elves themselves, that turned out to be a failed proposition. > I thought Hermione got to the point where the tide could turn when > recognizing that stopping the self-abuse was the first step in the > process of changing the lot of the house elves. a_svirn: When and what did do anything in the last two books to stop their self abuse? She did no such thing. She hasn't done a thing to improve Kreacher's lot. Kreacher's lot is exactly as it was ? Harry still owns him and still makes use of him. And Harry never was a cruel master to begin with: he might have loathed his slave, but he never abused him. Granted, he stopped loath Kreacher, but Hermione can't claim credit for that. It was Kreacher's story that made the difference. What Hermione did do, Jen, she used her newfound insight in the elvish nature and psychology to help her slave-owning friend to convert an unhappy, rebellious and potentially dangerous slave into happy, loyal and obedient one. That's what her social activism came to. She changed sides. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 13:43:13 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:43:13 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178889 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > This is a very bleak outlook on social activism indeed, for in the > > last two books Hermione gave up on the house elves liberation > > altogether and concentrated on making a more responsible > slave-owner out of Harry. > > > > Pippin: > > Hermione's activism does succeed with the DA, where she tackles > a problem that affects her directly, and enlists the help of experts > like Harry and Rita instead of trying to do it all herself. a_svirn: I have never doubted Hermione's ability to "tackle problems", though I find "enlisting help" an interesting euphemism for blackmail. What it has to with house elves though? > Pippin: > And Kreacher becomes an activist in DH, leading the house-elves > into battle. The battle for elf-rights does not disappear. a_svirn: Because it has yet to appear. Kreacher leads house elves to fight wizarding battles. He fights for his master and against his master's enemies. What elves' rights have to do with it? There is no such thing to begin with, and Kreacher wouldn't even understand the concept. > Pippin: > The reconciliation between enemies that everyone > hoped we would see in DH? We got it. a_svirn: Not that I hoped for it myself, but did we indeed get it? I seem to remember a battle lost and won and a huge death-toll. I wouldn't call it reconciliation. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 14:18:22 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:18:22 -0000 Subject: Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game (WAS Re: JKR's Intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178890 > >>Betsy Hp: > > It's probably kind of telling (and not so much a surprise ), > > but I saw Draco as reaching out to Harry for at least a good > > three books. > > > >>zgirnius: > I don't know about three books, but Draco definitely did make > sincere attempts to be friends with Harry in the first book. He did > not go about it in a particularly good way, and I felt the whys and > wherefores of that were made quite clear in the series. > > As for how "deep" Draco is, I find him a well-drawn and interesting > character whose motivations are depicted believably, whom we see > grow and change, and whose arc fits into the greater themes and > story neatly. > Betsy Hp: DH killed Draco's story for me. He ceased to make any sense as a character and became a cardboard cut-out as far as I was concerned. No one can hang in the sort of limbo JKR had him (and his family, for that matter) hanging in without breaking. And considering that Draco had *already* broken back in HBP, I didn't believe any of the actions taken by him in DH at all. To me, he was a puppet JKR moved around to accomplish her plot desires. That is all. > >>Pippin: > Draco was definitely reaching out to Harry in PS/SS, but he > wanted Harry to be his kind of person. (As many, I suspect, > hoped that Draco was really Harry's kind of person after all.) > Once Draco realized there was no hope of that, he didn't > want to be Harry's friend. Betsy Hp: I saw Draco trying to get Harry's attention ("be my friend!") up until the war bubbled up again and his family loyalties kicked in. He went about it in a very "pulling Harry's pigtails" kind of way, but he was pretty darn consistent, IMO. Until his character ceased to be, of course. > >>BetsyHP: > > But in the end, yes, the bad guys in Potterverse were no good to > > the bone, and in Enderverse there weren't really any "bad guys" > > after all. > > > >>zgirnius: > In the end, Voldemort was the one bad guy who proved to be no good > to the bone. > > And he became, yes, a monster. But we have plenty of whys and > wherefores. Betsy Hp: I disagree. Voldemort was a monster and that is all. There was no misunderstanding to work through, there was just a monster to be destroyed. (In the end I found Voldemort to be a very boring villain.) > >>zgirnius: > HP also has this class of non-villains mistaken for villains, about > whom we also get whys and wherefores (along with the information > that they are not actually villains at all). Snape and Regulus to a > lesser extent, fall into this group. Betsy Hp: Huh. I'd have said Snape and Regulus *were* that group. And they were conveniently dead so Harry didn't have to deal with having someone he'd misjudged walking around and thinking him less than perfect. Other than that, I can't think of a person Harry thought was a bad guy that actually turned out to be full on good. And of course, we've got Slytherin who are so unworthy they aren't considered a true part of Hogwarts. > >>Pippin: > Draco was no good to the bone? As bad as Crabbe, was he? Where > do you get that? Betsy Hp: >From the books. They're both Slytherin in the end. > >>BetsyHP: > > JKR created these "bad guys" and seemed to give them > > depth and heart, but then in the end, figuring out the whys and > > wherefores was silly (or unrealistic, I guess?) and her > > protagonist just... won. > >>zgirnius: > I note that you seem not to object particularly to Voldemort in > your comments, yet he is the only character I recognize in your > broad-brush descriptions of what happened in the series. If you > find the artistic choice of having Voldemort die unredeemed > unacceptable, you could save us a lot of time and effort and just > say so. > Betsy Hp: Oops, sorry! There's been a lot of complaining about people repeating themselves so I assumed my views had been shared so often that it was best I went to short-hand. I wasn't talking about Voldemort so much as Slytherin as a whole. Slytherin was the actual villain of the piece (hell would be Hogwarts without a Sorting Hat) and they were painted as bad to the bone, IMO. When it came to defending Hogwarts, Slytherin left. And no, I didn't see any reasons for them doing so, nor did I see our protagonist caring about why they did so. It's what you'd expect of Slytherins apparently. > >>Pippin: > Harry could only win because he had the whys and wherefores figured > out. He had magic that Voldemort didn't have, but the only reason he > was able to use it was because he understood Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: Harry defeated Voldemort in the end because he'd lucked his way into the Elder Wand. (Heh. In the end, it really *is* the size of your wand that matters.) Sure, there was some minimum "figuring out how Voldemort's mind works" so that Harry could *finally* get his hands on the horcruxes. But even there JKR had to cheat and write in Harry getting literally (and horribly unrealistically, IMO) into Voldemort's head. So it did not feel like Harry was actually "getting" Voldemort to finally beat him. (Though in the end, Voldemort was a twisted monster so there wasn't really much there to get, IMO.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But no, a middle name after a guy his kid's never heard of, and > > an assurance that little Al can *choose* his house isn't my idea > > of Harry delving deep into the Slytherin mind, seeing they're not > > that alien after all, and sharing that news with his people. > >>zgirnius: > How do you know that Albus knew nothing about his namesakes? > Betsy Hp: Heh, I went back to reread that scene because I thought it would be apparent Al was hearing the story for the first time. I'll admit it's not, though it's not apparent that the story is old hat, either. "[Y]ou were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew." [DH scholastic p.758] Harry's not talking like he's said this before, IMO, but it's by no means definitive. However, this was something I'd not picked up on before: "'What if I'm in Slytherin?' "The whisper was for his father alone, and Harry knew that only the moment of departure could have forced Albus to reveal how great and sincere that fear was." [ibid] *Great* and *sincere*. This isn't a kid worried he's going to end up in the lame house. It's a child terrified he's going to end up in the *bad* house. And how does Harry comfort him? First he explains that even a Slytherin can express Gryffindor virtues (bravery). But then he says that if it matters to Al (and obviously it does), Al can choose his house. And he doesn't just leave it at "choose". "But if it matters to you, you'll be able to CHOOSE Gryffindor OVER Slytherin." [ibid - emphasis mine] So yeah, I don't care that Al's middle name comes from the brave Slytherin Harry knew. It's very apparent, IMO, that the best house is still Gryffindor, and Al's fear of Slytherin was not unfounded nor from outside sources. > >>Pippin: > > Children pick up attitudes from all over, and blithely embrace > opinions that completely contradict what they learned from their > parents, not always with awareness that they've done so. We see > Dudley doing this at the beginning of DH. Betsy Hp: Dudley was 17 at the time of DH, and Slytherins are all condemned with a choice they make (or don't make) at the age of eleven. In the Potterverse it doesn't matter where a child's opinion comes from (JKR all but wrote a big sign saying Draco was parroting his father in the first two books) it's still enough to determine that child's worth. After all, it was his childish views that made Draco being repeatedly dropped on a stone floor a hilarious scene of good old fashioned revenge. > >>zgirnius: > In my opinion, the suggestion that there *is* a Slytherin mind in > which to delve is the mistake (and if it were not a mistake, *that* > idea might get me to consider that Rowling has written a deeply > scary work). The whole point is that there is no "Slytherin mind" > any more than there is a "Gryffindor mind". This is a misconception > Harry may or may not have harbored at some point, of which I > believe him fully cured. > Betsy Hp: And yet, the Slytherins all acted en masse. None of them joined the DA, none of them fought for Hogwarts. So, in the end, I think JKR *does* suggest that there's a "Slytherin mind" and it's a dark and scary place that's best just thrown out or stuffed on a luggage rack and just not thought about. Which I agree is scary. And disturbing, IMO. > >>Pippin > who isn't sure what marrying your high school sweetheart > has to do with the nineteen-fifties Betsy Hp: Playing house. Which was a big thing, I think, in the 1950's because of the horrors of WWII and the Great Depression. So everyone tried to get that "perfect" cookie-cutter life style. (I'm broad-brushing here, and I'm fully aware a lot more was going on in the '50's. But this was the ideal for a lot of folks.) And there's nothing wrong with JKR wanting to end her series with her protagonists all happily playing house. It just means that, again, I don't see much in the way of social justice being addressed. (Honestly, I doubt JKR thought there was anything *to* address.) Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 14:31:10 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:31:10 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178891 > Alla: > > If nothing about it is in the books, then sure, not fair to discuss, > but I so think that what she described is plausible. Just as many > other possibilities of course. > > As to why we should not accept them as natural slaves, well we can > of course, but people who are reminded of what Jen described may not > to accept it for that reason, you know? a_svirn: But that would mean that Hermione is a craven traitor, because she wouldn't even *discuss* exploiting these possibilities. She did not stop or tried to stop, or think of trying to stop elves' self-punishment. Next time Kreacher does something to warrant it (in his opinion) he would inflict it upon himself enthusiastically. Harry, if he happens to be nearby, will stop it, of course, but then he would have stopped it anyway. Even is he still loathed him he would stop it. But that won't change anything for Kreacher, because this is exactly the pattern that has been going on for generations. What did Hermione do to stop it? When did she indicate that she might do anything to stop once she has sorted out more pressing matters? From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Wed Nov 7 15:06:03 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:06:03 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178892 > a_svirn: > But that would mean that Hermione is a craven traitor, because she > wouldn't even *discuss* exploiting these possibilities. She did not > stop or tried to stop, or think of trying to stop elves' > self-punishment. Next time Kreacher does something to warrant it (in > his opinion) he would inflict it upon himself enthusiastically. Harry, > if he happens to be nearby, will stop it, of course, but then he would > have stopped it anyway. Even is he still loathed him he would stop it. > But that won't change anything for Kreacher, because this is exactly > the pattern that has been going on for generations. What did Hermione > do to stop it? When did she indicate that she might do anything to > stop once she has sorted out more pressing matters? Celoneth: Its not clear that she could have done anything about the elves self-punishment. We see elf magic tied to following the orders of the elf's master - which is why Kreacher could apparate out of a cave with anti-apparition charms. The self-punishment could be the negative side of elf magic. It might be a natural characteristic of their magic or something that's been ingrained over thousands of years by wizards and very difficult if not impossible to change. There were more pressing matters for Hermione - in DH she was being pursued by DEs because she was muggleborn and friends with Harry - realistically how much activism for elf rights could she do? Should she have forgone fighting a mortal threat in order to work on achieving rights for a group that's in no immediate danger, is generally happy with being servants and is very reluctant to change their behaviour? Before that, there's no indication that she decided that elf rights weren't worth pursuing - she saw that her efforts in OotP failed, a reasonable person would probably work on finding another strategy. Also, she's a teenager - she's got her own interests (helping Harry, being good at school, Ron, etc.) that affect her much more personally that elf rights. But having your own interests doesn't mean you can't be devoted to a cause. Maybe she figured that she wasn't going to get anything accomplished while she was in school. I believe that in one of the post-DH interviews JKR said that Hermione went to work in the magical creatures department at the MoM - canon or not, it would be very IC for her to do something like that - and be in a position where she actually could change laws to better the elves situation. I don't like the house-elf story in the books - it does seem to make sentient beings that are happy with slavery - something that is extremely repugnant in real life. But as far as it exists, the characters have to deal with it. Harry deals with it by being a nice master to Kreacher, because as far as canon goes, there's nothing else he can do. We don't know how Hermione deals with it post-DH. I don't see any indications that she gave up her cause - she suspended it for a while because of the other things going on but there's nothing to indicate that she doesn't want rights for elves or to improve their situation - and that's something she can't do while she's at Hogwarts or when she's on the run from Voldemort - though what would actually benefit house-elves is unclear given the setup of the house-elf story. Celoneth From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 15:30:14 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:30:14 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178893 > > a_svirn: > > But that would mean that Hermione is a craven traitor, because she > > wouldn't even *discuss* exploiting these possibilities. She did not > > stop or tried to stop, or think of trying to stop elves' > > self-punishment. Next time Kreacher does something to warrant it (in > > his opinion) he would inflict it upon himself enthusiastically. Harry, > > if he happens to be nearby, will stop it, of course, but then he would > > have stopped it anyway. Even is he still loathed him he would stop it. > > But that won't change anything for Kreacher, because this is exactly > > the pattern that has been going on for generations. What did Hermione > > do to stop it? When did she indicate that she might do anything to > > stop once she has sorted out more pressing matters? > > Celoneth: > Its not clear that she could have done anything about the elves > self-punishment. We see elf magic tied to following the orders of the > elf's master - which is why Kreacher could apparate out of a cave with > anti-apparition charms. The self-punishment could be the negative side > of elf magic. It might be a natural characteristic of their magic or > something that's been ingrained over thousands of years by wizards and > very difficult if not impossible to change. a_svirn: That's exactly what I am saying. Either she could do something but wouldn't ? which is bad form, you'll agree, or she couldn't because that's part of their nature. One or another, we cannot have it both ways. > Celoneth: > I don't like the house-elf story in the books - it does seem to make > sentient beings that are happy with slavery - something that is > extremely repugnant in real life. But as far as it exists, the > characters have to deal with it. Harry deals with it by being a nice > master to Kreacher, because as far as canon goes, there's nothing else > he can do. a_svirn: Yes. Point is, I don't like the way canon goes. And judging by this thread I am not alone. > Celoneth: We don't know how Hermione deals with it post-DH. a_svirn: And it doesn't matter, because - as canon goes - there is no post-DH. DH is the last book in the series. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Nov 7 15:41:44 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:41:44 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178894 > a_svirn: > I have never doubted Hermione's ability to "tackle problems", though I > find "enlisting help" an interesting euphemism for blackmail. Pippin: Touche a_svirn: What it has to with house elves though? Pippin: Hermione wanted to help house-elves because she thought they couldn't stick up for themselves. That changed to wanting wizards to see that abusing house-elves was dangerous as well as cruel because house- elves can retaliate. She succeeded in getting Harry and Ron to recognize this. Harry could no longer deny that Sirius had been cruel to Kreacher and that Kreacher had fought back in the only way he knew. Harry had been neglectful of Kreacher himself, and did not care that he forced Kreacher to perform the painful duty of spying on the boy he wished was his master. Harry accepted that he needed to treat Kreacher with kindness and respect. Ron stopped defending the status quo, in which wizards could order elves to die for them. > > > Pippin: > > And Kreacher becomes an activist in DH, leading the house-elves > > into battle. The battle for elf-rights does not disappear. > > a_svirn: > Because it has yet to appear. Kreacher leads house elves to fight > wizarding battles. Pippin: Voldemort's abuse of house-elves makes it a house-elf battle too. Both Kreacher and Dobby tell us about how badly Voldemort treated them. "Like vermin" Dobby says. a_svirn . What elves' rights have to do with it? Pippin: When Kreacher said, "fight for my master, defender of house-elves" what do you think he meant? Everyone thinks Harry is dead, he can't be fighting to save him. And of course Regulus is dead, too. He may be fighting in their name, but as he has no resurrection stone nor portrait to give him orders, it's his own ideas of what they wanted that he's fighting for. And that was a world where elves would be defended. Kreacher definitely understands the concept of being made to do things against his will, and he's definitely not okay with it. He doesn't have Dobby's compulsion to punish himself for speaking ill of his masters, either, so we can be sure his respect is sincere. The battle shows that the elves have accepted him as a leader. > > Pippin: > > > The reconciliation between enemies that everyone > > hoped we would see in DH? We got it. > > a_svirn: > Not that I hoped for it myself, but did we indeed get it? Pippin: There was reconciliation between Harry and Kreacher. Harry thought Kreacher was lying and foul, and deserved to be treated badly by Sirius. Kreacher hated Harry and despised his friends. At the end they have won respect and think kindly of each other. When the story leaves off, house-elves are still enslaved. But it's not true that nothing has changed. House-elves have shown they can fight back. Hermione has learned how to persuade people to her view that elves should not be abused. Ron is no longer satisfied with the status quo. Harry no longer takes the morality of his own actions for granted. The question "What if there really was a master race?" comes up all the time in speculative fiction, only it's usually humans who are being subjugated. Rowling turns the tables on it, and asks, if there were creatures who enjoyed being slaves to humans, would slavery still be immoral? One answer might be, no, not if the slaves were happy. But to believe that elves are going to be happy slaves from now on, you would have to believe that, now that Voldemort is gone, people will always treat them with kindness and respect. I believe that Harry's rejection of the Elder Wand shows that he wouldn't agree. He now understands that would be expecting too much of even the finest person. Canon shows that humans don't always treat each other with kindness and respect; they can hardly be expected to treat house-elves better. Storybook good guys can always make the right choice, Harry's crucio shows he isn't one of those, for eyes to see that can. If the reader needs or wants to believe in storybook good guys and bad guys, Rowling isn't going to take that away, but she does show just how different those fictional creatures are from you and me. We don't know what the wizards did with their future beyond raising kids, and we don't know what became of the house- elves after the war. But that's hardly the same as saying the story shows us that nothing *needed* to be done. We end with all being well because the world is well and truly saved from Voldemort, not because there's no work left for heroes to do. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 16:52:33 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:52:33 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178895 > Magpie: > Maybe, maybe not. We don't know anything about the true origins of > House Elves. Maybe thinking they're not natural slaves and just > victims of learned helplessness--although I don't know if that's > the right term for elves embracing their role as slaves--is > incorrect. Perhaps they're like women who think their place is in > the home with no rights and think women who think otherwise are > shameful--or maybe they're not like people at all and the attitude > goes deeper than culture. It gets into the same trouble Hermione > originally had--we project our own ideas about their behavior onto > them. We don't know that Wizards put the enchantment on them. So > who's to say we shouldn't accept them as natural slaves? Jen: I think you're saying here that the burden of proof is on someone to prove the house elves aren't natural slaves rather than the other way around. And yet, the idea that house elves are natural slaves and embracing slavery isn't presented as an overt part of the storyline, or at least it's been referred to as an unintended message on this list. Which means there is an intended storyline that can be explored and discussed, one of which is the role of self-punishment in the house elves enslavement. I see an emphasis in the story on this particular subject; others see an emphasis on Harry and the sandwich - it doesn't look that different to me. > Jen: > I thought Hermione got to the point where the tide could turn when > recognizing that stopping the self-abuse was the first step in the > process of changing the lot of the house elves. > Magpie: > Could be, but I don't see it presented that way in canon myself. > All JKR would have to do is show it and she didn't. She showed > Hermione's plans about SPEW all the time in books 4 and 5. Then > suddenly in 6 SPEW completely disappears and Hermione's just all > about treating them okay when it comes up. Jen: SPEW as a literal organization that Hermione talked about disappeared. We don't hear about her goal to free the house elves past a few pushes for the idea with Kreacher in OOTP. Those are the types of things that I wouldn't argue with. But the last point, that Hermione is only about treating them okay when it comes up, I obviously read more emphasis in the story on the importance of that than you do. The reason why I do goes back to the idea of projecting human qualities. House elves are presented with some higher-level reasoning ability and feelings that are human-like, so it doesn't seem like much of a projection to me: Dobby can't stop self- punishing even after he's free. Harry says 'you just need a bit of practice' when Dobby starts to punish himself in GOF. That indicates the enchantment is only the beginning, that self-punishment is a learned behavior that a house elf is capable of unlearning by practice, a cognitive skill that requires self-awareness to carry out. Winky is convinced her mother, grandmother etc. would be ashamed of her being free, so they are susceptible to family conditioning telling them freedom is shameful, a feeling someone of lower-level intelligence wouldn't have. Dumbledore says flat out that house elves have 'feelings acute as humans' so there's a comparison to human qualities and expectations for how to interact with house elves in that statement imo. Kreacher is seen rubbing his eyes 'like a small child.' Those types of references run throughout the story. Jen: > I thought Hermione got to the point where the tide could turn when > recognizing that stopping the self-abuse was the first step in the > process of changing the lot of the house elves. Magpie: > This, too, is a perfectly realistic evolution for a social activist. You can be very liberal in your youth and very conservative > in your adulthood or anywhere in between. You can go through a > fad. It's possible Hermione decided on a new plan for freeing House > Elves via good treatment (most of the elves we see in canon are > well-treated already), Jen: Eek, how can a house elf be well-treated if they're allowed to punish themselves whenever they deem themselves unworthy of their masters? Besides self-punishment, Hermione said in DH: "He's a slave; house elves are used to bad, even brutal treatment; what Voldemort did to Kreacher wasn't that far out of the common way." So the common way is bad or brutal treatment. I didn't need to see every house elf suffer a grievous fate to believe this was true. Magpie: ....but she doesn't say this is what she's decided (and it's IC for > Hermione to do so), she isn't shown talking to Kreacher in such a > way that shows it, she no longer says anything about trying to do > stuff with the House Elf situation in general (and yes, I know > she's got Voldemort to worry about so I wouldn't expect it to be > her main concern during DH...though god knows she had enough time > to talk about it when she was sitting in a tent doing nothing for > months--we could have heard a throwaway line about Harry having to > hear all about it), she's not researching their history to find out > where that compulsion comes from so she can lift it. Jen: I was talking about the fact that she is still focused on the plight of house elves in DH when she talks to Harry about why Kreacher acts the way he does, the state of affairs of house elves as she understands it. She's progressed in her knowledge and understanding of their situation to the point that she can explain their psychology, history and feelings to someone else in a way that shows she's no longer forcing her own agenda on them but meeting the elves where they are in that moment of their history imo. Others read that as Hermione training to become a coach for Happy Slaves Inc. I see both but give more weight to one because of everything that's come before. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 17:09:09 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:09:09 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178896 > a_svirn: > Yes, that's how I saw it too. But obviously I was wrong, since > Hermione gave up her crusade. She neither does nor even *says* > anything about lifting the enchantment. Presumably, it means that > self- punishment is not forced and there has never been any > enchantments imposed on the elves. It's just what they are and what > they do. There is no other way to account on Hermione's (and > everyone else's) silence on the subject. Oh, she is still appalled > by all this (who wouldn't be?), but there is no indication that she > is going to *do* anything about it. Jen: OK, fair enough. If others needed to see Hermione do more for the storyline to be well-written or have meaning or something else, then there's not much more to say. I agree that Hermione made no active attempts to better the treatment or enslavement of all house elves past somewhere in OOTP. I saw other things taking place that had meaning for the storyline imo, which I won't expound on again. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Nov 7 18:01:20 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:01:20 -0000 Subject: Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game (WAS Re: JKR's Intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178897 > Betsy Hp: > DH killed Draco's story for me. He ceased to make any sense as a > character and became a cardboard cut-out as far as I was concerned. > No one can hang in the sort of limbo JKR had him (and his family, for > that matter) hanging in without breaking. Pippin: Huh? People go through all sorts of hell without breaking. Draco didn't break in HBP, he grew up. He discovered he didn't like being a cog in Voldemort's machine and threw a spanner in the works. It doesn't mean he would come up with more spanners. That he would just hope for the best and keep his head down for a while seems very human to me, also that his initiative would re-assert itself after he'd gone back to school, away from Voldemort's scrutiny. > Betsy Hp: > I saw Draco trying to get Harry's attention ("be my friend!") up > until the war bubbled up again and his family loyalties kicked in. > He went about it in a very "pulling Harry's pigtails" kind of way, > but he was pretty darn consistent, IMO. Until his character ceased > to be, of course. Pippin: In DH it became clear that in the world of the books, saying "mudblood" about someone's friends goes beyond pigtail-pulling and schoolyard jeers. > > >>zgirnius: > > HP also has this class of non-villains mistaken for villains, about > > whom we also get whys and wherefores (along with the information > > that they are not actually villains at all). Snape and Regulus to a > > lesser extent, fall into this group. > > Betsy Hp: > Huh. I'd have said Snape and Regulus *were* that group. Pippin: Sirius goes in that group. So does Karkaroff. Kreacher goes in that group too. And he survives, so Harry still has to deal with him. And slave or no slave, Kreacher has shown himself well able to deal with those who do not treat him well. > > Betsy Hp: > From the books. They're both Slytherin in the end. Pippin: But this is question begging, no? Slytherins are villains because they're bad to the bone, and they must be bad to the bone because they're villains. Now, according to the dictionary, a villain is someone typically at odds with the hero. Snape was never at odds with Harry in all the time that Harry knew him, Regulus was never at odds with Harry at all, Slughorn was never at odds with Harry, neither were Blaise Zabini, Theo Nott or any of the four unnamed Slytherin girls, unless you want to count ordinary schoolyard Jeering which Harry gets from plenty of people who aren't Slyths. Betsy Hp: When it came to defending Hogwarts, Slytherin left. And no, I didn't see any reasons for them doing so, nor did I see our protagonist caring about why they did so. It's what you'd expect of Slytherins apparently. Pippin: Most of them left because they were underage. The reason given for any of them to leave is that the castle defences will not hold without reinforcement (which Slughorn helps to obtain.) We do not see any proof of Voldemort's claim that the Slytherins joined him, and we see refutation in that Slughorn was able to return to Hogwarts and attack Voldemort himself. The Slytherins who left are not treated any differently than the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws who left. > Betsy Hp: > Harry defeated Voldemort in the end because he'd lucked his way into > the Elder Wand. (Heh. In the end, it really *is* the size of your > wand that matters.) > Pippin: Not really luck. If Harry had tried to keep the Elder Wand from Voldemort and failed, then Voldemort *would* have become its true master. Betsy Hp: > However, this was something I'd not picked up on before: > > "'What if I'm in Slytherin?' > "The whisper was for his father alone, and Harry knew that only the > moment of departure could have forced Albus to reveal how great and > sincere that fear was." [ibid] > > *Great* and *sincere*. This isn't a kid worried he's going to end up > in the lame house. It's a child terrified he's going to end up in > the *bad* house. And how does Harry comfort him? First he explains > that even a Slytherin can express Gryffindor virtues (bravery). But > then he says that if it matters to Al (and obviously it does), Al can > choose his house. And he doesn't just leave it at "choose". > > "But if it matters to you, you'll be able to CHOOSE Gryffindor OVER > Slytherin." [ibid - emphasis mine] Pippin: Right. Al is clearly not worried about his ability to choose Slytheirn over Gryffindor, so why should Harry need to reassure him about that? Al can choose the house that he thinks is best for him, and since he clearly thinks that's Gryffindor, Harry won't argue with it. I guess you're thinking Harry should have argued? But wouldn't that make a hash of the message that it's wrong to make your dependents fight your battles for you? Harry had enough of that when he was Dumbledore's pawn. > > >>Pippin > > who isn't sure what marrying your high school sweetheart > > has to do with the nineteen-fifties > > Betsy Hp: > Playing house. Which was a big thing, I think, in the 1950's because > of the horrors of WWII and the Great Depression. Pippin: AFAIK, the fifties in Britain were pretty grim, despite hopes of a new Elizabethan Age. Most people were just trying to recover from the damage of the war and there were still shortages of a lot of things. I'm not sure why JKR would be trying to recreate the American 1950's, or a legendary version of them, especially almost two decades after her imaginary war. I thought she'd chosen a heroine's journey ending for all of her heroes regardless of sex. The heroine gets a family, the hero gets a kingdom and a wife. It's not about playing house, it's about playing with literary conventions, IMO. Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 18:07:30 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:07:30 -0000 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178898 > Pippin: > Hermione wanted to help house-elves because she thought they couldn't > stick up for themselves. That changed to wanting wizards to see that > abusing house-elves was dangerous as well as cruel because house- > elves can retaliate. She succeeded in getting Harry and Ron to > recognize this. a_svirn: Actually that's the other way round. It was Harry who had seen the danger of mistreating elves all along and even tried to warn Sirius. Hermione at the time was still going through her leftist phase antagonizing Kreacher even further and thereby rendering him even more dangerous. > Pippin: > Voldemort's abuse of house-elves makes it a house-elf battle too. a_svirn: It might have in another Universe. Point is -- it didn't in this one. > Pippin: > When Kreacher said, "fight for my master, defender of house-elves" > what do you think he meant? a_svirn: God knows. Elves are not exactly celebrated for their logic, as Hermione pointed out to Harry. After OOP I though Kreacher is very like Caliban only he actually managed to avenge himself on his magical master. But for Caliban freedom meant merely another, more congenial master. Kreacher lucked out and got himself a new master he could actually love. His new master even graciously allowed him to fight and die for him (though he lucked out again and lived) ? surely this alone elevates his master to the rank of house elves' defenders. Now Regulus was a fine master in his way, but in this respect he failed, so he doesn't really qualify. I guess, if Harry had been literary inclined he could have repeated after Prospero "This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine". Instead he thought of sandwich, which comes to the same thing. > Pippin: > The question "What if there really was a master > race?" comes up all the time in speculative fiction, only it's > usually humans who are being subjugated. Rowling turns the > tables on it, and asks, if there were creatures who enjoyed > being slaves to humans, would slavery still be immoral? > One answer might be, no, not if the slaves were happy. a_svirn: Well, yes. This seems to be indeed the answer according to Rowling. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 19:11:04 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:11:04 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178899 > >>Betsy Hp: > > DH killed Draco's story for me. He ceased to make any sense as a > > character and became a cardboard cut-out as far as I was > > concerned. No one can hang in the sort of limbo JKR had him (and > > his family, for that matter) hanging in without breaking. > >>Pippin: > Huh? People go through all sorts of hell without breaking. Betsy Hp: That's true. But I didn't (and don't) believe that of the Malfoys. All of their scenes played false to me. > >>Pippin: > Draco didn't break in HBP, he grew up. He discovered he didn't like > being a cog in Voldemort's machine and threw a spanner in the > works. It doesn't mean he would come up with more spanners. Betsy Hp: IMO Draco took a *step* towards growing up on the tower when he decided there was something he would *not* do. He never did get to decide that there was something he *would* do. Instead he just kind of hung around being Voldemort's cog, no matter how much he obviously hated it. (Oh, and stepped back far enough he started doing that which he would not.) I don't recall Draco ever throwing a spanner. He *was* a spanner I believe in that he became owner of the Elder wand for a brief time there. But his ignorance of that fact means (IMO) that he was a plot device not an actor. > >>Pippin: > That he would just hope for the best and keep his head down for > a while seems very human to me, also that his initiative would > re-assert itself after he'd gone back to school, away from > Voldemort's scrutiny. Betsy Hp: Except he was away at school for a good long time (while Harry lounged about in his little flat in the woods, eating Hermione's cooking ) and his initiative never did re-assert itself. He didn't even get to merely keep his head down as Voldemort seemed to be using him to torture Death Eaters he was displeased with, IIRC. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I saw Draco trying to get Harry's attention ("be my friend!") up > > until the war bubbled up again and his family loyalties kicked > > in. He went about it in a very "pulling Harry's pigtails" kind of > > way, but he was pretty darn consistent, IMO. > > > >>Pippin: > In DH it became clear that in the world of the books, saying > "mudblood" about someone's friends goes beyond pigtail-pulling > and schoolyard jeers. Betsy Hp: Yes, exactly. It showed us (though I was too dim to see it, concentrating as I was on the whys and wherefores) that Draco was beyond saving. Something we should have realized as soon as the hat said "Slytherin!". Because that's the house all the bigots go to. > >>zgirnius: > > HP also has this class of non-villains mistaken for villains, > > about whom we also get whys and wherefores (along with the > > information that they are not actually villains at all). Snape > > and Regulus to a lesser extent, fall into this group. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Huh. I'd have said Snape and Regulus *were* that group. > >>Pippin: > Sirius goes in that group. So does Karkaroff. Kreacher goes in that > group too. And he survives, so Harry still has to deal with him. > And slave or no slave, Kreacher has shown himself well able to deal > with those who do not treat him well. Betsy Hp: Oh, *that* group. Yes, there were red-herrings in Potterverse. But pretty much anyone who was unapologetically Slytherin (and I'd put Regulus in that group, though it may just have been a matter of him not getting to apologize before dying) turned out either bad or dead. But I was talking more about villains who did what they did and Harry needed to understand *why* they did what they did, not find out they never actually did it in the first place. In "Ender's Game" the Buggers really did systematically slaughter every human they met. > >>Pippin: > But this is question begging, no? Slytherins are villains because > they're bad to the bone, and they must be bad to the bone > because they're villains. > Betsy Hp: Slytherins are identified as the bad guys by not fighting for Hogwarts. They're the only group to leave en masse. So no, I don't think I'm begging the question at all. There's not another group so easily identified as traitors and/or saboteurs McGonagall is easily able to sweep them out of the castle. Yes, there are a few (very few) exceptions to that rule. Snape was a big one, and the other was Slughorn. But that still left the entire House being identified unquestionably as the traitor house that could not be trusted to fight. A point of view supported by the lack of a Slytherin flag in the RoR. And it's a point of view that never gets questioned or overturned. Not even in the epilogue, IMO. > >>Pippin: > Snape was never at odds with Harry in all the time that > Harry knew him, Regulus was never at odds with Harry at all, > Slughorn was never at odds with Harry, neither were Blaise > Zabini, Theo Nott or any of the four unnamed Slytherin > girls, unless you want to count ordinary schoolyard Jeering > which Harry gets from plenty of people who aren't Slyths. Betsy Hp: Every Slytherin not dead (or Slughorn) showed themselves to be in opposition with Harry when they left Hogwarts. So yes, to my mind that means Blaise, Theo and the four unnamed Slytherin girls moved themselves beyond jeering into the territory of those throwing around the word "mudblood". > >>Pippin: > Most of them left because they were underage. The reason given for > any of them to leave is that the castle defences will not hold > without reinforcement (which Slughorn helps to obtain.) Betsy Hp: No, the reason given for Slytherin leaving en masse is that McGonagall identifies them as untrustworthy and throws them out. (You could even say that through Pansy, Slytherins *showed* themselves untrustworthy.) > >>Pippin: > > The Slytherins who left are not treated any differently than the > Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws who left. Betsy Hp: Right. The ones like Zacharias Smith who left shoving first years out of his way. So there's the bad eggs from the other houses and all of Slytherin leaving the school when she needs all good and loyal students to stand firm. I'm not seeing the positive here. > Pippin: > Right. Al is clearly not worried about his ability to choose > Slytheirn over Gryffindor, so why should Harry need to reassure him > about that? Betsy Hp: Uh, yeah he is. Al is worried the Hat will look into his heart, decide he's a bad boy, and stick him in the bad kid house. So Harry shares a little secret (that we're told he's never told his children before) that if Al wants to, he can choose Gryffindor over Slytherin and the Hat will listen. Harry is reassuring Al that by recognizing he'd prefer Gryffindor over Slytherin, he's very likely to end up in the good house. It echoes the conversation Harry had with Dumbledore way back in the day where Dumbledore tells Harry that Harry showed himself a good boy (not a Tom Riddle) by wanting Gryffindor rather than Slytherin. > >>Pippin: > > I guess you're thinking Harry should have argued? > Betsy Hp: Argued what? That Al will end up in Slytherin if that's where the Hat wants him to go no matter Al's wishes? For one, Harry would be lying to his kid and for another it'd be a rather cruel thing to say. If I'd had my druthers it wouldn't have been an issue to begin with. Al wouldn't be so terrified (greatly and sincerely afraid) of ending up in Slytherin. That it's something Harry even needs to discuss tells me that Slytherin's status as the "bad kid" house (or the "bigots house" if you'd prefer) hasn't changed. > >>Pippin > > who isn't sure what marrying your high school sweetheart > > has to do with the nineteen-fifties > >>Betsy Hp: > > Playing house. Which was a big thing, I think, in the 1950's > > because of the horrors of WWII and the Great Depression. > >>Pippin: > AFAIK, the fifties in Britain were pretty grim, despite hopes of a > new Elizabethan Age. Most people were just trying to recover from > the damage of the war and there were still shortages of a lot of > things. I'm not sure why JKR would be trying to recreate the > American 1950's, or a legendary version of them, especially almost > two decades after her imaginary war. Betsy Hp: We'll just ignore my caveat then, shall we? (I'm assuming as much since it was snipped.) Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson though. Learned all that in an episode of "Dr. Who". The 1950's remark was based on *my* thinking, not JKRs. It brought to *my* mind "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver" which encapsulated the "playing house" bit I mentioned. > >>Pippin: > I thought she'd chosen a heroine's journey ending for all of her > heroes regardless of sex. The heroine gets a family, the hero gets > a kingdom and a wife. It's not about playing house, it's about > playing with literary conventions, IMO. Betsy Hp: As my music theory teacher used to say, "Unless you're Beethoven, follow the conventions." I don't think JKR messed around with knowledge here. I think she made some incredibly basic mistakes because of either laziness or ignorance. Or (IMO) fear. (Probably a combination of all three, would be my guess.) I agree that JKR wrote a heroine's ending here. It's all very cozy and domestic and I wouldn't have a problem with it if it wasn't occuring in a very broken world. The kind of broken you have to ignore to do the cozy, domestic thing, IMO. Though there's also the problem of JKR having her hero flinch away from the general heroine's issue (sexual maturity), IMO. So Harry gets the kingdom but doesn't do anything with it, *and* he gets the family, but doesn't enjoy the creating. Heh, no wonder I found the whole thing unsatisfying. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 20:10:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:10:19 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178900 a_svirn: > When and what did do anything in the last two books to stop their self abuse? She did no such thing. She hasn't done a thing to improve Kreacher's lot. Kreacher's lot is exactly as it was ? Harry still owns > him and still makes use of him. And Harry never was a cruel master to > begin with: he might have loathed his slave, but he never abused him. > Granted, he stopped loath Kreacher, but Hermione can't claim credit > for that. It was Kreacher's story that made the difference. What > Hermione did do, Jen, she used her newfound insight in the elvish > nature and psychology to help her slave-owning friend to convert an > unhappy, rebellious and potentially dangerous slave into happy, loyal > and obedient one. That's what her social activism came to. She changed > sides. > Carol responds: Forgive me. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just puzzled. What *should* or *could* Hermione have done differently? Should she (and Harry) have ldft Kreacher as he was, miserable, filthy, hostile, and dangerous? Or worse, set him free in that state, forcing him to leave what he considered to be his home? Kreacher is not only clean and happy now, no longer spouting pure-blood superiority propaganda and epithets like "Mudblood," he actually *led the Hogwarts House-Elves* in the battle against the DEs and Voldemort--an independent action that had nothing to do with an order from Harry (who is actually talked out of issuing such an order by, of all people, Ron(. Kreacher and the House-elves *chose* to fight in the battle (and then return to work, which is what they like to do). If Hermione "changed sides," might it be that she was wrong in the first place? Or rather, that she realized that the House-Elves really did not want freedom and perhaps could not be freed, at least en masse? Maybe a House-Elf is not so much a dog, as some people on this list have said, as a childlike being, with the ability to speak and feel and think, but different from Wizards as adults are different from children. The House-Elf needs food, tea towels, and shelter, but he also needs understanding and respect for his way of thinking, a master he's willing to serve. He neither needs nor wants what we call freedom (unless he's Dobby, and Dobby remains a House-Elf, not a wizard, in his needs and his psychology even after he's freed from servitude to a particular family). Until and unless that fundamental need to serve a human master changes, kind treatment and understanding are all that can be done. And the worst thing possible is to give a House-Elf like the unreformed Kreacher whom no family would employ, much less pay, his "freedom." That would be sick and heartless and cruel. You can't force a House-Elf into a human mold any more than you can turn a boy into a girl by dressing him as one (or vice versa). If you own a House-Elf that you can't free and who does not want to be freed, you treat him the way he wants to be treated. That's what both Harry and Hermione eventually understand. (Ron, I think, knew it all along.) As for SPEW, of course Hermione dropped it. It wasn't going anywhere. If she couldn't get her best friends to join her crusade, she wasn't going to get any followers, period. And it would have been tactless to continue knitting Elf hats (which perhaps Ron and Harry finally told her that Dobby was picking up) when her good friend was, willy nilly, a House-Elf owner. (Obviously, knitting elf hats in DH, when they were nowhere near Hogwarts, was pointless.) While I don't consider JKR's interviews as having any value myself, people in this thread keep sying that she equated House-elf slavery with human slavery (an idea suggested to her by a questioner, BTW). However, she also said, "House-elves are different from wizards; they have their own brand of magic, and the ability to appear and disappear within the castle is necessary to them if they are to go about their work unseen, as house-elves traditionally do," which indicates that House-Elves really are based on brownies or hobs or some similar creature from folklore with different values and traditions from humans. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=73 JKR also stated quite bluntly that Hermione was wrong-headed about SPEW (as Ron and Harry could have told her): "JK[R]: . . . Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she's trying to help. She offends them. She's not very sensitive to their. . . [cut off by moderator Evan Solomon] "E[S]: She's somewhat condescending to the elves who don't have rights. "JK[R]: She thinks it's so easy. It's part of what I was saying before about the growing process, of realizing you don't have quite as much power as you think you might have and having to accept that. Then you learn that it's hard work to change things and that it doesn't happen overnight. Hermione thinks she's going to lead them to glorious rebellion in one afternoon and then finds out the reality is very different, but that was fun to write." For the context of these remarks, see the complete interview at http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solomon.htm It's the moderator, Evan solomon, who suggests that GOF is about "race relations and civil rights," and JKR goes along with him, perhaps not wanting to spoil the plot. (The House-Elves aren't going to be freed and they don't want to be freed. They're not people. Sorry, Evan.) In the end, it's *Kreacher* who leads the Hogwarts House-Elves to "glorious rebellion," not against Houese-Elf "enslavement" but against the enemy of both of Kreacher's acknowledged masters, Harry Potter and the beloved Regulus Black, "champion of House-Elves." The Hogwarts House-Elves don't want change (if Voldemort wins, they'll be treated cruelly again); they want to maintain the status quo (which they apparently had under Snape as well as Dumbledore)--safe working conditions without mistreatment (unless you count Slughorn's using a House-Elf to test for poison, which neither DD nor Hermione knew about). More on Hermione: " JKR: Well in book four, for me, Harry, Ron and Hermione, all of them, are really starting to find their own identities And Hermione gets a political conscience. Hey! "[Interviewer:] Is this your idea of Hermione lightening up as you've said before? "JKR: No, she will. [Interviewer;] She didn't seem that light to me [in GoF] she was quite radical. "JKR: Yeah, she's a good girl Hermione. I agree with you she's not that light in this book but people made the mistake--when I was writing book four--of assuming that my answers related to book four, there are another three books to go. " http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-cbbc-mzimba.htm The answers, including the resolution of the House-Elf question, are not in Book Four. IOW, S.P.E.W. is not and never was the answer, as the House-Elves themselves made clear. And JKR also says, in the same interview, "I've never, no I've never set out to teach anyone anything." (Though she does, IMO, expect readers not only to understand but to share her political views, whether it's an opposition to Margaret Thatcher during Thatcher's tenure as PM or the idea that children should be encouraged to challenge authority.) To return to the books, since I'm not really interested in JKR's opinions or her inconsistent and not always intelligible pronouncements. Perhaps we should look at what Harry, the primary pov character and protagonist, says and thinks about House-Elves. From the beginning (CoS, "Dobby's Warning"), he's obviously appalled by the way that Dobby's masters treat him (the filthy pillowcase, the self-punishment, the idea that a House-Elf should not be allowed to sit down in the presence of a Wizard), but Dobby's statement, "Dobby is still treated like vermin," suggests that his case is unusual if not unique. (Other House-Elves, as we see later at Hogwarts, are treated with consideration and respect and, in turn, respect their masters. Unlike Dobby, they're happy to serve not only DD but any witch or wizard--until Hermione starts spewing radical ideas about freedom.) In CoS, Dobby is the only House-Elf that Harry knows, and since he's busy trying to save Harry's life by getting him in trouble or nearly killed, Harry isn't particularly concerned with Dobby's rights. He does, however, end up freeing a grateful Dobby when he sees him abused by Lucius Malfoy--perhaps as much to get back at Malfoy as to free Dobby. He certainly has no thought of the consequences, a homeless, unemployed Dobby who can't get a job because no one will pay a House-Elf, and as a "free" Elf, Dobby wants a few Knuts to spend on clothes. Exactly how Dobby (or Winky, who joins him later) survived is not made clear. Harry sees nothing of House-Elves in PoA, but in GoF, he meets Winky. Unlike Hermione, he's not particularly sympathetic to her plight (supposedly saving a seat for her master in the highest row of seats despite her fear of heights). In response to Ron's remark that Winky is "weird," Harry responds, "Dobby was weirder" (which, if we're considering House-Elf psychology, happens to be true--Dobby is the oddball, not Winky, who at this point represents normal House-Elf psychology or conditioning). Then we get Hermione's well-intentioned but wrong-headed attempts to console Winky and encourage her to reject the master who "freed" her, which result in tears and tantrums, contrasted with Ron's compliment to the House-Elves, "Good service," which they accept gratefully. It's Hermione's inability to understand that you can't force human conceptions of right and wrong on House-Elves that gets them kicked out of the kitchen. And then Hermione sets about knitting hats to "free" the House-Elves whether they like it or not (and whether she has that power or not, as she probably doesn't) contrasted with Ron's sweeping the debris from the hats so that "they'll at least know what they're picking up." The House-Elves are, of course, insulted by this high-handed attempt to free them against their will and refuse to clean the Gryffindor common room. Meanwhile, Hermione, again high-handedly, appoints Harry and Ron as officers of her newly founded S.P.E.W. (Ron's reference to it as "spew" says all we need to know about this wonderful organization that no one joins), and both Ron and Harry ignore the offices to which they've been appointed. Meanwhile, Harry finally has reason to be grateful to Dobby, who has stolen gillyweed for him so that he can survive his task and "save his Wheezy," and he gives him a year's worth of socks--a fine reward for Dobby but not a gesture that any other House-Elf would appreciate. In OoP, Harry's relationship with Dobby, who voluntarily serves him as if Harry were his master (while still working for Dumbledore and cleaning the Gryffindor common room, which the other Elves won't touch because of Hermione's hats and socks), remains much the same as it was in GoF, with Dobby warning Harry that Umbridge is coming so that the DA members (other than Harry himself) have time to return to their dormitories. Winky, whose masters are either dead or soul-sucked, is apparently still unhappy and butterbeer-addicted, but she's also outside Harry's awareness. Kreacher, OTOH, enters the picture as a wholly unexpected variation on the House-elf theme (motif). Harry's first reaction to this ancient, filthy, nearly naked House-Elf muttering about "blood traitors" under his breath is not loathing but surprise and even amusement: "He didn't know whether to laugh or not" (OoP Am. ed. 108). Ron and Ginny are upset when Kreacher calls Hermione a "Mudblood"; Hermione responds that he's not in his right mind. A few pages later, she asks Sirius, who obviously loathes Kreacher (who shares the loathing) to free Kreacher and is told that he can't because he knows too much about the Order and "the shock would kill him" (110). Harry's reaction is unclear, but he doesn't join Hermione's pleas for sympathy for the apparently brain-damaged Elf. At Christmas, Harry feels some concern when Kreacher disappears, not concern for Kreacher himself but for what he may be up to: He knows that House-Elves can find ways to get around their master's orders if they really want to (304). When Sirius jokes about hoping that Kreacher has crawled into a cupboard and died, the Twins and Ron laugh, Hermione looks reproachful, but Harry shows no reaction. He is, however, concerned that Kreacher keeps a photograph of Bellatrix Lestrange as one of his chief treasures. Apparently, he's more aware than the others that Kreacher could prove dangerous, and he still feels uneasy when Kreacher is found "lurking in the attic" (516). He also notes Kreacher staring avidly at him. Being Harry, however, he doesn't voice those suspicions. He has nothing more to do with Kreacher until the end of the book, when he discovers Kreacher's role in the plot that led to Sirius Black's death. Setting aside the fact that Black's death was not part of the plot (he was only part of the false vision that lured Harry to the MoM), Harry now shifts part of the blame onto Kreacher rather than continuing to blame Bellatrix (or acknowledging his own role and Sirius's, both of which are to painful to face at the moment). Upset that Kreacher laughed about Sirius's death, Harry is in no mood to hear that DD told Sirius to treat Kreacher with kindness and respect or that Sirius never viewed Kreacher as "a being with feelings as acute as a human's" (and potentially dangerous if mistreated) (832). This, of course, is the "right" view of Kreacher, as we see in DH, but for now, Harry sees him only as "lying" and "foul" and deserving Sirius's mistreatment (832). Rather than heeding DD's words, he sees them as a failure to understand and appreciate Sirius's bravery and suffering. To protect himself from his own thoughts and emotions, he shifts to another scapegoat, Snape. The conversation again shifts briefly to Kreacher, when DD talks about the damage caused by treating him as "a servant unworthy of much notice or interest," with indifference and neglect doing as much damage as outright dislike. In more general terms, he speaks of wizards as mistreating and abusing their fellows and reaping their reward (834). He doesn not speak directly against House-Elf "enslavement" or advocate freeing the Elves. He does, however, advocate humane treatment, recognition of House-Elves' feelings, and respect. Other, weightier matters, notably the Prophecy and Sirius's death, take Harry's thoughts away from Kreacher--until he receives him as an inheritance in HBP. Briefly, since this post is already much too long and I doubt that many people have read this far, Kreacher objects violently to his new master and Harry wants nothing to do with him. He sends Kreacher to Hogwarts to keep him out of mischief (and under Dobby's eye) and then pretty much forgets about him until he needs someone to spy on Draco. His view of Kreacher does not change until he hears Kreacher's tale in DH. When he first summons Kreacher to ask him about the locket, he sees contempt for himself in Kreacher's attitude and he growls at him sternly: "He would have found Kreacher, with his snoutlike nose and bolldshot eyes, a distinctly unlovable object even if he had not betrayed Sirius to Voldemort" (191). That this view of the subject is not exactly accurate never occurs to him. "Kreacher's Tale" ends with Harry's having a distinctly different view of Kreacher, whom he finally understands, thanks in part to the tale and in part to Hermione's explanation of House-Elf psychology, and a corresponding change in kreacher's behavior and attitude. Kreacher becomes a valuable and indispensable ally, finding and bringing back Mundungus Fletcher, before settling in proudly and happily to his new role (a resumption of his *old* role, really) as 12 GP's House-Elf. Harry does have at least one more thought of him between the time that HRH leave 12 GP, unable to return, and Kreacher shows up as the leader of the House-Elves in the battle. In the forest, after Ron has been splinched, Harry thinks regretfully of the loss of their refuge, which, "now that Kreacher was so much happier and friendlier, [had become] a kind of home. With a twinge of regret that had nothing to do with food, Harry imagined the house-elf busying himself over the steak-and-kidney pie that Harry, Ron, and Hermione would never eat" (DH Am. ed. 271). It's a thought that he might have for the very human Molly Weasley. A bit later, after reckoning that Kreacher is right that they'll have to figure out how to open the Horcrux before they can destroy it (giving him credit for his ability to reason as he would a human) (275), he thinks "of poor Kreacher, who had expected them to come home and received Yaxley instead," and wonders whether he'll keep silent or tell the DE everything he knows if Yaxley tortures him. He wants to believe in Kreacher's loyalty but isn't sure of it (278). He can't summon him for fear of bringing someone from the Ministry and resigns himself to his inability to do anything to help Kreacher. Meanwhile, Kreacher himself takes matters into his own hands and Apparates safely to Hogwarts, showing his continued loyalty and ability to think for himself, not to mention unexpected leadership skills, when he shows up to lead the charge of the House-Elf brigade at Hogwarts. That Harry ends his long and horrible day wondering if Kreacher might bring him a sandwich (and, I imagine, actually requesting that sandwich) only shows that the relationship between boy and Elf has returned to what it was at 12 GP, a loyal House-Elf happy to serve. And Dobby, of course, has died a hero, buried by Harry himself without magic, an honor given to no other character in the books. Full freedom for the House-Elves is neither possible nor desirable until the House-Elves have some alternative to serving human masters and make their desire for such an alternative known. Fair and courteous treatment of House-Elves, respect and consideration and understanding, protection and comfort, are another matter, both possible and desirable. And that understanding includes an understanding of their desire to serve a deserving master. Kreacher, I am quite sure, will be proud and happy to prepare and deliver that sandwich. And he'll be even happier when he and his new master move back home to 12 GP, which will be wholly in his hands while "master" is at Hogwarts, where he will presumably return to finish his education. The point of this long post is that Harry's attitude toward the two House-Elves who were part of his life in these books evolved from the idea that they were weird (Dobby a nuisance and Kreacher a malevolent pest) to a recognition of their individual worth and needs. Without question, he recognizes and honors Dobby's heroism. As for Kreacher, at least his doubts regarding his loyalty have been cleared away, and he understands how Kreacher thinks. That may not be enough for some reason, but he's come a long way for a boy who's not yet eighteen and has had, for seven years, a lot more than House-Elves on his plate. Carol, hoping that Harry took the opportunity to thank and praise Kreacher when he requested that sandwich and imagining Kreacher smiling for the first time in seventeen years From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 20:44:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:44:44 -0000 Subject: Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game (WAS Re: JKR's Intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178901 Betsy Hp: > And yet, the Slytherins all acted en masse. None of them joined the DA, none of them fought for Hogwarts. So, in the end, I think JKR *does* suggest that there's a "Slytherin mind" and it's a dark and scary place that's best just thrown out or stuffed on a luggage rack and just not thought about. Which I agree is scary. And disturbing, IMO. Carol responds: FWIW, the Slytherins, most of whom had known Headmaster Snape as their HOH and Potions Master or DADA teacher for a varying number of years, thought (like everyone else) that Snape was a Death Eater. If they liked and admired Snape, they weren't going to oppose what they thought was his will and his agenda. And Slughorn seemed to encourage keeping a low profile, going along with the status quo. Neither revealed their best side and true loyalties during the entire school year. Under the circumstances, it's no wonder that no Slytherins joined the DA (where they would not be welcome in any case because they'd be regarded with suspicion if not outright loathing--note McGonagall's attitude twoard the whole House). And they were ordered by McGonagall to leave (as the underage students from *all* Houses also were). There were only some ten seventh-year Slytherins who might have joined the battle and perhaps six or seven or sixth-years (those who would have turned seventeen by May), none of whom had been on friendly terms with Harry Potter. So we have three boys, all sons of DEs, who follow Harry to the RoR (and Draco's motives in doing so seem to have been mixed), two of them the only two mentioned as enjoying torturing fellow students in detention, the other one who had notably failed to kill DD the year before. Pansy, of course, expresses the view that they ought to turn Potter over to Voldemort, but no other slytherin echoes her view. Blaise Zabini, who views pure-bloods as superior but nevertheless holds DEs in contempt, and Theo Nott, whose father was a DE, don't join the fight on either side. Nor do any other of-age Slytherins. They wait it out, as we might have expected of Slughorn as well. We don't know what they were thinking, but it seems clear that had they attempted to join the fight, they would have been killed by their own teachers and fellow students, who would have assumed that they were supporting Voldemort. Had Snape survived and shown his true colors, calling to the Slytherins to join him to oppose Voldemort, perhaps some of them would have done so. But it didn't happen that way. Neutrality is the best we can expect under the circumstances. It's better than what McGonagall assumed, that they were all wannabe Death Eaters. I see no evidence whatever for a "Slytherin mind," only individual Slytherins--Snape, Draco, Regulus, Slughorn, Crabbe (the one true baddie), Pansy (not much worse than the Hufflepuff Zacharias Smith), Phineas Nigellus, and Narcissa among them--all individuals with different personalities and values, just as Dobby, Winky, and Kreacher are all individuals who are nevertheless all House-Elves. And not all the Gryffindors fought in the battle, either. Romilda Vane, a sixth-year who's more likely to be seventeen than not as late in the school year as May, is nowhere in sight. We have only the same people who were always in the DA, minus Zacharias (who might have stayed if he hadn't been treated so shabbily but I guess JKR doesn't like him), with no new recruits. (Maybe the DA didn't want to get pimples across their faces by revealing their existence to anyone else. That jinx prevented their telling *anyone,* not just Umbridge.) Carol, not sure that the Slytherins other than Draco even knew how to get into the RoR in the unlikely event that they wanted to join people who regarded them as enemies in hiding from the Carrows From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 21:59:36 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:59:36 -0000 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178902 > Jen: I think you're saying here that the burden of proof is on > someone to prove the house elves aren't natural slaves rather than > the other way around. And yet, the idea that house elves are natural > slaves and embracing slavery isn't presented as an overt part of the > storyline, or at least it's been referred to as an unintended message > on this list. Magpie: I don't think the burden of proof can be on anyone because there's no answer. We don't know. All we know is how the House Elves behave now. It more depends on whatever a certain reader wants to imagine. There's equal "proof" for them being natural slaves as there is for them being forced into thousands of years ago and forgotten. > > Magpie: > > Could be, but I don't see it presented that way in canon myself. > > All JKR would have to do is show it and she didn't. She showed > > Hermione's plans about SPEW all the time in books 4 and 5. Then > > suddenly in 6 SPEW completely disappears and Hermione's just all > > about treating them okay when it comes up. > > Jen: SPEW as a literal organization that Hermione talked about > disappeared. We don't hear about her goal to free the house elves > past a few pushes for the idea with Kreacher in OOTP. Those are the > types of things that I wouldn't argue with. But the last point, that > Hermione is only about treating them okay when it comes up, I > obviously read more emphasis in the story on the importance of that > than you do. The reason why I do goes back to the idea of projecting > human qualities. House elves are presented with some higher-level > reasoning ability and feelings that are human-like, so it doesn't > seem like much of a projection to me: Dobby can't stop self- > punishing even after he's free. Harry says 'you just need a bit of > practice' when Dobby starts to punish himself in GOF. That indicates > the enchantment is only the beginning, that self-punishment is a > learned behavior that a house elf is capable of unlearning by > practice, a cognitive skill that requires self-awareness to carry > out. Magpie: The story doesn't tell us one way or the other. I can't argue your reading doesn't work, but it seems far too removed from what's going on in the story for me to really see where it's being shown in canon. It could just as easily see a Dobby who was trying to go against his own natural behavior. Some people on the list see Elves as just being this way, some see the answer as being that they're animals and not people, some say they're people who have been conditioned badly--the true answer isn't anywhere. In terms of Hermione, she's not working with anybody to re-condition House Elves either (yeah, she's got other things to worry about, but there it still stands). Somebody could write a fanfic that set it up any number of ways, including the one here, but since House Elves aren't human and human slavery obviously doesn't involve enchantment one way or the other, I don't know if this particular psychological reading is true or not. It all eventually comes down to "this is how I'd write the House Elf stuff if I were writing a fanfic about actually turning them into free elves. Jen: Dumbledore says flat out that > house elves have 'feelings acute as humans' so there's a comparison > to human qualities and expectations for how to interact with house > elves in that statement imo. Kreacher is seen rubbing his eyes 'like > a small child.' Those types of references run throughout the story. Magpie: Feelings are not intelligence and do not make one human. The fact that they look like small children doesn't make them human. Animals can also have acute feelings (in talking about how they have "real feelings" Dumbledore to me sounds like he's talking about them as lower creatures--one would never think that an animal is on level with a person, but one might say to remember they feel things too). The physical descriptor of Kreacher looking like a child i a scene doesn't believably build into him being human. He may sometimes look like a child, but he will never be a man--it validates the paternalistic attitude. > Magpie: > > This, too, is a perfectly realistic evolution for a social > activist. You can be very liberal in your youth and very conservative > > in your adulthood or anywhere in between. You can go through a > > fad. It's possible Hermione decided on a new plan for freeing House > > Elves via good treatment (most of the elves we see in canon are > > well-treated already), > > Jen: Eek, how can a house elf be well-treated if they're allowed to > punish themselves whenever they deem themselves unworthy of their > masters? Besides self-punishment, Hermione said in DH: "He's a > slave; house elves are used to bad, even brutal treatment; what > Voldemort did to Kreacher wasn't that far out of the common way." So > the common way is bad or brutal treatment. I didn't need to see > every house elf suffer a grievous fate to believe this was true. Magpie If House Elves punish themselves by nature they're not being mistreated. Maybe it's their nature and we're talking about re- training House Elves to behave differently because it's repulsive to wizards--though Hermione isn't re-training anybody in canon either. The idea of projecting the wrong ideas about them is also canon in Hermione's story. (Wizards seem to find Giant society inferior too, judging them by their own standards.) If they trained an Elf to not self-punish he could still be a slave. Hermione isn't making Kreacher any more or less self-punishing in DH. She thinks it's horrible, but that doesn't mean she's got a cure for it. House Elf slavery being bad isn't something that many readers got from the story. > Jen: I was talking about the fact that she is still focused on the > plight of house elves in DH when she talks to Harry about why > Kreacher acts the way he does, the state of affairs of house elves as > she understands it. She's progressed in her knowledge and > understanding of their situation to the point that she can explain > their psychology, history and feelings to someone else in a way that > shows she's no longer forcing her own agenda on them but meeting the > elves where they are in that moment of their history imo. Others > read that as Hermione training to become a coach for Happy Slaves > Inc. I see both but give more weight to one because of everything > that's come before. Magpie: She now understands House Elf psychology differently (however she got to that--it's a bit of a leap from her confident freeing of elves in OotP to her disinterest in Harry's inheriting one in HBP). You've added the part where she's meeting House Elves where they are at this point in time and is in the process of doing something else. Hermione is repulsed by Elf self-punishment. Whether she's embraced House Elf slavedom or just accepted that she can't change it and decided Elves should all just have good masters she approves of there is nothing in DH that indicates this will be changing in the future thanks to Hermione. I knew her feelings about House Elves in GoF and OotP because she lectured about it. If she were on a new tact of the same idea I expect she would still lecture about it. She does seem to have skipped to "I told you so" by HBP, but this is bizarre since she herself seems to have never acknowledged that she was House Elf Offender #1. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 22:09:42 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:09:42 -0000 Subject: Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game (WAS Re: JKR's Intent) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178903 > Betsy Hp: > Slytherin was the actual > villain of the piece (hell would be Hogwarts without a Sorting Hat) > and they were painted as bad to the bone, IMO. zgirnius: Except the dead ones. And Slughorn. And Draco. The villain was Tom Marvolo Riddle, aka Lord Voldemort, along with his henchmen/women. He, and some of them, were Slytherins. Their opposition also included Slytherins. > BetsyHP: > When it came to > defending Hogwarts, Slytherin left. zgirnius: The books were about Harry's destiny to defeat Voldemort and reduce the influence of his poisonous ideas on the wizarding world. When it came to defeating Voldemort, Regulus, Snape, Phineas Nigellus, Slughorn, Andromeda, Narcissa, and Draco all took part. > Betsy Hp: > Heh, I went back to reread that scene because I thought it would be > apparent Al was hearing the story for the first time. I'll admit > it's not, though it's not apparent that the story is old hat, > either. zgirnius: I agree it can be read to mean either thing. My own natural inclination is to believe that a boy of 11 knows where his name comes from, in some way or another. So I would require evidence that he does not. (And frankly, I would think this even more true of a boy with siblings named Lily and James after his grandparents, who is blessed with the euphonious moniker "Albus Severus", neither of which appears to be a Weasley family name. At least my sisters are named Rikante and Nomeda, so I could have presumed my parents are just evil that way, and I got the best of it ). > Betsy Hp: > "But if it matters to you, you'll be able to CHOOSE Gryffindor OVER > Slytherin." [ibid - emphasis mine] > > So yeah, I don't care that Al's middle name comes from the brave > Slytherin Harry knew. It's very apparent, IMO, that the best house > is still Gryffindor, and Al's fear of Slytherin was not unfounded nor > from outside sources. zgirnius: The one source we know it comes from is Big Brother James, an excellent source of insecurities for a younger sib. The final quote you give, and hang your argument on, is the tail end of a paragraph of speech by Harry. The rest of it... > Epilogue: > "But *just say*-" > "-then Slytherin House will have gained an excellent student, won't it? It doesn't matter to us, Al." zgirnius: Is Harry lying? Or does it really not matter to him? I believe Harry is telling the truth, so I do not believe Al picked up this worry from his parents. > Betsy Hp: > Dudley was 17 at the time of DH, and Slytherins are all condemned > with a choice they make (or don't make) at the age of eleven. In the > Potterverse it doesn't matter where a child's opinion comes from (JKR > all but wrote a big sign saying Draco was parroting his father in the > first two books) it's still enough to determine that child's worth. zgirnius: No, it is not. To the extent that Draco comes to realize his father had some things wrong, Draco proves himself better than his father. > Betsy Hp: > And yet, the Slytherins all acted en masse. None of them joined the > DA, none of them fought for Hogwarts. zgirnius: You pick two incidents out of an entire series. Anyway, no Slytherin joined the DA, but it is thanks to a Slytherin that six members of the DA were rescued in time by the Order. And the Battle of Hogwarts was not what brought about the defeat of Voldemort. It was Harry's actions, actions made possible by the lies of one Slytherin and the information provided by another. > Betsy Hp: > And there's nothing wrong with JKR wanting to end her series with her > protagonists all happily playing house. It just means that, again, I > don't see much in the way of social justice being addressed. > (Honestly, I doubt JKR thought there was anything *to* address.) zgirnius: My own view is that Rowling believes things like that social justice starts at home, and our children are the future, and all that jazz. (Where she puts her charity $s also suggests it, but this is the vibe I get from the huge emphasis on family/mother/father love in the series). Harry and Co. raising well-adjusted kids and attempting to pass on to them their values is, to her, more meaningful than Hermione working 60 hour days putting the right fine print into new laws in an office at the Ministry. (And how do we know what those values are from the Epilogue? We don't. Fortunately, we have seven books to base our ideas on). I agree with this. The laws and the 60 hour days might or might not have the desired effect in the short run. In the long run, Hermione will be dead and the laws obsolete, and what will matter is what the children (or their children, or their children's children) think. > Aeschylus, "The Libation Bearers" (DH Epigraph): > "But there is a cure in the house, and not outside it, no, not from the others but from *them*, their bloody strife. We sing to you, dark gods beneath the earth. > Now hear, you blissful powers underground - answer the call, send help. Bless the children, give them triumph now." zgirnius: In HP, we saw Harry's generation help deal with a big problem of their world (Voldemort). The time will come for Al, James, Lily, Rose, Hugo, et. al. to tackle the problems of *their* day. It's not an anti-feminist view at all; it would be only if we insisted this is the role and responsibility of women, exclusively, in society. The idea that this historically female occupation is so important that *all* people should play a part in it, is a feminist position. And we see our characters all there taking a day off from whatever it is they do to send the kiddies off to school (whether it is counting their huge piles of Galleons and engaging in blackmail, as you once suggested, or working as Aurors, Quidditch players, and Ministry officials, as I believed upon my first reading of the text). > Betsy Hp: > He *was* a spanner I believe in that he became owner of the Elder > wand for a brief time there. But his ignorance of that fact means > (IMO) that he was a plot device not an actor. zgirnius: Draco came up the stairs to the Tower, and took a free shot at Dumbledore. If he had been a good little DE, he would have used "Avada Kedavra". But no, he decided to use "Expelliarmus". (Often a good choice, in this series...) and the rest is Book7 history. He didn't choose to become Master of the Elder Wand and give it up, but he did choose not to kill Dumbledore. > Betsy Hp: > Oh, *that* group. Yes, there were red-herrings in Potterverse. But > pretty much anyone who was unapologetically Slytherin (and I'd put > Regulus in that group, though it may just have been a matter of him > not getting to apologize before dying) turned out either bad or dead. zgirnius: Horace Slughorn. Turning out dead in this book does not mean you are bad, or the enemy. The number of people who turned out dead is large. Regulus and Snape ended up dead as a result of choices Harry very much admired. And Draco (darn it) did not turn out 'bad'. He tried to hide the indetity of Harry and Co. at Malfoy Manor, he tried to moderate the actions of Vincent Crabbe, and he saved the life of Goyle. You are trying to have it both ways. Slytherins are bad, because all the overage students in that House deserted Hogwarts, the side they "should" have been on in the battle. But the Malfoys are also bad, even though they deserted Voldemort, to whom they had given their allegiance. > BetsyHP: > But I was talking more about villains who did what they did and Harry > needed to understand *why* they did what they did, not find out they > never actually did it in the first place. In "Ender's Game" the > Buggers really did systematically slaughter every human they met. zgirnius: In HP, Severus Snape was really the Death Eater who overheard Trelawney's prophecy and really reported it to Voldemort, setting off the chain of events that left Harry an orphan. Regulus was also really a Death Eater in his day, who really did whatever Death Eater things he did before experiencing his change of heart. Harry understands why both of these young men did those things. He also considers it more important that they did have their respective changes of heart and admires what they did about it. Rather like Ender's Game in that, what mattered was that in the end the buggers realized they had been doing wrong and regretted it. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 00:04:16 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:04:16 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178904 > Carol responds: > > Forgive me. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just puzzled. What *should* > or *could* Hermione have done differently? Should she (and Harry) have > ldft Kreacher as he was, miserable, filthy, hostile, and dangerous? Or > worse, set him free in that state, forcing him to leave what he > considered to be his home? > > Kreacher is not only clean and happy now, > If Hermione "changed sides," might it be that she was wrong in the > first place? Or rather, that she realized that the House-Elves really > did not want freedom and perhaps could not be freed, at least en masse? lizzyben: Not speaking for a_sivirm here, but I think the problem is not with Harry or Hermione, but JKR. I don't blame Harry or Hermione for eventually accepting house-elf slavery, because in this odd world the slaves actually seem happiest as slaves. So what are you going to do? The thing is, JKR has created this world. And she's created a world where it's actually proper & right for the heroes to accept their natural positions as slave-holders and rulers over the inferior races. (Elves, goblins, centaurs) As Pippin pointed out, it's a bit like the speculative fantasy fiction that shows a "master race" taking over & ruling the inferior humans. Except in this speculative fiction, our heroes are the master race. And in that way, JKR's somehow managed to create a world that contradicts everything she claims to believe. I'm still trying to figure out if that was a mistake or a purposeful decision. Cause that's the thread that runs through all of these controversies - the concept of a "natural elite". Whether that elite be wizards/Gryffindors/divine elect/brahmans, their inherent superiority & righteousness gives them the natural *right* to rule over the inferior races & peoples of the wizarding world. It is profoundly undemocratic, profoundly unequal, and extremely intolerant. There's something vaguely fascist about the whole thing. lizzyben From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 00:28:51 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:28:51 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178905 > a_svirn: > > When and what did do anything in the last two books to stop their > self abuse? She did no such thing. She hasn't done a thing to improve > Kreacher's lot. Kreacher's lot is exactly as it was ? Harry still owns > > him and still makes use of him. And Harry never was a cruel master to > > begin with: he might have loathed his slave, but he never abused him. > > Granted, he stopped loath Kreacher, but Hermione can't claim credit > > for that. It was Kreacher's story that made the difference. What > > Hermione did do, Jen, she used her newfound insight in the elvish > > nature and psychology to help her slave-owning friend to convert an > > unhappy, rebellious and potentially dangerous slave into happy, loyal > > and obedient one. That's what her social activism came to. She changed > > sides. > > > Carol responds: > > Forgive me. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just puzzled. What *should* > or *could* Hermione have done differently? a_svirn: Nothing, apparently. Not in the world of HP books as we know it. And I am not being sarcastic either. The point of my post was that social activism proved a failure and Hermione accepted that. And by accepting it she sided with slave-owners. Because it was the only thing she could do, poor girl. Because that's how Rowling created her world. > Carol: Should she (and Harry) have > ldft Kreacher as he was, miserable, filthy, hostile, and dangerous? Or > worse, set him free in that state, forcing him to leave what he > considered to be his home? a_svirn: The point under that particular discussion was self-abuse, though, not house-elves emancipation as such. Did Hermione stop or try to stop or plan to try to stop house elves and more particularly Kreacher from inflicting self-punishment on themselves? She didn't. she was distressed by the sight but she did nothing to prevent its repetition. And before you ask again, yes, I think she couldn't. I believe I stated it time and again: she couldn't do it because they are different and she cannot change it. And by DH she had accepted it. > Carol: > Kreacher is not only clean and happy now, no longer spouting > pure-blood superiority propaganda and epithets like "Mudblood," he > actually *led the Hogwarts House-Elves* in the battle against the DEs > and Voldemort--an independent action that had nothing to do with an > order from Harry (who is actually talked out of issuing such an order > by, of all people, Ron(. Kreacher and the House-elves *chose* to fight > in the battle (and then return to work, which is what they like to do). a_svirn: So what? Do you take it as an encouraging sign of Enlightenment and Reformation? Do you think it indicates that he is going to be less servile hereafter? Could be, but I think not. He was perfectly capable of independent acts when we first met him. That's how he managed bring Sirius's ruin about. > Carol: > If Hermione "changed sides," might it be that she was wrong in the > first place? Or rather, that she realized that the House-Elves really > did not want freedom and perhaps could not be freed, at least en masse? a_svirn: It would appear so, yes. The fact still remains that she *did* change sides despite Rowling's assurances to the contrary. > Carol: Until and unless that fundamental need to serve a > human master changes, kind treatment and understanding are all that > can be done. And the worst thing possible is to give a House-Elf like > the unreformed Kreacher whom no family would employ, much less pay, > his "freedom." That would be sick and heartless and cruel. > > You can't force a House-Elf into a human mold any more than you can > turn a boy into a girl by dressing him as one (or vice versa). If you > own a House-Elf that you can't free and who does not want to be freed, > you treat him the way he wants to be treated. That's what both Harry > and Hermione eventually understand. (Ron, I think, knew it all along.) a_svirn: Yes. I do not dispute that. I do, however, question Rowling's motivation in inventing such sickening creatures. > Carol: > While I don't consider JKR's interviews as having any value myself, > people in this thread keep sying that she equated House-elf slavery > with human slavery (an idea suggested to her by a questioner, BTW). > However, she also said, "House-elves are different from wizards; they > have their own brand of magic, and the ability to appear and disappear > within the castle is necessary to them if they are to go about their > work unseen, as house-elves traditionally do," which indicates that > House-Elves really are based on brownies or hobs or some similar > creature from folklore with different values and traditions from > humans. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=73 a_svirn: I'd like to point out though that brownies are NOT slaves. They exchange their services for clothing and footwear. That is to say, exactly the things house-elves abhor. It would appear therefore, that their values and customs are closer to human values and customs than to their many times removed cousins' ones. > Carol: > In the end, it's *Kreacher* who leads the Hogwarts House-Elves to > "glorious rebellion," not against Houese-Elf "enslavement" but against > the enemy of both of Kreacher's acknowledged masters, Harry Potter and > the beloved Regulus Black, "champion of House-Elves." a_svirn: I beg to differ. He leads them into a battle. More specifically, into a *wizarding* battle, which outcome will change not a thing for his own kind. Nor would he want it to. > Carol: The Hogwarts > House-Elves don't want change a_svirn: hear, hear! One either preserves status quo or rebels, but not both at the same time. > Carol, hoping that Harry took the opportunity to thank and praise > Kreacher when he requested that sandwich and imagining Kreacher > smiling for the first time in seventeen years a_svirn: Yes I was sort of imagining this kind of scene myself: The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, She made them high or lowly, And order' d their estate All things bright and beautiful... From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 01:28:06 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:28:06 -0000 Subject: A message? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178906 > Prep0strus: > > I can't even figure out what the message IS - because both > 'slavery is wrong' and 'sometimes we should just accept > people how they are, even if it seems weird to us' both seem > flawed and not fully supported by the text. > > Since I can't even figure out what her message was supposed to be, > I have to assume she failed at whatever message she was trying to > send. This just seems like a really big dropped ball. And I'm left > not particularly caring one way or the other. I don't want anybody > torturing a house elf or anything, but other than that... be free, > be slaves, make sandwiches... I just don't care. Disappointed in > this one, JKR. Mike: As Geoff said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. What if JKR wasn't trying to send any message? Or more precisely, what if she just wanted her version of brownies or hobs to use in her story and thought that making them enchanted into this self-abusive slave fit for her purposes? The house elves were cute little props needed to add a dimension to the Potter vs Malfoy conflict, to give Hermione something to become an activist over, to create a comflict at 12 GP with the twist of betrayal for Sirius, and to link Regulus' story to the present. In between they revealed secrets, clued us into other characters, and made nice little sources of minutia through which JKR fed information to the reader and Harry. They were rather effective tools, weren't they? I put little stock in JKR's interviews, less (if that's possible) in her earlier interviews. She was more concerned in not revealing the coming story while the interviewers seem bent on trying to get her to do so. In the case of house elves, ss Carol has pointed out, it was the interviewer that drew the parallel of house elves to human slavery. JKR just went along with it obviously, to me, to lend credence to the Hermione-the-activist story line. But that's not what she wrote. Canon house elves as equivalent to human slaves only matched up with the word 'slave'. After that canon house elf was a complete different animal. A different species with a desire for, not a revulsion of, bound servitude. You don't have to punish them for mis-behaviour, they do it to themselves. Quite simply, they aren't human, they don't share human values, they don't have human desires, they have their own moral compass that doesn't point to the human north. Whether people find the inclusion of a species that enjoys being slaves palatable is a different proposition than whether there was an intended message in their inclusion into the story. I understand the repugnancy if one thinks they were suppose to represent human bondage. In my read, that's not the way I take the house elves. I took them as props, slightly modified from a similiar, common, historical, fantasy character with no more equivalence to humans than trolls or giants. Therefore, the message to me? Gee, aren't they cute, now go get me a sandwich. ;) Mike From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 01:38:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:38:04 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178907 > a_svirn: > The point under that particular discussion was self-abuse, though, not house-elves emancipation as such. Did Hermione stop or try to stop or plan to try to stop house elves and more particularly Kreacher from inflicting self-punishment on themselves? She didn't. she was distressed by the sight but she did nothing to prevent its repetition. And before you ask again, yes, I think she couldn't. I believe I stated it time and again: she couldn't do it because they are different and she cannot change it. And by DH she had accepted it. > Carol: Since she wasn't the mistress (owner, if you prefer) of any House-Elves, of course she couldn't, either on the individual level or on a larger scale. She can neither free the House-Elves (thank goodness) nor order them to stop harming themselves because she has no authority over them. (Kreacher does, finally, give her a nod of respect, or so it seems to Harry, because she understood him and explained his thought process to Harry.) Nor was Harry Dobby's master, so he couldn't order Dobby not to abuse himself, even after Dobby was free. (Whether Dobby was acting under compulsion or from deeply ingrained social conditioning and habit is unclear. I think the latter.) With regard to Kreacher's self-abuse, the only question that makes sense to me is whether Harry, as Kreacher's master, could order him to stop. He fails to do so when Kreacher regards *Regulus* as his master (whom he has failed, despite repeated attempts), but once Kreacher acknowledges Harry as his master, IIRC, the self-abuse stops. If Harry gives him no incentive to disobey an order and no reason to speak ill of him (the only two reasons why the House-Elves we see abuse themselves), the problem will stop. We don't see the House-Elves at Hogwarts abusing themselves. (Winky, who regards the Crouches as her masters and abuses herself through neglect and butterbeer, is another matter.) Carol earlier: > > Kreacher is not only clean and happy now, no longer spouting pure-blood superiority propaganda and epithets like "Mudblood," he actually *led the Hogwarts House-Elves* in the battle against the DEs and Voldemort--an independent action that had nothing to do with an order from Harry (who is actually talked out of issuing such an order by, of all people, Ron). Kreacher and the House-elves *chose* to fight in the battle (and then return to work, which is what they like to > do). > > a_svirn: > So what? Do you take it as an encouraging sign of Enlightenment and Reformation? Do you think it indicates that he is going to be less servile hereafter? Could be, but I think not. He was perfectly capable of independent acts when we first met him. That's how he managed bring Sirius's ruin about. Carol: I take it as a sign that Kreacher is capable of independent action and leadership (maybe, in part, because he's Harry Potter's House-Elf). And he didn't deliberately bring about Sirius Black's ruin; he was helping to lure Harry to the MoM. A *fake* Sirius was only the bait; the real Sirius was distracted by an injury to Buckbeak. He was never supposed to go to the MoM at all. That aside, surely leading the House-Elves in open rebellion against the Dark Lord is better than secretly plotting with the Dark Lord's supporters to lure his young nemesis into danger. Of course, he was always capable of independent acts. But the nature and quality of those acts changed. Now he's fighting in the name of the hero he regards as the champion of House-Elves, not Harry but Regulus. IOW, he understands that House-Elves have the right to fair treatment, the right not to be tortured and abused. He's fighting for the cause that Regulus died for. You may not see progress there. I see a complete turnaround. And Kreacher has a lot more influence over the other House-Elves than Hermione did in GoF, imposing her human ideas on them without respecting their feelings and desires. He knows exactly what they want. It's what he wants himself. Carol earlier: > > In the end, it's *Kreacher* who leads the Hogwarts House-Elves to "glorious rebellion," not against House-Elf "enslavement" but against the enemy of both of Kreacher's acknowledged masters, Harry Potter and the beloved Regulus Black, "champion of House-Elves." > > a_svirn: > I beg to differ. He leads them into a battle. More specifically, into a *wizarding* battle, which outcome will change not a thing for his own kind. Nor would he want it to. Carol: I disagree. Yes, it's a wizarding battle, but suppose that Voldemort had won? Dobby said back in CoS that when Voldemort was powerful before Godric's Hollow, "House-Elves were treated like vermin." And we saw how Voldemort's followers, the Malfoys, treated Dobby. Harry imagines Yaxley torturing Kreacher. And we know how Voldemort himself treated Kreacher. If the DEs took over Hogwarts with the right of masters, how do you think they would treat the House-Elves? I don't think we'd see the happy House-Elves we saw in GoF. The House-Elves are fighting, not for Harry Potter, who is, so far as they know, dead, but to prevent Hogwarts from falling to Voldemort, the torturer of Kreacher. "Fight, fight, fight, for my master, defender of House-Elves! Fight the Dark Lord in the name of brave Regulus! Fight!" They're standing up *for themselves*, for the right of House-Elves to the fair treatment they're used to receiving at Hogwarts, fighting the abuser of House-Elves in the name of a hero who died for a House-Elf. It has nothing to do with wizards at all except a choice of masters (the regular Hogwarts staff or the DEs). Carol earlier: > The Hogwarts House-Elves don't want change > > a_svirn: > hear, hear! One either preserves status quo or rebels, but not both at the same time. Carol again: Just to be clear, I meant that they don't want a change from the fair treatment they received under Dumbledore and, it would appear, Snape. That's the status quo they want to preserve, the House-Elf's idea of la dolce vita. They don't want a change to new, cruel masters. I never said they were rebelling. If they were, they'd be fighting against McGonagall et al. and joining Voldemort, the would-be usurper who's trying to invade Hogwarts (which he was under the delusion that he was already running via Snape). They're fighting for their right to fair treatment and a job they love. And thanks to Kreacher, they understand that they can fight against one group of wizards in support of another group that understands and respects their needs. > Carol, who sees real progress, both in Kreacher's transformation and the change in Harry's perception, which you snipped in your quotes from my post From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 01:41:49 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:41:49 -0000 Subject: A message? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178908 Mike: > Whether people find the inclusion of a species that enjoys being > slaves palatable is a different proposition than whether there was > an intended message in their inclusion into the story. I understand > the repugnancy if one thinks they were suppose to represent human > bondage. In my read, that's not the way I take the house elves. I > took them as props, slightly modified from a similiar, common, > historical, fantasy character with no more equivalence to humans > than trolls or giants. Therefore, the message to me? Gee, aren't they > cute, now go get me a sandwich. ;) > > Mike Prep0strus: I really don't even object that much to that... except that she made such a big deal about it and wasted so much time over it. I found SPEW to be a frustrating and annoying storyline in which I didn't really enjoy any of the characters' behavior. But because so much page space and character energy devoted to it, I wanted to see some form of resolution or at least a productive and thoughtful open ending. And, based on the fact that the board appears to be talking about nothing but house elves for the past several days, I guess she accomplished that for some people. My objection is not necessarily to where the storyline wound up... but the effort put into a storyline that was going to wind up being 'just a cigar'. And for all those who think it's not just a cigar, it's become divisive and unsatisfying for many, even offensive for others, and it appears to be a failure in writing. If it was meant to be just a cigar, then there should have been less time, less character energy, less talk in interviews, just LESS. ~Adam (Prep0strus), who wishes he had a nugget of an idea of some other topic to bring up here, to inspire someone to write something on an entirely different topic, but coming up short. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Nov 8 01:21:45 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 02:21:45 +0100 Subject: CoS dream - DH scene parallel Message-ID: <007001c821a5$bbf20520$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178909 As far as I followed the list, several people who reread the first books after Deathly Hollows found many hints and details only understandable after the completion of the entire series. I just finished CoS, and found one scene to be more than just a detail: >From ch 13 Gryffindor versus Ravenclaw CoS: "He [Harry] had a very strange dream. He was walking through a forest, his Firebolt over his shoulder, following something silvery white. It was winding its way through the trees ahead, and he could only catch glimses of it between the leaves. Anxious to catch up with it, he sped up, but as he moved faster, so did his quarry. Harry broke into a run and ahead, he heard hooves gathering speed..." >From ch 19 The Silver Doe DH: "It was a silver-white doe, moon-bright and dazzling, picking her way over the ground, still silent, and leaving no hoof prints in the fine powdering of snow. (...) He felt that he had been waiting for her to come, but that he had forgotten, until this moment, that they had arranged to meet. (...) ... then she turned and walked away. (...) She continued to step deliberately through the trees, and soon her brightness was striped by their thick, black trunks. (...) But instinct, overwhelming instinct, told him that this was not Dark Magc. He set off in pursuit. Snow crunched beneath his feet, but the doe made no noise as she passed throught the trees, for she was nothing but light. Deeper and deeper into the forest she led him, and Harry walked quickly, sure that when she stopped, she would allow him to approach her properly." First, I do see that this is not perfectly parallel, but I think the similarity of the scene is striking. Plus, we can't really see any sense in this dream in the context of CoS, but very much in the context of DH. "He felt that he had been waiting for her to come, but that he had forgotten, until this moment, that they had arranged to meet." - does Harry subconsciously remember this dream? If this would be real life, I'd say "coincidence", but this is fiction, so I think we should consider that JKR intended this dream in Harry's third year to become important four fictional years later. What do you think? Do you have similar parallels, maybe more dreams that only gained importance in the last book? Miles From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 02:46:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 02:46:28 -0000 Subject: A message? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178910 Prep0strus wrote: > ~Adam (Prep0strus), who wishes he had a nugget of an idea of some other topic to bring up here, to inspire someone to write something on an entirely different topic, but coming up short. Carol responds: My goodness, yes! Let's find a topic that isn't House-Elves, Slytherin, the Elder Wand, or JKR's recent revelations. I'm just going to brainstorm, listing some possibilities. Characters: We can look at the characters in some new way, either by focusing on a character who hasn't been frequently discussed (say, Xenophilius Lovegood Luna or Mr. Ollivander or Rita Skeeter) or by looking at the usual characters in a new way. Instead of focusing on motivation and development or relationships between characters (the usual focus), we could try looking at the influence of one character on another or what the inclusion of some minor character (say, Stan Shunpike or Zacharias Smith or Dirk Cresswell) adds to the book. What seems to be his or her purpose? Plot: I'm at a loss for new ideas here since we seem to be endlessly discussing plot arcs. Can anyone think of any subplots that haven't been given due attention or a reason for discussing them? Symbols, themes, and motifs: We've talked about the Elder Wand and the other Hallows but surprisingly little about the Horcruxes, including Nagini. There's also, of course, the Christian symbolism, death and the afterlife, the importance of choice, love and friendship, courage. Less obviously, there's the loss of home comforts and its effects on personality or disposition (hungry!Ron), jealousy, misperception, the nature of magic. . . . What am I overlooking that hasn't been discussed that others think is important? The writer's craft: We've said virtually nothing about JKR's techniques as a writer (unless we count *someone's* posts on the unreliable narrator). what about her use of setting (Gothic trappings, maybe), atmosphere, dialogue, description, foreshadowing, misdirection? How does she create suspense or humor or horror? How does she go about creating a character and making him or her "real" to the reader? Other perspectives: I like textual analysis but that's the usual approach around here, and it's not the only possible approach. We've seen a little too much discussion (IMO) of the author's intentions, and we don't know enough about her to spot biographical elements, but we can discuss the books in terms of genre or structure or the influence of other authors or the use of elements from folklore and mythology. Literary critics also write from a variety of perspectives, many of which I'm loath even to name, including deconstruction (anyone out there want to attempt that one?), Jungian (archetypal) criticism, Freudian criticism (Betsy took a stab at that one--I wouldn't touch it, myself), Marxist and feminist criticism, linguistic criticism (we could examine her use of language in naming spells, characters, authors of fictuional books, puns, etc.). I'm sure there are other approaches I've forgotten, and I confess that I'm including perspectives here that I personally have no use for but have a feeling might appeal to others on this list. That's it, folks. I'm out of ideas. Anyone else care to brainstorm or follow up on one of these ideas? Carol, who wondered if Mad-Eye's eyeball had any connection to Greek mythology and stumbled onto this unorthodox and mildly entertaining (but completely OT) version of the Perseus legend: http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/perseus.html From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Nov 8 02:51:36 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 02:51:36 -0000 Subject: Adoption (was Re: CoS dream - DH scene parallel In-Reply-To: <007001c821a5$bbf20520$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178911 "Miles" wrote: > > As far as I followed the list, several people who reread the first books > after Deathly Hollows found many hints and details only understandable after > the completion of the entire series. > > I just finished CoS, and found one scene to be more than just a detail: snipping details of parallel dreams. > > What do you think? Do you have similar parallels, maybe more dreams that > only gained importance in the last book? Potioncat: Good catch! Harry had another dream in SS/PS that involved Draco, Snape and LV, but I can't say there was any connection later on. A bit of irony I found is this. In one of the books, I'd guess CoS or PoA Harry says or thinks something along the line of "as likely as being adopted by Snape." Given that Snape swore to protect Harry, and had been watching over him at Hogwarts, he had, in a manner of speaking, adopted Harry. I wish I could remember more about the quote, or what it pertained to. I do know it inspired countless "Snape Adopts Harry" fanfics. From cottell at dublin.ie Thu Nov 8 03:35:11 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:35:11 -0000 Subject: A message? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > linguistic criticism Mus's ears perk up: I'm a linguist (syntax is my field), and if I might make one final stab at the house elf thing, there's one thing that always irked me about it. JRRT was scrupulous in his treatment of languages, devising coherent grammars for his invented languages; it's possible to write a grammar of Yodish (the English-lexified language that Yoda speaks); Klingon has spawned a vast fandom (though this isn't really comparable to the other two, since they were actually devised by their authors). So JKR, in inventing the English-based creole that house elves speak, had antecedents. I've never, however, been convinced that House Elvish is a coherent language, in the sense that it *should* be possible to write a grammar for it, and it doesn't seem to be. When I first read Dobby's speech, I thought "Oh goody! a puzzle". But it was a puzzle without an answer. For example, the House Elvish use of proper names instead of pronouns doesn't seem to have any consistent basis. An opportunity missed, I thought. But that's another whine. Here's a new topic, though, and I don't think I've seen it discussed on the list before: the notion of father in the heptateuch. There are a number of fathers in canon: Vernon (if Muggles count), Arthur, Lucius, Xenophilous, Riddle Snr, Marvolo Gaunt, Amos Diggory, and James, of course. But fathers in the main seem either curiously absent, or, when present, unsatisfactory in various ways. James, the sainted father, turns out to have been less heroic both while at school and in death than we were led initially to believe. Percival Dumbledore is a much more minor character than his wife, and ends in Azkaban for his attack on the Muggle children. Xenophilous is charmingly described, but is plainly quite weird. Oddly, for this reader, the most fully realised father is Amos Diggory, bursting with pride for his lovely boy frantic when Harry brings the body back, sobbing when Harry tells them about his death (though that scene is reported from a point of view a month after it happened). Riddle Snr and Marvolo bear little scrutiny, of course. So, if anyone wants to take this and run with it, it's a possible topic. You know, I haven't been quite able to get out of my head the fact that right through the series runs a cry of "DADA", the cursed position. There's something a little chilling to my ear about that. Mus, who discovered the word heptateuch this evening, to her great delight, and is determined to use it . From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 04:04:44 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:04:44 -0000 Subject: CoS dream - DH scene parallel In-Reply-To: <007001c821a5$bbf20520$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > I do see that this is not perfectly parallel, but I think the > similarity of the scene is striking. Plus, we can't really see > any sense in this dream in the context of CoS, but very much > in the context of DH. "He felt that he had been waiting for > her to come, but that he had forgotten, until this moment, > that they had arranged to meet." - does Harry subconsciously > remember this dream? I always thought that the Silver Doe seemed familiar to Harry because he saw his mother's Patronus when he was a baby and remembered it on a subconscious level. However, you may be right and Harry remembered this dream (BTW, you meant PoA, not CoS, right? I didn't check, but "Gryffindor versus Ravenclaw" is from PoA iirc :-). The scene is indeed very similar to the one in "The Silver Doe", except that the Silver Doe moved soundlessly, there was no sound of the hooves (because "she was nothing but light"), but in the dream Harry heard "galloping". I remember when I read this passage for the first time, I thought it was a unicorn in Harry's dream, but couldn't guess why he would have a dream about one. It would make more sense in PS/SS, where unicorns were part of the plot. zanooda From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 04:13:38 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:13:38 -0000 Subject: Adoption (was Re: CoS dream - DH scene parallel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178914 > Potioncat: > Good catch! Harry had another dream in SS/PS that involved Draco, > Snape and LV, but I can't say there was any connection later on. zgirnius: Yes, I think that one was just about events of PS/SS. There was also a turban, so we had both Quirrell, the villain, and the red herring, Snape, in that dream with Voldemort. > Potioncat: > A bit of irony I found is this. In one of the books, I'd guess CoS or > PoA Harry says or thinks something along the line of "as likely as > being adopted by Snape." Given that Snape swore to protect Harry, and > had been watching over him at Hogwarts, he had, in a manner of > speaking, adopted Harry. I wish I could remember more about the > quote, or what it pertained to. zgirnius: The quote is from GoF, and shows Snape as the usual teacher Harry loves to hate. It is the final week of term before Christmas, the Yule Ball is coming up, and some teachers are cutting the excited kids some slack. We learn Flitwick is letting them play games in class. Then: > GoF, "The Unexpected Task": > Other teachers were not so generous. Nothing would ever deflect Professor Binns, for example, from plowing on through his notes on goblin rebellions - as Binns hadn't let his own death stannd in the way of continuing to teach, they supposed a small thing like Christmas wasn't going to put him off. It was amazing how he could make even bloody and vicious goblin riots sound as boring as Percys cauldron- bottom report. Professors McGonagall and Moody kept them working until the very last second of their classes too, and Snape, of course, would no sooner let them play games in class than adopt Harry. Staring nastily around at them all, he informed them that he would be testing them on poison antidotes during the last lesson of the term. zgirnius: And so there is an exam, and Harry performs poorly: > GoF: > He found it hard to concentrate on Snape's Potions test, and consequently forgot to add the key ingredient - a bezoar - meaning that he received bottom marks. He didn't care, though; he was too busy screwing up his courage for what he was about to do. When the bell rang, he grabbed his bag, and hurried to the dungeon door. zgirnius: That more important task being, to ask a girl to the dance . I had forgotten that Snape taught the class about bezoars again after the first Potions class of PS/SS. My impression is that the use of the phrase was Rowling having some fun and laughing up her sleeve, because adoption of Harry by Snape is such an unlikely seeming event, and yet in a sense, as you say, has already happened. From penhaligon at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 05:25:00 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 21:25:00 -0800 Subject: what magical object would you want? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178916 Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many wonderful and interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which pretty much goes without saying for any witch or wizard), what magical object would you like to have? I know which one I want: Hermione's beaded bag from DH . what woman wouldn't want a pretty and tiny little bag that could, literally, hold just about everything one owns? Of course, as Harry rapidly discovers, Accio is quite handy for retrieving objects from said bag. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kspilman at hotmail.com Thu Nov 8 05:41:01 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 23:41:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178917 No question, I'd want Molly's clock....or a house elf. To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: penhaligon at gmail.com Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 21:25:00 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] what magical object would you want? Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many wonderful and interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which pretty much goes without saying for any witch or wizard), what magical object would you like to have? I know which one I want: Hermione's beaded bag from DH . what woman wouldn't want a pretty and tiny little bag that could, literally, hold just about everything one owns? Of course, as Harry rapidly discovers, Accio is quite handy for retrieving objects from said bag. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Nov 8 05:45:20 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 20:45:20 -0900 Subject: [HPforGrownups] what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178918 On 2007, Nov 07, , at 20:25, Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon wrote: > Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many > wonderful and > interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which pretty much goes > without saying for any witch or wizard), what magical object would > you like > to have? I suppose I will get vilified, but I would like my own house elf - someone to cook delicious meals and clean the house. Aaah! And, yes, I know a house elf is not an object and that we are talking about something similar in some ways to slavery. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 06:26:10 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 06:26:10 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178919 > On 2007, Nov 07, , at 20:25, Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon wrote: > > > Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many > > wonderful and > > interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which pretty much goes > > without saying for any witch or wizard), what magical object would > > you like > > to have? Prep0strus: To be honest... a wand. Doesn't have to be the elder wand either. Just a nice, simple Ollivander's wand. Most useful thing there is, and I want one. The problem with the game being, of all the other items we can have... I only seem to want the ones the books teach me I shouldn't want! Time turner, felix felicis, flying car with stealth capabilities, sorcerer's/philosopher's stone... these are the items I want more than a put-outer or a remembrall! ~Adam From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 06:55:03 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 06:55:03 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178920 "Riddle undoubtedly felt no affection for any of them. This group had a kind of dark glamour within the castle. They were a motely collection; a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty." ^1 "As an unusually talented and very good-looking orphan, he naturally drew attention and sympathy fron the staff... Nearly all were most favorably impressed by him." "... he charmed so many of my colleagues." ^2 Mike: It isn't hard to imagine how Tom Riddle managed to get others to follow his lead while he was at Hogwarts. From Dumbledore's words, he managed to charm the staff into believing him Minister of Magic material. It seems the other students would hardly be able to resist those same charms. By all accounts, Riddle had everything going for him. But then he disappears from wizarding Britain for ten years. When he returns to ask for the DADA position he has a few Death Eaters in tow and is already exibiting signs of his eventual snake-like appearance. It is hard to imagine that he already has his full compliment of DEs at this point in time. Which begs the questions: How did he get so many followers? Why would anyone *now* choose to follow this Lord Voldemort guy? What was the appeal in this snake-faced guy that never showed affection to his followers? By the repetition of names of the DEs, it appears that LV turned being a DE into a family avocation. The names Lestrange, Avery, Mulciber, Nott come up in different generations. And, of course, we have Harry's generation with Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle showing every sign of following in their father's footsteps. Which is all well and good, but that's not near enough DEs. What attracts the Malfoys, the Severus Snapes, the Bellatrix and Narcissa Blacks to join the dark team? We've found out that Severus and several others in his generation have fancied themselves as future DEs before their fifth year at Hogwarts is out, and probably before then. And yet, Dumbledore will lament that the Wizarding World has had "precious little to celebrate" since at least before Severus entered Hogwarts. (Trust me, or do the math yourself ). There seems to be a disconnect here. We've seen how Voldemort treats his DEs in the graveyard scene from GoF. We know he has no compunction against using torture on his followers from both GoF and OotP. And if anything things are worse by the beginnning of DH. Why would anyone willingly join his team? When he disappears at Godric's Hollow, there a celebrations breaking out all over Britain's WW. Were these newer DEs blind to what was happening? No, I don't think so. Sure, the thuggish like Crabbe, Goyle, and the Carrows wouldn't have been bothered by a little torture now and then, theirs or others. But I don't think Snape or the Malfoys would be so willing to join had they known they would be a party to or the subject of torturing. So, how did Voldemort do it? "Voldemort doesn't march up to people's houses and bang on their front doors, ... He tricks, jinxes, and blackmails them. He's well practiced at operating in secrecy." ^3 Mike: As Sirius said, Voldemort doesn't operate in the open during VW1. It seems that many in the WW are unaware of what is happening and when they do hear of something, they don't know why or who caused it. Also, as we've seen, the MoM isn't above hushing up bad news in some mis-guided attempt to keep morale up. Of course, LV had a lot of practice in this aspect of his guerilla warfare. "Rigidly controlled by Riddle, they were never detected in open wrongdoing, although their seven years at Hogwarts were marked by a number of nasty incidents to which they were never satisfactorily linked" ^4 Mike: As Dumbledore told us, Riddle learned his craft young when he only had to fool the Hogwarts staff. By the time he returned to the British WW, he has spent ten years off of everybody's radar. Keeping his name out of the papers and eluding the bumbling MoM must have seemed like child's play by the time of VW1. But where's the attraction? It's all well and good to not have your name or your organization not detected as evildoers, but how does that help you get more recruits? It is my theory that Voldemort started his venture by eliminating any possible competition. IOW, Voldemort started out the same way Al Capone started. He knocked off any other dark wizards, no matter how minor, that had followers or the potential for followers. He then absorbs the dead rivals followers into his organization. Do we think all of Grindewald's followers evaporated after 1945? Wouldn't it be more likely that a few of them started their own enterprises? And that many of the rest were now free agents that would be vulnerable to recruitment by the likes of LV? There is an added benefit to this strategy. If LV was only seen as eliminating the remnants of Grindewald's organization or taking out other dark wizards that were thorns in the Ministry's side, the MoM might be more inclined to look the other way even if they suspected LV. After all, he's just doing the same job as their Aurors, just a little more ruthlessly. Besides, we see that by the time of Barty Crouch Sr., the MoM has no problem using these same methods to fight the now too big LV. Oh yeah, one more benefit. The lesser informed don't see inside Voldemort's organization. To the outsiders, he looks like the guy bringing order where the Ministry isn't able. Yeah, they probably suspect that he's not exactly restricting himself to Ministry approved methods. But to those curious enough to wonder what else is out there, Voldemort's organization has the aura of *dark glamour*. One last ingredient is needed for Voldemort's recruitment potion to be complete. A message, a rallying cry. So Voldemort picks blood purity. Whether or not he believes this himself, canon is unclear. For my money, though he was a half-blood himself, I think he has a hatred for anything Muggle. It goes all the way back to his Muggle father abandoning his pregnant witch mother, causing her to die penniless in London. *************** So when did Voldemort change his tactics? When does he stop pretending to be the Ministry's vigilante arm and begin to openly pursue his true goal of WW domination? My guess is actually quite late in VW1. In fact, I think the true VW1 doesn't really begin until after the Marauders, Severus and Lily are out of school. I have two clues for my guess. Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, most likely while Sirius was in his last year of school. And even though the elder Blacks weren't DEs, they seemed to approve of Regulus' choice, according to Sirius. A year plus later, Regulus has disappeared and presumed dead. Now, add in this Sirius appraisal of VW1 from OotP: "[T]here were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his true colors, who thought he had the right idea about things.... They got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power, though." ^5 If when Voldemort shows his true colors is when Regulus coincidentally sets off to reclaim the locket from the cave, we can surmise that Sirius reasons Regulus' death was a result of those "cold feet". This would mean that Voldemort's bloomers aren't showing until after MWPP, Lily and Severus have all graduated for at least one year. In fact, if my timeline guess is correct, Voldemort becomes the ruthless bastard that we all know around Holloween of 1979. If Carol and I are correct, that's when the prophesy happens, warning LV of his eventual conquerer. Mike **************************** A little add-on quest: In the opening quote, Dumbledore gives some reasons why certain personality types would have been attracted to Riddle/Voldemort's cause. Or, maybe you've got a better reasons than Dumbledore's. I have an exercise for the readership. Pick one of Dumbledore's categories (or your own theory) and explain how that applies to Snape, Malfoy, or any other DE, and therefore why they were attracted to Riddle/Voldemort? (Is this what you had in mind, Carol? ) _______________________________________________ ^1 Dumbledore in HBP, pp 361-2, US Ed. ^2 Dumbledore in HBP, pp 360-1, US Ed. ^3 Sirius in OotP, p 96, US Ed. ^4 Dumbledore in HBP, pp 362, US Ed. ^5 Sirius in OotP, p 112, US Ed. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 07:14:02 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:14:02 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178921 > Jane \"Panhandle"\ Penhaligon wrote: > > Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many > wonderful and interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which > pretty much goes without saying for any witch or wizard), what > magical object would you like to have? Mike: I want one of Dumbledore's spindly whirring silver toys. In fact I want all of them and I want to know what they do. The ultimate knick-knack to have on the bookshelf. :D From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Nov 8 04:07:51 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 23:07:51 -0500 Subject: "Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178922 > a_svirn: > When and what did do anything in the last two books to stop their self abuse? She did no such thing. She hasn't done a thing to improve Kreacher's lot. Kreacher's lot is exactly as it was - Harry still owns him and still makes use of him. And Harry never was a cruel master to begin with: he might have loathed his slave, but he never abused him. Granted, he stopped loath Kreacher, but Hermione can't claim credit for that. It was Kreacher's story that made the difference. What Hermione did do, Jen, she used her newfound insight in the elvish nature and psychology to help her slave-owning friend to convert an unhappy, rebellious and potentially dangerous slave into happy, loyal and obedient one. That's what her social activism came to. She changed sides. << Not necessarily. She may have just decided that there were other priorities; the defeat of Voldemort was of paramount importance just then. Time enough when Voldemort was defeated to work on House Elf Rights, but if Voldemort were to win. . . .well. 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 Thu Nov 8 04:21:46 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 23:21:46 -0500 Subject: God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178923 > Magpie: > She now understands House Elf psychology differently (however she got to that--it's a bit of a leap from her confident freeing of elves in OotP to her disinterest in Harry's inheriting one in HBP). You've added the part where she's meeting House Elves where they are at this point in time and is in the process of doing something else. Hermione is repulsed by Elf self-punishment. Whether she's embraced House Elf slavedom or just accepted that she can't change it and decided Elves should all just have good masters she approves of there is nothing in DH that indicates this will be changing in the future thanks to Hermione. I knew her feelings about House Elves in GoF and OotP because she lectured about it. If she were on a new tact of the same idea I expect she would still lecture about it. She does seem to have skipped to "I told you so" by HBP, but this is bizarre since she herself seems to have never acknowledged that she was House Elf Offender #1. << Part of growing up is learning a bit of pragmatism and accepting that one has to live with things in society that you don't like but can't change. Or, if you can change them, you can't change them *right now* or *all at once.* 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 willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Nov 8 12:45:02 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:45:02 -0000 Subject: fathers (was Re: A message? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178924 > Mus wrote: > Here's a new topic, though, and I don't think I've seen it discussed > on the list before: the notion of father in the heptateuch. > > There are a number of fathers in canon: Vernon (if Muggles count), > Arthur, Lucius, Xenophilous, Riddle Snr, Marvolo Gaunt, Amos Diggory, > and James, of course. But fathers in the main seem either curiously > absent, or, when present, unsatisfactory in various ways. Potioncat: Here's a JKR quote that I found at 2005 AccioQuote. >>>Much of Rowling's understanding of the origins of evil has to do with the role of the father in family life. "As I look back over the five published books," she says, "I realize that it's kind of a litany of bad fathers. That's where evil seems to flourish, in places where people didn't get good fathering." Some of that must surely flow from her own experiences: her relationship with her father has been uneven, and the father of her oldest daughter is no longer part of Rowling's life.<<<< Potioncat: We also have Tobias who didn't seem to be much of a father, though I think Severus turned out to be a lot like him. "I don't think he likes anything," was Sev's comment. (IIRC) I read an article about JKR's father selling a signed copy of one of her books. I read it awhile ago and it seems his name is Peter. Now, I can't be certain of it, but I remember thinking "She named the rat after her father?" >Mus > You know, I haven't been quite able to get out of my head the fact > that right through the series runs a cry of "DADA", the cursed > position. There's something a little chilling to my ear about that. Potioncat: We have MoM and DADA. Neither one very good. Well, it'd be interesting if we found out JKR had something of that in mind. But off hand, I doubt it. I think DADA is only found on lists---or did it make into HBP? Although, the more I think about it.... Back to canon fathers. I'm glad JKR didn't kill off Arthur, and I wonder if it was after she realised how many bad/absent fathers there were in her books that she decided to spare him. Amos and Arthur are the only two positive fathers we really see. Although some will disagree with how Arthur treated Percy. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 16:00:04 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:00:04 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178925 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > > > > On 2007, Nov 07, , at 20:25, Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon wrote: > > > > > Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many > > > wonderful and interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which pretty much goes without saying for any witch or wizard), what magical object would you like to have? ***Katie: Other than a wand?? That's hard. I think I'd want a broom. I would love to play Quidditch, and I would love to fly around, feeling the wind on my face and hangin' with the birds. That'd be good times. I would also like an owl, if that counts. A magical owl, not like a RW owl, which is kind of dumb. I'd like a real friend, like Hedwig, who could also go and deliver my mail and peck my friends when they pissed me off! : ) Katie From CatMcNulty at comcast.net Thu Nov 8 15:58:03 2007 From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (Cat) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:58:03 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178926 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > "Riddle undoubtedly felt no affection for any of them. This group had > a kind of dark glamour within the castle. They were a motely > collection; a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious > seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish gravitating toward a > leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty." ^1 >Big snip< > Does the name Adolf Hitler ring a bell? If you think about it, the parallels are remarkable. Cat From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 16:27:26 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:27:26 -0000 Subject: Adoption (was Re: CoS dream - DH scene parallel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Good catch! Harry had another dream in SS/PS that involved Draco, > Snape and LV, but I can't say there was any connection later on. > > A bit of irony I found is this. In one of the books, I'd guess CoS or > PoA Harry says or thinks something along the line of "as likely as > being adopted by Snape." Given that Snape swore to protect Harry, and > had been watching over him at Hogwarts, he had, in a manner of > speaking, adopted Harry. I wish I could remember more about the > quote, or what it pertained to. I do know it inspired > countless "Snape Adopts Harry" fanfics. Montavilla47: Good Lord! Is that where that particular genre came from? I happened upon a site where "Snape Adopts Harry" was an entire category of stories, and I was sorely puzzled. It seemed to make no more sense than Snape adopting any random character. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 16:35:39 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:35:39 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178928 > > a_svirn: > > The point under that particular discussion was self-abuse, though, > not house-elves emancipation as such. Did Hermione stop or try to stop > or plan to try to stop house elves and more particularly Kreacher from > inflicting self-punishment on themselves? She didn't. she was > distressed by the sight but she did nothing to prevent its > repetition. And before you ask again, yes, I think she couldn't. I > believe I stated it time and again: she couldn't do it because they > are different and she cannot change it. And by DH she had accepted it. > > > Carol: > Since she wasn't the mistress (owner, if you prefer) of any > House-Elves, a_svirn: Is there a difference in the distinction? > Carol: of course she couldn't, either on the individual level or > on a larger scale. She can neither free the House-Elves (thank > goodness) nor order them to stop harming themselves because she has no > authority over them. (Kreacher does, finally, give her a nod of > respect, or so it seems to Harry, because she understood him and > explained his thought process to Harry.) Nor was Harry Dobby's master, > so he couldn't order Dobby not to abuse himself, even after Dobby was > free. (Whether Dobby was acting under compulsion or from deeply > ingrained social conditioning and habit is unclear. I think the > latter.) With regard to Kreacher's self-abuse, the only question that > makes sense to me is whether Harry, as Kreacher's master, could order > him to stop. a_svirn: I agree. I guess I need to take a blood oath for you to finally believe me. > Carol: He fails to do so when Kreacher regards *Regulus* as his > master (whom he has failed, despite repeated attempts), but once > Kreacher acknowledges Harry as his master, IIRC, the self-abuse stops. > If Harry gives him no incentive to disobey an order and no reason to > speak ill of him (the only two reasons why the House-Elves we see > abuse themselves), the problem will stop. We don't see the House- Elves > at Hogwarts abusing themselves. a_svirn: We don't see them at all for the most part. They are unobtrusive little things. > Carol: > I take it as a sign that Kreacher is capable of independent action and > leadership (maybe, in part, because he's Harry Potter's House-Elf). > And he didn't deliberately bring about Sirius Black's ruin; he was > helping to lure Harry to the MoM. a_svirn: Very well, I stand corrected. He tried to bring both Harry's and Sirius's ruin about as well as the ruin of as much members of the Order as possible. He did it deliberately on his free will and in open defiance to his master's will. And was glad to learn about his master's death. > Carol: That aside, surely leading the > House-Elves in open rebellion against the Dark Lord is better than > secretly plotting with the Dark Lord's supporters to lure his young > nemesis into danger. a_svirn: Sure. But I was under the impression that it was the Dark Lord who was "in open rebellion" against the wizarding world of old. Then again, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter and all that. But we seem to wander from the point. The point being that elves do *not* fight for their freedom. They fight alongside their masters and against their masters' enemies. They are, however, equally capable to fight against their masters if their masters aren't careful. Ergo, masters must be careful and responsible and all will be well. Free will is neither here, nor there in this grand scheme of things. > Carol: Of course, he was always capable of independent > acts. But the nature and quality of those acts changed. Now he's > fighting in the name of the hero he regards as the champion of > House-Elves, not Harry but Regulus. a_svirn: Well, I always knew he was sadly confused. He did say "Harry Potter, defender of house elves". > Carol: IOW, he understands that > House-Elves have the right to fair treatment, the right not to be > tortured and abused. a_svirn: Then why he persists in self-abusing? Or do you think he reserves right to punish solely to himself? Surely that would put Harry into an impossible position. How one can hope to become a responsible master, if one cannot even punish one's own slave, let alone stop him from punishing himself? > Carol: You may not see progress there. I see a complete turnaround. And > Kreacher has a lot more influence over the other House-Elves than > Hermione did in GoF, imposing her human ideas on them without > respecting their feelings and desires. He knows exactly what they > want. It's what he wants himself. a_svirn: And that would be? That's right -- a good master. Why do you call it a "complete turnaround" is beyond my understanding. > Carol: > > Just to be clear, I meant that they don't want a change from the fair > treatment they received under Dumbledore and, it would appear, Snape. > That's the status quo they want to preserve, the House-Elf's idea of > la dolce vita. They don't want a change to new, cruel masters. a_svirn: Sensible of them. > Carol: I never > said they were rebelling. a_svirn: Sorry. I misunderstood your usage then. > Carol: If they were, they'd be fighting against > McGonagall et al. and joining Voldemort, the would-be usurper who's > trying to invade Hogwarts (which he was under the delusion that he was > already running via Snape). They're fighting for their right to fair > treatment and a job they love. a_svirn: No, they aren't. They don't have the "right" to have a good job and likable masters. They are just lucky to have them anyway. They don't want to change that, naturally. But they do not have any rights and never will. They are slaves. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 18:28:38 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:28:38 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178929 Carol earlier: > > Since she wasn't the mistress (owner, if you prefer) of any > > House-Elves, > > a_svirn: > Is there a difference in the distinction? Carol again: Only that "mistress" has certain connotations that don't have anything to do with ownership. > > a_svirn: > I agree. I guess I need to take a blood oath for you to finally believe me. Carol: Glad we agree on something. > > > Carol: > He fails to do so when Kreacher regards *Regulus* as his master (whom he has failed, despite repeated attempts), but once Kreacher acknowledges Harry as his master, IIRC, the self-abuse stops. > > If Harry gives him no incentive to disobey an order and no reason to > > speak ill of him (the only two reasons why the House-Elves we see > > abuse themselves), the problem will stop. We don't see the House- > Elves > > at Hogwarts abusing themselves. > > a_svirn: > We don't see them at all for the most part. They are unobtrusive little things. Carol: Nevertheless, when we *do* see them in the kitchen in GoF, they are quite content and quite outspoken in their disapproval of Dobby and, especially, of Winky, whom they cover with a tablecloth, IIRC. And Dobby makes their refusal to clean the Gryffindor common room clear. They also show that they like being praised for "good service" and profoundly dislike busybody Hermione's attempts to "help" them. (So does Winky, who goes so far as to tell Harry that he is "nosing" into her (ex-)master's business.) For "unobtrusive little things," they're pretty good at expressing their opinions and acting on them. Moreover, I can think of only two reasons why the House-Elves that we do see abusing themselves (Dobby and Kreacher) do so; one is disobeying their masters or failing to fulfill an order (both Kreacher and Dobby punish themselves for this reason); the other is speaking ill of their masters (only Dobby seems to punish himself for this reason; Kreacher goes so far as to imply that Sirius is a murderer without punishing himself in the least). Since the Hogwarts House-Elves have no reason to complain about their treatment under Dumbledore (or snape?), they have no reason to disobey an order or speak ill of their master(s). And there's no indication that they punish themselves for delegating the Gryffindor common room to Dobby or refusing to pick up the hats. Carol: > > I take it as a sign that Kreacher is capable of independent action and leadership (maybe, in part, because he's Harry Potter's House-Elf). > > And he didn't deliberately bring about Sirius Black's ruin; he was helping to lure Harry to the MoM. > > a_svirn: > Very well, I stand corrected. He tried to bring both Harry's and > Sirius's ruin about as well as the ruin of as much members of the > Order as possible. He did it deliberately on his free will and in > open defiance to his master's will. And was glad to learn about his > master's death. Carol again: I'll ignore your tone here as I'm sure you're not trying to be rude. If you look again at OoP, you'll see that Kreacher's contribution to the plot was to reveal little details about Harry, such as his affection for Sirius Black, which led to the plot to lure Harry and Harry alone to the MoM to retrieve the Prophecy. Kreacher, who happily accepted orders from any member of the Black family except Sirius, then injured Buckbeak (for which he apparently ironed his hands, considering that they're bandaged like Dobby's when Harry sees him) and went along with Harry's suggestion that Black was held captive at the MoM, when in fact he was upstairs nursing Buckbeak. His statement that "Master won't come back from the Ministry" (quoted from memory) is nothing but an attempt to egg Harry on. The Order wasn't supposed to show up at all (that was Snape's doing), and Snape specifically told Black to remain behind and wait for DD (which, of course, he didn't do). Black *chose* to go to the MoM; he *chose* to carelessly fight Bellatrix on the dais of the Veil. His arrogance in taunting her as they fight just before she kills him is echoed in Bellatrix's arrogant taunting of Molly Weasley just before Molly kills her. Kreacher may, and indeed does, celebrate Sirius Black's death (just as Sirius would have celebrated his--cf. his hope that Kreacher has hidden in a cupboard and died), but he's not responsible for his death. There was no plot to kill any Order member (however happy Bellatrix was to kill her cousin and would have been to kill her niece). The plot was to get Harry to the Hall of Prophecies, have him take down the Prophecy orb, take it from him by force and give it to Voldemort, and perhaps either kidnap or kill Harry. There was, once again, no plot to kill Sirius or bring about the ruin "of as [many] Order members as possible." I'm not sure where you're getting that idea, but I don't see it anywhere in OoP. a_svirn: > But we seem to wander from the point. The point being that elves do *not* fight for their freedom. They fight alongside their masters and against their masters' enemies. They are, however, equally capable to fight against their masters if their masters aren't careful. Ergo, masters must be careful and responsible and all will be well. Free will is neither here, nor there in this grand scheme of things. Carol again: I never said that they fight for their freedom. We agree, as I understand it, that they don't want freedom. What they're fighting for is, as I see it, the right to live happily at Hogwarts, which will not be possible if Voldemort wins. Why else would they fight? No wizard asked or ordered them to. Snape is dead; Dumbledore has been dead a year; Harry is seemingly dead and has had no contact with them. Kreacher is their leader; he's the one with the locket and the rallying cry. Maybe he's fighting for his old master's cause, the right of House-Elves not to be tortured and abused (forced to drink a horrrible potion and left to be murdered by Inferi, in this specific instance), but it's still fair treatment of House-Elves. And far from rejecting Kreacher as they rejected Dobby, the Hogwarts House-Elves *choose* to follow him into battle. Of course, they're not fighting for their freedom. They don't want freedom. They're fighting to maintain the working conditions they've always enjoyed at Hogwarts and will lose if Voldemort and the DEs win. Understandably, they don't want to be "treated like vermin" as they were during VW1. (Of course, their masters must be responsible, but that's neither here nor there. We're talking about the House-Elves' decision to fight the DEs without having ordered or even requested to do so by any witch or wizard. Free will has everything to do with it. They *choose* to follow Kreacher. And lest we fail to understand exactly why they're there, we have Kreacher's locket and rallying cry. They're fighting the Dark Lord (the one who cruelly abuse Kreacher and left him to die) in the name of the heroic Regulus, who died trying to bring down the Dark wizard who so horribly abused his House-Elf. They don't want freedom any more than Muggles want unemployment. They want fair working conditions, even if it means fighting a battle in which they might die rather going on strike (which they probably couldn't do if Voldemort won and became their master). Whether or not House-Elf freedom is a good thing (and IMO it isn't if it means unemployment and homelessness), it's not their goal at the moment. That goal is fighting the Dark Lord, not because Harry or any other wizard wants them to but because a Voldemort victory would be a return to persecution and suffering of the kind they suffered in VW1. (We've seen how Bellatrix treats House-Elves and Goblins. Would Dolohov and his ilk be any kinder? Or Travers, who refers to a Muggle-born as "it"?) > > > Carol: > Of course, he was always capable of independent acts. But the nature and quality of those acts changed. Now he's fighting in the name of the hero he regards as the champion of House-Elves, not Harry but Regulus. > > a_svirn: > Well, I always knew he was sadly confused. He did say "Harry Potter, defender of house elves". Carol: No, he didn't. The only wizard he names is Regulus. I quoted his words, but here they are again: "Fight, fight, fight, for my master, defender of House-Elves! Fight the Dark Lord in the name of brave Regulus! Fight!" I suppose that "my master" could refer to Harry, but, is so, why doesn't he name him? It's "brave Regulus, defender of House-Elves" in whose name Kreacher is asking them to fight. > > > Carol: > IOW, he understands that House-Elves have the right to fair treatment, the right not to be tortured and abused. > > a_svirn: > Then why he persists in self-abusing? Or do you think he reserves right to punish solely to himself? Surely that would put Harry into an impossible position. How one can hope to become a responsible master, if one cannot even punish one's own slave, let alone stop him from punishing himself? Carol: Can you please show me an instance in which Kreacher abuses himself after he accepts the locket? Hysterical tears of joy are not self-abuse. And he evidently escapes to Hogwarts to avoid the abuse of Yaxley and his ilk, who are not his masters. (Unless Voldemort wins.) When Harry fails to stop Kreacher from abusing himself, Kreacher has not yet accepted Harry as his master. He's still, in his own mind and heart, serving Regulus. (And Regulus remains his hero and true master even after he's also acknowledged Harry, who shares Regulus's desire to destroy the locket that Kreacher was ordered to destroy.) And, to repeat, if a House-Elf respects his master and neither deliberately disobeys nor fails to obey an order because he can't obey it (e.g., Kreacher's failure to destroy the locket), the House-Elf will have no reason to abuse himself. Whether a wizard that a House-Elf regards as his rightful master could order the Elf not to abuse himself is unclear. Kreacher is punishing himself for failing to obey Regulus. Probably, only Regulus could have stopped him, and, of course, Regulus is long dead. (As I also stated, Harry can't order *Dobby* to stop punishing himself because he's not Dobby's master. Only Dobby can stop himself if he unlearns the behavior.) > > > Carol: > You may not see progress there. I see a complete turnaround. And Kreacher has a lot more influence over the other House-Elves than Hermione did in GoF, imposing her human ideas on them without respecting their feelings and desires. He knows exactly what they want. It's what he wants himself. > > a_svirn: > And that would be? That's right -- a good master. Why do you call it a "complete turnaround" is beyond my understanding. Carol: Of course he's always wanted a good master and now he has one again. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'll try one more time to explain what I mean. Not only is Kreacher now a "normal" House-Elf, clean and happy with a master he respects (surely a noticeable change in attitude and behavior???), he's also a leader among his own kind as opposed to a filthy, half-mad recluse wih no influence over anyone. Instead of sneakily aiding the bad guys by telling them his master's small secrets, he's joining the battle against the bad wizards and persuading other House-Elves to join his cause. It's as if a grybby little street orphan had arisen to become Spartacus. Thet he's fighting to preserve the status quo (as anyone who fights an invader or usurper is doing) rather than fighting for freedom (which neither he nor the other House-Elves wants) does not make him any less a leader or a hero. Do you not see that Hermione had no influence over the House-Elves, yet Kreacher (Kreacher, who once wore a filthy rag and muttered about Mudbloods and never lifted a finger to do the work most House-Elves enjoy and consider honorable) succeeds in rallying them to his cause? Surely, when you first saw the grovelling, filthy, brain-washed little creature, you didn't expect to see him charging into battle with a host of House-Elves at his command? Oh, well. I say it's a 180-degree turn from filthy insignificance to influence and leadership. If you choose to regard his situation and attitude as no different than it was, I'm clearly not going to persuade you otherwise. Carol earlier: > > > > Just to be clear, I meant that they don't want a change from the fair treatment they received under Dumbledore and, it would appear, Snape. That's the status quo they want to preserve, the House-Elf's idea of la dolce vita. They don't want a change to new, cruel masters. > > a_svirn: > Sensible of them. Carol: Yes, it is. No sarcasm intended. > a_svirn: > No, they aren't. They don't have the "right" to have a good job and likable masters. They are just lucky to have them anyway. They don't want to change that, naturally. But they do not have any rights and never will. They are slaves. Carol: I think you're mistaken. The fact that they *choose* to fight against Voldemort to preserve the good working conditions they enjoy at Hogwarts shows that they *do* have the right to fair treatment, just as human beings have the right to fair treatment. A right is natural and inalienable; a privilege is earned. Perhaps that right will be set into law once Hermione enters the Ministry (and Umbridge's anti-werewolf legislation will be repealed). We don't know. But we do know that House-Elves can and will fight against tyranny and evil that affects their lives. They are not fighting for their masters, not if Kreacher's rallying cry is any indication of their motives. They are fighting for the right of House-Elves, slaves or no slaves, to fair treatment. If they had no rights, they would not be able to fight at all unless ordered to do so by a witch or wizard. Instead, they chose to fight, led only by Kreacher, of all people. (They would not, IMO, have followed the eccentric Dobby, who had no more influence over them than Hermione did. But Kreacher, who wants what they want, who has personally suffered at the hands of Voldemort, whose beloved master sacrificed himself to avenge Kreacher and try to destroy the Dark Lord, they understand and accept as their natural leader.) Carol, who thinks the transformation of Kreacher from a filthy menace into a leader of his people is comparable to Neville's transformation from timid "nobody" to hero From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Nov 8 18:31:56 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:31:56 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178930 Carol: > > You can't force a House-Elf into a human mold any more than you can > > turn a boy into a girl by dressing him as one (or vice versa). If you own a House-Elf that you can't free and who does not want to be freed,you treat him the way he wants to be treated. That's what both Harry and Hermione eventually understand. (Ron, I think, knew it all along.) > > a_svirn: > Yes. I do not dispute that. I do, however, question Rowling's > motivation in inventing such sickening creatures. Pippin: I think part of our problem is a dramatic convention that says any problem recognized by a hero is going to be solved by the end of the story unless it turns out not to be a problem after all. People then imply that if house-elf slavery still exists at the end of the story that means it wasn't a problem. But I don't think the convention applies. There are many other problems that aren't solved. The house-elves seem to be an amalgam of the helper fairies of tradition with the fairy wife. Like helper fairies, the fairy wife takes on household responsibilities and does them well -- but if she is treated disrespectfully (which always happens), she abandons her mortal husband forever. One can imagine the original symbiotic state of elves and humans: humans like to build houses and accumulate possessions, elves like to look after them as long as they're treated with respect. But then greedy wizards enchanted the elves so they could no longer abandon humans who treated them poorly. We really can't blame Hermione for not seeking to end the house-elf enchantments. Horrid as they are, they're not as bad as magical experimentation on sentient creatures who by definition can't give their consent. But she can urge wizards not to take advantage of their ill-gotten power over the elves, and she does. It's important to realize that Harry did not realize or warn Sirius that Kreacher was being mistreated and would rebel because of it. Dumbledore did that -- but Sirius did not listen, and Harry rebelled against Dumbledore's analysis when he first heard it. Only after hearing Hermione's interpretation of Kreacher's tale did Harry accept Dumbledore's view. Harry warned Sirius that his belief that the elf couldn't leave without express permission might be wrong. But Harry had only vague suspicions regarding Kreacher's absence and he did not warn Sirius about them. Harry forgot his doubts that Kreacher had been in the attic when nothing further seemed to come of it, and he had no suspicions left when Kreacher lied to him about Sirius being gone. I think Rowling's purpose in creating the house-elves was threefold. She wanted to show the development of Hermione's social conscience, she wanted to have Hermione tackle a problem that was too big for her, and she wanted to show some of the attractions as well as the problems of slavery. It's another case of wanting us to know but not to seek. > a_svirn: > I beg to differ. He leads them into a battle. More specifically, into > a *wizarding* battle, which outcome will change not a thing for his > own kind. Nor would he want it to. Pippin: Under Voldemort, house-elves are being slaughtered. I fail to see how the outcome will not change anything for the house-elves. It's not a rebellion against wizard domination of elves, but it *is* a rebellion against Voldemort, de facto ruler of Wizarding Britain. Pippin From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 20:14:39 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:14:39 -0000 Subject: A message? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" wrote: > Mus: > There are a number of fathers in canon: Vernon (if Muggles count), > Arthur, Lucius, Xenophilous, Riddle Snr, Marvolo Gaunt, Amos Diggory, > and James, of course. But fathers in the main seem either curiously > absent, or, when present, unsatisfactory in various ways. Montavilla47: You didn't mention one father at least: Remus Lupin. Since he tries to run off from his marriage before his son is even born, he comes off little better than Riddle, Sr. I suppose that we're supposed to see Harry at the end as becoming the Good Father, as he takes his children to the station and calms little Al's fears. Although--I don't think that Ron or Draco suffers in comparison at that point (as far as fathering goes). They are both present to see their children off and both engaged with their children. But, yes, there's a strong Bad Daddy thread running through the series. While I may be reaching here, the Slytherinian trait of "Ambition" is a key quality of Bad Daddies. Ambition leads fathers to neglect the emotional needs of their wives and children, and so, while it helps the family financially and socially, it seems hollow to the people who never get to see Dad. (Think about how many movies end with the Dad apologizing for his neglect...) Arthur is the lone living Good Father. He cheerfully gives up his prospects at the Ministry in order to spend more time with his family and his own eccentric hobbies. Lucius is the social- climbing father, projecting his own desire for status onto Draco (pushing him to get the "best" grades, pushing him onto the Quidditch team, trying to manuveur out Dumbledore in order to move in a more pro-Draco Headmaster...) I got the feeling in the book that Amos Diggory was sort of a minor Lucius--not evil, obviously, but too pushy about his son. It was almost like Cedric's death was Amos's punishment for his pride. Then, his grief was a bit overmuch, contrasted with the dignity of the mother. Along with the story of the ambitious, cold Crouch, Sr. (contrasted with the sacrificing Mrs. Crouch), I found GoF to be the strongest Good Mommy/ Bad Daddy book. Of course, PoA was the most pro-Father book. In that, we got James as Harry's inspiration and model. And, we got Sirius as the James substitute, performing superhuman feats in order to protect his godson. I was intrigued about the changes when the books were adapted into movies. The inclusion of Lupin's line about Lily took away from the strong James theme in PoA. In GoF, the Mommy theme went away completely--Narcissa didn't even appear. Instead, the father angle was played up. For example, in the book, Draco took a shot at Harry after a classic Yo Momma exchange. In the film, it was an insult about Lucius that caused Draco to pull his wand. Instead of Molly showing up to cheer Harry in the final task, it was Arthur--giving us that memorable image of Amos wailing over his son while Arthur comforts him. Montavilla47 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 20:56:05 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:56:05 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178932 --- "Cat" wrote: > > --- "Mike" wrote: > > > > "Riddle undoubtedly felt no affection for any of them. This > > group had a kind of dark glamour within the castle. They > > were a motely collection; a mixture of the weak seeking > > protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and > > the thuggish gravitating toward a leader who could show > > them more refined forms of cruelty." ...Big snip... > > > > > Does the name Adolf Hitler ring a bell? If you think about > it, the parallels are remarkable. > > Cat > bboyminn: Not just to Hitler, but to any corrupt and charismatic leader in history, whether they be cult leaders, political leaders, Islamo-fascists, or leader of the 'Revolution'. The formula is the same. First you convince people that they are superior, but that external enemies are oppressing them and denying they their rightful place in history. Next, you give them a common enemy; someone to hate and someone to blame. Hitler decided to hate the Jew. Islamo-fascists decided to hate America. Once you give people a common enemy, that automatically bonds them together. So, WE are superior, YOU are evil, and every bad thing that happens to us, is your fault, therefore /you/ deserve to be conquered and oppressed. Next we need a leader. The leader convinces everyone that he is the reluctant leader drawn to the cause by a higher power. That he, the leader, is not seeking power, but merely performing a public service. Now we have an excuse, and a leader, the next thing we need is authority. What authority better than God? So, nearly all leaders claim some divine authority. Kings ruled by the Divine Right of Kings. Most others simply claim to know the mind of God, and are therefore authorized to speak for him. Hard to disobey someone who claim they are the voice of God on earth. Some of these only tangentially apply to Voldemort. He does not claim to be the voice of God, but he eventually sets himself up in the God-like role. He is all powerful, all knowing, and infallible. If any of his wacky ill-conceived plans goes wrong, it's not /his/ fault, it is the fault of inept incompetent Death Eaters who tried to carry it out. Of course, these things are carried out in stages. It helps if you can start with a group of marginalized disenfranchised people. Because one you bring them into the fold, you convince them that they belong, that they have power, and that they have been cheated out of what is rightly theirs. That represents a huge uniting force. To understand why people follow Voldemort, we need only look at the local high school. There are simply people who naturally draw people to them; they have charisma. Some have a dark charisma that draws the goths and the punks. Some have a more superfically positive presents, that draws the jocks and the popular kids. But none the less, natural leader do emerge, even if that leadership is limited to common social interactions. Not go beyond that to someone with an agenda and a slick tongue, and many vulnerable people can be convinced of the most outlandish things. Generally good but susceptible people can be talked into murder, if it can be frame in a apparently logical argument or justification. One the whole thing takes off, it take on a life of its own, with people being drawn deeper and deeper into the cult mentality. As they are drawn in deeper, the 'king' become more dominant and more authoritarian, until he eventually become a total dictator, and his oppressed subjects become willing accomplices. History shows us this pattern again and again. Give us a sense of superiority, a sense of oppression, a common enemy, and charismatic leader and we can, and often do, conquer the world. As a side note; notice how many people find Slytherin House appealing. If /they/ were at Hogwarts, that is the House they would want to be in. I think a part of this is the 'bad boy' 'ladies love outlaw' mindset. It's no fun being a goody-goody, if you want to have fun you've got to be an outlaw; a 'rebel without a cause'. Not sure I actually said much nor answered the core question, but none the less, there it is. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 21:48:40 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:48:40 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178933 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Slytherin was the actual villain of the piece (hell would be > > Hogwarts without a Sorting Hat) and they were painted as bad to > > the bone, IMO. > >>zgirnius: > Except the dead ones. And Slughorn. And Draco. > The villain was Tom Marvolo Riddle, aka Lord Voldemort, along with > his henchmen/women. He, and some of them, were Slytherins. Their > opposition also included Slytherins. Betsy Hp: And what was the monster's goal? To turn everyone into a Slytherin. Which is a bad thing going by the reactions of everyone around. Because, my goodness, there are some good children out there! Why should they get stuck in the bad house? Snape *barely* rose above his house, and that because of the love of a good Gryffindor. Slughorn and Regulus were decent but still a bit questionable (possibly still bigots). Draco was weak, cowardly and not a supporter of Hogwarts in the end. And none of them, not a single Slytherin you might name were able to keep their house from leaving Hogwarts and joining with Voldemort when the time came. > >>BetsyHP: > > When it came to defending Hogwarts, Slytherin left. > >>zgirnius: > The books were about Harry's destiny to defeat Voldemort and reduce > the influence of his poisonous ideas on the wizarding world. When > it came to defeating Voldemort, Regulus, Snape, Phineas Nigellus, > Slughorn, Andromeda, Narcissa, and Draco all took part. Betsy Hp: And all of Slytherin left and joined with Voldemort. "If your son is dead Lucius, it is not my fault. He did not come and join with me, LIKE THE REST OF THE SLYTHERINS." [DH scholastic p.641 - emphasis mine] Apparently Voldemort did a head count. Apparently he had heads to count. Because Slytherin kids are bad kids and they are the villains of the piece. With Voldemort as their star. A few players (some of them bit players at the most) do not make a difference, IMO. And especially a few players moving away from Voldemort but not towards Hogwarts (or Harry) do nothing more than shine a brighter spotlight on the fact that when Hogwarts was in need, Slytherin left and joined with her foe. That makes them traitors at best. > >>Carol: > FWIW, the Slytherins, most of whom had known Headmaster Snape as > their HOH and Potions Master or DADA teacher for a varying number > of years, thought (like everyone else) that Snape was a Death > Eater. If they liked and admired Snape, they weren't going to > oppose what they thought was his will and his agenda. > Betsy Hp: Which makes for an interesting why and wherefore. But Harry wasn't interested so we never do learn why all of Slytherin leave. And I think that's because for JKR, it doesn't matter. These are the bad guys being identified as such. IMO,She doesn't care about what makes them tick, she cares about providing a good fight for her hero. > >>zgirnius: > The final quote you give, and hang your argument on, is the tail > end of a paragraph of speech by Harry. The rest of it... > Epilogue: > "But *just say*-" > "-then Slytherin House will have gained an excellent student, won't > it? It doesn't matter to us, Al." > >>zgirnius: > Is Harry lying? Or does it really not matter to him? I believe > Harry is telling the truth, so I do not believe Al picked up this > worry from his parents. Betsy Hp: A little boy isn't terrified of ending up in the bad house, the bigots' house, the traitors' house, without some sort of family influence. And James wouldn't run around saying Slytherin was that bad if his parents disagreed at heart. I don't think Harry is lying. I think Harry thinks Al's fear totally unfounded. Al has no chance of ending up in Slytherin because Al's not a bad kid, and most importantly, he doesn't want to be in Slytherin. And Harry knows that this desire makes all the difference. Just *want* to be a good kid and that'll take you most of the way. (The tragedy of Snape is that he didn't want to be a "good kid" until it was far too late and Lily was on Voldemort's "to be killed" list.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > In the Potterverse it doesn't matter where a child's opinion > > comes from (JKR all but wrote a big sign saying Draco was > > parroting his father in the first two books) it's still enough to > > determine that child's worth. > >>zgirnius: > No, it is not. Betsy Hp: Yes, it is. A child's worth is determined at Sorting. So, as per JKR, a kid parroting his father's views is stuck. (We get that line about "sorting too early" but the fact is, age eleven is when you get sorted. End of story.) > >>zgirnius: > To the extent that Draco comes to realize his father had some > things wrong, Draco proves himself better than his father. Betsy Hp: When do we see Draco decide his father's gotten some things wrong? I don't see Draco becoming a better man than his father by series end. I mean, Lucius is alive and kicking as far we know, and he's got a grandson, so as far as I can tell, Lucius and Draco are ending on a similar note. > >>Betsy Hp: > > And yet, the Slytherins all acted en masse. None of them joined > > the DA, none of them fought for Hogwarts. > >>zgirnius: > You pick two incidents out of an entire series. > Betsy Hp: Lord, if I could hand-wave DH away, I would. But I can't and so I'm forced to deal with the fact that the story of the House rivalry ends with Slytherin leaving Hogwarts and joining with her enemy. I'm not randomly picking two scenes, I'm judging the story by how it ends. If you're told a tale about a couple on a lovely picnic and it ends with the girl stabbing the boy, I think you miss the point if you fixate on the fact she'd made his favorite sandwich with her own two hands. The ending is important. > >>zgirnius: > And the Battle of Hogwarts was not what brought about the defeat of > Voldemort. It was Harry's actions, actions made possible by the > lies of one Slytherin and the information provided by another. Betsy Hp: Snape and Regulus, I'm guessing? Snape who become so good he very nearly overcame being a Slytherin in the first place? And Regulus, who acted in revenge for his beloved house-elf. Which was cool, but also by gones. The battle of Hogwarts was decisive. That's when the truth came out: who were you for? Percy joined the battle and was redeemed. And the house of Slytherin walked out and joined Voldemort. > >>zgirnius: > My own view is that Rowling believes things like that social > justice starts at home, and our children are the future, and all > that jazz. > Betsy Hp: And some children are more worthy than others, depending on their home life. Bad parents means bad children. (If there's something wrong with the bitch, there's something wrong with the pup.) > >>zgirnius: > It's not an anti-feminist view at all; it would be only if we > insisted this is the role and responsibility of women, exclusively, > in society. > Betsy Hp: My thinking on JKR and her views on woman have to do with the utter fear with which female sensuality is dealt with in the text, the disdain expressed towards girls acting like girls, the way making a boy seem girly was the ultimate put-down, and the rather old- fashioned way various tasks were assigned. I don't think JKR was *trying* to be so anti-female. Frankly, I'm betting she was doing her best to write the opposite. It's just, I felt some deeper feelings creeped through. (And yes, I could be crazy, but I saw what I saw. ) > >>zgirnius: > > And Draco (darn it) did not turn out 'bad'. He tried to hide the > indetity of Harry and Co. at Malfoy Manor, he tried to moderate the > actions of Vincent Crabbe, and he saved the life of Goyle. Betsy Hp: Draco dithered. That's about the best I can say about him. He couldn't be sure about Harry, though he was more sure about Hermione and Ron. And he did his best to make sure Crabbe didn't overstep and disobey Voldemort (who apparently never read the Evil Overlord's Handbook). I'd hardly call this the actions of a good guy. And yes, Draco dragged Goyle along when Crabbe set the room on fire. But it was Harry who saved Goyle's life (or actually, Ron and Hermione). Without the Trio's brave actions, Goyle would have died by Draco's side. So again, not a hugely heroic act there. Not enough to redeem himself *and* his house. > >>zgirnius: > You are trying to have it both ways. Slytherins are bad, because > all the overage students in that House deserted Hogwarts, the side > they "should" have been on in the battle. But the Malfoys are also > bad, even though they deserted Voldemort, to whom they had given > their allegiance. Betsy Hp: And I'd say you're trying to have it both ways. The entire house left Hogwarts and joined with Voldemort, but because one or two Slytherin characters were sort of okay, or were more worried about their own survival than Voldemort's victory, we're supposed to decide that the entire house leaving was... window dressing, I guess. > >>BetsyHP: > > But I was talking more about villains who did what they did and > > Harry needed to understand *why* they did what they did, not find > > out they never actually did it in the first place. In "Ender's > > Game" the Buggers really did systematically slaughter every human > > they met. > >>zgirnius: > In HP, Severus Snape was really the Death Eater who overheard > Trelawney's prophecy and really reported it to Voldemort, setting > off the chain of events that left Harry an orphan. Betsy Hp: And does Harry ever understand *why* Snape did that? > >>zgirnius: > Regulus was also really a Death Eater in his day, who really did > whatever Death Eater things he did before experiencing his change > of heart. Betsy Hp: And again, when were we told *why* Regulus joined the Death Eaters in the first place. What was the attraction, what was the thinking? Why did Voldemort become so powerful so easily? > >>zgirnius: > Harry understands why both of these young men did those things. Betsy Hp: Can you share the passage where he explains them then? > >>zgirnius: > He also considers it more important that they did have their > respective changes of heart and admires what they did about it. > Rather like Ender's Game in that, what mattered was that in the end > the buggers realized they had been doing wrong and regretted it. Betsy Hp: I honestly don't recall any moment in the Potter books where Harry allows himself to think like a Slytherin, where he sees and understands why Slytherins think the way they do, why the fear of Muggles, why the fear of Muggleborns, why the love of cunning and ambition. Buggers are completely alien, and yet Ender begins the story trying to understand them, and he ends the story having finally achieved that goal. And he shares his findings with the world. I don't see Harry having done the same. Frankly, I don't think JKR saw any reason for him to do so. The threat of a powerful Slytherin was defeated and it's all as you were. At least, that's how I saw it. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Nov 8 22:20:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:20:00 -0000 Subject: A Tarnished Glamour - Slytherin's Appeal was A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178934 Bboy: > As a side note; notice how many people find Slytherin > House appealing. If /they/ were at Hogwarts, that is > the House they would want to be in. I think a part of this > is the 'bad boy' 'ladies love outlaw' mindset. It's no > fun being a goody-goody, if you want to have fun you've > got to be an outlaw; a 'rebel without a cause'. > Pippin: How could we resist the House that produced Severus Snape? They're so deliciously neurotic! Kids don't identify with neurotic characters as a rule -- kids fantasize about having their act together. I'm sure that's what Draco and Regulus thought about Voldemort. It must have been a shock to realize their hero was a fullblown nutcase. But adults? Look at JKR -- not sure she's worthy of Gryffindor. That's it, exactly. Those of us who *know* we're not worthy, 'cause we wouldn't join any House that would have us for a member, we can identify with those tarnished Slytherins, anesthetizing their thwarted longing for love with the drug of power. Can't blame Harry for pushing Al towards Gryffindor, then. If it's to be rehabilitated, the last thing Slytherin needs is more insecure kids. Not that Gryffindors are immune. I think Pettigrew landed in the same trap, using power to drown his feelings of inferiority. Oh, the bad boy thing? We know what they really need is love, though it's far too late to give it to them. But in fantasy that's no obstacle. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 22:49:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:49:37 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178935 Betsy Hp wrote: > And all of Slytherin left and joined with Voldemort. > > "If your son is dead Lucius, it is not my fault. He did not come and join with me, LIKE THE REST OF THE SLYTHERINS." [DH scholastic p.641 - emphasis mine] > > Apparently Voldemort did a head count. Apparently he had heads to count. Carol responds; Yes, Voldemort makes this claim, but he's tormenting Lucius, whose son is a DE and ought, according to Voldemort, to be fighting for his cause. Do you really think that LV knew every Slytherin in Hogwarts by sight and took a head count, some seventy students in all if we assume ten students per year per House? The younger Slytherins would have been underage; surely even he would not expect children under sixteen or so to join in. And where is the evidence (other than Voldemort's word) that *any* Slytherins joined in? Harry knows some of the of-age Slytherins by name and would have noticed Pansy or Theo Nott or Blaise Zabini (who has already noted his contempt for Death Eaters and is unlikely, IMO, to support their cause) if they had been on the battlefield. You're taking Voldemort at his word in the absence of any other evidence. McGonagall ordered *all* the Slytherins to leave and get to safety, along with the younger students from all the other Houses and those older students like Zacharias Smith who chose not to fight. Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle slipped away to wait for Harry. (If they, the sons of DEs, didn't go out onto the field to fight for Voldemort but chose to ambush Harry instead, how likely is it that Slytherins whose parents weren't Death Eaters would choose to risk their lives in battle?) We're not told that any other Slytherins went anywhere that they weren't supposed to go (up the stairs to the RoR and along the passageway to the Hog's Head). And once they were in Aberforth's bar, how were they supposed to get from there to the battlefield on the Hogwarts grounds under Slughorn's, Filch's, and Aberforth's eyes, even if they were motivated to do so? Only four students that we know of had DE fathers and three of them are accounted for. There's no evidence to indicate that Theo Nott became a DE like Draco. He's not present at the DE meeting in chapter 1, and (if we trust JKR's offpage statements), she indicates that he's a loner, not a joiner. Blaise Zabini had no interest in becoming a DE, as we learn in HBP. Pansy is a loudmouth and a coward, willing to turn Harry in to save her own skin, but I can't see her fighting for either side. Phineas Nigellus (speaking of Slytherins in general--we can make exceptions for Snape, Slughorn, and Regulus), "We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, when given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks." Are we to assume, despite this characterization, that all those unnamed Slytherins who weren't important to the plot, many of them mere children, risked their necks to fight for Voldemort when they had a chance to escape the battle altogether thanks to McGonagall's orders? If that's the case, Slughorn and Filch escorted *no Slytherins* to the RoR because they all escaped and ran off to join Voldemort, ickle firsties and all. And Voldemort, despite being preoccupied with the Elder wand, recognized and counted seventy-odd students even though he's in the Shrieking Shack talking to Lucius Malfoy (and perhaps already contemplating the murder of Snape)? If you can present some evidence other than Voldemort's word for your view, I'll reconsider mine. Until then, I'm convinced that he was lying to Lucius and that the Slytherins were where McGonagall ordered them to be, herded to safety along with the younger students from all the Houses. BTW, Voldemort tells at least one other lie in the final chapters, that Snape desired rather than loved Lily. I haven't looked for others, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find them. Carol, now wondering whether Voldemort lied (in GoF) about James fighting bravely or whether JKR just slipped up and forgot that little detail From kspilman at hotmail.com Thu Nov 8 23:12:51 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 17:12:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178936 We know Voldemort is lying because he says, "He did not come and join with me, LIKE THE REST OF THE SLYTHERINS" when we know that Crabbe and Goyle did not join him either. Therefore, we can be certain that this is a lie. To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 22:49:37 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game Betsy Hp wrote: > And all of Slytherin left and joined with Voldemort. > > "If your son is dead Lucius, it is not my fault. He did not come and join with me, LIKE THE REST OF THE SLYTHERINS." [DH scholastic p.641 - emphasis mine] > > Apparently Voldemort did a head count. Apparently he had heads to count. Carol responds; Yes, Voldemort makes this claim, but he's tormenting Lucius, whose son is a DE and ought, according to Voldemort, to be fighting for his cause. Do you really think that LV knew every Slytherin in Hogwarts by sight and took a head count, some seventy students in all if we assume ten students per year per House? The younger Slytherins would have been underage; surely even he would not expect children under sixteen or so to join in. And where is the evidence (other than Voldemort's word) that *any* Slytherins joined in? Harry knows some of the of-age Slytherins by name and would have noticed Pansy or Theo Nott or Blaise Zabini (who has already noted his contempt for Death Eaters and is unlikely, IMO, to support their cause) if they had been on the battlefield. You're taking Voldemort at his word in the absence of any other evidence. McGonagall ordered *all* the Slytherins to leave and get to safety, along with the younger students from all the other Houses and those older students like Zacharias Smith who chose not to fight. Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle slipped away to wait for Harry. (If they, the sons of DEs, didn't go out onto the field to fight for Voldemort but chose to ambush Harry instead, how likely is it that Slytherins whose parents weren't Death Eaters would choose to risk their lives in battle?) We're not told that any other Slytherins went anywhere that they weren't supposed to go (up the stairs to the RoR and along the passageway to the Hog's Head). And once they were in Aberforth's bar, how were they supposed to get from there to the battlefield on the Hogwarts grounds under Slughorn's, Filch's, and Aberforth's eyes, even if they were motivated to do so? Only four students that we know of had DE fathers and three of them are accounted for. There's no evidence to indicate that Theo Nott became a DE like Draco. He's not present at the DE meeting in chapter 1, and (if we trust JKR's offpage statements), she indicates that he's a loner, not a joiner. Blaise Zabini had no interest in becoming a DE, as we learn in HBP. Pansy is a loudmouth and a coward, willing to turn Harry in to save her own skin, but I can't see her fighting for either side. Phineas Nigellus (speaking of Slytherins in general--we can make exceptions for Snape, Slughorn, and Regulus), "We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, when given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks." Are we to assume, despite this characterization, that all those unnamed Slytherins who weren't important to the plot, many of them mere children, risked their necks to fight for Voldemort when they had a chance to escape the battle altogether thanks to McGonagall's orders? If that's the case, Slughorn and Filch escorted *no Slytherins* to the RoR because they all escaped and ran off to join Voldemort, ickle firsties and all. And Voldemort, despite being preoccupied with the Elder wand, recognized and counted seventy-odd students even though he's in the Shrieking Shack talking to Lucius Malfoy (and perhaps already contemplating the murder of Snape)? If you can present some evidence other than Voldemort's word for your view, I'll reconsider mine. Until then, I'm convinced that he was lying to Lucius and that the Slytherins were where McGonagall ordered them to be, herded to safety along with the younger students from all the Houses. BTW, Voldemort tells at least one other lie in the final chapters, that Snape desired rather than loved Lily. I haven't looked for others, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find them. Carol, now wondering whether Voldemort lied (in GoF) about James fighting bravely or whether JKR just slipped up and forgot that little detail _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts!? Play Star Shuffle:? the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Nov 8 23:43:47 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:43:47 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178937 > Betsy Hp: > And all of Slytherin left and joined with Voldemort. > > "If your son is dead Lucius, it is not my fault. He did not come and > join with me, LIKE THE REST OF THE SLYTHERINS." [DH scholastic p.641 - > emphasis mine] > > Apparently Voldemort did a head count. Apparently he had heads to > count. Because Slytherin kids are bad kids and they are the villains > of the piece. With Voldemort as their star. Pippin: And Voldemort never lies Voldemort says whatever he thinks will hurt most, be it true or false, in this case that the other Slytherins are safe because they have joined him. But Voldemort must be lying or mistaken, because Slughorn returns with an army of townspeople. He couldn't have done that if he and his students were in the custody of the DE's. We do not see any Slytherin students invading the school. Aberforth complains that Harry has sent Slytherin students to safety, which I doubt he'd say if they'd gone to Voldemort. For all his grumbling, he didn't take them hostage himself, either. In any case, the last word on the subject is Phineas Nigellus's "And let it be noted that Slytherin House played its part! Let our contribution not be forgotten!" -DH ch 36. And we find, in the epilogue, that it has not been forgotten. The courage of Slytherin House played its part, because courage is a *mainstream* value in the Potterverse. That's the end of the story. > > Betsy Hp: > A little boy isn't terrified of ending up in the bad house, the > bigots' house, the traitors' house, without some sort of family > influence. And James wouldn't run around saying Slytherin was that > bad if his parents disagreed at heart. Pippin: Erm... Do you have any experience with kids? They'll say anything to be provoking. "James, give it a rest!" is Ginny's reaction. Harry tells Al not to believe everything James has been telling him about Hogwarts. Then James is disappointed not to get a reaction to his news about Teddy and Victoire. Then he tries to scare Al about the thestrals. James takes after his grandfather James more than his grandfather Arthur, I'm afraid. He's a bit of a jerk. Betsy Hp: > I don't think Harry is lying. I think Harry thinks Al's fear totally > unfounded. Al has no chance of ending up in Slytherin because Al's > not a bad kid, and most importantly, he doesn't want to be in > Slytherin. And Harry knows that this desire makes all the > difference. Just *want* to be a good kid and that'll take you most > of the way. Pippin: Where's the evidence that Regulus wanted to be a bad kid? Slughorn doesn't want bad kids in his club, for one thing. So *he* can't be thinking that Slytherin is the bad house. He pits himself against Voldemort, showing the courage to fight what seems to be a losing battle. > Betsy Hp: > > And yes, Draco dragged Goyle along when Crabbe set the room on fire. > But it was Harry who saved Goyle's life (or actually, Ron and > Hermione). Without the Trio's brave actions, Goyle would have died > by Draco's side. Pippin: Without Draco's brave action, the stunned Goyle would have died where he fell. Somehow, the wandless Draco dragged the unconscious Goyle to the top of a tower of charred desks and refused to be rescued without him. If I was unconscious on the floor of a burning building, I wouldn't disparage the courage of the person who pulled me away from the fire and stayed with me at risk of his own life till help arrived. But that's just me. > Betsy Hp: > And does Harry ever understand *why* Snape did that? Pippin: He understands how it feels to be humiliated in a circle of onlookers. He also understands how good he felt when he gave information to a DE (Fake!Moody) who flattered his ambitions to be an auror. He understands how good it feels to take revenge on someone who humiliated you...yeah, he had quite an education in understanding Snape. > Betsy Hp: > And again, when were we told *why* Regulus joined the Death Eaters in > the first place. What was the attraction, what was the thinking? > Why did Voldemort become so powerful so easily? Pippin: "[T]hey thought Voldemort had the right idea, they were all for the purification of the Wizarding race, getting rid of Muggleborns and having purebloods in charge. They weren't alone either, there were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his true colors, who thought he had the right idea about things....They got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power, though. But I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at first." -OOP ch 6 Young Regulus's reasons for joining Voldemort aren't any different than Harry's reasons for wanting to join the Order. He admires their leader, he wants to purify the WW of evil influences, and he knows it's what his parents would expect of him. Regulus saves clippings about Voldemort just as Harry saves articles about Dumbledore -- and no doubt the Prophet was just as capable of painting Voldemort in a heroic light as it was of painting Harry as a villain. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Nov 8 15:32:46 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Ldiofsky) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:32:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A message? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47332C1E.6020409@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178938 muscatel1988 wrote: > I'm a linguist (syntax is my field), and if I might make one final > stab at the house elf thing, there's one thing that always irked me > about it. JRRT was scrupulous in his treatment of languages, devising > coherent grammars for his invented languages; it's possible to write a > grammar of Yodish (the English-lexified language that Yoda speaks); > I just kind of assumed it was putting English words into Japanese syntax. > There are a number of fathers in canon: Vernon (if Muggles count), > Considering the WW currency as described in PS/SS, I would say that Muggles count a lot better than Wizards... Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Nov 8 17:08:48 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Ldiofsky) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:08:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <473342A0.1090406@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178939 Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon wrote: > Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many wonderful and > interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which pretty much goes > without saying for any witch or wizard), what magical object would you like > to have? > Bart: You are thinking too small by thinking of Hermione's bag. If I could have any magical object from the series, there is one that is so obvious that it should probably be removed from the competition: The Room of Requirement. So, you have to bring your own food; otherwise, whatever you need, it has. Bart From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 01:31:53 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:31:53 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178940 > "They were a motely collection; > a mixture of the weak seeking protection, > the ambitious seeking some shared glory, > and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader... " > (from HBP, Ch 17) > > Pick one of Dumbledore's categories (or your own theory) and > explain how that applies to Snape, Malfoy, or any other DE, and > therefore why they were attracted to Riddle/Voldemort? Mike: OK, I'll start. ;) This DE admired Tom Riddle for his intelligence and his ability. He had been one of the first to meet Tom, I'll call him DE1. Of Riddle he said that "he was probably the most brilliant student Hogwarts has ever seen." (^1) I suppose he was seeking some shared glory. It was noted by DE1, "You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me,... inflamed me. Muggles forced into subserviance. We wizards triumphant.... the glorious ... leaders of the revolution." (^2) Unfortunately, for DE1, he was left behind like everyone else when Tom Riddle went out into the wide world. Later on, DE1 lamented, "He vanished, with his plans for seizing power, and his schemes for Muggle torture,... I had encouraged him and helped him." (^3) In later years, DE1 was known to appraise the now Voldemort's powers. Though it was now known that LV had become VaporMort for 14 years, "his brain and his magical powers remain intact." (^4) Which of course was proven to all the DEs in the graveyard. Have you figured out who DE1 is? Last clues: DE1 said, "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater.... He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." (^5) But, Severus Snape was always a Death Eater because "you don't just hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death." (^6) And we know that it was both for Snape. OK, I cheated a little with the misleading and selective quotes. I admit, I just wanted to beat lizzyben to the punch! :D) Mike ***************** ^1 CoS, pg 329, US Ed. ^2 DH, pg 716, US Ed. ^3 DH, pg 717, US Ed. ^4 HBP, pg 509, US Ed. ^5 GoF, pp 590-1, US Ed. ^6 OotP, pg 112, US Ed. From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Nov 9 01:47:51 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:47:51 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178941 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > I read an article about JKR's father selling a signed copy of one of > her books. I read it awhile ago and it seems his name is Peter. Now, > I can't be certain of it, but I remember thinking "She named the rat > after her father?" Mus: On checking, I find that her father is called Peter James. Which is interesting. > Potioncat: > Back to canon fathers. I'm glad JKR didn't kill off Arthur, and I > wonder if it was after she realised how many bad/absent fathers > there were in her books that she decided to spare him. Mus: But note that, if we place any credence in the post-DH interviews, it was precisely Arthur's reprieve that led her killing off Lupin. so his saving doesn't alter the net Absent!Daddy headcount. > Montavilla47: > You didn't mention one father at least: Remus Lupin. Since he tries > to run off from his marriage before his son is even born, he comes > off little better than Riddle, Sr. Mus: I should have said that my list was only partial. :-) > Ambition leads fathers to neglect the emotional needs of their wives > and children, and so, while it helps the family financially and > socially, it seems hollow to the people who never get to see Dad. > Lucius is the social-climbing father, projecting his own desire for > status onto Draco (pushing him to get the "best" grades, pushing him > onto the Quidditch team, trying to manuveur out Dumbledore in order > to move in a more pro-Draco Headmaster...) Mus: But Lucius is in the poorly-populated Engaged!Daddy category. He's present in his child's life, accompanying him to Diagon Alley, on the board of the school and so on. His buying brooms for the team is rather reminiscent of MacGonagall's covertly buying one for Harry - in both cases, purchasing the best equipment is the price of having their proteg? on the team, and Draco does actually make an o.k. Seeker. We're certainly encouraged to see all this as ulteriorly motivated, but then we're seeing through the Harry Filter. As Dumbledore is revealed as weak, unengaged with anything but his plan, Lucius's doubts about DD's suitability to head the school actually have a boost in canon. > I got the feeling in the book that Amos Diggory was sort of > a minor Lucius--not evil, obviously, but too pushy about his > son. It was almost like Cedric's death was Amos's punishment > for his pride. Then, his grief was a bit overmuch, contrasted > with the dignity of the mother. Along with the story of the > ambitious, cold Crouch, Sr. (contrasted with the sacrificing > Mrs. Crouch), I found GoF to be the strongest Good Mommy/ > Bad Daddy book. Mus: I missed Crouch too! To be fair to him, though, we really only have his son's word for what he was like as a father, and Barty Jnr is clearly a nutter, filled with loathing for the man who justly sentenced him to Azkaban. When we first encounter the two of them together, in the pensieve court scene, our sympathies lie with Jnr, and we're touched by his apparent terror and repelled by his father's coldness(' "Father, I didn't," shrieked the boy in chains below. "I didn't, I swear it, Father, don't send me back to the Dementors - " ' [GoF, UK pb: 517]). When we hear the true voice of Barty Jnr, straight from his black little heart, crowing of his almost erotic* delight in Voldemort's service, I don't think that we can take his word for his father's behaviour at face value. What we do know is that he's guilty, and that Crouch Snr is faced with this realisation in public - is it any wonder that his reaction is so cold? Poor bloke's probably in shock, and even his clothes give away that he's controlled and punctilious. But he consents to the jailbreak, and he harbours his son at home, and ultimately dies for it (killed by his son, his body Transfigured to a bone ) - do we really believe that he took a risk like that *solely* because his wife and his house elf worked on him? I don't. He's one of the most sustained examples of misdirection in the series - from his reaction when the Dark Mark is conjured to his end at the edge of the forest, we're constantly shown only half the story. Are we also being deceived about his love for his son in spite of his crimes? Was that love ultimately to be viewed as a weakness and horribly punished? (* Re-reading those passages, I'm struck by the similarity between Barty Jnr's feelings for Voldemort and Bellatrix's - both are exultant in a way that no other DEs are. It's downright creepy.) If your reading of Amos is true, then I'm saddened. Cedric would be any father's delight - popular, decent, brave, modest, chosen to represent his school. Amos would be *right* to be proud of him. If he had to be taken down a notch for that, that's a little dispiriting. Mus From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Nov 9 02:36:27 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:36:27 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178942 > > Mus: > But note that, if we place any credence in the post-DH interviews, it > was precisely Arthur's reprieve that led her killing off Lupin. so > his saving doesn't alter the net Absent!Daddy headcount. Potioncat: True, but Arthur was already a familiar father to the readers and characters. His death would have changed Ron and would have, to a certain extent, orphaned Harry again. Having Lupin die, allows another orphan arc, and we wouldn't have seen Lupin as a father anyway. > > > Montavilla47: > > You didn't mention one father at least: Remus Lupin. Since he tries > > to run off from his marriage before his son is even born, he comes > > off little better than Riddle, Sr. Potioncat: I still think Remus's actions were done with the best intentions, and that he gets a very bad rap for it. Ted Tonks also leaves home-- leaving his wife, daughter and soon to be grandchild. Mus: > If your reading of Amos is true, then I'm saddened. Cedric would be > any father's delight - popular, decent, brave, modest, chosen to > represent his school. Amos would be *right* to be proud of him. If > he had to be taken down a notch for that, that's a little dispiriting. Potioncat: It was funny when Amos was gloating that Cedric had beat Harry in Quidditch. So I get the pride part of the earlier post. But I don't think Cedric's death was punishment for Amos---I think it was part of JKR's theme of "what war does to families." Children lose parents and parents lose children. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Fri Nov 9 02:51:09 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 03:51:09 +0100 Subject: Stan Shunpike Message-ID: <010a01c8227b$673ad5d0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178943 I'd like to share a few thoughts about Stan. We don't know much about him, he is a underpart in the HP books - but that does not mean he is unimportant. First, the facts. Stan is about five years older than Harry and he is the conductor of the Knight Bus. As far as we see him, he is not ... too bright. We don't know about his qualification and position in the WW, that is, we don't know whether he visited Hogwarts, whether he graduated, whether he is muggleborn etc. Actually, we don't know much more than that he has pimples and seems to come from London (Cockney accent). We meet him only three times in person: in PoA, in GoF, and in DH, and hear about him a couple of times. Each time he appears in person or as an issue in a conversation, he has a certain significance for the story and for explaining Harry's situation. When the Knight Bus with Stan appears in PoA, Harry is lost. He sees himself as a homeless outlaw with nowhere to go. He was frightened by the "Grim" and seems to be in grave danger. The bus, and especially the conductor Stan is the comical relief in the situation, to slow down the storytelling and smooth out the tension. Additionally, Harry being still quite ignorant about the WW, Stan is someone to explain things to him (Muggles don't see magic, who is Sirius Black) that Harry would know if he weren't muggle-raised. We meet Stan in GoF, again as a comical relief - so it seems to be. The situation is critical and dangerous. The DE have their show at the World Cup, and Harry among others escaped in the woods. Stan tries to impress a Veela with nonsense talk about him becoming Minister of Magic. Harry recognises him, but this scene seems to be unimportant. But maybe it's not, if babbling nonsense is one of Stan's habits. In HBP, we hear about Stan. He was imprisoned and sent to Azkaban, as a suspected DE or collaborator of the DEs. He was overheard speaking about the "secret plans" of the DE's - the trio immediately thinks that he simply bragged. Mr Weasley supports this estimation, stating that because the Ministry does not have any success in finding real DEs, they arrest innocent people for political/public relations reasons. Harry mentions Stan to the new Minister Scrimgeour twice, to express his disagreement with the Minstry's policy and to decline Scrimgeour's approaches to win Harry as a "cover boy" for the Ministry. Stan's imprisonment is used to show how the Ministry works. Nothing's really changed after Fudge's demission. The Daily Prophet still is the propaganda instrument of the Minister, the Ministry does not solve problems, it only pretends to do so in a very superficial way. Harry is more or less a grown-up now. He understands how and why the Ministry acts, and figures out why Scrimgeour tries to gain his support. He is not the naive boy who met Stan at the Knight Bus or Fudge at the Leaky Cauldron, wondering why the Muggles can't see the bus or what punishment the Minister will impose. His view of the WW is not that of someone who learns new miracles every day, he is part of the WW and more, he can see behind the curtain many people don't bother to even look at. We see Stan again at the beginning of DH. He is one of the attackers at the flight from Privet Drive. Harry recognises him and his "blank face", which seems to indicate that he is imperiused. Harry does not want to harm him and choses his favorite spell - the disarming spell. The attackers recognise him as the "real Potter" at this very moment and Voldemort himself joins them to chase him. Later, Harry is told off by Lupin (IIRC), that using this spell is well known as his speciality, and therefore he endangered himself and the whole mission by using it instead of a more force-/harmful spell. After this, Harry starts to use other spells, Unforgivables among them, to return to his Expelliarmus in the final duel with Lord Voldemort. Stan being used by Lord Voldemort shows the way he "recruits" the instruments of his terror. Due to the Imperius curse, nobody can be sure about any person - maybe one explanation of how he could control the entire WW with just a few real followers. Another important point seems to be the disarming spell. To use it instead of any probably harmful spell (even a stunner could have been fatal for Stan high above the ground) is the "real Harry". Later, after Lupin's last lesson, we see "combat Harry", not exactly ruthless, but definitely more violent. Only to face Voldemort himself, Harry returns to the first duelling spell he learnt. Well, I started to call Stan Shunpike an underpart. But maybe "supporting character" would be a more precise term? Miles From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Nov 9 03:18:08 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:18:08 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178944 >Mike > Which begs the questions: How did he get so many followers? Why would > anyone *now* choose to follow this Lord Voldemort guy? What was the > appeal in this snake-faced guy that never showed affection to his > followers? > >a lot of snipping of a very good post. > > One last ingredient is needed for Voldemort's recruitment potion to > be complete. A message, a rallying cry. So Voldemort picks blood > purity. Whether or not he believes this himself, canon is unclear. > For my money, though he was a half-blood himself, I think he has a > hatred for anything Muggle. It goes all the way back to his Muggle > father abandoning his pregnant witch mother, causing her to die > penniless in London. > > *************** Potioncat: In DH around cpt 22, Lee Jordan and K. Shacklebolt are encouraging wizards to use charms to protect their Muggle neighbors. One of them says something along the line of "You may think Wizards should protect wizards first. But from wizards first, you get Purebloods first then you get DEs."...probably I've paraphrased this badly, but I just heard it today. I don't think LV started with Blood purity, I think he started with Magic folks asserting their place as leaders....much like GG did. Kreacher said that Regulus wanted Wizards to come out of hiding. So I think LV started out with Magic is Power, and from there it became Pureblood superiority. And while LV says what best serves his purpose, he seems to approve of all Magic-born wizards, even if they are not Pure. I think it was the idea of coming out of hiding that appealed to Regulus and possibly to Severus. And it's easy enough to think of yourself as all Prince and not a bit Snape Or, all magic with nothing of your Muggle side in your blood. While there's no reason for either LV or Snape to believe in Pureblood superiority--both might believe that Muggles are bad. > Mike: > "[T]here were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his true > colors, who thought he had the right idea about things.... They got > cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power, > though." Potioncat: Exactly, it wasn't just Dyed in the wool DE types back in VW1. And just look at VW2. Was I the only one shocked by how many wizards seem to approve or at least accept the new laws in DH? > > Mike > **************************** > A little add-on quest: > > In the opening quote, Dumbledore gives some reasons why certain > personality types would have been attracted to Riddle/Voldemort's > cause. Or, maybe you've got a better reasons than Dumbledore's. > I have an exercise for the readership. > > Pick one of Dumbledore's categories (or your own theory) and explain > how that applies to Snape, Malfoy, or any other DE, and therefore > why they were attracted to Riddle/Voldemort? Potioncat: Oops, I snipped that part. I think Regulus was attracted to the idea of being a True born Wizard leader who should be free to walk as a Wizard and rule the Muggles. I think Severus was attracted to the freedom to study Dark Arts (though by the end of DH, no one seemed much bothered by them) and to the power of Dark Magic. I think, like Reg, he wanted to be able to be openly Wizard. Somewhere along the line, Purebloods had accepted Snape as one of them and he had no reason not to accept the "honor". From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Nov 9 03:36:18 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:36:18 -0000 Subject: Writer's craft (was Re: A message? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178945 > > Carol responds: > > My goodness, yes! Let's find a topic that isn't House-Elves, > Slytherin, the Elder Wand, or JKR's recent revelations. > > I'm just going to brainstorm, listing some possibilities. Potioncat: I hope someone will step forward and start up some of these. Many of them are beyond me...but all sound interesting. > Carol: > The writer's craft: > We've said virtually nothing about JKR's techniques as a writer > (unless we count *someone's* posts on the unreliable narrator). what > about her use of setting (Gothic trappings, maybe), atmosphere, > dialogue, description, foreshadowing, misdirection? How does she > create suspense or humor or horror? How does she go about creating a > character and making him or her "real" to the reader? Potioncat: Unreliable Narrator! Look out, here comes the angry mob armed with pitch-forks and torches! >From all we've known, or thought we knew, JKR had detailed backstories for her characters. I think that's how they came alive on the page. You should see some of the threads about the Crouch family dynamics that were being posted after GoF. Just the little bits we got about that family in canon, even with much of it being misdirection, made them real to many readers. At the same time, I think JKR almost knew too much. I haven't decided if it was a good thing or a bad thing that we knew Theo Nott's name. Or that anything about Justin was ever revealed. Those walk-on characters became stand out individuals. I personally enjoyed it--and I hope to learn about Theo one day. Don't ask me why, but I like the kid. I have a feeling though, that JKR broke some rule of fiction writing when she gave such characters names and identities on the page. > > Carol, who wondered if Mad-Eye's eyeball had any connection to Greek > mythology and stumbled onto this unorthodox and mildly entertaining > (but completely OT) version of the Perseus legend: > > http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/perseus.html Potioncat: Oh, my. I'd forgotten. (First I have to say, I haven't gone to that site) Once upon a time, when anagrams were the rage, Severus Snape was thought to be Perseus Evans. Which has nothing to do with anything, except it's been a long day. From bgrugin at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 03:36:27 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:36:27 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178946 > Mike: > OK, I'll start. ;) > > This DE admired Tom Riddle for his intelligence and his ability. He > had been one of the first to meet Tom, I'll call him DE1. Of Riddle > he said that "he was probably the most brilliant student Hogwarts has > ever seen." (^1) > > I suppose he was seeking some shared glory. It was noted by DE1, > "You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me,... inflamed me. Muggles > forced into subserviance. We wizards triumphant.... the glorious ... > leaders of the revolution." (^2) > > Unfortunately, for DE1, he was left behind like everyone else when > Tom Riddle went out into the wide world. Later on, DE1 lamented, "He > vanished, with his plans for seizing power, and his schemes for > Muggle torture,... I had encouraged him and helped him." (^3) > > In later years, DE1 was known to appraise the now Voldemort's powers. > Though it was now known that LV had become VaporMort for 14 > years, "his brain and his magical powers remain intact." (^4) Which > of course was proven to all the DEs in the graveyard. > > Have you figured out who DE1 is? > > Last clues: DE1 said, "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater.... He > is now no more a Death Eater than I am." (^5) But, Severus Snape was > always a Death Eater because "you don't just hand in your resignation > to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death." (^6) And we know > that it was both for Snape. > > OK, I cheated a little with the misleading and selective quotes. I > admit, I just wanted to beat lizzyben to the punch! :D) > > Mike > > ***************** > ^1 CoS, pg 329, US Ed. > ^2 DH, pg 716, US Ed. > ^3 DH, pg 717, US Ed. > ^4 HBP, pg 509, US Ed. > ^5 GoF, pp 590-1, US Ed. > ^6 OotP, pg 112, US Ed. > MusicalBetsy here: This is easy! I knew instantly, but of course, it's easy to see how people could get stumped. You are talking about DUMBLEDORE, who is of course not talking about good ole Voldy, but GRINDELWALD. Bravo on a job well done - you really made DD look like a DE - because his ideals way back when were very similar, weren't they? Good thing he wisened up. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 03:39:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:39:54 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178947 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > "They were a motely collection; > > a mixture of the weak seeking protection, > > the ambitious seeking some shared glory, > > and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader... " > > (from HBP, Ch 17) > > > > Pick one of Dumbledore's categories (or your own theory) and > > explain how that applies to Snape, Malfoy, or any other DE, and > > therefore why they were attracted to Riddle/Voldemort? Alla: How could I not join this delightful exercise? Although I do not have that impressive collection of quotes for DE2. He, I guess wanted glory too and admires Tommy for his great magical skill. "After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things - terrible,yes, but great" -PS/SS, ch.83, am.ed. paperback. "...but the idea of the Dark Lord in possession of the Deathstick is, I must admit... formidable" - DH, brit.ed. p.402. Alla, laughing at Mike's post all over again and again marvells at the "canon can support everything indeed" From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 03:47:07 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:47:07 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178948 > > >>zgirnius: > > You pick two incidents out of an entire series. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Lord, if I could hand-wave DH away, I would. But I can't and so > I'm forced to deal with the fact that the story of the House rivalry > ends with Slytherin leaving Hogwarts and joining with her enemy. zgirnius: No, it does not, because it is by no means the last thing we see Slytherins do. The Head of House who leads the Slytherins to safety (not Voldemort) returns to fight for Hogwarts, and the (Slytherin) Headmaster of the school hands Harry the key to victory, both after your 'end'. To the extent that Regulus ("defender of House Elves") inspired the Elves of Hogwarts to fight, he affected the battle as well, bygone though he was. > > >>zgirnius: > > My own view is that Rowling believes things like that social > > justice starts at home, and our children are the future, and all > > that jazz. > > > > Betsy Hp: > And some children are more worthy than others, depending on their > home life. Bad parents means bad children. (If there's something > wrong with the bitch, there's something wrong with the pup.) zgirnius: Well, I do agree "Bad parents means bad children" is a message of the books. (I thought it was also the message of modern sociological research, but it is not an area I know much about.) I just think that we are looking at the causality differently. It seems evident to me that the Slytherin kids we got to know did suffer a huge disadvantage compared to some of the other kids in terms of their upbringing. For example, James was naturally going to pick the 'good' side, as he was brought up to by his parents. Draco, while sharing a similar sense of entitlement and arrogance about his/his family's preferences, was of course going to pick the 'bad' side, for much the same reasons as James. I thought this was the point of showing us all that about their pasts/families. But those that found love somewhere in their lives, found the motivation to make changes for the better. > Betsy Hp: > the > disdain expressed towards girls acting like girls, zgirnius: I object to 'girls acting like girls'. I always acted like a girl. (By definition, it is what I was). I am not at all sure, based on pre- DH discussion of this topic, that you would agree, possibly a reason this would affect us differently. >> Betsy Hp: > Draco dithered. That's about the best I can say about him. He > couldn't be sure about Harry, though he was more sure about Hermione > and Ron. And he did his best to make sure Crabbe didn't overstep and > disobey Voldemort (who apparently never read the Evil Overlord's > Handbook). I'd hardly call this the actions of a good guy. zgirnius: I certainly would not call it 'bad to the bone', when Draco's parents are hostages for his good (bad, actually ) behavior. >BetsyHp: > Without the Trio's brave actions, Goyle would have died > by Draco's side. So again, not a hugely heroic act there. Not > enough to redeem himself *and* his house. zgirnius: Oh, so it is only heroic if it works? Firefighters who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11 without bringing anyone out of the towers successfully are not hugely heroic? All I'm asking for is 'brave' and 'good', though. > > >>zgirnius: > > In HP, Severus Snape was really the Death Eater who overheard > > Trelawney's prophecy and really reported it to Voldemort, setting > > off the chain of events that left Harry an orphan. > > Betsy Hp: > And does Harry ever understand *why* Snape did that? zgirnius: In my opinion, yes, or he would not have named a son after him. Certainly, he was presented with all of the evidence based on which *I* feel *I* understand why Snape did that. (The short answer is 'because he was in the service of Voldemort' - the long answer would involve understanding *that* earlier choice). > Betsy Hp: > And again, when were we told *why* Regulus joined the Death Eaters in > the first place. What was the attraction, what was the thinking? > Why did Voldemort become so powerful so easily? zgirnius: We are told. Sirius tells us in OotP, and while I don't consider him all that reliable, the evidence of Reg's room bears his story on the origins of Reg's interest in Voldemort out. He was the 'good boy', who did the things that would make his mother proud. > Betsy Hp: > Can you share the passage where he explains them then? zgirnius: He doesn't. Nor is he confused when he learns how these two Death Eaters ended up. "How could Reg, who was so nice to poor Kreacher, and so incredibly brave, have been a Death Eater?" is not a thought that crossed Harry's mind, any more than "How could Severus, who so loved my Muggleborn Mom, have been a Death Eater?" From which I conclude it all made sense to him. > Betsy Hp: > I honestly don't recall any moment in the Potter books where Harry > allows himself to think like a Slytherin, where he sees and > understands why Slytherins think the way they do, why the fear of > Muggles, why the fear of Muggleborns, why the love of cunning and > ambition. zgirnius: I don't believe there is a Slytherin Mind, so Harry's non- consideration of it never disturbed me. He does reflect on the hate of Muggles and where it might have come from in both the cases of Tom Riddle and of Severus Snape. And Harry likens his wheedling the memory out of Sluggie to Tom's skill in the same activity, in favorable terms. > Betsy Hp: > Buggers are completely alien, and yet Ender begins the story trying > to understand them, and he ends the story having finally achieved > that goal. zgirnius: And since Slytherins are just people, like Harry, it's a lot easier for him. > Betsy Hp: > And he shares his findings with the world. I don't see > Harry having done the same. zgirnius: He should have told all assembled at the end of the book "Hey, Folks! Slytherins are people too, they are motivated by love and fear and a desire to belong and succeed just like us!"? I would think especially the adults present would not have found this a shocking revelation. Individual Slytherins? Whole 'nother story. We saw him vindicate Snape. Draco's presence on the train platform in the Epilogue suggests to me that he did not wind up in Azkaban for being a DE, conspiring to murder Dumbledore, and committing Unforgivables, and the most likely way this would come about would be for Harry to speak for Draco. I don't imagine he kept quiet about Regulus either, though maybe he left that to Kreacher, in between making sandwiches. I realize I left some points unaddressed. I do appreciate the time you took to make them. It is just that I feel other participants in this thread have made the same points I would make, only probably better. From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Nov 9 03:55:20 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:55:20 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178949 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jane \"Panhandle\" Penhaligon" wrote: > > Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many wonderful and > interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which pretty much goes > without saying for any witch or wizard), what magical object would you like > to have? > > Allie: Oh, a broomstick a broomstick!!! I am not a sportsy person but I have wanted to play Quidditch ever since reading the first book. Do you suppose they have "warming and drying charms" in addition to the cushioning charm, to make flying at heights a little less unpleasant? Allie (who invites Katie to join her Quidditch team, as long as she can be Seeker, because this way she can be up above for a lot of the time, as she does not like the idea of a Bludger hitting her in the head) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 04:04:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:04:16 -0000 Subject: Portrayal of MoM in the series VERY LONG BEWARE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178950 > Carol responds: > I agree with you about Lucius Malfoy, who is using everything he > has--name, blood, money, ruthlessness that he conceals from Fudge, and > a slippery personality (he can be charming or intimidating, rather > like some other Slytherins we know, depending on whom he's > manipulating). Even in DH, stripped of his wand and humbled, he > manages to survive. Alla: Yeah, as I mentioned before when I went through books I was very hapy to see that I did not notice Lucius' power or influence diminishing one bit till he committed a criminal act and was caught that is in OOP. Carol: > I'm not sure about his becoming better and better buddies with Fudge, > however. I think he's just using Fudge and buying influence with him > by giving gold to good causes, at the same time appearing to be a > respectable citizen concerned about the welfare of the students at > Hogwarts and the WW at large. IMO, Fudge *wants* to believe that > Lucius was under the Imperius Curse during VW1 just as he *wants* to > believe that Voldemort has not returned. > Alla: Eh, of course Lucius is just using him I agree. But do you think that Fudge inviting Lucius as personal gues does not mean that he considers him to be a friend, important, influential, but friend too? And maybe Fudge indeed wants to believe those things, I just cannot sympathise with him on that ground. Carol: >To speak plainly, I think that Malfoy and > Umbridge are working together to pull the wool over Fudge's eyes and > manipulate him to their own ends, whether it's hiding a DE background > and the return of Voldemort or passing anti-werewolf legislation and > undermining Dumbledore's credibility through Harry. Alla: Sure, but I disagree that Fudge is just so weak and could not resist their charms if he wanted to. Carol: Fudge, being vain and weak and seeing nothing wrong with the > pure-blood supremacy ethic in itself as long as it doesn't lead to > terror and violence, could easily be manipulated into seeing danger > from DD rather than LV. Alla: Yeah, pureblood supremacy thing is one thing why I cannot spare a drop of sympathy for him. Carol: > At any rate, I rather like Fudge, weak and manipulable and capable of > self-delusion though he is. Alla: I am just curious why you like him? Not as written character, because I think he is very well done, but if you look at him as "person". I mean, let's assume I completely agree with you and he is so weak and manipulable that he is just self deluded. I mean, I partially agree with you, but I think that Fudge has enough evil ideas of his own that he had a reason to be sucked in Umbridge and Lucius' views and ideas and actions. I mean, would you respect RL politician like him? I swear I am not going to talk any RL politicians, but wouldn't you want stronger figure regardless of which ideas you would want him to represent? Just curious. Carol: > "The Other Minister" in HBP shows Fudge making repeated effort to keep > the Muggle Prime Minister informed of developments in the WW that > might endanger the Muggles and telling him the truth about what > happened to his own assistant, the quacking Herbert Chorley. Alla: Ah. He did try to inform muggle minister, but didn't he tells him the truth, complete truth including the truth about his quaking person only after he was sucked? Carol: >> However, Ministry employees run the gamut (IMO) from genuinely evil > characters like Umbridge and Macnair to Crouch Sr.,through well-meaning but inept bureaucrats > like Fudge who are more concerned with image than efficiency and fear > their own loss of power to the likeable and good-hearted but slightly > corrupted Arthur Weasley to the powerful and incorruptible Amanda > Bones. Alla: Sure, there is a whole spectrum, but my point was that good people are not majority there and of course they are not all DE, just easy to take over, as it turns IMO. There is also Tonks and Kingsley. > Carol: > Yes, that was a clue, all right. I just thought that he was killing > off a powerful enemy. Should have known he was preparing a Ministry > takeover, but I was caught by surprise. Alla: As I said, maybe Voldemort still had some intelligence left ;) Alla: I may respond to your other points later on or not. Way too tired today. From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Fri Nov 9 04:04:53 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:04:53 -0000 Subject: Stan Shunpike In-Reply-To: <010a01c8227b$673ad5d0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178951 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: Miles: > I'd like to share a few thoughts about Stan. > We don't know much about him, he is a underpart in the HP books - but that > does not mean he is unimportant. > Well, I started to call Stan Shunpike an underpart. But maybe "supporting > character" would be a more precise term? Celoneth: What interested me about Stan when I read DH was to know whether he was a real DE or Imperiused. I agree with your assessment of him - he seems like a guy who lacks talent and brains, and yet seems to have a real longing for fame or glory or something like that. He's very excited to meet Harry - a celebrity that he can now brag about, and he seems to be prone to making up grandiose stories about himself (though that could just be the effects of being around a Veela?). His lack of talent and lack of intelligence would make him easy prey for the Imperius curse - but why would the DEs bother with Imperiusing him? Imperiusing members of the MoM or those close to Harry or the Order makes strategic sense. Imperiusing someone with talent or a particular skill or someone who's a decent wizard is also logical, but it seems odd that they'd bother with Imperiusing Stan - he has nothing to offer them apart from being easy to control. Another possibility would be if Stan was a Crabbe type character - wanting something greater and not being able to achieve it and sees being a DE as a way to become famous or liked. Perhaps he, like Crabbe, has a knack for the Dark Arts or maybe Voldemort just needs new followers (doesn't seem to be many new ones apart from the kids of DEs and not all of them are signing up either). Of course this is all pure speculation on my part since he gets so little page time(though enough to be somewhat interesting). Celoneth From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Nov 9 04:14:35 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:14:35 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178952 > Laura: > I suppose I will get vilified, but I would like my own house elf - > someone to cook delicious meals and clean the house. Aaah! Potioncat: You, me and Molly Weasley. Yes, I'd like to have the services of a house-elf. A creature who derives satisfaction from providing good food and clean surroundings to others---and who does it well. That's something to be proud of, you know. And I would provide the nicest pillow cases and softest tea towels, and the cutest little room. As well as frequent and sincere appreciation for the work done. And clothes, if ever requested. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 05:13:53 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:13:53 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178953 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" wrote: > Mus: > I should have said that my list was only partial. :-) > > > Ambition leads fathers to neglect the emotional needs of their wives > > and children, and so, while it helps the family financially and > > socially, it seems hollow to the people who never get to see Dad. > > > > > Lucius is the social-climbing father, projecting his own desire for > > status onto Draco (pushing him to get the "best" grades, pushing him > > onto the Quidditch team, trying to manuveur out Dumbledore in order > > to move in a more pro-Draco Headmaster...) > > Mus: > But Lucius is in the poorly-populated Engaged!Daddy category. He's > present in his child's life, accompanying him to Diagon Alley, on the > board of the school and so on. His buying brooms for the team is > rather reminiscent of MacGonagall's covertly buying one for Harry - in > both cases, purchasing the best equipment is the price of having their > proteg? on the team, and Draco does actually make an o.k. Seeker. Montavilla47: I think that's a good point. I may be too rigid in my thinking about Lucius. I don't think he's a horrible father--but I think he's the kind of father with high, strictly defined expectations of his son-- especially in the earlier books. I also think that the Malfoy family's tightness in the last book is a direct result of the danger they've been in the last two years. For someone as invested in social status as Lucius, going to prison would have been a great blow. But, that would pale to knowing that your son and wife are threatened with death. I kind of see the Malfoy arc as going from a family in which the family loves each other in a distant, "proper" manner--but then discovers that the trappings of wealth, position, etc., are not as important as the people they truly love. But that's just my take on it. > Mus: > I missed Crouch too! To be fair to him, though, we really only have > his son's word for what he was like as a father, and Barty Jnr is > clearly a nutter, filled with loathing for the man who justly > sentenced him to Azkaban. Montavilla47: We also have Sirius's description of Crouch as being obsessed with his job and neglecting his family. But that is also heresay.:) Mus: > If your reading of Amos is true, then I'm saddened. Cedric would be > any father's delight - popular, decent, brave, modest, chosen to > represent his school. Amos would be *right* to be proud of him. If > he had to be taken down a notch for that, that's a little dispiriting. Montavilla47: I could just be falling for the Harry filter in my reading of Amos. I agree that you're right about his right to be proud of Amos. But it seems to embarrass Cedric. It seems to me to be Amos trying to piggyback onto Cedric's success by puffing it up to the point where it becomes annoying. Of course, there's no direct connection between that and Cedric's death--but I was left with the impression that Amos was being taken down a peg by... fate or whatever... for his pride. Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 05:15:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:15:21 -0000 Subject: Portrayal of MoM in the series VERY LONG BEWARE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178954 Carol earlier: > > > At any rate, I rather like Fudge, weak and manipulable and capable of self-delusion though he is. > Alla: > > I am just curious why you like him? Not as written character, because I think he is very well done, but if you look at him as "person". I mean, let's assume I completely agree with you and he is so weak and manipulable that he is just self deluded. I mean, I partially agree with you, but I think that Fudge has enough evil ideas of his own that he had a reason to be sucked in Umbridge and Lucius' views and ideas and actions. > > I mean, would you respect RL politician like him? I swear I am not going to talk any RL politicians, but wouldn't you want stronger figure regardless of which ideas you would want him to represent? Carol responds: Well, first, I don't think that the side of him that we see in OoP (Harry's trial) is representative of the "real" Fudge, whom we see as apparently kindly and well-intentioned (but weak) in CoS and PoA. I can't blame him for thinking that the stories of dead men coming back to life and so forth were rather far-fetched. he didn't have any solid evidence that Voldemort was really back except Snape's Dark Mark, and he was too shocked and repulsed by that to understand its meaning. Like many people, he didn't want to believe that something as horrible and seemingly impossible as Voldemort coming back was true. It took actually seeing Voldemort to convince him. And then, of course, it was too late for him to do anything except act as a kind of liaison to the Muggles for his successor as Minister for Magic, Scrimgeour. IOW, despite his feelings about blood superiority (and, IIRC, it was only "half-breeds," wizards who were part giant or whatever that he mistrusted; I don't recall his ever using the term "Mudblood"), a prejudice shared by many people in the WW, not just Slytherins (I don't think he was a Slytherin; he seems more like a Hufflepuff to me), I think he's really a decent sort, just in over his head. (I don't, of course, approve of using the Daily Prophet as an instrument of government propaganda or sending Umbridge to Hogwarts, but "what Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him--IOW, Fudge doesn't know the real Umbridge, and I doubt very much that he knows about or would approve of her horrible blood-letting quill. But when I said that I rather liked him, I was thinking mostly of "The Other Minister," in which he's trying to keep the Muggle PM informed of developments in the WW that might affect the Muggles, and, unlike Scrimgeour, he does it in a tactful and understanding way, and even with a sense of humor. I liked his grace in explaining that he was no longer Prime Minister and helping out the brisk and busy Scrimgeour, who, I get the feeling, doesn't really think it's worth time and trouble to deal with Muggles. I liked his turning the PM's teacup into a gerbil (and not turning it back), his "kindly" explanation that witches and wizards lived in secrecy all over England, his conjuring whiskey as if he were the host (the PM thinks he's being offered his own whiskey), his telling the PM that they were having the same week (concerned about the same "accident" and "hurricane" and murdere), his embarrassment at being mistaken about Sirius Black, even his twirling his bowler hat so fast that it was a lime-green blur. I especially like his smile and his kindly explanation that "the other side can do magic, too." Fudge seemed really human to me in that chapter, a likeable and well-meaning diplomat doing his best to explain the inexplicable to a mere Muggle like you and me. It's a purely subjective reaction. I felt rather sorry for both him and the Prime Minister, actually, but it was only Fudge that I actually felt affection for. Not at all what I felt, of course, in reading about Harry's trial, at which point I merely wanted to shake him (and, on a rereading, somehow alert him to the danger of the poisonous toad he was allowing to write bad laws and dangerous decrees). I don't see any evil in Fudge himself, just a failure to see real evil in other people (notably the suave and generous Lucius or the sweetly girlish, if toad-faced, Umbridge) and a tendency to wishful thinking (he'd rather be threatened by a lying, power-hungry Dumbledore than by a murdering, genocidal LV). I hope that answers your question. I'm not trying to convince you, just to explain why I rather like him and hope that he survived DH. He'd be the perfect head of the Muggle Liaison office, given all his experience with the Muggle PM. Carol, who doesn't like *any* real-life politicians, doesn't associate Fudge with any real person, and definitely wouldn't want him running any country that she lived in From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Fri Nov 9 08:21:08 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:21:08 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178955 > Jane \"Panhandle"\ Penhaligon wrote: > > > > Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many > > wonderful and interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which > > pretty much goes without saying for any witch or wizard), what > > magical object would you like to have? Shaunette now: Ahh, what wouldn't I do for an invisibility cloak? I actually wouldn't mind a mirror of Erised, either. I know, that's a bit weird, but I think it would be fascinating to watch the images change from time to time. There is a branch of new-agey stuff that advocates visualizing what one wants as a means (the only means) to actually aquiring it (the law of attraction, which I don't buy but wouldn't hesitate to use if it, or a magic wand, actually worked). That mirror's the ultimate insight, isn't it?...But I tend to agree with Dumbledore, it doesn't do dwell in dreams and forget to live, after all. -shaunette From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 10:38:17 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:38:17 -0000 Subject: Stan Shunpike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178956 > Miles: > > I'd like to share a few thoughts about Stan. Goddlefrood: As I had a little before DH came out. I'd speculated on whether he was as innocent as we'd been led to believe. One of my better moments, as things turned out. The full post is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165848 and was entitled: "Stan Shunpike - As White as he's painted? It might be of some interest as a reasonably accurate reading of Stan pre-DH. I got plenty wrong too, naturally. This one had been somewhat booed initially, but I hate to say I told you so. No one ever listens to me... Toodle pip From salilouisa at googlemail.com Fri Nov 9 11:51:20 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:51:20 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178957 On 08/11/2007, Jane Panhandle Penhaligon wrote: > Panhandle: Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many wonderful and interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which pretty much goes without saying for any witch or wizard), what magical object would you like to have? I know which one I want: Hermione's beaded bag from DH . what woman wouldn't want a pretty and tiny little bag that could, literally, hold just about everything one owns? Of course, as Harry rapidly discovers, Accio is quite handy for retrieving objects from said bag. Panhandle -- Sali: At the moment, I really would like some Pepperup Potion. But in general, I would like the Marauder's Map. I really, really like maps. I spend hours looking at places on Google Maps thinking it would be great if I could see things moving... Sali, who is hoping the formatting isn't too messed up in this message. From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Fri Nov 9 12:27:09 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:27:09 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: Re: A message?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178958 muscatel1988 wrote: > > Here's a new topic, though, and I don't think I've seen it discussed > on the list before: the notion of father in the heptateuch. > > There are a number of fathers in canon: Vernon (if Muggles count), > Arthur, Lucius, Xenophilous, Riddle Snr, Marvolo Gaunt, Amos > Diggory, and James, of course. But fathers in the main seem either > curiously absent, or, when present, unsatisfactory in various ways. Ann: Yes, I'd say Muggles count, and let's add Crouch Sr. and Lupin to the list as well. None of those families are exactly ideal, are they? The Dursleys are spiritually myopic, the Malfoys have a "third parent" interfering, Mrs Lovegood is dead and Xeno is a disturbing headcase (but I do feel sorry for the poor bloke, unlike a lot of readers, I think), the Riddles' marriage is the pure product of magical coercion, Lupin hasn't dealt with his own issues, and the less said about the Crouches the better. The "best" fathers are James, who's killed when Harry's 15 months old, and Arthur, one of whose sons is estranged from the family for years. It looks to me as if three things are obvious: that families are meant as reflections of the wider wizarding world, not just literally; that the elder generations' response to Voldemort is responsible for the broken families and the state of the WW; and that JKR's acknowledging both how things are in the real world, and how she'd like things to be. Nor do I think it's coincidental how many families die out during the series (the Blacks, Crouches, Riddles, Slytherin's line, and perhaps others.) Both Harry and Hermione abandon their Muggle families for the Weasleys, obviously so for Harry and to a lesser degree for Hermione, although both end up joining the Wizarding World for good. Through this, the Trio who eventually take down Voldemort emerge: Hermione's family is no more really hers than the Dursleys are Harry's. They both have to be themselves. The obvious parallel is Sirius' joining the Potters after he left home. However, bearing in mind the notion of close friendship equalling family, it's interesting that both Lupin and Sirius are suspected of being the spy in the Order who causes James' and Lily's deaths, and that it's actually Pettigrew who causes it. Bad parents make bad families. The same dynamic occurs with the Blacks and Malfoys and Voldemort interfering: he tempts people away from their familial, nay, *filial* duties to further his own ends. Victims of this include all three of the Malfoys in different ways, Regulus, probably Bellatrix and her other family members, and most of the rest of the family to a lesser degree - there don't seem to have been any other Death Eaters Black. The Death Eater parent/child pairs probably bear this out. On the other hand... nobody's perfect. James is a berk, but there are plenty of them, and given how little we know of him and how young he died, calling him "unsatisfactory" is a little harsh. He only seems that way because Harry thought he was perfect. (Calling him "absent", however? No problem.) And I don't think it's Arthur's fault that Percy leaves his family; I was just thinking of a family-related imperfection. So it's significant that Percy rejoins his family before Voldemort falls, and for a few moments post-PoA there's a whole Weasley family, minus the ear. Whole families are good not just for their constituents but also for the world, and Voldemort's fracturing of families is an attack on society. Carol asked on OTC the other day whether Umbridge might be Margaret Thatcher in disguise; I joked that Thatcher in disguise would be Voldemort, and didn't think that in a few days I'd be saying the same thing seriously. Meanwhile, note that the orphan Teddy Lupin is not left with hideous Muggles but grandparents and godfather, part of the WW full stop. OK, I've thrown a bit of mud at the wall - is anyone going to get me? > muscatel: > > You know, I haven't been quite able to get out of my head the fact > that right through the series runs a cry of "DADA", the cursed > position. There's something a little chilling to my ear about that. Ann: Well, the series' main theme is DADA, especially Defending the ww Against voldemort's Dark Arts; or did you have something else in mind? Ann From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 12:10:57 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:10:57 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178959 Panhandle wrote: > what magical object would you like to have? Del replies: A hefty dose of Floo powder, so I could visit my family and friends any time I wanted, and go to our holiday house in a jiffy. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 13:30:33 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 05:30:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <334606.291.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178960 allies426 wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jane \"Panhandle\" Penhaligon" wrote: > > Over the course of the books, we've been introduced to many wonderful and > interesting magical objects. Other than a wand (which pretty much goes > without saying for any witch or wizard), what magical object would you like > to have? > > Allie: Oh, a broomstick a broomstick!!! I am not a sportsy person but I have wanted to play Quidditch ever since reading the first book. Do you suppose they have "warming and drying charms" in addition to the cushioning charm, to make flying at heights a little less unpleasant? Allie (who invites Katie to join her Quidditch team, as long as she can be Seeker, because this way she can be up above for a lot of the time, as she does not like the idea of a Bludger hitting her in the head) ***Katie: Oh, yippee!! A Quidditch team!! Of course you can be Seeker - I would be terrible at that anyway! I'd make a fair Beater, I think. I used to be a brute with a baseball bat in high school. Lots of home runs. : ) Ok, who wants to be the Keeper?? Katie . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 14:09:12 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:09:12 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178961 > >>Betsy Hp: > > And all of Slytherin left and joined with Voldemort. > > > > "If your son is dead Lucius, it is not my fault. He did not come > > and join with me, LIKE THE REST OF THE SLYTHERINS." [DH scholastic > > p.641 - emphasis mine] > > > > Apparently Voldemort did a head count. Apparently he had heads to > > count. > >>Carol responds; > Yes, Voldemort makes this claim, but he's tormenting Lucius, whose > son is a DE and ought, according to Voldemort, to be fighting for > his cause. Do you really think that LV knew every Slytherin in > Hogwarts by sight and took a head count, some seventy students in > all if we assume ten students per year per House? > > >>Katie Spilman: > We know Voldemort is lying because he says, "He did not come and > join with me, LIKE THE REST OF THE SLYTHERINS" when we know that > Crabbe and Goyle did not join him either. Therefore, we can be > certain that this is a lie. > >>Pippin: > And Voldemort never lies > Voldemort says whatever he thinks will hurt most, be it true or > false, in this case that the other Slytherins are safe because > they have joined him. > But Voldemort must be lying or mistaken, because Slughorn returns > with an army of townspeople. He couldn't have done that if he and > his students were in the custody of the DE's. > Betsy Hp: Ah. So we'll just ignore the fact that we learned this apparently false fact while Harry was in Voldemort's head and feeling his emotions? I'm afraid I find this idea... weak. Especially since Harry isn't shocked (shocked!) at the news that the Slytherins joined with Voldemort. I would think that if Voldemort were lying to torment Lucius, Harry would pick it up. I'd also think that if the Slytherin's joining Voldemort was such an out of character move, Harry would have mentioned it to Ron and Hermione. He doesn't. > >>Carol: > > You're taking Voldemort at his word in the absence of any other > evidence. Betsy Hp: I'm actually giving Harry the benefit of the doubt. > >>Carol: > > If you can present some evidence other than Voldemort's word for > your view, I'll reconsider mine. > Betsy Hp: Harry not hearing a lie, and Harry not being shocked at the news. Seriously, JKR doesn't like Slytherin. They're her bad guy house. Why are you fighting this? (I'm curious about it actually. Because it's odd to have people who didn't care much for Slytherin suddenly (IMO) fighting up stream to show their support for them all of a sudden.) > >>Carol: > BTW, Voldemort tells at least one other lie in the final chapters, > that Snape desired rather than loved Lily. > Betsy Hp: How do you know Voldemort's lying? This could be what he honestly believes, especially since he's not really up on what love is and feels like anyway. > >>Pippin: > > And we find, in the epilogue, that it has not been forgotten. > The courage of Slytherin House played its part, because courage is > a *mainstream* value in the Potterverse. That's the end of the > story. Betsy Hp: Ooh, sorry Pippin, the Hat disagrees. Courage is a *Gryffindor* value. That's Gryffindor. The house Snape was *almost* good enough for in the end. > >>Pippin: > Erm... Do you have any experience with kids? They'll say > anything to be provoking. "James, give it a rest!" is Ginny's > reaction. > Betsy Hp: And they know how far to push. I'm betting James doesn't run around saying "fuck". He also emphasizes that he was only saying Al "might" get into Slytherin. So to me it's not the negativeness about Slytherin that's pissed off his mom, it's James saying that Al will end up there. ("I only said *might*!" reminds James. ) > >>Pippin: > Where's the evidence that Regulus wanted to be a bad kid? > Slughorn doesn't want bad kids in his club, for one thing. > Betsy Hp: Since a keystone for being bad is being a bigot in this series, I'd say the evidence was all over his home, and from his brother's mouth. And Slughorn doesn't care if you're a bigot or not (see Blaise). So in that sense he doesn't care about good or bad, just don't rock the boat. > >>Pippin: > > Young Regulus's reasons for joining Voldemort aren't any > different than Harry's reasons for wanting to join the Order. He > admires their leader, he wants to purify the WW of evil influences, > and he knows it's what his parents would expect of him. > Betsy Hp: I totally agree that JKR fell down in showing much difference between her good guys and her bad guys. It all came down to which cult of personality you signed up for. However, I don't think *she* thinks that. So I think you have to look at what JKR recognizes as bigotry. If the group seems against Muggleborns, than they're the baddies. And that's just about as deep as it goes. Which is why Harry never explores the rift. (Though of course the other reason is that JKR didn't think this was a rift that needed healing, IMO.) > >>zgirnius: > Well, I do agree "Bad parents means bad children" is a message of > the books. (I thought it was also the message of modern sociological > research, but it is not an area I know much about.) I just think > that we are looking at the causality differently. > Betsy Hp: So judging an eleven year old is the way to go? It's not my personal belief system, and frankly it's an idea that repulses me. But it's what JKR wanted to do and it's her books so she did it. It just means that her message became a little muddled, because it's not that the purebloods were *wrong* about judging a child's worth by their bloodlines, it's that they were looking at the wrong factors. What they needed was someone with a good breeding eye, like Aunt Marge. > >>zgirnius: > I object to 'girls acting like girls'. I always acted like a girl. > (By definition, it is what I was). I am not at all sure, based on > pre-DH discussion of this topic, that you would agree, possibly a > reason this would affect us differently. Betsy Hp: I totally agree that a girl can express herself however she chooses and that's a good thing. JKR seemed to me, though, to disagree. A girl who prefers the company of other girls and likes to giggle about boys is lesser than a girl who both hangs with boys but also disdains them (for their attraction to girls, I think). It's that "lesser than" bit that pinged my "doesn't like women" radar. It struck me as being very picky about what makes a "good" girl. > >>zgirnius: > Oh, so it is only heroic if it works? Firefighters who died in the > Twin Towers on 9/11 without bringing anyone out of the towers > successfully are not hugely heroic? > All I'm asking for is 'brave' and 'good', though. Betsy Hp: Yes, of course, I've always thought the 9/11 firefighters were big nelly cowards. (That's sarcasm, folks, no letters please.) Of *course* I thought Draco showed some grit in looking after his friends. I just don't think it was enough (especially for JKR) to overcome why he was there in the first place (to get Harry for Voldemort) or the fact that he screamed and screamed the whole time. When JKR has a character acting like a girl she's generally not doing it as a good thing. And throughout the scene JKR painted Draco as an emotional girl. About the only thing she didn't do was stick him in a dress. (I've suddenly realized that Crabbe and Goyle becoming little girls for Draco wasn't meant to highlight their deep friendship -- it was a laugh at those girly Slytherins.) As per me, about the only characters worth anything by the end of the series was the Malfoy family (barely). But I doubt that's how JKR wanted me to see it. So I'm trying to look at these scenes as she would. And Draco does not come across well at all. We're supposed to laugh with Harry when we realize Draco's using his mother's wand. We're supposed to wince at Draco's cowardness when he screams and screams as the flames come closer. And I'm betting we're supposed to think Draco was clinging to Goyle like he was his teddybear. No, the heroes in that scene were the Trio. Just as the book ends with Slytherin still the bad house and Gryffindor still the good house and house-elves happy little slaves. The WW is an ugly world, but JKR seems to love it. And you can try and twist it into something more palatable, but IMO you're fighting the author to do so. > >>zgirnius: > He should have told all assembled at the end of the book "Hey, > Folks! Slytherins are people too, they are motivated by love and > fear and a desire to belong and succeed just like us!"? I would > think especially the adults present would not have found this a > shocking revelation. Betsy Hp: Well, JKR sure would have. Especially that "succeed" bit. Remember, ambition is bad and Harry's goodness comes from the fact that he doesn't fuss too much about succeeding or not. And that's where Dumbledore fell. I'm sorry, but I just cannot get past the fact that when the big battle came Slytherin left and joined the enemy. And when the big battle finished, the Malfoys sat by themselves. And nineteen years later a Gryffindor boy could tease his brother about the possibility he "might" end up in Slytherin. Harry never made that speech because in his world, it's just not true. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 14:27:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:27:59 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178962 > >>Carol: > > If you can present some evidence other than Voldemort's word for > your view, I'll reconsider mine. > Betsy Hp: Harry not hearing a lie, and Harry not being shocked at the news. Seriously, JKR doesn't like Slytherin. They're her bad guy house. Why are you fighting this? (I'm curious about it actually. Because it's odd to have people who didn't care much for Slytherin suddenly (IMO) fighting up stream to show their support for them all of a sudden.) Alla: Frankly, I do not care whether Voldemort lied or not here. I cannot EXCLUDE the possibility, but really even if he did not lie, does not change much for me. I wonder why you are so sure that he did not lie, but it really does not change much for me. But I feel compelled to answer this as one of the people who certainly did not care much about Slytherins and who was feeling quite pleased with myself after I read DH. So, how to put it? I do not fight stream to show support for them. I am pleased that JKR did not make us to see that the House of pureblooded bigots was suddenly the house full of victims of prejudice or something. Or did she? For you the fact that Slytherin house left the battle seems determinative, right? This is mainly what tells you that they are baddies and JKR wants us to see them as such. BUT to me the students that left, many of them as they were were NEVER characters in the story, sort of. Well except Draco and his goons, I guess. But you know how I feel about Draco, so I did not expect him to become fully redeemed. Right, so just as in my pre DH Slytherins discussions I never fell for the argument that Slytherins are not bad, because there are other students that we never met of, besides Draco Malfoy, I cannot feel that the whole house is bad, because you know, no names, or names only characters left and join Voldemort ( whether they did or not, as I said to me it makes no difference if they did). Oh, to me it is the whole bunch of unnamed Slytherins leaving ( and there are many underage kids there too, so I think it is not that bad) - for ANY reason, even if I take the most horrible one - to join Voldie VERSUS the individual stories of Snape, Slugghorn and Regulus, which ARE standing out to me so much more than the bunch of unnamed characters leaving. I feel that JKR is saying here that Houses are truly not important, but individuals' behavior is and what those Slytherins show truly makes up for me for everything. I do not need to fight any stream to support them, this is what I see in the text. JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 15:24:39 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:24:39 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178963 > Carol earlier: > > > Since she wasn't the mistress (owner, if you prefer) of any > > > House-Elves, > > > > a_svirn: > > Is there a difference in the distinction? > > Carol again: > Only that "mistress" has certain connotations that don't have anything > to do with ownership. a_svirn: Then it's just as well that I didn't use it. I mean, Hermione and Kreacher eww! > > a_svirn: > > Very well, I stand corrected. He tried to bring both Harry's and > > Sirius's ruin about as well as the ruin of as much members of the > > Order as possible. He did it deliberately on his free will and in > > open defiance to his master's will. And was glad to learn about his > > master's death. > > Carol again: > I'll ignore your tone here as I'm sure you're not trying to be rude. a_svirn: I wasn't. But since the implication us that I was being rude without even trying, I don't know which is worse. However I apologise if I sounded rude. > Carol > If you look again at OoP, you'll see that Kreacher's contribution to > the plot was to reveal little details about Harry, such as his > affection for Sirius Black, which led to the plot to lure Harry and > Harry alone to the MoM to retrieve the Prophecy. Kreacher, who happily > accepted orders from any member of the Black family except Sirius, > then injured Buckbeak (for which he apparently ironed his hands, > considering that they're bandaged like Dobby's when Harry sees him) > and went along with Harry's suggestion that Black was held captive at > the MoM, when in fact he was upstairs nursing Buckbeak. His statement > that "Master won't come back from the Ministry" (quoted from memory) > is nothing but an attempt to egg Harry on. The Order wasn't supposed > to show up at all (that was Snape's doing), and Snape specifically > told Black to remain behind and wait for DD (which, of course, he > didn't do). Black *chose* to go to the MoM; he *chose* to carelessly > fight Bellatrix on the dais of the Veil. His arrogance in taunting her > as they fight just before she kills him is echoed in Bellatrix's > arrogant taunting of Molly Weasley just before Molly kills her. > Kreacher may, and indeed does, celebrate Sirius Black's death (just as > Sirius would have celebrated his--cf. his hope that Kreacher has > hidden in a cupboard and died), but he's not responsible for his > death. There was no plot to kill any Order member (however happy > Bellatrix was to kill her cousin and would have been to kill her > niece). The plot was to get Harry to the Hall of Prophecies, have him > take down the Prophecy orb, take it from him by force and give it to > Voldemort, and perhaps either kidnap or kill Harry. There was, once > again, no plot to kill Sirius or bring about the ruin "of as [many] > Order members as possible." I'm not sure where you're getting that > idea, but I don't see it anywhere in OoP. a_svirn: I rephrase my statement then. "Bring about the ruin" does sound a little vague. Kreacher hated his master and wanted to avenge himself and the Noble House of Black. To that end he went ? on his free will ? to his master's enemies and offered his services. They devised a plan to lure Harry to the Ministry, because it was Harry Voldemort wanted most. But he wouldn't (and didn't) say no to killing any other member of the Order including Sirius. No did Kreacher mind such outcome. And in the end he did brought about Sirius's ruin. Without him neither Harry, nor Sirius would have ended up in the Ministry. My point is that Kreacher acted against his master's best interests on his (Kreacher's) free will. > Carol again: > I never said that they fight for their freedom. We agree, as I > understand it, that they don't want freedom. What they're fighting for > is, as I see it, the right to live happily at Hogwarts, which will not > be possible if Voldemort wins. Why else would they fight? No wizard > asked or ordered them to. Snape is dead; Dumbledore has been dead a > year; Harry is seemingly dead and has had no contact with them. > Kreacher is their leader; he's the one with the locket and the > rallying cry. Maybe he's fighting for his old master's cause, the > right of House-Elves not to be tortured and abused (forced to drink a > horrrible potion and left to be murdered by Inferi, in this specific > instance), but it's still fair treatment of House-Elves. And far from > rejecting Kreacher as they rejected Dobby, the Hogwarts House-Elves > *choose* to follow him into battle. Of course, they're not fighting > for their freedom. They don't want freedom. They're fighting to > maintain the working conditions they've always enjoyed at Hogwarts and > will lose if Voldemort and the DEs win. Understandably, they don't > want to be "treated like vermin" as they were during VW1. (Of course, > their masters must be responsible, but that's neither here nor there. > We're talking about the House-Elves' decision to fight the DEs without > having ordered or even requested to do so by any witch or wizard. Free > will has everything to do with it. a_svirn: With what? You seem to say they freely chose good masters over bad ones. But where do you detect the great sea change? It's not like they wanted to have bad masters before. As for free will, they have always been capable to exercise it ? to a point. Witness the Kreacher's actions in OOP. > > a_svirn: > > Well, I always knew he was sadly confused. He did say "Harry Potter, > defender of house elves". > > Carol: > No, he didn't. The only wizard he names is Regulus. I quoted his > words, but here they are again: "Fight, fight, fight, for my master, > defender of House-Elves! Fight the Dark Lord in the name of brave > Regulus! Fight!" I suppose that "my master" could refer to Harry, but, > is so, why doesn't he name him? It's "brave Regulus, defender of > House-Elves" in whose name Kreacher is asking them to fight. a_svirn: Could be. Then he confused on the subject of who his master is. > Carol: > Can you please show me an instance in which Kreacher abuses himself > after he accepts the locket? a_svirn: That doesn't matter. It is the principle that matters. If he thinks that house elves shouldn't be tortured, then he shouldn't torture himself. > Carol: >I'll try one more time to > explain what I mean. Not only is Kreacher now a "normal" House-Elf, > clean and happy with a master he respects (surely a noticeable change > in attitude and behavior???), he's also a leader among his own kind as > opposed to a filthy, half-mad recluse wih no influence over anyone. > Instead of sneakily aiding the bad guys by telling them his master's > small secrets, he's joining the battle against the bad wizards and > persuading other House-Elves to join his cause. a_svirn: Oh, yes. He was an unhappy and rebellious slave and now he is happy and loyal one, because Harry finally started to behave as a responsible owner. A change indeed. But it is Harry who changed his attitude, not Kreacher. Kreacher *always* wanted a good master. It was Harry who didn't want a happy and loyal slave at first. > Carol: >It's as if a grybby > little street orphan had arisen to become Spartacus. a_svirn: Er no. Spartacus fought for *freedom*. And *against* his masters. > Carol: > Surely, when you first saw the grovelling, filthy, brain-washed little > creature, you didn't expect to see him charging into battle with a > host of House-Elves at his command? Oh, well. I say it's a 180- degree > turn from filthy insignificance to influence and leadership. a_svirn: Because I don't think Kreacher was such an insignificant creature before. It was Sirius who thought it and he paid for his arrogance. Kreacher was never insignificant. He was to be sure filthy, groveling and brainwashed. Now he is groveling clean and brainwashed. An improvement certainly, but as to 180 degree? Hardly. > > a_svirn: > > No, they aren't. They don't have the "right" to have a good job and > likable masters. They are just lucky to have them anyway. They don't > want to change that, naturally. But they do not have any rights and > never will. They are slaves. > > Carol: > I think you're mistaken. The fact that they *choose* to fight against > Voldemort to preserve the good working conditions they enjoy at > Hogwarts shows that they *do* have the right to fair treatment, just > as human beings have the right to fair treatment. a_svirn: I thought you stand is that they aren't at all like humans. Because if they are, you know, maybe they have the right to be free, after all? > Carol, who thinks the transformation of Kreacher from a filthy menace > into a leader of his people is comparable to Neville's transformation > from timid "nobody" to hero a_svirn: Except that he led them to nowhere. In the aftermath of the battle he is expected to serve his master a sandwich just as he was expected to do it *before* the battle. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 16:04:04 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:04:04 -0000 Subject: Stan Shunpike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178964 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "slytherin_jenn" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > Miles: > > I'd like to share a few thoughts about Stan. > > We don't know much about him, he is a underpart in the HP books - > but that > > does not mean he is unimportant. > > > Well, I started to call Stan Shunpike an underpart. But maybe > "supporting > > character" would be a more precise term? > > Celoneth: > What interested me about Stan when I read DH was to know whether he > was a real DE or Imperiused. a_svirn: Yes, it's a good question. And there is another thing: did Harry decide that Stan was Imperiused on the assumption that Stan is too stupid to follow death eaters on his free will, or because he (Harry) didn't want to acknowledge his mistake? From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 17:19:12 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:19:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40711090919u6868efcdwb6d925105726684c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178965 > Mus: > I missed Crouch too! To be fair to him, though, we really only have > his son's word for what he was like as a father, and Barty Jnr is > clearly a nutter, filled with loathing for the man who justly > sentenced him to Azkaban. When we first encounter the two of them > together, in the pensieve court scene, our sympathies lie with Jnr, > and we're touched by his apparent terror and repelled by his father's > coldness(' "Father, I didn't," shrieked the boy in chains below. "I > didn't, I swear it, Father, don't send me back to the Dementors - " ' > [GoF, UK pb: 517] When we hear the true voice of Barty Jnr, > straight from his black little heart, crowing of his almost erotic* > delight in Voldemort's service, I don't think that we can take his > word for his father's behaviour at face value. Kemper now: Even though we only have CrouchJr's words of his father, the words that we do have /to/ his father is suggestive of the relationship he had with his father. You already provided some of the text, but right before it, there's: "Father... Father... please..." Then: "Father, I didn't! I didn't, I swear it, Father, ...--" Using 'Father', seems formal, cold, and distant to me. Though, perhaps JKR was using 'father' to suggest a different, upper(?) class. Malfoy also uses 'Father' (as well as 'Mother' as does CrouchJr); however, Lucius' relationship with Draco pre-DH seems to be more sculptor then mentor: trying to hammer and chisel his son into a thing of beauty to be envied by others. It doesn't work out like that, but it's the impression I get of Lucius especially in CoS. At the end of DH, Lucius seems more humble as he is huddled together with his wife and son unsure if he should be among the living, jumbled defendants of Hogwarts. I wonder what shift in perspective Lucius had as a citizen of the WW and as a father. Kemper From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 9 17:32:29 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:32:29 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178966 I would want the Phosphor's stone more than anything else, being rich and living forever doesn't sound bad to me, not bad at all. The second most desirable would be the Elder Wand; hence my annoyance that the first was destroyed and Harry refused to make use of the second. Voldemort is not always wrong, he wanted both these objects and so do I. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 18:08:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:08:00 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178967 Betsy Hp earlier: > > > And all of Slytherin left and joined with Voldemort. > > > > > > "If your son is dead Lucius, it is not my fault. He did not come and join with me, LIKE THE REST OF THE SLYTHERINS." [DH scholastic p.641 - emphasis mine] > > > > > > Apparently Voldemort did a head count. Apparently he had heads to count. > Carol earlier: > > Yes, Voldemort makes this claim, but he's tormenting Lucius, whose son is a DE and ought, according to Voldemort, to be fighting for his cause. Do you really think that LV knew every Slytherin in Hogwarts by sight and took a head count, some seventy students in all if we assume ten students per year per House? > > Carol earlier: > > > > You're taking Voldemort at his word in the absence of any other evidence. > > Betsy Hp: > I'm actually giving Harry the benefit of the doubt. Carol again: And I don't--not at this point. Harry has not yet entered the Pensieve and been enlightened with regard to Snape's motives. He, like McGonagall, assumes that all of Slytherin is evil and he still thinks that Snape is a murderer, that all DEs are Slytherins and all Slytherins are DEs or DE wannabes. That view changes after the visit to the Pensieve: He publicly defends Snape and names his second son after him (together with Dumbledore). At the point you're speaking of, Slughorn has yet to heroically join the battle and Kreacher has yet to rally the House-Elves to the cause of his dead Slytherin master. > > > >>Carol: > > > > If you can present some evidence other than Voldemort's word for > > your view, I'll reconsider mine. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Harry not hearing a lie, and Harry not being shocked at the news. Seriously, JKR doesn't like Slytherin. They're her bad guy house. Why are you fighting this? (I'm curious about it actually. Because it's odd to have people who didn't care much for Slytherin suddenly (IMO) fighting up stream to show their support for them all of a sudden.) Carol: I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not going to accept Harry's pre-Pensieve perceptions as indicative of what JKR wants us to think, or for that matter, to consider her views much at all. Slytherin played its part, as Phineas Nigellus said, and he would hardly say that if the part they played was to join the DEs. *There were no Slytherin students with the DEs in the forest*--only two giants and the captured Hagrid. Not even the Malfoys, our bad guys fo the first six books, end up fighting for Voldemort. Where is the evidence that any *students* fought for him? (Crabbe sides with him but doesn't actually join the battle, and he ends up dead. Draco and Goyle, after being rescued by Harry, don't go down to join Voldemort, either. Not one single Slytherin student is named as fighting for him. And yet you seem to think, despite my snipped arguments regarding the unlikelihood of Voldie's knowing all the Slytherins by sight and doing a head count (while he's in the Shrieking Shack) that all the Slytherins fought for Voldemort, first-years and all? Again, they were ordered to safety by McGonagall. It would be in character for Slytherins not committed to either side to take advantage of the opportunity to save themselves. Where, other than the word of they lying Voldemort, is the evidence that they didn't do exactly that? Wouldn't Aberforth have said something about Slytherin students joining Voldemort's cause when he made his suggestion (rejected by Harry) about holding slytherins hostage? It seems to me that you're the one determined not to see the evidence. I don't care one way or the other about Slytherin (though I do care about Snape and Regulus). What I care about is examining the evidence objectively rather than forcing our preconceptions on it. > Carol earlier: > > BTW, Voldemort tells at least one other lie in the final chapters, that Snape desired rather than loved Lily. > > Betsy Hp: > How do you know Voldemort's lying? This could be what he honestly believes, especially since he's not really up on what love is and feels like anyway. Carol again: Good point. But I still don't trust him to tell the truth. He's trying to hurt and manipulate Lucius--and his mind at the time of his remark about the Slytherins is on the Elder Wand, not on the Slytherin students. And, as I've said, it's completely unrealistic that he would know all the Slytherin students, only a few of whom have DE parents. Do you think he made social calls on every Slytherin family or secretly attended the Sorting ceremonies to see who was chosen into each House? Consider where he was and what he was in each year of Harry's schooling at Hogwarts and what preoccupied him even after he obtained a body. He wouldn't know a Slytherin from a Hufflepuff if he saw them standing together unless he knew their families (or they were wearing school colors as they do in the films. In the books, all the kids wear identical black robes). And wouldn't even Harry have noticed if little kids of twelve or so had joined the battle instead of going to safety as ordered? Granted, he doesn't react to Voldemort's claim, but neither he nor the reader is presented with a single piece of evidence to support it. We might as well believe everything Rita Skeeter says and be done with it. (BTW, other characters make claims that are later disproved, such as the remark about Snape's "cruel" punishment of Ginny, Luna, and Neville. Just because a character says something doesn't make it true, even if the character is a good guy.) Carol, still wondering how Voldemort could do a head count from the Shrieking Shack and how he could possibly know that "all" of them except Draco (and Crabbe and Goyle) were fighting for his cause even if he were on the battlefield and not preoccupied with the Elder Wand From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 18:48:01 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:48:01 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178968 > >>Alla: > Frankly, I do not care whether Voldemort lied or not here. I cannot > EXCLUDE the possibility, but really even if he did not lie, does > not change much for me. I wonder why you are so sure that he did > not lie, but it really does not change much for me. Betsy Hp: Just to answer that question, for me that it's never *highlighted* as a lie in an obvious, "Why, Voldemort lied!" kind of way is why I'm quite sure seeing it as a lie is reading against the text. I differ here from Pippin, but I don't think JKR is that subtle. If she meant for us to hear Voldemort's statement as a lie, she'd have told us so quite clearly. At least, that's my opinion. But on to the meaty bit, because I think this is incredibly interesting... > >>Alla: > But I feel compelled to answer this as one of the people who > certainly did not care much about Slytherins and who was feeling > quite pleased with myself after I read DH. > > For you the fact that Slytherin house left the battle seems > determinative, right? This is mainly what tells you that they are > baddies and JKR wants us to see them as such. > > Right, so just as in my pre DH Slytherins discussions I never fell > for the argument that Slytherins are not bad, because there are > other students that we never met of, besides Draco Malfoy, I cannot > feel that the whole house is bad, because you know, no names, or > names only characters left and join Voldemort ( whether they did or > not, as I said to me it makes no difference if they did). Betsy Hp: If I understand you correctly, I think we're in agreement up to a point. Slytherin rises or falls based not on its unknown and for the most part faceless student body, but on the actions we actually *see*. And in general, the Slytherin we saw acting was Draco Malfoy. And for me, this was fine. I didn't like the idea of some Johnny- come-lately popping out of the herd to be the "good Slytherin". For one I thought it'd be kind of boring (why would we care, why would Harry care?) and for another, it wouldn't be enough. JKR had given us her face of Slytherin and to suddenly turn around and say, "ooh, no that wasn't Slytherin's face at all" would strike me as a cheat. But Draco never did step forward, IMO. And then to cap it all, Slytherin, en masse, stepped back. That it was its *entire* student body that left, that not a single solitary Slytherin joined the rebellion so that a Slytherin banner could hang in the RoR, those two facts were so dramatic in and of themselves that it became very clear to me that I'd been fooling myself hoping for some sort of reconciliation (which is what I had been hoping for). Slytherin is the bad kids house. Some of them are worse than others, but they're all, on the whole, worse than a Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw or Gryffindor on the whole. > >>Alla: > Oh, to me it is the whole bunch of unnamed Slytherins leaving ( and > there are many underage kids there too, so I think it is not that > bad) - for ANY reason, even if I take the most horrible one - to > join Voldie VERSUS the individual stories of Snape, Slugghorn and > Regulus, which ARE standing out to me so much more than the bunch > of unnamed characters leaving. Betsy Hp: Whereas for me, the story of Snape, Slughorn and Regulus just served to illustrate how bad Slytherin as a whole really is. Slughorn didn't bring one Slytherin back with him to join the fight. Snape was shown as almost able to rise above the massive error of being a Slytherin. To such an extent Dumbledore was able to say of him "sometimes I think we sort too early". Not, "you're showing the good in Slytherin", just, "gosh, you're almost like a Gryffindor." Which gets further highlighted (IMO) by Harry speaking of Snape's Gryffindor virtue of bravery to Al. But I'm wondering now if our different reactions are based on different expectations? So where you were pleasantly surprised that *any* Slytherins turned out to be decent, I was horribly shocked that this was it. Does that sound right? > >>Alla: > I feel that JKR is saying here that Houses are truly not important, > but individuals' behavior is and what those Slytherins show truly > makes up for me for everything. > Betsy Hp: Hmm... If that was her message, why not get rid of the Sorting Hat then? And why have every single student in Slytherin leave? She could have had a good chunk leave, but a few brave souls remain. Or why have the students group into houses at all when they met in the great hall? Why not have the chaos of the moment show that house lines didn't really matter? Why not have McGonagall verbally list the names of students she didn't trust (they aren't that many as has been pointed out) but not mention house affiliation? Both Regulus and Snape suffer, for me, from acting for very small and personal reasons. Snape was horrified that the girl he loved was going to be killed. Regulus was horrified that the house-elf he loved was nearly killed. Neither seemed to have come to a realization that Voldemort overall was bad news. If it'd been a girl not Lily, or a house-elf not Kreature, that Voldemort went after, I'm afraid neither Regulus nor Snape would have left the Death Eaters. Just as the Malfoys would not have betrayed Voldemort if their son's life wasn't on the line. So there was never a moment, that I saw, where a Slytherin, with his or her Slytherin virtues, looked at Voldemort and said, "this goes against what I believe in." Which disappointed me. Especially after having so many Slytherins look at Voldemort and say, "Yeah, that seems about right." So the personal (very personal) actions of a few, didn't do anything for their house overall for me. I think the houses are important to JKR, just not at all in the way I expected. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 9 19:36:39 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:36:39 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178969 > Betsy Hp: > Ah. So we'll just ignore the fact that we learned this apparently > false fact while Harry was in Voldemort's head and feeling his > emotions? I'm afraid I find this idea... weak. Pippin: That's a clever argument. But we have loads of canon for Harry being unable to detect that Voldemort is lying when he's in Voldie's mind. Especially that bit where he thinks he's seeing Sirius being tortured at the MoM. If Voldemort is using occlumency so that Lucius won't detect that he's lying, will Harry be aware of it? I don't think so. Betsy Hp: I'd also think that if the Slytherin's joining Voldemort was such an out of character move, Harry would have mentioned it to Ron and Hermione. He doesn't. Pippin: Of course not! It fits exactly with Harry's idea of what those slimy Slytherins are capable of, just as many people were quite ready to believe that those slimy Muggleborns stole their magic from wizards. I didn't see Muggleborn students protesting their expulsion. They left. Hermione said lots of them went into hiding. Does that make them bad guys too? The Slytherins were turned out just as the Muggleborns were before them. I suppose that "load of duffers" in Hufflepuff would have been next, or maybe the amoral Ravenclaws. "Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure" -- can't you see what a dangerous philosophy that is? You know how it goes..." First they came for the trade unionists but I did not speak up" etc. > Betsy Hp: > Harry not hearing a lie, and Harry not being shocked at the news. > Seriously, JKR doesn't like Slytherin. They're her bad guy house. > Why are you fighting this? (I'm curious about it actually. Because > it's odd to have people who didn't care much for Slytherin suddenly > (IMO) fighting up stream to show their support for them all of a > sudden.) Pippin: I'm fighting it because I think to see Slytherin strictly as the bad guy house and criticize JKR for it is to miss much of the beauty and cleverness of her books, and the more I delve into it, the more I appreciate her artistry. For me, the saga is like the gag about Aberforth's goats; it works on several different levels. You can see Slytherins as purely bad guys, just like you can think Aberforth was just making curly horns, or you can appreciate that there's another dimension. If you see the four houses as a metaphor for the personality then you can say that Slytherin is the inner bad guy that we want to deny but that has to be accepted. On that basis, yes, Slytherin is the bad house, and Harry telling Al he can choose Slytherin over Gryffindor says, yes, you have bad impulses but you don't have to choose to listen to them. But that makes all the depth placed in Slytherin characters a mistake. It's not a problem for the naive reader who never notices the depth in the first place. But I think if you notice the depth, you're supposed to notice also that you can look at the houses in another way. You can see the four houses as a metaphor for competing subcultures, and Slytherin as the tempting target of an unjust bias. Their culture is presented as morally inferior to the Gryffindors. I'm not arguing otherwise. But canon shows they believe in it because they were brought up to, not because they themselves are morally inferior beings. I agree that JKR does want us to see that courage is a superior virtue, and that Gryffindor was the only founder who believed this. She also wants us to see that pureblood superiority was a bad idea, and that Salazar Slytherin was responsible for it. But the founders lived a thousand years before, and just as Salazar Slytherin's views about Muggleborns have (unfortunately) made their way into the WW as a whole, so have Gryffindor's views about courage. The Hat makes its choices as it always has, which is both blessing and curse, but the pool of students it's choosing from is different. You don't have to have a Gryffindor education to learn that courage is a virtue, and you don't have to be from a Slytherin family to have absorbed the idea that the wizardborn "get" wizarding ways better than Muggleborns do. Ron says he never knew that all this pureblood stuff started with Slytherin! When Slughorn says he's not prejudiced, that shows his views are mainstream. Fudge is mainstream, he wouldn't dare adopt a view that isn't. When Dumbledore says that Fudge puts too much emphasis on so-called purity of blood, and he always has, he, Dumbledore, is the radical. I've always shown support for Snape, and thought that Slytherin's evil was exaggerated. But I don't think it's entirely imaginary either. JKR is not a blanket multi-culturalist. When an institution encourages bigotry, that's bad, and Slytherin House had a tradition of looking down on Muggleborns. But it's a tradition, not an inborn trait. People learn it, and what is learned can be unlearned, albeit with difficulty. When JKR said that the pureblood influence had been "diluted" I think she meant that "proper wizard feeling" is no longer an important part of the Slytherin identity. The Hat can yammer on about it, but if nobody believes it, what can it do? People can ignore what the Hat says about purebloods being best or courage setting Gryffindors apart just like they can ignore the Hat's pleas for unity. > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, sorry Pippin, the Hat disagrees. Courage is a *Gryffindor* > value. That's Gryffindor. The house Snape was *almost* good enough > for in the end. Pippin: Courage was a Gryffindor value when the Hat was made, but it's not any more. Luna and Cedric are proof of that. So is Snape. The hat is the voice of the past. > > >>Pippin: > > Erm... Do you have any experience with kids? They'll say > > anything to be provoking. "James, give it a rest!" is Ginny's > > reaction. > > > > Betsy Hp: > And they know how far to push. I'm betting James doesn't run around > saying "fuck". Pippin: I'm betting he does. And gets his mouth scurgified for it too. He's testing his boundaries, and his parents are walking a fine line. Reacting will reinforce James's attempts to get their attention this way and may encourage the behavior more than ignoring it would. Plus, if they leap in to defend Albus, that will make Albus look weak. Betsy Hp: He also emphasizes that he was only saying Al "might" > get into Slytherin. So to me it's not the negativeness about > Slytherin that's pissed off his mom, it's James saying that Al will > end up there. ("I only said *might*!" reminds James. ) Pippin: Ginny's pissed off because this is supposed to be a happy family occasion and James is being disruptive. Al is the center of attention, it's *his* big day, and older sib James doesn't like that. So he says whatever he hopes will upset things, then takes refuge in claiming that he's only telling the truth. Harry finally intervenes, first to say that thestrals aren't scary, they're gentle creatures, then that if Slytherin got Al it would get an excellent student. If it were nonsense that Al could be a Slytherin, and this was the view that Harry wanted Al to have, or that JKR wanted us to have, Harry could have said so then. Why are you resisting this interpretation so strongly? Not that you need to answer, I'm just curious. I agree that there's a lot of ugliness in the WW, I don't agree that JKR is unaware of it. She simply didn't give her heroes the power or the goodness to erase it all in one swell foop. They made things better for two house-elves (Dobby got to die free instead of as a slave of the Malfoys, Kreacher was cured of his depression though not of his slave mentality.) They didn't free every house elf. They banished Voldemort for good, they didn't manage to save his soul. They helped Kingsley, who believes that every life is worth the same and every life is worth saving, survive to become Minister of Magic. They didn't exterminate all the dementors or recall the giants from exile or get the anti-werewolf legislation repealed. Harry realized that he had terribly misjudged the man he called a coward and a murderer, and he made sure everyone knew it. He didn't save Snape's life. Harry saved the Sorting Hat and brought a Slytherin family back to Hogwarts. He couldn't make everyone forget what Slytherin House had stood for. Slytherin still has a bad reputation, just as, for example, America (speaking as an American here) has some reputation for racism. But that doesn't mean that racist beliefs are as popular as they ever were, or that Americans were ever morally inferior by nature for having had them. > > >>Pippin: > > Where's the evidence that Regulus wanted to be a bad kid? > > Slughorn doesn't want bad kids in his club, for one thing. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Since a keystone for being bad is being a bigot in this series, I'd > say the evidence was all over his home, and from his brother's > mouth. Pippin: Harry didn't want to be a bad kid, but he was bigoted against Snape. He didn't mean to be bigoted, he thought the things he believed about Snape were really true. Regulus probably believed the things that he heard about Muggleborns were true, despite the fact that he was going to school with them, just as Harry believed his ideas about Snape were true despite that we, with our god's eye view of the Potterverse, could see differently. Believing the best of our friends and the worst of our enemies isn't just Slytherin nature. It's *human* nature. > > >>zgirnius: > > He should have told all assembled at the end of the book "Hey, > > Folks! Slytherins are people too, they are motivated by love and > > fear and a desire to belong and succeed just like us!"? I would > > think especially the adults present would not have found this a > > shocking revelation. > > Betsy Hp: > Well, JKR sure would have. Especially that "succeed" bit. > Remember, ambition is bad and Harry's goodness comes from the fact > that he doesn't fuss too much about succeeding or not. And that's > where Dumbledore fell. Pippin: Harry's desire to succeed at his quest is not shown as a bad thing. It's okay to go all out for the greater good, you just have to be sure that you know what the greater good really *is*. But that can be very hard to see, especially with the limited experience of a high school student. If even the great Albus Dumbledore could be confused on that point, surely the Slytherins of Harry's day can be forgiven? Harry's decision to give up the elder wand comes immediately after he has told Ron and Hermione everything he saw in the pensieve. His mistake about Snape is implied as the reason he knows he'll never be wise enough to use the wand as Dumbledore did. And he was mistaken about Snape partly because he was mistaken about Slytherin House as a whole. Betsy Hp > I'm sorry, but I just cannot get past the fact that when the big > battle came Slytherin left and joined the enemy. And when the big > battle finished, the Malfoys sat by themselves. And nineteen years > later a Gryffindor boy could tease his brother about the possibility > he "might" end up in Slytherin. Harry never made that speech because > in his world, it's just not true. Pippin: He never made that speech because it would have ruined the houses as a metaphor for the personality and made them just about competing cultures. This way they're both. Presumably adults have succeeded in integrating their personalities, and aren't reading HP for reassurance that their personalities can be integrated :) while kids will never notice how complex the Slytherin characters are. Plus it would have sounded preachy, and it wouldn't have convinced anybody but the people who believe it already. What good is preaching to the choir? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 19:41:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:41:29 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178970 a_svirn wrote: > You seem to say they freely chose good masters over bad ones. But where do you detect the great sea change? It's not like they wanted to have bad masters before. As for free will, they have always been capable to exercise it ? to a point. Witness the Kreacher's actions in OOP. Carol responds: The "great sea change" is that they're voluntarily going into battle under the leadership of the formerly despicable Kreacher, now emulating his hero and idol, Regulus, to fight against the evil wizards who will abuse them as they did during VW1 if they win the battle. The alternative is to sit out the battle and await the outcome, which could be very bad for the House-Elves, or to join the side of the oppressors, which would be foolish if not suicidal. In VW1, they just let things happen. Now, in the Battle of Hogwarts, they are joining the forces of freedom--not for the sake of their wizard masters, who have not ordered them to join the battle, but of their own volition. And rather than individually subverting bad masters, they are acting as a unit to prevent their takeover. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and they are doing everything they can to prevent the bad masters from taking control. No, they're not fighting for freedom, but *if* freedom is a good thing, and I'm not sure that it is in the case of House-Elves, at least they're fighting for what they want, or rather, what they have and don't want to lose. It's not a rebellion or a revolution in which they;re throwing off oppressive masters (thanks to Snape and the teachers that he's allowed to subvert the Carrows, the DEs haven't really taken control of Hogwarts yet), it's a resistance movement. It's as if your country were invaded and you took up arms to protect it. The DEs are invading Hogwarts and the House-Elves want no part of it because they know what the consequences to themselves will be--exactly what they were during VW1 when House-Elves did nothing to protect themselves. > > > a_svirn: > Could be. Then he confused on the subject of who his master is. Carol: I wouldn't be surprised. But he knows who his hero is and where his true loyalties lie--with Regulus Black--as both the locket and the rallying cry show. He accepts Harry and perhaps respects him (though he probably thinks that LV has killed him), but he loves and idolizes Master Regulus. Carol: > > Can you please show me an instance in which Kreacher abuses himself after he accepts the locket? > > a_svirn: > That doesn't matter. It is the principle that matters. If he thinks that house elves shouldn't be tortured, then he shouldn't torture himself. Carol: I don't follow your logic (nor would Kreacher, probably). The principle, as I see it, is that wizards shouldn't abuse House-Elves, which is the cause that Regulus sacrificed himself for and that Kreacher ends up fighting for. It has nothing to do with House-Elves punishing themselves, which *Hermione* is concerned about. Meanwhile, all *Harry* (or any other good House-Elf master) has to do to prevent House-Elves from abusing themselves is to understand the cause: they abuse themselves, so far as I can tell from canon, only when they speak ill of their masters or disobey an order or fail to obey an order for reasons beyond their control. If a Wizard owns a House-Elf that he can't free or who does not want to be free, and if he has no idea how to unbind the charm that makes the House-Elf abuse himself, then the only thing to be done at that point is to prevent the abuse from occurring through understanding and respecting the House-Elf's needs. In future, after completing her education and conducting extensive research, maybe Hermione can find a more satisfactory answer. Meantime, we see the results of Harry's good mastership--no more self-punishment on Kreacher's part. > a_svirn: > Oh, yes. He was an unhappy and rebellious slave and now he is happy and loyal one, because Harry finally started to behave as a responsible owner. A change indeed. But it is Harry who changed his attitude, not Kreacher. Kreacher *always* wanted a good master. It was Harry who didn't want a happy and loyal slave at first. Carol: Harry "didn't want a happy and loyal slave"? What do you mean? He didn't want to see Dobby, who was never his own slave, to be abused by Lucius Malfoy, and he didn't want the miserable, filthy, and seemingly treacherous Kreacher. But when did he not want a happy, loyal slave? He was quite content to send Kreacher after Mundungus Fletcher, and Kreacher was more than happy to bring in the smelly sneak-thief. Harry changed his attitude toward *Kreacher.* I'm not sure that he changed his attitude toward House-Elves in general. Likewise, Kreacher changed his mind about Harry's worthiness to be his master. Neither ever supported Hermione's free-the-House-Elves agenda. Not even Dumbledore ever advocated freeing the House-Elves. All he did was to provide a home and employment for Dobby (and Winky, if she had accepted it). > > > Carol: > >It's as if a grubby little street orphan had arisen to become Spartacus. > > a_svirn: > Er no. Spartacus fought for *freedom*. And *against* his masters. Carol: Okay, bad comparison, as I knew when I typed it--you snipped the part where I conceded that he wasn't fighting for freedom, so I'll repeat it here: "That he's fighting to preserve the status quo (as anyone who fights an invader or usurper is doing) rather than fighting for freedom (which neither he nor the other House-Elves wants) does not make him any less a leader or a hero." I resorted to Spartacus (with the quoted concession) because I couldn't (and still can't) think of a hero who rose from obscurity and degradation to protect his home and (adopted) family. Kreacher is like Spartacus in his heroism and leadership, not in his cause. As I said before, he's not fighting for freedom; he's defending himself and his fellow House-Elves from the consequences of a Voldemortian victory. It makes no sense for House-Elves to rise up en masse against good masters like Dumbledore who are giving them what they want, and consequently, we don't see them doing it. I suppose some future Dobby might persuade them that good working conditions aren't sufficient--they have the right to wages and clothes and the choice of masters, which is all that freedom means to him--but why give up good jobs and homes that make them happy if they don't have some other employer to go to? It's as if well-treated employees were to walk out of their cushy jobs because they'd rather be unemployed than work for a boss (read "master") whose orders they have to follow and whose assigned tasks take up nearly half their waking lives. (As Ishmael said in "Moby Dick," "Who ain't a slave?") > a_svirn: > Kreacher was never insignificant. He was to be sure filthy, groveling and brainwashed. Now he is groveling clean and brainwashed. An improvement certainly, but as to 180 degree? Hardly. Carol: It's not just cleanliness that has changed, and he's no longer malevolent or groveling. Instead, he's eager and willing to serve (much the same attitude we see in Dobby despite Dobby's receiving pay at Hogwarts and his choice to serve Harry as well as the Hogwarts headmaster). Kreacher is also happy and respectful, a big change from OoP and HBP. But the 180-degree turn that I'm talking about is the change from going behind his master's back to subvert him to openly fighting an evil intruder and leading other House-Elves to follow him, as Dobby, the sole House-Elf advocate of freedom, failed to do. Maybe it's the cause itself--Kreacher knows what House-Elves want. Maybe the abuse that Kreacher suffered at Voldemort's hands aroused their sympathies. Maybe the fact that he belongs to Harry Potter has something to do with it, but Dobby seems to be alone in seeing Harry (as the result of his "victory" against Voldemort at age fifteen months) as a champion of House-Elves. Now *Regulus's* story they might find inspiring, especially if Kreacher, locket dangling from his neck, told it with tears in his eyes. Basically, he would be saying: "Here's what happened to me at the hands of the Dark Lord. Here's what Regulus sacrificed himself trying to prevent. If we don't want my master to have died in vain (Harry's argument, remember?) and if you don't want what happened to me to happen to you, we have to fight. If we want to preserve our good jobs and fair treatment and safety and comfort, we have to fight." > > Carol, who thinks the transformation of Kreacher from a filthy menace into a leader of his people is comparable to Neville's transformation from timid "nobody" to hero > > a_svirn: > Except that he led them to nowhere. In the aftermath of the battle he is expected to serve his master a sandwich just as he was expected to do it *before* the battle. > Carol: To nowhere? If he hadn't acted, the DEs might have won, even with Voldemort gone. And regardless of whether the House-Elves played a decisive role or not, they fought for a cause, on their own, without being recruited by Wizards. They defended themselves against evil. They protected their home. And that, after all, is the reason most humans fight as well--to protect their home and their country against invaders. Freedom can wait. At this point, it's not even on the agenda. But safety and happiness and good masters are. And that's what Kreacher is leading the House-Elves to protect and preserve. As for the sandwich, Kreacher will be happy to serve it. It's his job, after all. And far better to be making Harry a sandwich (which he can do magically and enjoys doing) than being tortured by Death Eaters, which would have been his fate had Voldemort and his minions won the battle. Carol, noting that the transformation of Kreacher is not merely a matter of Harry's altered perspective (as with Snape and Draco) but a change in Kreacher himself, from malevolent, half-mad conspirator to inspired and inspiring leader of his people From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 20:35:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:35:39 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: <700201d40711090919u6868efcdwb6d925105726684c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178971 Kemper wrote: > Even though we only have CrouchJr's words of his father, the words > that we do have /to/ his father is suggestive of the relationship he > had with his father. You already provided some of the text, but right > before it, there's: > "Father... Father... please..." > Then: > "Father, I didn't! I didn't, I swear it, Father, ...--" > > Using 'Father', seems formal, cold, and distant to me. Though, > perhaps JKR was using 'father' to suggest a different, upper(?) class. Carol responds: I can't comment on the use of "Father" except to note that once and only once, Draco speaks of "my dad" and the rest of the time it's "my father," in contrast to Ron and Muggle-born Hermione, who speak of "my mum and dad," so maybe it's an indicator of social class, maybe of family closeness. Doesn't Child!James call his father "my dad," yet he's a rich pure-blood and consequently as upper-class as the Malfoys and the Crouches? But with regard to the Crouches specifically, Barty Jr. *was* apparently guilty of helping to Crucio the Longbottoms into insanity, and his father did, against his better judgment, rescue his DE son from Azkaban, after which he could not let him run free to Crucio more people or try to find Voldemort. It appears from the brief glimpse we get in "The Madness of Mr. Crouch" that Crouch Sr. did at one point love his son and have high hopes for him. He speaks of celebrating his son's twelve OWLs and tells the imaginary "Weatherby" that he's "very proud indeed" (GoF Am. ed. 556). Something happened between the end of Barty Jr.'s fifth year and the Crucioing of the Longbottoms when he was about nineteen to tempt this obviously talented and intelligent boy to join the Death Eaters and, in contrast to Snape and Regulus, become a fanatical follower willing to engage in horrific acts to find information on his missing master. It's no coincidence, IMO, that his attitude and even his words resemble Bellatrix's. They shared a fascination with and devotion to the greatest Dark Wizard for a hundred years (or so he's viewed in the British WW). At any rate, Mr. Crouch ends up penitent, resisting his son's Imperius Curse in a futile effort to confess his sins and errors to Dumbledore. His son participates in a plot to kidnap and murder Harry, murders his own father, Imperios Krum to Crucio Cedric, celebrates the resurrection of Voldemort which he helped bring about, and intends to kill Harry himself when Harry escapes from Voldemort. Whatever Mr. Crouch's failings (an I'm not forgetting his suppression of civil rights or his authorizing the Aurors to use Unforgiveables), he is not, sirius to the contrary, as ruthless as Voldemort or as cold-hearted as his fanatical (and probably mad) Death Eater son. Did bad fathering create Barty Jr., changing him from a talented boy with a bright future into a monster? Or did Barty Jr. choose the DEs thinking that he would find glory and scope for his talents there despite knowing that his father opposed Dark Magic and was authorizing his DEs to use every available weapon against Voldemort? Did those stringent measures arise *because* Barty Sr. suspected that his son had joined the DEs against his will? Or did the bad fathering occur *after* the father foolishly rescued the son (as the result of the boy's mother's pleas) rather than letting him die in Azkaban? "I've done . . . stupid . . . thing," he says, spittle dripping down his chin. "Must . . . tell . . Dumbledore" 555). And a bit later, "I . . . escaped . . . must warn . . . must tell . . . see Dumbledore . . . All my fault . . . my son . . . all my fault [...]" (556). Mr. Crouch acknowledges responsibility for his son's role in the plot to kidnap Harry and restore Voldemort to power. Even Bertha's death is "all my fault." Whether he sees himself as a bad father before that is unclear. It seems to me that he loved his son and was proud of him, but maybe that love and pride weren't apparent to his son. Even when the boy was home for the holidays, his father would have spent most of his time at the Ministry. Maybe his joining the DEs was an act of rebellion. We cn only speculate. But if a father can prevent a son from going wrong, a debateable proposition at best, then Mr. Crouch certainly failed. At any rate, he ought not to have been made to try and sentence his own son, whether or not he knew him to be guilty. That evil, at least, might have been prevented if the WW had a better form of government. And certainly, rescuing his son was a mistake, however painful (and guilt-inducing) it would have been to allow him to die in Azkaban. Had Barty jr. died rather than having his mother take his place (she would have died anyway, apparently), neither Mr. Crouch nor his son would have used the Imperius Curse on the other, and Barty Sr. would have survived--cold, efficient, unhappy, guilt-ridden, and lonely. There's no happy outcome for their story, regardless, but his mistake in rescuing his son was worse than whatever he might have done to contribute to his son's becoming a Death Eater. Voldemort and Wormtail would have had to hatch some other plan, and both Bertha and Cedric would probably have survived. Carol, who pities the mad Mr. Crouch and wishes that he had lived to tell his story to DD From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 20:52:27 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:52:27 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178972 > Betsy Hp: If she meant > for us to hear Voldemort's statement as a lie, she'd have told us so > quite clearly. At least, that's my opinion. Alla: Pippin answered that herself and I totally agree - we have plenty of canon for Harry not being able to recognize the lie, while being in Voldemort's head, and I do not see why here he suddenly will, BUT as I said before I do not care one way or another. If whole bunch of Slytherins joined Voldemort, well, they are bad bad bad and I will not shed tears for them. Heeee, but don't we have the factual evidence that he DID lie already? Draco and his goons did NOT come, they stayed, but I just have to stop here :) Betty Hp: > But on to the meaty bit, because I think this is incredibly > interesting... Alla: :) > Betsy Hp: > If I understand you correctly, I think we're in agreement up to a > point. Slytherin rises or falls based not on its unknown and for the > most part faceless student body, but on the actions we actually > *see*. Alla: Yep. Betsy Hp: And in general, the Slytherin we saw acting was Draco Malfoy. > > And for me, this was fine. I didn't like the idea of some Johnny- > come-lately popping out of the herd to be the "good Slytherin". For > one I thought it'd be kind of boring (why would we care, why would > Harry care?) and for another, it wouldn't be enough. JKR had given > us her face of Slytherin and to suddenly turn around and say, "ooh, > no that wasn't Slytherin's face at all" would strike me as a cheat. > > But Draco never did step forward, IMO. And then to cap it all, > Slytherin, en masse, stepped back. Alla: Right, sure but here is one of the things we differ, I think. I certainly agree that through the books Slytherin we saw acting was Draco Malfoy. But while I did not expect unknown good students to pop out of nowhere, I also did not expect Draco Malfoy to show his hidden goodness either. I mean, he showed more than I expected that's for sure. I guess to make the story short to me the behaviour of Draco Malfoy certainly does not make or break the Slytherin's face. What I am trying to say is that to me Draco Malfoy was the bad, the horrible, the **ugly** face of Slytherin, and while I did not expect no name character to be a good Slytherin, I certainly would not mind somebody else whom we know to be shown as better Slytherin faces and to me JKR delivered it and delivered well. > Betsy Hp: > Whereas for me, the story of Snape, Slughorn and Regulus just served > to illustrate how bad Slytherin as a whole really is. Slughorn > didn't bring one Slytherin back with him to join the fight. Snape > was shown as almost able to rise above the massive error of being a > Slytherin. To such an extent Dumbledore was able to say of > him "sometimes I think we sort too early". Not, "you're showing the > good in Slytherin", just, "gosh, you're almost like a Gryffindor." > Which gets further highlighted (IMO) by Harry speaking of Snape's > Gryffindor virtue of bravery to Al. Alla: Right, well, this is the major difference isn't it? To me those stories stand out HUGELY, more than any Gryffindor story except Harry, you know? Stories of amasing bravery, courage, love, etc, etc IMO, so I just cannot see artistically how Slytherin is not standing out, you know? I mean, I do not even connect to Snape on emotional level, but do I not see how much he changed? IMO he did. Slughorn's story who found courage in himself also resonates with me, etc. So, yeah, despite Slytherins leaving, what I remember are those stories, you know? Betsy Hp: > But I'm wondering now if our different reactions are based on > different expectations? So where you were pleasantly surprised that > *any* Slytherins turned out to be decent, I was horribly shocked that > this was it. Does that sound right? Alla: YES, it is quite right. Let me say it again, I am SO not bothered, if at the end of the story Slytherins will be done and over with. I mean, I would be like - WHATEVER, she needed bad guys, she created bad guys. Villains in fairy tales do not get healing and redemption. I am so fine with fairy tale reading of the ending. But that is just not what I see in the text. I went with pretty much this expectation in the last book and OMG, what I saw totally exceeded my expectations. Slytherin ideology ugliness IMO was not supposed to be shown as anything else but ugly, but she shown me that quite a few Slytherins overcame it ( Okay, three, I count Andromeda, so four), while IMO remaining Slytherins to the bone. I loved it, I really did. But yes, I certainly did not expect much of Slytherin House and got more than I bargained for in a very good way. Betsy Hp: > So there was never a moment, that I saw, where a Slytherin, with his > or her Slytherin virtues, looked at Voldemort and said, "this goes > against what I believe in." Which disappointed me. Especially after > having so many Slytherins look at Voldemort and say, "Yeah, that > seems about right." So the personal (very personal) actions of a > few, didn't do anything for their house overall for me. > Alla: But isn't it exactly what Regulus did? I said many times how I feel about his story, so really not trying to convince you, but it just feels that his story is so much more than personal reasons IMO of course. And Snape, by the time he died IMO too ( OMG, I defend Snape again. I. Defend. Snape.) Again, I still hate the bastard, but I thought he indeed grew to believe in right things. IMO of course. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 21:35:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:35:15 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178973 Besty HP wrote: > Both Regulus and Snape suffer, for me, from acting for very small and personal reasons. Snape was horrified that the girl he loved was going to be killed. Regulus was horrified that the house-elf he loved was nearly killed. Neither seemed to have come to a realization that Voldemort overall was bad news. > Just as the Malfoys would not have betrayed Voldemort if their son's > life wasn't on the line. > So the personal (very personal) actions of a few, didn't do anything for their house overall for me. Carol responds: I understand your disappointment here, and I was one of those who argued against a Lily/Snape SHIP because it didn't seem to me to be sufficient motivation. However, setting aside the shared virtues of love and courage that enabled Snape (too late for him but not for Harry) to persuade Harry to trust him and to act on his message and enabled Harry to understand and forgive him as no other virtues or values would have done (IMO), I disagree that neither Snape nor Regulus realized that "Voldemort was overall bad news." Regulus sacrificed his own life not only to avenge his House-Elf (that Voldemort would force an innocent House-Elf to drink that horrible potion and leave him to be killed by Inferi must have opened Reggie's eyes to the atrocities of which LV was capable), he also figured out somehow that LV had performed the greatest crime of all, creating a Horcrux. And he was determined to undo that evil, to make Voldemort mortal again: "I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more" (HBP Am. ed. 609). I'm pretty sure from those courageous words that Regulus knew that Voldemort was thoroughly evil and wanted him to be destroyed. A mortal Voldemort is a killable Voldemort. As for Snape, I'm not going to restate all the arguments I've made that there's more to his repeatedly risking his life to lie and spy for Dumbledore than love for Lily. I'll just repeat that he continues to protect Lily's son even after he knows that they're not really doing it for Lily, that DD has used him, that Harry will have to sacrifice himself (and, Snape thinks, die in the process) to destroy the soul bit. And he saves people who have nothing to do with Lily and nothing to do with protecting Harry even if they're connected with him (DD--admittedly only extending his life, but he would have saved him if he could; Katie Bell; Draco; Lupin, of all people). Nor are these the only people that he has saved since he makes his remark, "Lately, only those whom I could not save," before any of these actions. He expresses horror that DD has (apparently) se Harry up for death. He dies giving Harry a last important message--and the means to understand and forgive Snape himself. And if Harry acknowledges only Snape's love for his mother and his courage rather than his other gifts (which he knew about already), it's because those were the virtues that caused him to oppose and continue opposing Voldemort, to risk his life over and over again, and to agree to Dumbledore's wish to be killed by him as no one else would have done--not for Lily but for Draco and for DD himself. I can't persuade you otherwise, but I can't and don't share your view that his seventeen-year opposition to Voldemort was *only* because of Lily. I do agree, however, that if it weren't for his love of Lily that opposition would never have begun. Love, after all, is the great force that defeats Dark magic, as DD repeatedly reminds Harry. And it's through Snape that Harry finally learns that lesson. As for personal motivations, can you think of any character in the books who doesn't oppose Voldemort for personal reasons? Remember Harry in SS/PS? "He killed my mum and dad." And he repeats that motivation, with a bit of nudging from Dumbledore, in HBP. In DH, he's seeking to destroy the Horcruxes, along with Ron and Hermione, because he's the Chosen One and because DD assigned him (them) that job. Ron and Hermione are with him because they're his trusted and loyal friends (Ron's temporary defection notwithstanding). They have an additional personal stake in the outcome: The DEs are persecuting Muggleborns and Hermione is a Muggle-born (and Ron is in love with her--love again, along with friendship, as a motivator). Dobby rescues Harry and his friends out of love and loyalty, not principle, unless you count fear of Voldemort's winning and resuming their abuse of House-Elves (a highly personal matter to Dobby). Ditto for Kreacher, who fights in the name of brave Regulus, who died for him. Dumbledore? I think personal guilt was as important as principled opposition in his battle against Voldemort. McGonagall? Probably the welfare of the school, but the name that triggers her battle rage is Dumbledore. (And, of course, she thinks that Snape murdered DD, a personal grudge against him matching Harry's own desire for vengeance against Snape until he learns the truth in the Pensieve.) Lupin? Making the WW a better place for his newborn son. Molly? Protecting her children. Principle may play a role for some characters, but in the end, it's love and loyalty and friendship that are important. As Hermione tells Harry way back in SS/PS, there are more important things than books and cleverness (or school or life itself, apparently), "friendship and bravery." Or, put another way, "love and courage," the very virtues that we see illustrated by Regulus and the Prince in their respective tales. And, of course, by Harry himself, who differed from the Slytherin heroes primarily in having the support of friends and a greater share of luck. Carol, apologizing for sounding a bit snippy in her previous post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 22:15:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:15:50 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178974 Betsy Hp wrote: > I'm sorry, but I just cannot get past the fact that when the big battle came Slytherin left and joined the enemy. Carol responds; But, Betsy, as we've tried to show you, this statement is not a *fact.* It's your *interpretation*, and it appears to be a minority view. There's no evidence to support the truth of the statement (it could be one of many false statements made by characters that are never directly contradicted) and all sorts of evidence that it may be false. (I'm not saying that I'm right in my own interpretation, only that you can't claim a point that can be argued against as a canon "fact.") We do not see a single Slytherin student on the battlefield or with the DEs in the Voldemort camp. Not one. On a sidenote, if even the younger children supported the Dark Lord at the risk of their own lives (a view that seems to contradict Phineas Nigellus' view that Slytherins in general would put their own safety first) wouldn't that make them brave and deluded rather than evil? But since we don't see them fighting for either side and we do see them evacuating, it's a moot point. But I'm not arguing now, having already presented my arguments upthread. I'm asking a question. If we could persuade you that Voldemort was lying and that Slytherin did *not* fight on his side but went to safety as McGonagall ordered (Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle excepted), would you still hold the view that Slytherin is bad, bad, bad (despite the changes in *Harry's* perspective post-Pensieve)? Carol, just wondering how rethinking this one "fact" would affect your perspective From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 23:07:10 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:07:10 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178975 > Carol responds; > > But I'm not arguing now, having already presented my arguments > upthread. I'm asking a question. If we could persuade you that > Voldemort was lying and that Slytherin did *not* fight on his side but > went to safety as McGonagall ordered (Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle > excepted), would you still hold the view that Slytherin is bad, bad, > bad (despite the changes in *Harry's* perspective post-Pensieve)? > > Carol, just wondering how rethinking this one "fact" would affect your > perspective > Prep0strus: As Besty's sometime-ally, sometime-polar opposite, I figure I'd answer here as well... I would still hold that view. Well, it might be a bit strong - bad, bad, bad. But certainly not good, not good, not good. My feelings stem more from my inability to see ANY presented Slytherin as predominantly full of good qualities (as has been discussed ad nauseum - I am fully aware that some people would bear Snape's children, others think Slughorn is a kindly uncle, Regulus makes Robin Hood and King Arthur look like selfish jerks, and St. Andromeda shines with the light of her unverified Slytherinness). It is not that event at the end that makes or breaks Slytherin. Slytherin has always been broken, and I don't see anything in the story that makes me feel differently. There are individual Slytherins who have qualities that keep them from being evil, and who accomplish good things, but I think their overwhelming personalities are odious, and while theoretically I realize there are many, many other Slytherins out there... in fiction, I actually need to see some of them. ~Adam (Prep0strus), who knows that delving back into this is probably a mistake, but amused by how quickly he could find himself on the other side of Betsy's argument, if it turns into a discussion on whether Slytherin being all bad is actually a bad thing. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 23:42:27 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:42:27 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178976 > Carol responds: > The "great sea change" is that they're voluntarily going into battle > under the leadership of the formerly despicable Kreacher, now > emulating his hero and idol, Regulus, to fight against the evil > wizards who will abuse them as they did during VW1 if they win the > battle. a_svirn: Yes. But why do you call it "change"? Change from what? Did they fight against the Ministry in the VW1? I don't think so. They always wanted good masters and hated bad masters. They would always protect their good masters. Carol: The alternative is to sit out the battle and await the > outcome, which could be very bad for the House-Elves, or to join the > side of the oppressors, which would be foolish if not suicidal. In > VW1, they just let things happen. a_svirn: You don't know it. I am pretty sure that they helped their masters then as they do know. If there were no epic battles in the VW1 it has nothing to do with elves' attitude and everything to do with wizard's. Carol: Now, in the Battle of Hogwarts, they > are joining the forces of freedom--not for the sake of their wizard > masters, who have not ordered them to join the battle, but of their > own volition. a_svirn: But you yourself quoted Kreacher who cried "fight, fight for my master". It is perfectly possible to do something for other peoples' sake and yet on one's own volition. Carol: And rather than individually subverting bad masters, > they are acting as a unit to prevent their takeover. a_svirn: But how could they subvert bad masters when they only had good ones? They had to make do without subvertion. > Carol: > > > Can you please show me an instance in which Kreacher abuses > himself after he accepts the locket? > > > > a_svirn: > > That doesn't matter. It is the principle that matters. If he thinks > that house elves shouldn't be tortured, then he shouldn't torture > himself. > > Carol: > I don't follow your logic (nor would Kreacher, probably). The > principle, as I see it, is that wizards shouldn't abuse House-Elves, > which is the cause that Regulus sacrificed himself for and that > Kreacher ends up fighting for. It has nothing to do with House-Elves > punishing themselves, which *Hermione* is concerned about. a_svirn; No. you said upthread that they are fighting for their *right* not to be abused. If Kreacher think he has the *right* not to be abused and tortured, why then he tortures himself? Perhaps he would not understand my logic, but then, I don't think he understands the concept of his "rights". > > a_svirn: > > Oh, yes. He was an unhappy and rebellious slave and now he is happy > and loyal one, because Harry finally started to behave as a > responsible owner. A change indeed. But it is Harry who changed his > attitude, not Kreacher. Kreacher *always* wanted a good master. It was > Harry who didn't want a happy and loyal slave at first. > > Carol: > Harry "didn't want a happy and loyal slave"? What do you mean? a_svirn; I mean he didn't want Kreacher to be happy and loyal. He didn't care whether his orders (or indeed his ownership) hurt Kreacher's feeling. He just made use of him as he pleased and never bothered to be kind to him. Then in DH he changed his attitude. > Carol: > Okay, bad comparison, as I knew when I typed it--you snipped the part > where I conceded that he wasn't fighting for freedom, so I'll repeat > it here: "That he's fighting to preserve the status quo (as anyone who > fights an invader or usurper is doing) rather than fighting for > freedom (which neither he nor the other House-Elves wants) does not > make him any less a leader or a hero." a_svirn: Except that it does. He was much more like Spartacus in OOP when he rebelled against his master. (And I liked him better then.) > Carol: I resorted to Spartacus (with > the quoted concession) because I couldn't (and still can't) think of a > hero who rose from obscurity and degradation to protect his home and > (adopted) family. a_svirn; Othello? Admittedly a fictional character, but he was a slave at some point in his career, then rose to be a Venetian general and crushed the invading Turks. Then again he had ceased to be a slave long before he became a leader. And so had Spartacus. I don't think you'll find a great leader who would be simultaneously a happy slave. Those two characteristics are mutually exclusive. Carol: I suppose some future Dobby might persuade them that > good working conditions aren't sufficient--they have the right to > wages and clothes and the choice of masters, which is all that freedom > means to him--but why give up good jobs and homes that make them happy > if they don't have some other employer to go to? It's as if > well-treated employees were to walk out of their cushy jobs because > they'd rather be unemployed than work for a boss (read "master") whose > orders they have to follow and whose assigned tasks take up nearly > half their waking lives. (As Ishmael said in "Moby Dick," "Who ain't a > slave?") a_svirn: Well, I can't read "master" instead of employer. Not when master is a term for a slave-owner. Dobby, by the way, was careful to point out the distinction. Besides, you always said that elves are *not* like humans, and therefore any comparisons between elves' slavery and human slavery wouldn't work. That being the case I must say I find the comparison between house elves' slavery and real life employment downright confusing. > Carol: > It's not just cleanliness that has changed, and he's no longer > malevolent or groveling. a_svirn: I guess, I just fail to regard it as an improvement. And Surely "eager to serve" and "grovelling" are sort of synonymous? He was far less grovelling back in OOP. > Carol: Instead, he's eager and willing to serve > (much the same attitude we see in Dobby despite Dobby's receiving pay > at Hogwarts and his choice to serve Harry as well as the Hogwarts > headmaster). Kreacher is also happy and respectful, a big change from > OoP and HBP. But the 180-degree turn that I'm talking about is the > change from going behind his master's back to subvert him to openly > fighting an evil intruder and leading other House-Elves to follow him, > as Dobby, the sole House-Elf advocate of freedom, failed to do. a_svirn: Did Dobby want house elves to follow him? I don't remember that. And he most certainly did not try to lead them into any battles. So change from what? The only change you described so far is from a rebellious slave to a loyal one. > Carol: > If he hadn't acted, the DEs might have won, even with > Voldemort gone. And regardless of whether the House-Elves played a > decisive role or not, they fought for a cause, on their own, without > being recruited by Wizards. They defended themselves against evil. > They protected their home. And that, after all, is the reason most > humans fight as well--to protect their home and their country against > invaders. a_svirn: Yes, so they did. They stood with their good masters against potentially new and evil masters. That proves... what exactly? That they are good at heart? I never disputed that. That they can exercise free will? Yes, unless their masters forbid them to. Fortunately for everyone their masters happened to be as good as their slaves and did not forbid them to fight Evil. But that has changed nothing either for elves or for wizards. They are as good now as they were before the battle. They are still slaves and masters respectively. > Carol, noting that the transformation of Kreacher is not merely a > matter of Harry's altered perspective (as with Snape and Draco) but a > change in Kreacher himself, from malevolent, half-mad conspirator to > inspired and inspiring leader of his people a_svirn: I think Crassus thought Spartacus was a malevolent conspirator. And I am pretty sure he has a slave batman (or whatever they called them in Ancient Rome) who made him a Roman version of sandwich after the battle of Silarus. In which battle the said batman also participated. Perhaps he fought for his right to make Cassius a sandwich among other things. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 00:10:29 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:10:29 -0000 Subject: Plot Points: Kreacher's Arrival in the Battle. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178977 Just changing the subject a bit. I suppose I'm just complaining but I see it as more of a comment. I thought Kreacher's coming out (no not like /that/) was a little weak. How did Kreacher get there? When did he get there? What was his motivation? I thought the story would have worked better, when in the room of requirements Ron expressed concern about the House Elves, if Harry had called Kreacher and told him to go warn the other Elves that they were in danger, and that if they chose to flee they could. Now we have a reason for Kreacher to be there, we have a reason for him to talk to the house-elves, and we have a logical sequence that could have lead Kreacher to rally the elves to help the good guys. Anybody have any other minor plot points for which you can see a better way for them to have been worked out? Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 00:20:46 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:20:46 -0000 Subject: Plot Points: Kreacher's Arrival in the Battle. (correction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Just changing the subject a bit. I suppose I'm just complaining > but I see it as more of a comment. > > I thought Kreacher's coming out (no not like /that/) was a > little weak. How did Kreacher get there? When did he get there? > What was his motivation? > bboyminn: When I say 'Kreacher coming out', I mean Kreacher and the house elves coming out to fight in the last battle. > I thought the story would have worked better, when in the > room of requirements Ron expressed concern about the House > Elves, if Harry had called Kreacher and told him to go > warn the other Elves that they were in danger, and that if > they chose to flee they could. > > Now we have a reason for Kreacher to be there, we have a > reason for him to talk to the house-elves, and we have a > logical sequence that could have lead Kreacher to rally > the elves to help the good guys. > bboyminn: Also, we have a reason for the time delay in the Elves arrival. The discussion of House-Elves in the RoR, took place very late in the story. So, allowing for Kreacher to arrive in the kitchens and convince the elves, we have a reasonable explanation for the time delay. > > Anybody have any other minor plot points for which you > can see a better way for them to have been worked out? > > Just a thought. > > Steve/bboyminn > From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 00:33:36 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:33:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40711090919u6868efcdwb6d925105726684c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40711091633y53327d68hbaa1715acbf4f7cd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178979 > Kemper wrote: > > Even though we only have CrouchJr's words of his father, the words > > that we do have /to/ his father is suggestive of the relationship he > > had with his father. You already provided some of the text, but right > > before it, there's: > > "Father... Father... please..." > > Then: > > "Father, I didn't! I didn't, I swear it, Father, ...--" > > > > Using 'Father', seems formal, cold, and distant to me. Though, > > perhaps JKR was using 'father' to suggest a different, upper(?) class. > > > Carol responded: > ... > It appears from the brief glimpse we > get in "The Madness of Mr. Crouch" that Crouch Sr. did at one point > love his son and have high hopes for him. He speaks of celebrating his > son's twelve OWLs and tells the imaginary "Weatherby" that he's "very > proud indeed" (GoF Am. ed. 556). Kemper now: It could be that Mr. Crouch loved his son; however, the quote from GoF you refer to does not suggest that to me. First, expressions of pride are not actions of love. The full quote: "Yes, my son has recently gained twelve O.W.L.s, most satisfactory, yes, thank you, yes, very proud indeed." If the expression of pride was directed at his son rather than whomever the mad Mr. Crouch is talking to, I would be more sympathetic toward Mr. Crouch as father. I read the quote, initially and now, as Mr. Crouch showing off a prized object rather than an adored son. This seems to be the case, when later, after Master Barty is administered the Veritaserum, he states of his escape from Azkaban: "She persuaded my father to rescue me as a last favor to her. He loved her as he had never loved me." This statement suggests to me that Master Barty longed for expressions of his father's love. > Carol: > Something happened between the end of Barty Jr.'s fifth year and the > Crucioing of the Longbottoms when he was about nineteen to tempt this > obviously talented and intelligent boy to join the Death Eaters and, > in contrast to Snape and Regulus, become a fanatical follower willing > to engage in horrific acts to find information on his missing master. > It's no coincidence, IMO, that his attitude and even his words > resemble Bellatrix's. They shared a fascination with and devotion to > the greatest Dark Wizard for a hundred years (or so he's viewed in the > British WW). Kemper now: Bellatrix and Barty do seem equally fanatical. But Bellatrix seems like she was always evil while Barty came into it late. Barty seems like someone who joined a cult at the cusp of adulthood, while Bellatrix seems like she was born and reared in it. Does that make sense? > Carol: > Did bad fathering create Barty Jr., changing him from a talented boy > with a bright future into a monster? Or did Barty Jr. choose the DEs > thinking that he would find glory and scope for his talents there > despite knowing that his father opposed Dark Magic and was authorizing > his DEs to use every available weapon against Voldemort? Did those > stringent measures arise *because* Barty Sr. suspected that his son > had joined the DEs against his will? Or did the bad fathering occur > *after* the father foolishly rescued the son (as the result of the > boy's mother's pleas) rather than letting him die in Azkaban? Kemper now: I don't think that bad fathering created DE Barty Jr, but I do think in contributed to him. Regulus' parents seemed to love their son based on Sirius' statements (of which I have not looked up the canon, so I may be wrong). DE Regulus was not as fanatical as DE Barty. Perhaps DE Barty has to be so fanatical because if he wasn't, it would mean he would have to see a truth within the DE'st: Voldemort shows love to no one. Kemper, who pities the Master Barty that could have been From empress.najwa at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 01:14:23 2007 From: empress.najwa at gmail.com (strange_familiarities) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:14:23 -0000 Subject: Fawkes' Absence after Dumbledore's death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178980 I have a question about Fawkes. Does he have some sort of mortal bond with Dumbledore? He seemed to have totally disappeared from the books. I might have missed something, but I do not understand where he disappeared to. Also, if he did not die, then why didn't he rescue Snape? In CoS, Dumbledore explained to Harry that Fawkes helps those who are loyal to Dumbledore, and who was more loyal to Dumbledore than Snape? From cottell at dublin.ie Sat Nov 10 02:12:34 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:12:34 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: <700201d40711091633y53327d68hbaa1715acbf4f7cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178981 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > This seems to be the case, when later, after Master Barty is > administered the Veritaserum, he states of his escape from Azkaban: > "She persuaded my father to rescue me as a last favor to her. He > loved her as he had never loved me." > This statement suggests to me that Master Barty longed for > expressions of his father's love. Mus: For me, there's another interpretation, though. We know that he's (at least by the end of GoF), at least slightly mad, and, with Bellatrix, the most dedicated DE we meet. I'm always a little suspicious of children who claim that their parents loved someone else more - denial of a parent's love is, in this case, perfectly consonant with DE philosophy, which is one of denial of love if it is anything. Murdering his father and Transfiguring his body into a bone to be buried in Hagrid's vegetable patch is pathological contempt, and I can't quite take Barty Jnr's word for much. He's one of the most deceitful characters in the whole series - he lied under oath (Bellatrix at least stood up for what she believed in), he carried out the whole Tri-Wizard Tournament ruse, he kept Moody starving in a trunk for nine months. If he tells me his father didn't love him, then I'm not inclined to believe him without other evidence. Note, in fact, that he doesn't say that his mother loved *him* - all he's fixated on his hatred of his father. I'll agree that Barty Snr isn't a touchy-feely father, but this is in keeping with all the rest of his character. To paraphrase Sirius, I don't believe the world is divided into touchy-feely fathers and those who don't love their children. And this reader finds it rather touching that when he's babbling as if he were at work, he's talking about his son. I agree that he may have seemed distant, and that his work probably took him away from home too much (though it didn't, if we *do* believe the son, stop him loving his wife). I suppose it could be argued that his use of Imperio on his son was Bad, but after DH, we can no longer regard that as inherently wicked. It's a perfectly acceptable ploy when effective control is required. Mus, who thinks young Master Barty is bonkers and the most unreliable of sources, and who wouldn't believe him if he said water was wet. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 05:01:43 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:01:43 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40711091633y53327d68hbaa1715acbf4f7cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40711092101q5ec2b815g6d800282b34be8c9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178982 > Kemper wrote: > > > This seems to be the case, when later, after Master Barty is > > administered the Veritaserum, he states of his escape from Azkaban: > > "She persuaded my father to rescue me as a last favor to her. He > > loved her as he had never loved me." > > This statement suggests to me that Master Barty longed for > > expressions of his father's love. > > Mus replied: > For me, there's another interpretation, though. We know that he's (at > least by the end of GoF), at least slightly mad, and, with Bellatrix, > the most dedicated DE we meet. I'm always a little suspicious of > children who claim that their parents loved someone else more - denial > of a parent's love is, in this case, perfectly consonant with DE > philosophy, which is one of denial of love if it is anything. > > Murdering his father and Transfiguring his body into a bone to be > buried in Hagrid's vegetable patch is pathological contempt, and I > can't quite take Barty Jnr's word for much. He's one of the most > deceitful characters in the whole series - he lied under oath > (Bellatrix at least stood up for what she believed in), he carried out > the whole Tri-Wizard Tournament ruse, he kept Moody starving in a > trunk for nine months. If he tells me his father didn't love him, > then I'm not inclined to believe him without other evidence. Note, in > fact, that he doesn't say that his mother loved *him* - all he's > fixated on his hatred of his father. Kemper now: You are absolutely right, Barty is full of contempt, hatred and deceit. But... he is speaking under Veritaserum when he says, "He loved her as he never loved me." I'm not suggesting Barty's statement is factual. What I'm saying is that Barty believes his statement to be true. A truth is not necessarily a fact. > Mus continues: > I'll agree that Barty Snr isn't a touchy-feely father, but this is in > keeping with all the rest of his character. To paraphrase Sirius, I > don't believe the world is divided into touchy-feely fathers and those > who don't love their children. And this reader finds it rather > touching that when he's babbling as if he were at work, he's talking > about his son. Kemper now: I agree with your paraphrase but am leery about a loving Mr. Crouch. Kemper From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 06:53:57 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:53:57 -0000 Subject: Fawkes' Absence after Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178983 --- "strange_familiarities" wrote: > > I have a question about Fawkes. Does he have some sort of > mortal bond with Dumbledore? He seemed to have totally > disappeared from the books. I might have missed something, > but I do not understand where he disappeared to. Also, if he > did not die, then why didn't he rescue Snape? In CoS, > Dumbledore explained to Harry that Fawkes helps those who > are loyal to Dumbledore, and who was more loyal to Dumbledore > than Snape? > bboyminn: First and foremost, Dumbledore did not own Fawkes. Fawkes was a free spirit that did as he chose. At some point he chose to accompany Dumbledore, and in a sense, they were companions. Fawkes was always free to leave when ever the mood struck him. So, Fawkes stay at Hogwarts because that is where Dumbledore was, and like any good companion, he protected his friend and those his friend, Dumbledore, was fond of. But, when Dumbledore died, the thing that held Fawkes to Hogwarts was gone. His companion was gone, his friend was gone. Once that happened, Fawkes went back to living the life of seclusion that is more typical of a Phoenix. Fawkes was /only/ loyal to Dumbledore, and without Dumbledore there was nothing holding him there at Hogwarts. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sat Nov 10 07:00:55 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:00:55 -0900 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: <700201d40711090919u6868efcdwb6d925105726684c@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40711090919u6868efcdwb6d925105726684c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <91C42EF5-EAD7-4150-B744-931DCEA8EECB@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178984 On 2007, Nov 09, , at 08:19, Kemper wrote: > Kemper now: > Even though we only have CrouchJr's words of his father, the words > that we do have /to/ his father is suggestive of the relationship he > had with his father. You already provided some of the text, but right > before it, there's: > "Father... Father... please..." > Then: > "Father, I didn't! I didn't, I swear it, Father, ...--" > > Using 'Father', seems formal, cold, and distant to me. Though, > perhaps JKR was using 'father' to suggest a different, upper(?) class. The other chilling thing about this snippet of text is that CrouchJr was lying - flat out and completely. It puzzles me that Voldemort later called Barty Jr. his most trusted servant. VM must know from Bella that Barty Jr. claimed at his trial that he didn't do anything. What was Barty trying to pull? Was he claiming that he didn't do anything so that his father would release him and he could then seek out Voldemort again? Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 07:23:15 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 23:23:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: <91C42EF5-EAD7-4150-B744-931DCEA8EECB@acsalaska.net> References: <700201d40711090919u6868efcdwb6d925105726684c@mail.gmail.com> <91C42EF5-EAD7-4150-B744-931DCEA8EECB@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: <700201d40711092323p3a5ea376x571dee548ed44b2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178985 > Laura: > It puzzles me that Voldemort later called Barty Jr. his most trusted > servant. VM must know from Bella that Barty Jr. claimed at his > trial that he didn't do anything. What was Barty trying to pull? > Was he claiming that he didn't do anything so that his father would > release him and he could then seek out Voldemort again? Kemper now: Voldemort did not know of BartyJr's denial of him. Bella was still in Azkaban at the end of GoF, and BartyJr was dead or dementored by the time Voldemort broke out Bellatrix and the rest in OoP. Kemper From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Nov 10 16:24:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:24:01 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178986 > a_svirn; > No. you said upthread that they are fighting for their *right* not to > be abused. If Kreacher think he has the *right* not to be abused and > tortured, why then he tortures himself? Perhaps he would not > understand my logic, but then, I don't think he understands the > concept of his "rights". Pippin: Kreacher tortures himself because he is compelled to by enchantments. He is not fighting for those enchantments to be lifted. No one is, presumably because they have no idea how it can be done. He is fighting for the kind of treatment he believes a house-elf should receive from a worthy master. Whether it's a legal right or a right recognized by custom has nothing to do with him. > > > > a_svirn: > > > Oh, yes. He was an unhappy and rebellious slave and now he is happy and loyal one, because Harry finally started to behave as a responsible owner. A change indeed. But it is Harry who changed his attitude, not Kreacher. Kreacher *always* wanted a good master. It was Harry who didn't want a happy and loyal slave at first. Pippin: Ah. But Kreacher didn't believe that a halfblood who associated with freaks, monsters and mudbloods could *be* a good master. That's why he wished he could be Draco's slave instead. Pippin From sdcjjack at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 15:48:50 2007 From: sdcjjack at yahoo.com (sdcjjack) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:48:50 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178987 When I read that the master of the Elder Wand could not be defeated, I wondered how DD defeated Grim and gained control of the Wand? Was Grim not wielding the Wand in their battle? sdcjjack From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Nov 10 17:25:36 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:25:36 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178988 sdcjjack: > When I read that the master of the Elder Wand could not be defeated, I > wondered how DD defeated Grim and gained control of the Wand? Was Grim > not wielding the Wand in their battle? > Pippin: Canon suggests several possibilities. The wand can be stolen while its owner sleeps. It can be taken by Expelliarmus if the holder is weakened or distracted. Or the owner may be hit by his own rebounding curse. Rita Skeeter, never able to resist a double entendre, suggests that there never was a battle at all. As Elphias Doge says there were witnesses I think that is meant to be a lie. But it could have a grain of truth in it. Dumbledore knew Gellert's great weakness, his desire for the Deathly Hallows. If Dumbledore hinted that he had discovered where the other two Hallows were, Gellert would have had a reason to try to take Dumbledore alive. Then it would just be a question of stamina and magical inventiveness, two areas where Dumbledore excelled. Dumbledore expected Voldemort to follow a similar strategy in protecting his horcruxes and not use methods that would kill the thief before he could be interrogated. But it seems that he was wrong. Pippin using Gellert because Grindy-whatsit is hard to spell From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Nov 10 17:37:47 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:37:47 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: <700201d40711091633y53327d68hbaa1715acbf4f7cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178989 > Kemper now: > It could be that Mr. Crouch loved his son; however, the quote from GoF > you refer to does not suggest that to me. First, expressions of pride > are not actions of love. The full quote: > "Yes, my son has recently gained twelve O.W.L.s, most satisfactory, > yes, thank you, yes, very proud indeed." Pippin: I think Lucius and Crouch Sr are two sides of the same coin, fathers who see their sons as extensions of themselves and express their love only when the son is fulfilling their expectations. It's a very withholding, conditional kind of love. It isn't surprising that Barty Jr rebelled, and hmm...I wonder if Draco's perpetual incompetence as a DE wannabe wasn't a kind of rebellion too? Did he keep failing because subconsciously he wanted his father to prove that he loved Draco for himself? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 17:53:53 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:53:53 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178990 sdcjjack wrote: > > When I read that the master of the Elder Wand could not be defeated, I wondered how DD defeated Grim and gained control of the Wand? Was Grim not wielding the Wand in their battle? > Carol responds: I assume mean Grindelwald. In any case, the Elder Wand legend is not entirely true. (For example, the brothers certainly didn't receive the wands from Death himself and it's doubtful that the third brother wore the Invisibility Cloak all his life to hide from Death/death.) Maybe the master of the Elder Wand can't be killed, at least by a spell from another wand, while he's wielding it, but he can certainly be caught offguard and disarmed against his will, as Draco's disarming of DD shows. So maybe, at a point when GG was contemplating some sophisticated move, DD hit him with a simple Expelliarmus, simultaneously ending the duel and becoming master of the wand. GG would certainly have had to concede defeat at that point, being wandless, and could have been arrested by a waiting force of European Aurors. At any rate, Grindelwald was certainly wielding the wand or DD could not have become master of it. Carol, wondering whether the part about the Elder Wand having no core is true From shauthecool at yahoo.co.in Sat Nov 10 13:59:21 2007 From: shauthecool at yahoo.co.in (shauthecool) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:59:21 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: <700201d40711092323p3a5ea376x571dee548ed44b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178991 I think Voldemort called Barty Jr his most loyal ally not because of what he did before the trial but because of what he did after it. Even after iving imprisoned in his house for these many years,he didn't even think of transforming like Malfoy & Co. shauthecool From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 10 18:10:31 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:10:31 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178992 "pippin_999" wrote: > The (Elder) wand can be stolen while > its owner sleeps. It can be taken > by Expelliarmus if the holder is > weakened or distracted. Yes I agree. I think calling the wand unbeatable is just one of those legends that grew up around it, like the one that said it was made by Mr. Death. The Elder Wand is the most powerful wand in the world, but it would be going too far to call it unbeatable. > Or the owner may be hit by his > own rebounding curse. That would only work if the Elder Wand's target happens to also be the master of the Elder Wand, a wand will not kill its master no matter who is holding it. Voldemort was holding the only wand it the world that could not kill Harry, not even if used by a very powerful dark wizard, because Harry was and will continue to be the Master of the Elder Wand (so you might as well use it Harry!). Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 10 18:28:18 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:28:18 -0000 Subject: Plot Points: Kreacher's Arrival in the Battle. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178993 "Steve" wrote: > Anybody have any other minor plot > points for which you can see a > better way for them to have been worked out? Make Percy evil, let Harry keep the Elder Wand, and in the Epilog have Harry walk with a limp and wave goodbye "with his good hand" implying that the last 19 years (perhaps due him being the Master of the Elder Wand) have not been entirely uneventful. And get rid of "all is well". Eggplant From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 20:22:18 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:22:18 -0000 Subject: JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178994 > Pippin: > Kreacher tortures himself because he is compelled to by enchantments. > He is not fighting for those enchantments to be lifted. No one is, > presumably because they have no idea how it can be done. He is > fighting for the kind of treatment he believes a house-elf should > receive from a worthy master. Whether it's a legal right or a right > recognized by custom has nothing to do with him. a_svirn: But then, he always fought for that. Staring from OOP. > Pippin: But Kreacher didn't believe that a halfblood who associated with > freaks, monsters and mudbloods could *be* a good master. That's > why he wished he could be Draco's slave instead. a_svirn: Not at all. You didn't listen to Hermione apparently. He does not bother his head over wizarding politics. Sirius was a pure-blood, but he hated him none the less. He hated him because he believed him to be against everything that Regulus hold dear. When it was explained to him that Harry was actually on Regulus's side, he changed his mind. It is all about personal loyalty to the master. From oneel at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 20:02:14 2007 From: oneel at yahoo.com (Tania Canedo) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:02:14 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178995 Pippin: (snip) > Rita Skeeter, never able to resist a double entendre, > suggests that there never was a battle at all. Tania: I would agree with Skeeter (and Pippin), maybe there wasn't a battle at all, or maybe a battle to death. Probably the witnesses saw the beginning of the battle, but then DD would have continued the battle somewhere away from the crowd. DD may have tried to reason with GG and GG might have given him the wand to stand down or allowed DD to stun him. Since JK's latest reveals, this is quite possible. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 20:29:39 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:29:39 -0000 Subject: Fawkes' Absence after Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178996 strange_familiarities: > I have a question about Fawkes. Does he have some sort of mortal bond > with Dumbledore? He seemed to have totally disappeared from the books. > I might have missed something, but I do not understand where he > disappeared to. Also, if he did not die, then why didn't he rescue > Snape? In CoS, Dumbledore explained to Harry that Fawkes helps those > who are loyal to Dumbledore, and who was more loyal to Dumbledore than > Snape? > a_svirn: I was pretty sure that it was Fawkes who set fire to Dumbledore's pyre (thus putting stop to his own reincarnations). The whole scene was like a replay of the Phoenix and the Turtle, except that Shakespearian Phoenix was female. Then again we know now that Dumbledore was gay From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 21:11:23 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:11:23 -0000 Subject: Plot Points: Kreacher's Arrival in the Battle. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178997 Steve wrote: > I thought Kreacher's coming out (no not like /that/) was a > little weak. How did Kreacher get there? When did he get there? > What was his motivation? > > I thought the story would have worked better, when in the > room of requirements Ron expressed concern about the House > Elves, if Harry had called Kreacher and told him to go > warn the other Elves that they were in danger, and that if > they chose to flee they could. > > Now we have a reason for Kreacher to be there, we have a > reason for him to talk to the house-elves, and we have a > logical sequence that could have lead Kreacher to rally > the elves to help the good guys. Montavilla47: I think this is a good idea, but... call me a Harry-basher, but if he had done that, I think he was awfully presumptuous. Harry may be the Chosen One, but that doesn't make him in charge of the elves, and he doesn't have the right to say whether they have the choice to fight or not. I think that privilege would belong to Minerva McGonagall (as Deputy Headmistress). But it's a minor quibble. I'd have no problem with Harry summoning Kreacher to *warn* the elves (other than the problem Harry had that it might summon a Death Eater along with him. However, that would be unlikely, as no one other than an elf can apparate in or out of Hogwarts--plus, they would be more alert than any Death Eater who had been clinging to Kreacher for several months in the *hope* of being side-apparated to Harry and could easily get the drop on whoever showed up.) Steve again: > Anybody have any other minor plot points for which you > can see a better way for them to have been worked out? Montavilla47: The things I would want to clear up would in the Prince's Tale. The first thing is Snape talking to Dumbledore in the Headmaster's Office before he became Headmaster. There's no reason that Snape couldn't have his own portrait of Dumbledore in his home. That would also help the post-book plot hole that opened up with JKR's comment that "everyone" in the castle thought Snape was a traitor-- including the portraits in the Headmaster's office. How did they not notice that Dumbledore and Snape were planning ways to thwart Voldemort right in front of them? The second thing is the sequence of the Prank/SWM. It's more dramatic, I suppose, if the Prank takes place prior to SWM, but it really makes James and Sirius into jerks. Maybe that was the point--but I think it makes more sense if you reverse the order--and perhaps that scene between Lily and Snape could have taken place after the Prank and SWM (there's no reason that the Prank couldn't have taken place shortly after SWM.) Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 22:57:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:57:25 -0000 Subject: "Most faithful servant"? (Was: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: <91C42EF5-EAD7-4150-B744-931DCEA8EECB@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178998 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > It puzzles me that Voldemort later called Barty Jr. his most trusted > servant. VM must know from Bella that Barty Jr. claimed at his trial that he didn't do anything. What was Barty trying to pull? Was he claiming that he didn't do anything so that his father would release him and he could then seek out Voldemort again? Carol responds: As others have pointed out, Voldemort couldn't have known that Barty Jr. had falsely claimed innocence in a futile attempt to avoid being sent to Azkaban, and by the time she could inform him of Barty's cowardice and disloyalty, it would have been pointless to do so since he was already soul-sucked. There can be no question of his fanatical loyalty later, however, and LV would have been very happy to learn from poor Bertha Jorkins that a devoted follower he had thought dead was hiding under an Invisibility Cloak in his (the follower's) house. That the father was an important Ministry employee in charge of the upcoming TWT was, no doubt, an added attraction. Barty himself never claims to be LV's *most* faithful follower though that appears to be his ambition given his prediction of Voldemort's view of him after he has killed Harry: "I will be honored beyond all other Death Eaters. I will be his dearest, his closest supporter . . . closer than a son" (678). Except for the reference to "a son," surely a reflection on Barty's disturbed and disturbing relationship with the father her murdered, he uses almost the same language in that Bellatrix uses to describe her own (perceived) relationship with LV in "Spinner's End"--see below). Elsewhere, Barty contrasts his own loyalty with the "disloyalty" of those like Lucius Malfoy who "never suffered for [his] master" and never tried to seek him (686). He says that LV was looking for "a faithful servant" and that his own greatest ambition was "to serve [LV], to prove [him]self to him" (688). That he had once cried out that he was not guilty of Crucioing the Longbottoms and didn't want to be sent to Azkaban has conveniently slipped his mind. Voldemort's references refers to Barty Jr. (whom he does not identify by name) are virtually identical to Barty's own. He refers to him as "my most faithful servant . . . who has already reentered my service," more faithful than the DEs who showed up at the graveyard but never tried to find their master after Godric's Hollow, as well as the coward Karkaroff and the one he believes has left him forever, Snape (651). He informs the DEs that "that faithful servant" is at Hogwarts and that Harry is present in the graveyard thanks to his efforts (652). Later he becomes "a faithful Death Eater" (655) and then "my one faithful Death Eater" and "my Death Eater" (657), reinforcing the idea that those present in the circle (with the belated exception of Wormtail) failed to seek him after he lost his body (653). Barty Jr. has become the one faithful Death Eater, the most faithful servant, largely by default. Standing beside a gap in the circle, Voldemort says, "The Lestranges should stand here, but they are entombed in Azkaban. they were faithful. They went to Azkaban rather than renounce me. When Azkaban is broken open, they will be honored beyond their dreams" (651)--Voldemortian rhetoric, of course, since that honor consists of participating in the DoM fiasco and, in the case of Rodolphus and the ever-overlooked Rabastan, being arrested again, and in Bella's case, rescued by LV but disgraced. My impression, however, is that if the Lestranges, particularly Bellatrix, were present in the circle, Barty Jr. would have some competition for the title of "most faithful Death Eater." As it is, Barty is the most faithful DE still (for the moment) at large, both because he went after the Longbottoms with the Lestranges and was sent to Azkaban for it and because of his services at Hogwarts in arranging to get Harry to the graveyard and contribute his blood to the resurrection potion. Once Barty is soul-sucked, Bellatrix (whose only failing is to somehow allow the Prophecy to be shattered) has the title all to herself since neither Rodlophus nor Rabastan (both silent in the Pensieve scene) ever claims it. The only competition is Snape, whom Narcissa refers to as "the Dark Lord's favorite, his most trusted advisor" (HBP Am. ed. 34), but Snape (understandably) makes no claim to the title, only sneering slightly at Bellatrix when she asserts that the Dark Lord "shares everything" with her and calls her "his most loyal, his most faithful--" (HBP 29). Perhaps she would have conceded that title to Draco had he succeeded in killing Dumbledore, but not to anyone else. She's still demonstrating her devotion until her last breath. To her husband, injured in LV's service (DH Am. ed. 76), she seems not to devote a single thought. At any rate, while I don't for a moment question Barty Jr.'s fanatical devotion, maintained despite an Imperius Curse for twelve years and amply demonstrated during his lengthy impersonation of Mad-Eye Moody, I think that the title of most loyal follower rightly belongs to Bellatrix, whose cruelty and sadism so nearly match those of the evil master she worshipped and for whose sake she did, indeed, go to Azkaban--not silently like the male Lestranges or tearfully protesting like Barty, but arrogantly and defiantly."We alone were faithful," she says (GoF), but perhaps "I alone was faithful" would be nearer the truth. Carol, by no means admiring Bellatrix but noting that her loyalty matches any Hufflepuff's and her courage, though she's fighting for the wrong cause, is also great From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 10 23:55:35 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:55:35 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: Carol: > At any rate, Grindelwald was certainly wielding the wand or DD > could not have become master of it. Geoff: I don't think that is necessarily true... Looking at canon: '"And Grindelwald used the Elder wand to become powerful. At the height of his power, when Dumbledore knew he was the only one who could stop him, he duelled Grindelwald and beat him and he took the Elder wand." "Dumbledore had the Elder wand?" said Ron. "But then - where is it now?" "At Hogwarts," said Harry...' (DH "The Wandmaker" p.404 UK edition) '"But you're too late," said Harry, "You've missed your chance. I got there first. I overpowered Draco weeks ago. I took this wand from him." Harry twitched the hawthorn wand and he felt the eyes of everyone in the Hall upon it.' (DH "The Flaw in the Plan" p.595 UK edition) The Elder wand was in Dumbledore's tomb. Harry overpowered Draco and took his*own* wand but the Elder wand still recognised him as its master, having disarmed Draco. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 11 00:18:10 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:18:10 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179000 --- "sdcjjack" wrote: > > When I read that the master of the Elder Wand could not be > defeated, I wondered how DD defeated Grim and gained control > of the Wand? Was Grim not wielding the Wand in their battle? > > sdcjjack > bboyminn: Here is the most critical and important point, other have made it already, but I will state it more bluntly. We must separate the /Legend/ of the Three Brothers and their magical objects from the /Reality/ of the Three Brothers and their magical objects. In the legend, the owner of the wand is unbeatable, yet, we see that the owners, in both reality and legend, are repeatedly defeated. That is how the wand usually passes from person to person. So, clearly owning the want does not make you undefeatable. Clearly, the Cloak does not truly shield you from death. Clearly, the Stone does not truly bring the dead back to life. Each object is extraordinary is its quality, level of magic, and ability, but just extraordinary. They are not 'god'-like. As to Grindelwald and Dumbledore, well Grindelwald was in prison, so obviously Dumbledore did not kill him. But Dumbledore did find some way to outsmart him and defeat him. Whether he appealed to logic, conscience, simply tricked him, or out dueled him, we don't know for sure, but we know by allege first hand accounts is was the duel of all duels. Think about what we saw in the Ministry of Magic in the Duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort; that was pretty spectacular. I suspect, the duel between Grindelwald and Dumbledore outshown that duel considerably. Note that in war or duels, it is not always the guy with the biggest gun that wins. It is usually the guy with the quickest wits, the fastest to adapt, the most functional and practical knowledge, etc... that wins the day. In the Duel between Harry and Voldemort, that proved true. Harry provoked Voldemort because he knew as Voldemort's emotion raised, his defenses would fall. What Harry was angling for was to know precisely when Voldemort's final curse was coming so he could counter it. Harry said things that instilled doubt in Voldemort; uncertainty breeds hesitance, and if you hesitate in battle likely you die. It is entirely possible that everything Harry said to Voldemort was total bull dung. He may have just been buffing until he knew Voldemort's curse was coming. By simple sending a counter curse at the same time and forcing a rebound, that alone would have been enough to finish voldemort off. Likely much of what Harry said was true, but it doesn't have to be for Harry to win. So, relative to Grindelwald and Dumbledore, Dumbledore most certainly outsmarted Grindelwald, though exactly how, we don't know. Steve/bboyminn From cottell at dublin.ie Sun Nov 11 02:00:43 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:00:43 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > It can be taken by Expelliarmus if the holder is weakened or > distracted. Mus: It strikes me (though I don't think it had before) that it's a bit surprising that no-one's come up with a charm to defend against Expelliarmus. Of course, in the context of the books, and there is nothing else, it has to work as successfully as it does, even after it's recognised as Harry's 'signature' spell. But it's not like he invented it, and it just strikes me as a bit silly that it can always be used to disarm an opponent. A careful duellist would, you'd think, guard against it. As an aside, looking up Harry's use of it against Stan Shunpike during the 7HP flight scene, I found the following when Lupin is warning Harry not use Expelliarmus too often, Harry takes umbrage at the suggestion that he should have used something else: 'Lupin was making Harry feel idiotic, and yet there was still a grain of defiance in him. "I won't blast people out of my way just because they're there," said Harry. "That's Voldemort's job." ' [DH: UKpb: 64] Oh but you will, Harry - just wait till you're in the Ravenclaw commonroom. From sdcjjack at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 23:42:36 2007 From: sdcjjack at yahoo.com (sdcjjack) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:42:36 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179002 *****sdcjjack replies interspersed --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > sdcjjack: > > When I read that the master of the Elder Wand could not be defeated, I > > wondered how DD defeated Grim and gained control of the Wand? Was Grim > > not wielding the Wand in their battle? > > > > Pippin: > Canon suggests several possibilities. The wand can be stolen while its owner > sleeps. ***** Voldy's not being its Master by just possessing the Wand argues against this. DD was "asleep" (dead) when Voldy took physical possession, altho it could be argued that DD was no longer Master of the Edler Wand, having been defeated by Draco before he died. sdcjjack ***** >It can be taken by Expelliarmus if the holder is weakened or distracted. *****This is presumedly how Draco became the Wand's Master after DD, even tho he (Draco)never took physical possession of it. Harry became Master of the Wand by disarming Draco and taking *his* (Draco's) wand, not the Elder Wand. So how did Harry know he was the Master of the Wand. He is not well versed in wizarding myth and legend and this is a fairly huge leap in understand how the Elder Wand "decides" on its Master. The rules seem rather fluid! sdcjjack ***** > Pippin > using Gellert because Grindy-whatsit is hard to spell *****My memory failed me. I meant Grindy instead of Grim! sdcjjack ***** From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Nov 11 02:50:43 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:50:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A message? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47366E03.50908@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 179003 muscatel1988 wrote: > Mus's ears perk up: > > I'm a linguist (syntax is my field), and if I might make one final > stab at the house elf thing, there's one thing that always irked me > about it. JRRT was scrupulous in his treatment of languages, devising > coherent grammars for his invented languages; it's possible to write a > grammar of Yodish (the English-lexified language that Yoda speaks); > Klingon has spawned a vast fandom (though this isn't really comparable > to the other two, since they were actually devised by their authors). Klingon wasn't? The Klingon language that got all the fan attention was devised by Marc Okrand, under contract from from Paramount, for Star Trek II. So, yeah, it's not Roddenberry, but you seem to think that it is a construction of the fans rather than something originating from TPTB. I never heard of Yoda's language being anything designed by Lucas or anyone working for him, so that's the one that stands out, to me, as not fitting in with the three. (And JRRT's languages, while coherent, are with the exception of Quenya not particularly complete.) --Random832 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 11 06:17:29 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:17:29 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179004 --- "muscatel1988" wrote: > > --- "pippin_999" wrote: > > > It can be taken by Expelliarmus if the holder is weakened or > > distracted. > > Mus: > It strikes me (though I don't think it had before) that it's a bit > surprising that no-one's come up with a charm to defend against > Expelliarmus. > bboyminn: Sorry, but what makes you think there isn't a defense again Expelliarmus? I would think a strong shield charm would be enough to block it, but I don't think you can walk around all the time surrounded by a shield charm. The Shield Charms strikes me as another sustained charm, that is, it is cast and remains for as long as you hold it by willful intent. Once you are distracted or drop your intent, the spell fades. Now Fred and George managed to make Shield Cloaks and other assorted 'shield' objects, but they seem only to repel minor curses and jinxes. They may or may not repel an expelliarmus. Now, I certainly haven't proven anything, but it seems reasonable that there is a spell to counter Expelliarmus but you have to know it is coming, and you have to be ready with the counter in a very short span of time. Get it wrong, cast the Expelliarmus counter, when you are hit with a stunning curse, and you are ...well.. stunned. Dueling it tricky business, you can't alway know what is coming at you, therefore, you can't alway know the correct counter. That's why Legilmency is such an advantage in a duel, it helps you predict what your opponent is going to do. It is in fact, the ability to predict that is, the very thing that saved Harry. Just because no one has had the opportunity to use it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 11 06:25:10 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:25:10 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179005 --- "muscatel1988" wrote: > Mus: > ... > > "I won't blast people out of my way just because they're > there," said Harry. "That's Voldemort's job." ' [DH: UKpb: > 64] Oh but you will, Harry - just wait till you're in the > Ravenclaw commonroom. > bboyminn: Sorry, I forgot to include this in my previous post. That is absolutely NOT what Harry did in the Ravenclaw Common Room. The Carrows are not innocent by-standers that Harry blasted out of the way simply because they were there. They were Dark, Dangerous, and Deadly people who represented a very real threat to Harry. Not to mention all the damage they had done to people in the past, present, and very very likely in the future if given a chance. Harry's actions, as much as some people don't like the specifics, were clearly Self-Defense, as were McGonagall's. steve/bboyminn From cottell at dublin.ie Sun Nov 11 06:52:40 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:52:40 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Sorry, but what makes you think there isn't a defense again > Expelliarmus? > > I would think a strong shield charm would be enough to block > it, but I don't think you can walk around all the time > surrounded by a shield charm. Mus: If there were a defence, then why didn't we see anyone use it? After all, we see Expelliarmus a lot in the series, and while it can miss (Harry seems to miss Shunpike during the pursuit at the beginning of DH), I don't think we see anything block it except the unprecedented weirdness of Priori Incantatem in the graveyard in GoF. The Protego Totalum that Hermione casts around the tent in Ch 14 of DH doesn't seem to need constant concentration to hold, and there's something called Protego Horribilis used by Flitwick in Ch 30 - it's unclear what exactly that does, but it's directed out of the window into the grounds rather than at a specific spell cast against him at that moment. My point is a meta one, really - since disarming an opponent is an obvious ploy whenever you're threatened with a wand, one would imagine that someone might have come up with some protection. You're right - it's entirely possible that someone has, but we never see it, and so in the context of the story it doesn't exist. In fact, I think there might be a slim piece of evidence that it doesn't: in the Duelling Club scene in CoS, Snape uses Expelliarmus against Lockhart, who, when he gets to his feet, says: ' "That was a Disarming Charm - as you see, I've lost my wand - [...]. Yes, an excellent idea to show them that, Professor Snape, but if you don't mind me saying so, it was very obvious what you were going to do. If I had wanted to stop you it would have been only too easy. However, I felt it would have been instructive to let them see ... " ' [CoS, UKpb: 143] That sounds to me like a typical piece of Lockhartian bluff and bluster, the sort that usually signifies that he *doesn't* have an answer - cf. his claim that he knew just the counter-curse that would have protected Mrs Norris in the first Basilisk attack, his telling the teachers the night before Ginny is taken that he knows just how to get into the Chamber, &c, &c. Mus, who now can't decide if Lockhart or Master Barty is the more unreliable From catlady at wicca.net Sun Nov 11 07:02:19 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:02:19 -0000 Subject: Umbridge/Madam Bones/House Elves/Why Join DEs?/Amos/The Elder Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179007 Carol wrote in : << I suspect that Umbridge is at least in part a savage caricature of Margaret Thatcher, but not being British (or particularly interested in politics), I can't be sure. >> I recall a speaker at a convention stating that it was utterly obvious to all British readers that Aunt Marge was Margaret Thatcher. << the powerful and incorruptible Amanda Bones >> Amelia? I don't recall any canon that she isn't just as 'slightly corrupted' as Arthur Weasley. Okay, she didn't get tickets to the Top Box at the Quidditch World Cup because we didn't see her there (or did we, and just not recognize her yet?). But maybe she got some other perk for dismissing a case against someone's relative who had done something trivial that didn't really deserve to be prosecuted, but no one is dismissing the cases against unconnected people who did something trivial that doesn't deserve to be prosecuted. Bruce wrote in : << And what if, originally, [House Elves] had been animals who had been enhanced by wizards to be the "hewers of wood and drawers of water"? >> Once they've been enhanced to a level of intelligence and feelings, they deserve to be treated as beings that have that level of intelligence and feelings. Carol wrote in : << Full freedom for the House-Elves is neither possible nor desirable until the House-Elves have some alternative to serving human masters and make their desire for such an alternative known. >> (Yes, I read your whole post.) As I said before, *Free* House Elves can serve human employers, if the House Elf and the human agree. I don't think it would be the end of the world if the employers were called 'master' and 'mistress', as long as they aren't called 'owner'. If the current owners of House Elves can't bear to humble themselves to sign a contract with a mere Elf, I'm sure there are plenty of other wizards and witches who would be more than glad to do so. Maybe some House Elves would have to humble themselves a little, or else do without a human to serve: remember Ron saying that House Elves only work in big castles and mansions? Steve bboy_minn suggested that was because they wanted to work in places they were proud of; they were too snobby to work in small cottages and urban flats. Mike Crudele wrote in : << They were a motley collection; a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty." >> Dumbledore should have mentioned the gullible, deceived by his charm. Lucius Malfoy is one of the ambitious, altho' arrogantly seeking more than *shared* glory: he thinks that by helping LV to become King of Wizards, himself will be the power behind the Throne. Maybe 'shared glory' was the most there was to be gained at Hogwarts by the ambitious, altho' I'm sure he could have attracted some more students as followers by hinting that he knew spells to make them score almost as well as he did on their OWLs and NEWTs. In adult life, there are more things to be ambitious for; I mentioned power in the case of Lucius. Money, promotions, and concubines are other popular ambitions in real life. Someone might hope that if he was a loyal servant to the Dark Lord, maybe the Dark Lord would order Mulciber the Imperius specialist to Imperio some beautiful girls to be the loyal servant's sex slaves. That might apply at school if Riddle was believed to know how to cast Imperius on people without getting caught. The older Crabbe and Goyle are presumably thugs attracted to the opportunity to beat people up and so on without punishment, altho' I like to think they were equally motivated by an inherited obedience to Lucius. Macnair was looking for a place to practise his avocation as a serial killer. Bellatrix doesn't fit neatly into this pattern: she was quite capable of thinking up her own more refined forms of cruelty, and expected her family status to protect her from any punishment, but she fell in love with LV because his evil deeds aroused her. Regulus apparently joined for increasing pureblood power. I'd call that ideology rather than ambition, and acknowledge that Riddle wasn't pushing bloodist ideology as a half-blood student. I'm not sure we know why Severus joined the Death Eaters. He may have been following his friends, a motive which DD didn't list. If he was motivated by hatred of Muggles, that's another motive DD didn't list (but it may not have been relevant when Riddle was a schoolboy). Maybe, as Potioncat wrote in : << [Snape] was attracted to the freedom to study Dark Arts >>. Would wanting to learn more and more be included under ambition, ambitious for knowledge rather than shared glory? I suppose wanting to praised for his skills is a form of ambition. Maybe he joined the Death Eaters so it would give him an opportunity to get revenge on James and James's friends and Dumbledore who sided with James & co. That's a motive that could also apply to school- children -- if I cozy up to Tom Riddle, maybe he'll turn so-and-so into a giant warty slug for me. In my mind, several young wizards (and it could have happened to young witches, too, except I don't know if any females were allowed to be Death Eaters except Bellatrix) were literally seduced into joining the Death Eaters, purred at by a Mata-Hari-like witch or wizard for days or weeks until they were tripping over their own tongues and unable to think anything but 'I want to join any club that *you* are in'. Listies have pointed out how Barty Jr was as obsessively devoted to LV as Bellatrix was. Except that I read him loving LV as a replacement father rather than as a lover. I don't know how Barty Jr came to feel that way. Even if he started by seeking out Death Eaters to join in order to do what his father most opposed, something must have made him so fanatic. Potioncat wrote in : << Amos and Arthur are the only two positive fathers we really see. Although some will disagree with how Arthur treated Percy. >> Amos was socially crude, bragging about his son, thus embarrassing his son who had higher-class manners than to brag. That may indicate that Rowling intended Amos to be less good than Arthur. I thought quite a bit about it when GoF was the latest book, and concluded that I don't know if Amos, who loved the excellent Cedric so much, would have still loved him if he gave Dad less to brag about -- if he was, say, like Neville. Incidentally, at that time, some listies praised Arthur and condemned Amos for their attitudes to House Elves, based on: << "Elf!" said Mr Diggory sternly. "Do you know who I am? I'm a member of the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures!" Winky began to rock backwards and forwards on the ground, her breath coming in sharp bursts. Harry was reminded forcibly of Dobby in his moments of terrified disobedience. "As you see, elf, the Dark Mark was conjured here a short while ago," said Mr Diggory. "And you were discovered moments later, right beneath it! An explanation, if you please!" >> versus: << "Winky?" he said kindly, turning to the elf, but she flinched as though he, too, was shouting at her. "Where exactly did you find Harry's wand?" >> I like Arthur and have my doubts about Amos, but that scene strongly reminded me of an interrogation technique called 'bad cop, good cop', in which one investigator is rude and scary and threatening to the suspect, and the other investigator speaks gently and tells the first one to tone it down, thus appearing as a rescuer to the suspect, who then trustingly tells all to the 'good cop'. sdcjjack wrote in : << When I read that the master of the Elder Wand could not be defeated >> That's not exactly what they said. In the fairy tale itself, someone killed the first brother while he was sleeping (with a knife, not magic) and took the wand, thus becoming master of the wand until the next person killed him. Someone (Xenophilius?) spoke of it leaving a bloody trail of murders across wizarding history. When we first, with Harry, saw Gregorovitch's memory in LV's head, of the merry-faced blond thief, who perched in the window waiting for Gregorovitch to see him, then Stunned Gregorovitch and jumped out of the window, I wondered why he waited to be seen instead of making his escape undetected. After I had learned a lot more about what it was that he stole, I realized that he had waited so he could 'defeat' Gregorovitch in a way that the wand would understand, so that he would be its master. Then I was impressed that he had Stunned Gregorovitch instead of killing him. That argues that he was either more kind-hearted than Tom Riddle (avoiding unneccessary killing) or more practical (realizing that his kingdom would need a wand-maker). The fairy tale said that the wand could not be defeated, so it makes sense that these guys defeated the owner of the wand when he was not holding it. But suddenly, in Harry's case, it changed to The Owner of the wand could not be defeated in a duel, which is quite different. From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Nov 11 11:42:13 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:42:13 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: <700201d40711092101q5ec2b815g6d800282b34be8c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179008 Mus continues: "I'll agree that Barty Snr isn't a touchy-feely father, but this is in keeping with all the rest of his character. To paraphrase Sirius, I don't believe the world is divided into touchy-feely fathers and those who don't love their children. And this reader finds it rather touching that when he's babbling as if he were at work, he's talking about his son." Kemper: "I agree with your paraphrase but am leery about a loving Mr. Crouch." Barty Sr. certainly did love his son, but was too emotionally stunted to show Junior any of it. It's like denying a child oxygen. Love needs to be shown. There are fathers out there who believe love and affection shouldn't be shown to children, especially sons. It's tragic how wrong they are. Barty Junior looked for affirmation wherever he could find it, and in his rage made the worst choice he could have. Jim Ferer From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Nov 11 12:02:29 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:02:29 -0000 Subject: Fathers (was: A message?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179009 Pippin: "I think Lucius and Crouch Sr are two sides of the same coin, fathers who see their sons as extensions of themselves and express their love only when the son is fulfilling their expectations. It's a very withholding, conditional kind of love. It isn't surprising that Barty Jr rebelled, and hmm...I wonder if Draco's perpetual incompetence as a DE wannabe wasn't a kind of rebellion too? Did he keep failing because subconsciously he wanted his father to prove that he loved Draco for himself?" I agree with you in principle but I guess there's a difference between Lucius and Barty Sr.: I bet there was a lot more contact between Lucius and Draco. Several times over the course of canon Draco refers to things his father has told him or written to him (I'm sure I remember Draco referring to letters from his father). Lucius intervenes on Draco's behalf more than once, and we know what Barty Sr. did. It's not the same as a loving father, but I imagine it's a lot better than what Barty Jr. got. Draco isn't as deadened as Barty Jr. is, maybe because he did get more bonding with his parents than Barty Junior did. Draco seems to be less psychopathically detached than Barty, and he isn't a simple thug like most of the other Death Eaters. (Crabbe, for example, is; it's an interesting contrast). We see from Draco breaking down as we see him do that he still has enough humanity in him not to have his whole heart into evil. Jim Ferer From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Nov 11 17:55:18 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 11 Nov 2007 17:55:18 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/11/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1194803718.11.30413.m50@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179010 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday November 11, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Nov 11 22:26:51 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Ldiofsky) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:26:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <473781AB.2080700@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179011 sdcjjack wrote: > When I read that the master of the Elder Wand could not be defeated, I > wondered how DD defeated Grim and gained control of the Wand? Was Grim > not wielding the Wand in their battle? That's a possibility. However, my guess is that the Elder Wand can't be overpowered, but if it is not used, it won't work. So, for example, if DD did something totally unexpected, without use of magic (such as a muggly rigged gun), he could have defeated Waldo in spite of the Elder Wand. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 00:55:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:55:17 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179012 Carol earlier: > > At any rate, Grindelwald was certainly wielding the wand or DD could not have become master of it. > Geoff responde: > I don't think that is necessarily true... Looking at canon: > > '"And Grindelwald used the Elder wand to become powerful. At the height of his power, when Dumbledore knew he was the only one who could stop him, he duelled Grindelwald and beat him and he took the Elder wand." > > > The Elder wand was in Dumbledore's tomb. Harry overpowered Draco and took his*own* wand but the Elder wand still recognised him as its master, having disarmed Draco. > Carol responds: I think I understand your argument, but I'm not sure. Are you saying that DD could have taken some other wand from Grindelwald and become the master of the Elder Wand that way, as Harry became its master by taking the hawthorn wand from Draco? I think that's most unlikely. It could only be true if both the other, unmentioned wand *and* the Elder Wand had been taken from GG (as the other wand was taken from Draco and the Elder Wand was never in his possession). And there's no need for another wand since "he beat him and took the Elder Wand." Here's what we know: Grindelwald was the master of the Elder Wand. Dumbledore dueled him and defeated him, not only according to legend but according to DD himself in "King's Cross." (I don't believe Rita Skeeter's insinuations). Dumbledore became the master of the Elder Wand. Now it stands to reason that Grindelwald, wanting to win the duel (though not, apparently, to kill DD) would have used the Elder Wand, especially is he shared DD's view that DD was a shade more skilled. I can't see him allowing DD to disarm him or otherwise take a wand from him by force if he had the Elder Wand. That's the wand he would have used. (Draco, of course, didn't have the Elder Wand or know that he was master of it. He had his own wand and the others he was holding but was not master of. So Harry, by snatching the three wands from Draco, became the master of the hawthorn wand and the Elder Wand, which he would *not* have become master of if Draco still retained it and it chose to continue to serve him, but not of Bellatrix's wand, which was not taken from her by force, or Wormtail's, which Ron was already master of.) Anyway, I don't know whether I'm making any sense, but I can't see Grindelwald, who knew he was master of the Elder Wand and knew wand lore, using any other wand or allowing DD to take some other wand from him. Nor do I think that the Elder Wand, which had served him so long, would willingly change its allegiance to him under such circumstances. It had no great allegiance to Draco, whose hand had never touched it and who had no bond with it (like the one between Harry and his wand), so it was perfectly willing to switch its allegiance to Harry, who knew its powers. At any rate, I know I'm not arguing clearly, but I think we're needlessly complicating matters by suggesting that some other wand and an incident like the one involving Draco was involved. I think a straightforward (but unexpected) disarming spell (Expelliarmus) is the best explanation for DD's victory over Grindelwald. Carol, who needs to be doing something else and can't go back to clarify her argument From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Nov 12 01:52:56 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:52:56 +0100 Subject: Goblins and Elves - two sides of one medal? Message-ID: <01c201c824ce$c351a5b0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 179013 I have an idea of Goblins and Elves being close related creatures - I'm afraid with just a bit of canon supporting it. I came to the idea when I read the following quote from Winky in GoF, ch 8: "and next thing I hear you's [Dobby] up in front of the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, like some common goblin" Why should she talk of goblins here, if she does not feel close to them - though very different? As we know, goblins are not under the control of the Ministry, so I'd rather say that they are the "bad example" that all elves are taught not to follow. The appearance of goblins and elves is similar in height, feet and finger length, plus similar ears. Both are intelligent and have (wandless) magic of their own. In DH, we see Gryphook sympathising with Dobby after his death. Like Winky he seems to see a connection between elves and goblins - Harry treated Dobby's corpse with respect, and Gryphook transfers this to his treatment of goblins. For all we know, goblins and elves *could* have the same ancestors and at some point their way parted - associating with humans, and living on their own. This could cast a new light on the "elves rights"-discussion - given that this very speculative idea is accepted ;). Miles From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 01:58:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:58:36 -0000 Subject: Fudge WAS :Re: Portrayal of MoM in the series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179014 Carol: Fudge seemed really human to me in that chapter, a likeable and well-meaning diplomat doing his best to explain the inexplicable to a mere Muggle like you and me. It's a purely subjective reaction. I felt rather sorry for both him and the Prime Minister, actually, but it was only Fudge that I actually felt affection for. Not at all what I felt, of course, in reading about Harry's trial, at which point I merely wanted to shake him (and, on a rereading, somehow alert him to the danger of the poisonous toad he was allowing to write bad laws and dangerous decrees). I don't see any evil in Fudge himself, just a failure to see real evil in other people (notably the suave and generous Lucius or the sweetly girlish, if toad-faced, Umbridge) and a tendency to wishful thinking (he'd rather be threatened by a lying, power-hungry Dumbledore than by a murdering, genocidal LV). I hope that answers your question. I'm not trying to convince you, just to explain why I rather like him and hope that he survived DH. He'd be the perfect head of the Muggle Liaison office, given all his experience with the Muggle PM. Alla: Oh, you wrote exactly what I was asking for, no worries. I indeed just wanted to understand what actions of Fudge can be looked at as likable and why. I do not think there is a possibility of me being convinced of ever liking him, but I certainly want to understand. Like, you know, I loathe Snape, but certainly understand of how and why SOME of his actions can be looked at as likable, maybe because I briefly was in some sort of similar mindset as I mentioned before. On the other hand, I did try to understand how the actions of Draco Malfoy can be looked at in likable light and failed. Oh, people gave me the actions, etc, I just completely failed when I tried to be in those shoes if that makes sense ( NO I am not asking anybody to bring me more actions, I am just giving examples). So, back to Fudge, I do get how he can be , I don't know, pitied maybe at the beginning of chapter 6, I guess. I guess it just does not cross out any other of his actions to me. I mean, like or dislike the character is certainly a perception thing and sometimes cannot be explained, but sometimes the reasoning can be given and to me it is fun to look at it. Like some time ago I was trying to work out why I disliked Dobbby and thank goodness with list members giving examples, I was able to pinpoint for myself where my dislike of him started. And you know, I was trying to figure out same thing with Fudge and I think I did, I think it was GoF. I mean, he seemed to me to be too, superficial and fake pleasant in PoA, but I certainly did not hate him yet. When he was kissing up to Lucius Malfoy, I was pretty close to hating him, but when he let Dementor have a go at Barty Crouch, yes, nothing could erase that from my memory. I thought it is despicable and hated him ever since, I think. I guess where we differ is that I do believe Dumbledore when he says that Fudge is blinded by pureblood superiority and love for his office. If I was perceiving him as just marionette of Lucius and Dolores, I may at least pity him, but to me he already had evil ideas of his own and that is why was a good target to work on. IMO of course, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 06:57:31 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:57:31 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179015 --- "muscatel1988" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > Sorry, but what makes you think there isn't a defense again > > Expelliarmus? > > > > I would think a strong shield charm would be enough to block > > it, but I don't think you can walk around all the time > > surrounded by a shield charm. > > Mus: > If there were a defence, then why didn't we see anyone use it? > After all, we see Expelliarmus a lot in the series, and while > it can miss..., I don't think we see anything block it except > the unprecedented weirdness of Priori Incantatem in the > graveyard in GoF. > bboyminn: Well absents doesn't means something doesn't exist. I've never seen England but I'm pretty sure it's there. One could just as easily say that we never see refrigerators or the magical equivalent, in the magic world therefore they don't exist. We never really see ovens either, yet the magical world is full of baked goods. No one every goes to the grocery store either, and since we see no grocery stores, they must not exist. Yet somehow the still manage to get food. No, I can't prove a Counter to Expelliarmus exists any more that you can prove it does not exist, but I speculate that it is likely to exist. As to why we haven't seen it, for the same reason we haven't see the counter to the many other spells that are cast. If fact, in the duels and battles we've seen Expelliarmus is rarely used, not never, but certainly rarely. If fact, in any battle other than the last one, how often do we see anyone try to block a spell with a Shield Charm? Again, it happens very very rarely, because you can't step up a blocking maneuver unless you know a spell is coming. You can't cast a counter charm or counter defense, unless you know what is coming. Consequently it is better to duck, or cast you own offensive spell and hope the other guy misses and you don't. Actually, that was my whole point, the fact that we don't see it used doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From Sherry at PebTech.net Mon Nov 12 13:54:49 2007 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:54:49 -0000 Subject: Harry and Friends on expedition (was Re: A Message?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179016 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Prep0strus wrote: > > > > ~Adam (Prep0strus), who wishes he had a nugget of an idea of some > other topic to bring up here, to inspire someone to write something on > an entirely different topic, but coming up short. > > Carol responds: > > My goodness, yes! Let's find a topic that isn't House-Elves, > Slytherin, the Elder Wand, or JKR's recent revelations. > > I'm just going to brainstorm, listing some possibilities. .............. Less obviously, > there's the loss of home comforts and its effects on personality or > disposition (hungry!Ron), jealousy, misperception, the nature of > magic. . . . When I read that, something stirred in my brain. I'm just writing as it occurs to me, not a thoroughly worked-out idea. The three comrades all have very different backgrounds in their experiences of home life and home comforts--most obviously different, of course, that between the Weasleys' domestic life and Harry's experiences in the Dursleys' home. How do their different responses to the period they spend on their own, in a tent (and, because of magic, more comfortably than humans camping)? Amontillada From kjones at telus.net Mon Nov 12 14:44:13 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:44:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179017 This message is a Special Notice for all members of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups In addition to being published onlist (available in webview), this post is also being delivered offlist (to email in boxes) to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices." If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact the List Elves at (minus that extra space) HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com --------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore I feel that I must warn you that the length, and tediousness of this chapter is only exceeded by those describing the camping trip. A great deal happens in this chapter, but the author describes it in such a way as to hide the importance of any new happenings. Only seven other chapters are as long as or longer than this one. This chapter opens in the viewpoint of Voldemort, walking along a mountain road. The scene is set at dawn. Far below is a small town. He needs to talk to someone so badly that he can think of nothing else. Someone is in that town that can answer his question. [Q#1] In the next paragraph, Ron wakes Harry, who has been dreaming about the scene above. His scar is "prickling," but it is not painful. Ron tells him that he has been talking in his sleep and mentioned the name of Gregorovitch. Ron and Harry discuss the name. Harry believes that he has heard the name before, but he cannot remember where.[Q#2] Harry is able to tell Ron that Voldemort is looking for Gregorovitch, and is out of the country. He also feels that the name has something to do with Quidditch. Ron sympathizes with Gregorovitch. Ron reminds Harry that it is his birthday. Harry had forgotten the date. He immediately grabs his wand and performs several spells in rapid succession just because he can. [Q#3][Q#4] Ron gives Harry his birthday gift, a book titled "Twelve Fail-safe Ways to Charm Witches". [Q#5] Ron and Harry go downstairs for breakfast. They find a pile of presents waiting for Harry on the table. Bill and Mr. Delacour are finishing breakfast and chatting with Molly. Molly wishes Harry a happy birthday from Mr. Weasley, who has already left for work and tells him that the present from them is on top. Harry opens it and finds a watch that once belonged to her brother Fabian. She seems embarrassed that it is not new like Ron's watch. Harry gets up, hugs her and attempts to put all that he feels for her into his hug. She gets flustered and drops half a package of bacon on the floor. [Q#6] Hermione runs in with her present for Harry and asks what Ron gave him. They do not answer her. Hermione's gift is a new sneakoscope. The other gifts include an enchanted razor, from Bill and Fleur, chocolates from the Delacours, and a box of Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes merchandise from the twins. Due to the crowding, the trio leaves. Hermione packages up Harry's gifts and states that she is just waiting for Ron's pants to come out of the wash.[Q#7] A door opens on the first floor landing and Ginny asks to see Harry privately. Hermione urges Ron on up the stairs to give Harry and Ginny privacy. Harry follows Ginny into her room, nervously. He notices posters of the Weird Sisters and Gwenog Jones. Ginny wishes him a happy birthday. Harry admires the view. Ginny ignores this change of subject and continues. She does not know what to give him, and decides to give him something to remember her by. She then kisses him. They are still well involved, as Ron barges into the room. Harry feels as though his happy bubble has burst with Ron's entrance, and they are all annoyed and embarrassed. Ginny turns her back to them, and they leave her room. Once outside, Ron accuses Harry of ditching Ginny and now "messing her around." Hermione attempts to stop him but Ron puts up his hand to silence her.[Q#8] He tells Harry that she was really cut up when Harry ended it. Harry admits that he was "cut up" as well but that Ron knows why he had to stop it. Ron argues that she is just getting her hopes up again. Harry considers a vivid picture in his mind of Ginny marrying some stranger and can see nothing but Voldemort in his own future. Harry snarls that it will not happen again. Charlie's arrival provides a welcome distraction and preparations are made for Harry's birthday dinner. Lupin, Tonks and Hagrid also arrive. Fred, George and Hermione are decorating with lanterns and streamers. Mrs. Weasly brings out a large birthday cake in the shape of a snitch. By seven o'clock all the guests are present except for Mr. Weasly. Hagrid gives Harry a furry moleskin pouch as a gift. The pouch is able to hide things that only the owner can get out. [Q#9] Hagrid asks Charlie about Norbert. Charlie tells him that they call the dragon Norberta now and informs Harry that female dragons are more vicious. A streak of light came flying into the yard and became a silvery weasel. It is the patronus of Arthur Weasley,[Q#10] who is warning his family that he is arriving with Rufus Scrimgeour. Lupin and Tonks immediately climb over the fence and leave the scene. Lupin promises to explain later. [Q#11] Moments later, the Minister and Arthur apparate to the Weasley gate. Scrimgour apologizes for disturbing the party, wishes Harry many happy returns, and asks to speak privately with Harry, Ron, and Hermione. He requests a more private place to speak and Arthur directs him to the sitting room. Scrimgeour tells Arthur that he need not accompany them. Arthur and Molly look worried. Harry believes that Scrimgeour is there because he has heard that the three are not returning to Hogwarts. As they enter the sitting room, Harry flicks his wand at the lights to turn them on. Scrimgeour sits in Arthur's chair leaving Harry, Ron, and Hermione to share the sofa. The Minister has questions for the three of them and requests Harry and Hermione to wait upstairs while he talks to Ron. [Q#12] Harry refuses and insists that he speak to them together. Finally, Scrimgeour agrees and advises them that he is here because of Dumbledore's will. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are greatly surprised by this. Harry interrupts to ask why it has taken so long to give them what Dumbledore left. Hermione answers that they obviously wanted to examine the bequests. Hermione tells Scrimgeour that he had no right to do so. [Q#13] Scrimgeour advises that he has the right under the Decree of Justifiable Confiscation, which gives the Ministry the power to confiscate the contents of a will. Hermione states that the law was created to prevent the passing on of dark artifacts, and that the Ministry needs powerful evidence that that the deceased's possessions are illegal prior to seizure.[Q#14] Harry asks why Scrimgeour has decided to let them have their things now. Hermione answers again that he must give them up because he is only able to hold them for thirty-one days and the time is up. Scrimgeour ignores Harry and Hermione and asks Ron if he considered himself close to Dumbledore. Ron is taken by surprise and states that he had never been close to Dumbledore. Scrimgeour looks as if he has received the expected answer and demands that Ron explain why Dumbledore would have left him a bequest in his will. There were very few bequests as Dumbledore had left nearly everything to Hogwarts. Ron attempts to explain, when Hermione interrupts to remind Ron that Dumbledore had been very fond of him. Harry feels that this is stretching the truth as Ron and Dumbledore had never even been alone together. Scrimgeour again ignores Harry and Hermione and draws a parchment, the Last Will and Testament of Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore from a pouch in his cloak. From this scroll he reads,"To Ronald Bilius Weasley, I leave my deluminator in the hope that he will remember me when he uses it". He then took an object from the pouch, which resembled a silver cigarette lighter and leaned forward to hand it to Ron. Scrimgeour then states that the deluminator is a valuable and rare item, of Dumbledore's own design and asks Ron why he was left such an item. He asks what Dumbledore expected him to do with it. Lost for an explanation, Ron says that he expects it was to put out lights. Scrimgeour then pulls a book from the bag. It is old, its' binding peeling and stained. The title is written in runes. Harry notices a tear fall on the book. Hermione is crying. Scrimgeour asks Hermione why Dumbledore left her the book. She answers that he knew how much she liked books. Scrimgeour asks her if she and Dumbledore had ever discussed codes or means of passing hidden messages. Hermione states that if the Ministry has not found any in thirty-one days, she is unlikely to do so. Scrimgeour then reads from the will again to Harry. He reads: "To Harry James Potter I leave the snitch he caught in his first Quidditch match at Hogwarts, as a reminder of the rewards of perseverance and skill". He pulls out of the bag a walnut sized golden ball. Scrimgeour asks Harry why Dumbledore left him the snitch. Harry responds that he does not know other than for the reasons given. Scrimgeour observes that Harry's birthday cake is in the shape of a snitch and asks why that would be. Hermione laughs and answers that it has nothing to do with Harry being a seeker, it must mean that there is a secret message in the icing. Scrimgeour advises them that the snitch would be a better hiding place than the cake and asks them if they know why that might be. Hermione again answers. Harry thinks that the habit of answering questions is so ingrained in Hermione that she cannot help herself. She states that snitches have flesh memories. Harry and Ron are extremely surprised at this answer. They both believed that Hermione's knowledge of Quidditch was negligible.[Q#15] Scrimgeour goes on to explain that no one including the maker touches the snitch prior to its release at a match. It can then identify the first human to lay hands on it in the event of a disputed capture.[Q#16] Scrimgeour suspects that Dumbledore has left something in the snitch, which, can only be accessed by Harry's touch. Harry is now worried. He is not able to think of any way of avoiding touching the snitch. Scrimgeour insists that Harry take it. Scrimgeour places the snitch slowly and carefully into Harry's hand. Harry closes his hand on the snitch and it became still. Scrimgeour is disappointed. He advises Harry that Dumbledore also left Harry the sword of Gryffindor, but that it is not his to give as it is considered an important historical artifact. Scrimgeour asks Harry if Dumbledore believed that Harry was the one to defeat Voldemort using the sword. Harry replies that Dumbledore thought that it would look nice on Harry's wall. Harry suggests that the Minister is wasting his time trying to open snitches instead of doing his job. Scrimgeour becomes angry and advances on Harry, poking him in the chest with his wand and burning a hole in his shirt.[Q#17] Scrimgeour advises Harry that it is time he learned some respect. Harry advises Scrimgeour that it is time that he earned it. Mr. and Mrs Weasley, hearing raised voices enter the room. The Minister regrets Harry's attitude and says that they should be working together. Harry reminds him that he does not care for Scrimgeour's tactics. Scrimgeour then leaves Mr. Weasley asks what Scrimgeour wanted. They tell him that he was giving them the items bequeathed to them by Dumbledore. When they return to the yard, the guests pass the items around, and admire them. Following the belated birthday dinner, Harry asks Hermione to meet him and Ron upstairs after everyone else goes to bed. In the attic room, Harry fills the moleskin pouch with all of his prized items: the Marauder's Map, the shard of broken mirror, and RAB's locket. He tied the strings around his neck and then holds the snitch until Hermione arrives. Ron examines his deluminator. When Hermione arrives, she casts "Muffliato", one of the Prince's spells to silence the room. She replies "Times change," in response to Ron's query regarding her use of the spell. She asks to see the deluminator work. Ron flicks the deluminator and turns the lights off and then on again. The trio are puzzled and discuss why they were given the items. Hermione does not believe that Dumbledore remembered Ron in his will so that he can turn out lights. Harry asks if Dumbledore knew that the Ministry would confiscate the items in his will. Hermione states that he definitely knew and was unable to leave any information in his will. Ron asks why Dumbledore did not give them a hint before he died. Hermione riffles the pages of Beedle the Bard and wonders if Dumbledore thought it obvious what they were to do with the gifts. Ron suggests that Dumbledore was brilliant, but cracked. Hermione mentions to Harry that she was certain that something would happen when he touched the snitch. Harry states that he was not about to try very hard in front of Scrimgeour. Harry reminds Hermione that it was the snitch from his very first match. Ron catches on and points frantically from Harry to the snitch. He remembers that Harry nearly swallowed it. Harry presses his lips to the snitch. Writing appears on the snitch, which says "I open at the close." None of them is able to form any ideas or conclusions as to the meaning of this message.[Q#18] Ron asks why Dumbledore wanted Harry to have the sword. Harry wonders why Dumbledore did not simply give it to him. Harry is worried that he is missing something important that he should have learned. Hermione questions the meaning of the book. She has never heard of it before. Ron is surprised as this book is read by all Wizarding children in much the same manner that fairy tales are read by Muggles. Beadle the Bard is a book of children's stories. Hermione wonders why Dumbledore thought that she should read them. Something creaked downstairs, startling them. Hermione returns to her room as Ron clicks the deluminator once more to turn out the lights. Questions: 1. Why does Voldemort seem relatively reasonable in this viewing? Is this a way for the author to tell us that Harry and Voldemort are becoming more indistinguishable from each other? We have often seen Harry unable to think of anything else other than his obsession of the moment. 2. Have we heard the name of Gregorovitch before in previous books? Is this another way to add confusion to the separation/connection between the minds and memories of Harry and Voldemort? Are the details of the name, the place abroad, and the Quidditch connection enough of a hint to let us know who Voldemort is looking for? 3. We see Harry hit himself in the eye with his glasses and tie his shoelaces in a knot. Ron suggests that he continues to do up his fly by hand. We have seen Harry perform other minor or unsuccessful spells. Is this repetition of ineptitude a way for the author to increase our concern for Harry. Is this a way for the author to encourage less talented readers that they can be heroes? 4. There appears to be no sensation in either the placing or removal of the Trace. If the Ministry of Magic, for any reason, can apply a trace, what does this say about privacy issues in the Wizarding World? Considering the fact that Harry performed under-aged magic on several occasions, inadvertently, without causing any repercussion from the MOM, does this plot point make consistent sense? 5. This seems odd to me, as Harry has split with Ginny for her protection. Why would Ron encourage Harry to seek other female company when he knows how upset Ginny is and how Harry feels about Ginny? Does Ron actually understand that Harry is not likely to survive? 6. We have seen Dumbledore's watch, Ron's watch, Molly's clock, and now Fabian's watch. We have also seen time-turners. What is the fascination with time? 7. We have seen Hermione as the boys' conscience, their researcher, their tutor. Why are we seeing this "Suzie homemaker" side of Hermione? Is this in character? Is JKR correct in assuming that all young girls want to impress their boyfriends with their homemaking abilities? 8. Have we seen Hermione obey Ron like this before? Why does JKR make Ron look like an idiot most of the time and then demonstrate this masterful side? 9. How does the pouch know that ownership was transferred? 10. Is this patronus appropriate for Arthur Weasley from what we know about his character? Is it a foregone conclusion that some Weasley will have a weasel for a patronus? Wouldn't Percy make a better weasel? 11. Does Lupin explain later? Why are they afraid for Scrimgeour to see them? 12. Does Scrimgeour see Ron as the weak link? Do we see Ron as the weak link? Ron was portrayed as equally skilled in the first book and was more knowledgeable about Wizarding things than Harry or Hermione. Has this change in position added to the books? 13. Does this seem more like our Hermione? Which Hermione do we like better? Is there consistency with this character? 14 Many of the laws in the Wizarding World seem intrusive. Is this to maintain some kind of control over magical and powerful citizenry, or is it misuse of power by magical legislators? Hermione shows that the laws in the Wizarding World have the expected checks and balances, but do we see them used? 15. Didn't we all think that Hermione's knowledge of Quidditch was negligible? Is she studying Quidditch to become more the kind of person most suited to Ron? 16. Is there any mention about the flesh memory in any prior books or was this just tossed in as a belated plot point? Was Wood wearing gloves when he first taught the rules to Harry? 17. Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and Harry is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot? 18. Could anyone please explain to me why a flesh memory in a snitch would be likely to tell the difference between flesh and lips? Extra questions: 19. What is the most important "happening" in this chapter: Voldemort's search for Gregorovitch, Harry's birthday, the loss of the trace, the flight of the Lupins, the bequests from Dumbledore or the antagonism of the Minister? 20. What parts of this chapter would you have left out as unnecessary to either plot or characterization? KJ ------------------------------------- NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Next Chapter Discussion, Chapter 8, The The Wedding: November 26 From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 15:34:12 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:34:12 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179018 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > "They were a motely collection; > > a mixture of the weak seeking protection, > > the ambitious seeking some shared glory, > > and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader... " > > (from HBP, Ch 17) > > > > Pick one of Dumbledore's categories (or your own theory) and > > explain how that applies to Snape, Malfoy, or any other DE, and > > therefore why they were attracted to Riddle/Voldemort? lizzyben: For Snape, I think it was mostly category number 1 - "the weak seeking protection." Snape seemed to ricochet like a pinball from one authority figure to another in his youth, arguably up to his death. Voldemort offered protection to his subjects (at the time), as did Dumbledore. I think Snape even saw Lily as a kind of protector - in almost all his memories, she is trying to save him from something. When he lost one source of protection, he turned to another. And even more than protection, I think he was seeking affirmation. Young Snape strikes me as someone who was positively desperate for approval & love, & didn't really care where that approval came from. If the Death Eaters told him he was worthy and valuable, he'd join them. If SPEW told him he was a talented wizard, he'd join them. I don't think he really ever cared that much about the underlying ideology. IMO, he joined for attention, affirmation & protection - the same reason teenagers join gangs in the Muggle world. Mike: > Last clues: DE1 said, "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater.... He > is now no more a Death Eater than I am." (^5) But, Severus Snape was > always a Death Eater because "you don't just hand in your resignation > to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death." (^6) And we know > that it was both for Snape. > > OK, I cheated a little with the misleading and selective quotes. I > admit, I just wanted to beat lizzyben to the punch! :D) > > Mike lizzyben: I've taught you well, grasshopper. :) Of course, DD wasn't a Death Eater, but those quotes do reveal a great deal about his real self- image. I think DD knows, deep down, that he could've easily become a DE as well if Voldemort were around in his day. And he knows that his feelings about Muggles once matched GG & LV, & perhaps still do in some ways. I love that quote: "He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." It has some extra resonance now, post-DH. He's saying "I am as much a Death Eater as Severus Snape." Which is really quite a statement, considering DD's other statements that seek to emphasize how completely *different* he is from Snape. While talking to Snape, DD constantly adopts a pose of, "I - righteous and noble epitome of goodness, You - inferior reprobate sinner." Sort of speaking down to him from a tower of righteousness. IMO, people who are really secure in themselves don't need to make other people feel inferior that way. DD isn't secure in his goodness, & constantly needs to remind Snape of how much better he is in order to hide how much he feels that they are really the same. It's a good microcosm of the Gryf/Slyth split in general - where you can't help noticing that these opposing Houses of Good and Evil actually have a great deal in common. lizzyben [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 15:59:58 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:59:58 -0000 Subject: Harry and Friends on expedition (was Re: A Message?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179019 > Amontillada: > The three comrades all have very different backgrounds in their > experiences of home life and home comforts--most obviously different, > of course, that between the Weasleys' domestic life and Harry's > experiences in the Dursleys' home. > > How do their different responses to the period they spend on their > own, in a tent (and, because of magic, more comfortably than humans > camping)? a_svirn: I must say that was one of those things in the book that just didn't make sense to me. However different their backgrounds might be, fundamentally they are modern kids who had perfectly modern upbringing (even if Harry was mistreated as a child). Yet they certainly did not behave as their peers would. Unless those peers were complete jerks that is, and Ron and Harry aren't supposed to be jerks. And I don't mean Ron's jealousy and grumbling or Harry's sulking ? that's understandable enough. But what about Hermione being in charge of all the cooking and housekeeping? Whoever heard of males being excused from such mundane chores while camping? And why would the normally bossy Hermione accept such an arrangement, however grudgingly? It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't have anything to do with upbringing. Ron's been always expected to do his share of chores at home (to say nothing of Harry), and Hermione could always be counted on whipping them both into shape. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 16:20:12 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:20:12 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179020 > lizzyben: > > > > For Snape, I think it was mostly category number 1 - "the weak > > seeking protection." Snape seemed to ricochet like a pinball from > > one authority figure to another in his youth, arguably up to his > > death. Voldemort offered protection to his subjects (at the time), > > as did Dumbledore. I think Snape even saw Lily as a kind of > > protector - in almost all his memories, she is trying to save him > > from something. When he lost one source of protection, he turned to > > another. And even more than protection, I think he was seeking > > affirmation. Young Snape strikes me as someone who was positively > > desperate for approval & love, & didn't really care where that > > approval came from. If the Death Eaters told him he was worthy and > > valuable, he'd join them. If SPEW told him he was a talented wizard, > > he'd join them. I don't think he really ever cared that much about > > the underlying ideology. IMO, he joined for attention, affirmation & > > protection - the same reason teenagers join gangs in the Muggle > > world. > > a_svirn: I would agree on the whole, except that it's not immediately clear what sort of protection Voldemort had to offer if any. I didn't get it from canon that Voldemort "offered protection to his subjects". Besides, protection from what? If Snape had joined Voldemort when it looked like he (Voldemort) was likely to win (as, say, Pettigrew did) then it would have been the case of "seeking protection". But it seems that Snape joined the club while still at school (though he probably received the mark only after his graduation). From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 17:13:22 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:13:22 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game/Fascism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179021 > > >>zgirnius: > > It's not an anti-feminist view at all; it would be only if we > > insisted this is the role and responsibility of women, exclusively, > > in society. > > > > Betsy Hp: > My thinking on JKR and her views on woman have to do with the utter > fear with which female sensuality is dealt with in the text, the > disdain expressed towards girls acting like girls, the way making a > boy seem girly was the ultimate put-down, and the rather old- > fashioned way various tasks were assigned. lizzyben: And connecting this w/the disdain the wizarding world in general has for "girly-girl" traits like crying & empathy, and the total valuation of "masculine" traits like courage, strength, & power. This also reminds me of a fascist society. Historians disagree on their definitions of fascism, but almost all include "disdain for femininity" as a common element. The 14 points of fascism lists "rampant sexism" as a feature of fascist societies ("The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid.") Historian Roger Griffin wrote that the fascist reality is "a radical misogyny or flight from the feminine, manifesting itself in a pathological fear of being engulfed by anything in external reality associated with softness, with dissolution, or the uncontrollable." Dissolution, uncontrollable - like water? Encyclopedia Brittanica: "Common characteristics of fascist movements > Sexism and misogyny Under fascist regimes women were urged to perform their traditional gender role as wives and mothers and to bear many children for the nation. Mussolini instituted policies severely restricting women's access to jobs outside the home (policies that later had to be revised to meet wartime exigencies), and he distributed gold medals to mothers who produced the most children." In the epilogue, we don't find out what Hermione or Ginny do for a living, we just find out how many children they have. And I actually don't think it's a coincidence that the Trio all have more children than Draco does. Gold medal to Ginny. Reading Umberto Eco's essay on facism, I'm just amazed at how many elements he mentions are reflected in the wizarding world. OK, there's machismo, disdain for the feminine, traditionalism, rejection of modernity, distrust of intellectualism, value of instinct, a belief in "action for action's sake", contempt for the weak, elitism, & permenant warfare. But Eco mentioned one other element that just made my jaw drop: in fascist societies, people are trained to become "heroes", and choosing death is seen as the most heroic act of all. "11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur- Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html Umberto Eco: Eternal Fascism This so reminds me of the Gryffindor ideology - these kids are trained to become heroes. They are told over & over again that they must show valiant courage in the face of death. This shades over into total recklessness, in Sirius, for example. And in the end, Harry himself chooses death to the general accolade of the author and the other characters. Choosing death is portrayed as the ultimate heroic act in the wizarding world, just as in a fascist society. In reading the Italian Facist mottos, I could totally see these slogans & themes reflected in Deathly Hallows. - Viva la Morte, "Long live death (sacrifice)." - Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." - Credere, Obbedire, Combattere ("Believe, Obey, Fight") It's creepy. lizzyben From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Nov 12 17:39:20 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:39:20 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179022 Potioncat: Great job! I'm going to answer in bits and pieces, due to time issues in the RW. > "Kathryn Jones" wrote: > 10. Is this patronus appropriate for Arthur Weasley from what we >know about his character? Is it a foregone conclusion that some >Weasley will have a weasel for a patronus? Wouldn't Percy make a >better weasel? Potioncat: Well, my firmly held belief---and there are precious few of them left after DH---is that the Patronus doesn't so much reflect the individual as it reflects someone or something the spell caster sees as a protector or patron. That symbol doesn't have to have a conscious connection. The stag Patronus reflected James for Harry, even though Harry didn't know about James's being a stag. The Patronus is like a patron sprit. The weasel could reflect Arthur's father or his family. I don't mean Molly and the kids, but "Weasley". So, yeah, I guess it does make sense that a Weasley would have a weasel for a Patronus. Would Percy make a better weasel? I take it here that you mean Percy is such a weasel with its negative connotation. According to Webster's New World Dictionary weasel is a "a sly, cunning or sneaky person." Sounds more like Severus, if you ask me. The real weasel, (the one usually meant in folklore) has ginger coloured fur; is a fierce fighter; lives in burrows which are often taken from another animal or was abandoned by another animal; can have large litters; and is the only animal that can kill a Basilisk, but dies in the process. (JKR must have missed that detail.) Actually, Arthur does have a lot of weasel attributes, doesn't he? They are sometimes considered vermin. I think Lucius would agree. I found part of this from this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Weasel While we're at it, ferrets and otters fall under the weasel family. Can't work Draco in here; but Hermione's Patronus is an otter. I think her otter Patronus reflects Ron, or else the Weasley family in general. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 19:03:32 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:03:32 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179023 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I'm sorry, but I just cannot get past the fact that when the big > > battle came Slytherin left and joined the enemy. > >>Carol responds; > But, Betsy, as we've tried to show you, this statement is not a > *fact.* It's your *interpretation*, and it appears to be a minority > view. There's no evidence to support the truth of the statement (it > could be one of many false statements made by characters that are > never directly contradicted) and all sorts of evidence that it may > be false. > Betsy Hp: Honestly, IMO no one has presented any *evidence* to show that Voldemort's statement here is false. There's been a lot of extra- textual *reasons* a reader could choose to see this statement as false. But there's no moment in the text where JKR *explicitly* tells us Voldemort was lying to Lucius here. And frankly, if this were a lie, it's a massive one. It's the sort of reveal that should shake Harry preconceptions to the core. That we never get that moment (Slytherins *aren't* all baddies?!?) means that JKR didn't write it which means it doesn't make any sort of story-telling sense that Voldemort is lying in this scene. > >>Carol: > If we could persuade you that Voldemort was lying and that > Slytherin did *not* fight on his side but went to safety as > McGonagall ordered (Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle excepted), would you > still hold the view that Slytherin is bad, bad, bad (despite the > changes in *Harry's* perspective post-Pensieve)? > Carol, just wondering how rethinking this one "fact" would affect > your perspective Betsy Hp: Hmm... You'd still have to get me over the hump of *all* of Slytherin leaving the fight and no banner in the RoR... But I will say the suggestion that Slytherin joins Voldemort does tell me that it's beyond the Slytherins being cowards for JKR. They're, as Pippin put it, the bad personality that needs to be pushed as far down as possible. (Repression is your friend! ) > >>Pippin: > > If you see the four houses as a metaphor for the personality then > you can say that Slytherin is the inner bad guy that we want to > deny but that has to be accepted. On that basis, yes, Slytherin is > the bad house, and Harry telling Al he can choose Slytherin over > Gryffindor says, yes, you have bad impulses but you don't have to > choose to listen to them. > But that makes all the depth placed in Slytherin characters a > mistake. > Betsy Hp: Exactly. And seeing as how JKR (IMO) backpedaled most of the depth in her Slytherin characters in DH, I feel pretty good with the idea that any depth previously seen crept in there by mistake. > >>Prep0strus: > As Besty's sometime-ally, sometime-polar opposite, I figure I'd > answer here as well... I would still hold that view. Well, it > might be a bit strong - bad, bad, bad. But certainly not good, not > good, not good. Betsy Hp: Hee! Yes, that's a good way of putting it. Unfortunately (IMO, anyway ) we have Voldemort's statement of Slytherin joining him with no *direct contradiction* anywhere later in the text. Which, to my mind, seals Slytherin's fate as the "bad" house. > >>Prep0strus: > My feelings stem more from my inability to see ANY presented > Slytherin as predominantly full of good qualities (as has been > discussed ad nauseum - I am fully aware that some people would bear > Snape's children, others think Slughorn is a kindly uncle, Regulus > makes Robin Hood and King Arthur look like selfish jerks, and St. > Andromeda shines with the light of her unverified Slytherinness). > Betsy Hp: Heh. Yeah, the cult of Lily kind of cured me of my canon!Snape- love. (Ah well, his proto-type will live on. ) But all of those Slytherins became good guys (to the extent that they achieved it) by becoming *less* Slytherin and *more* Gryffindor. IOWs, they rejected their house. Snape most illustrates that by his not punching Dumbledore in the nose after that "sort to early" remark, IMO. > >>Alla: > > Slytherin ideology ugliness IMO was not supposed to be shown as > anything else but ugly, but she shown me that quite a few Slytherins > overcame it ( Okay, three, I count Andromeda, so four), while IMO > remaining Slytherins to the bone. > Betsy Hp: I think that's another difference between our point of views. To my mind the "good Slytherins" really overcame their house. They left Slytherin behind them and became more like Gryffindors and that's how they redeemed themselves for JKR's world. So they became like a photo-negative of Peter Pettigrew. Just as Peter *lost* his Gryffindor courage and joined with the bad Slytherins, the good Slytherins *gained* some Gryffindor courage and joined with the good Gryffindors. Which is why Harry's speech to Al just highlights Slytherin's unchanged state to my mind. > >>Pippin: > > Harry finally intervenes, first to say that thestrals aren't scary, > they're gentle creatures, then that if Slytherin got Al it would > get an excellent student. If it were nonsense that Al could be > a Slytherin, and this was the view that Harry wanted Al to have, > or that JKR wanted us to have, Harry could have said so then. > > Why are you resisting this interpretation so strongly? Not that > you need to answer, I'm just curious. > Betsy Hp: I suppose because it seems so outside the story. Anything that suggests JKR tried to show that there is good in Slytherin, rather than a few people who struggled hard and *overcame* being Slytherin (by displaying their Gryffindor courage) I question. And so far, I must say, I haven't seen any text evidence that suggests otherwise. Because, quite frankly, IMO Harry *does* let us (and Al) know that Al's not going to end up in Slytherin. Al's desires play a part in the Hat's sorting, Harry tells him. And Al quite clearly (going by his great and sincere fear) does *not* want to be in Slytherin. Betsy Hp (cut and pasted like a mad woman in an attempt to not repeat herself ) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 19:37:58 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:37:58 -0000 Subject: Power of the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179024 Mus wrote: > > It strikes me (though I don't think it had before) that it's a bit surprising that no-one's come up with a charm to defend against Expelliarmus. > > > bboyminn replied: > > Sorry, but what makes you think there isn't a defense again Expelliarmus? > > I would think a strong shield charm would be enough to block it, but I don't think you can walk around all the time surrounded by a shield charm. > > The Shield Charms strikes me as another sustained charm, that is, it is cast and remains for as long as you hold it by willful intent. Once you are distracted or drop your intent, the spell fades. Carol responds to both: JKR is a bit inconsistent with regart to countercurses and defensive spells, in part, perhaps, because of the limitations of Harry's knowledge. However, based on what we do see, I don't think that Protego is necessarily a sustained curse; it's more like a temporary shield (it's called a Shield Charm, after all) that not only protects the intended victim from the curse being cast at them at that moment but, at least sometimes, deflects a curse (other than an Unforgiveable) back onto the attacker. Bellatrix deflects Harry's Stunning Spell using Protego in OoP; he would have been hit by his own deflected curse if he hadn't scrambled behind the fountain (OoP Am. ed. 811). If Protego deflects Stupefy, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Expelliarmus. However, Protegos don't always work in the same way; Snape blocks whatever McGonagall throws at him with a very swift Protego which merely knocks her back rather than Stunning her. Maybe he casts the Protego before she casts her curse (which he may be able to anticipate using Legilimency), but he doesn't seem to be deflecting her own spell onto her (DH Am. ed. 598). Whether Snape is trying to avoid hurting McG or JKR is being inconsistent, I can't tell. However, Snape also manages to parry various spells, including even Crucio, with a lazy flick of his wand before Harry even finishes the incantations in HBP ("Flight of the Prince"). Harry doesn't think to use Expelliarmus (he tries Crucio twice, then Incarcerus, then Stupefy, then an Impedimenta interrupted by a DE's Crucio, then Sectumsempra, then a silent Levicorpus, only to be a"blocked again and again," in Snape's words. Whether Snape is using specific countercurses or Protego or just a movement that deflects the spell away from him is unclear, but it seems clear to me that he could have blocked Expelliarmus just as easily as these other curses, some of them Dark and dangerous. (I don't think he's using Protego because Harry would recognize the spell and because it doesn't, AFAWK, block Unforgiveables.) However, I see no reason why Protego wouldn't protect against Expelliarmus if it protects against Stupefy, which seems to be the most popular nonlethal spell used by both sides and which can be a lot more dangerous than Expelliarmus under certain circumstances, as we learn in the chase scene in DH. I can't imagine Snape in "Flight of the Prince" letting Harry disarm him when he so easily deflected or blocked or parried all those other spells. So, for Grindelwald to have been disarmed by Dumbledore, as must have happened for DD to become master of the supposedly unbeatable Elder Wand, DD must have caught him somehow off-guard. (I suspect that a powerful Dark Wizard like Grindelwald was probably both a Legilimens and an Occlumens, but DD was probably a shade better at both skills. Chances are that no one else, including the eighteen-year-old Tom Riddle, could have penetrated those defenses. Maybe there was an element of psychological manipulation, as well). Anyway, if a Shield Charm (Protego) can deflect a curse back onto an opponent (Bellatrix's Protego in OoP), it seems like the perfect defense against Expelliarmus. Instead of disarming you, your opponent finds himself or herself disarmed. You just have to be quick and not caught off-guard; a split second more time might have allowed DD to cast a Protego, disarming Draco instead of being disarmed himself (assuming that doing so wouldn't activate Snape's UV or otherwise ruin DD's plan to have Snape kill him). OoP mentions "counterjinxes," but I think those are spells used to counter specific jinxes after the fact, and they seem a bit superfluous since Finite Incantatem can apparently reverse any of them. Hexes, perhaps, might be harder to reverse. But Expelliarmus is neither a hex nor a jinx, just a charm, so it probably doesn't require its own specific countercurse. (Finite Incantatem woun't get you your wand back if it's in someone else's hands; you have to block or deflect the spell before it hits you--which takes us back to Protego or a parrying motion like Snape's in HBP. Carol, thinking that the sustained and extra-strong Protego that Harry casts after LV "kills" him has more to do with Harry's accidental Love magic than with the usual nature of Protego From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 12 20:42:41 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:42:41 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179025 > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > I'm sorry, but I just cannot get past the fact that when the big > > > battle came Slytherin left and joined the enemy. > > > >>Carol responds; > > But, Betsy, as we've tried to show you, this statement is not a > > *fact.* It's your *interpretation*, and it appears to be a minority > > view. There's no evidence to support the truth of the statement (it > > could be one of many false statements made by characters that are > > never directly contradicted) and all sorts of evidence that it may > > be false. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Honestly, IMO no one has presented any *evidence* to show that > Voldemort's statement here is false. There's been a lot of extra- > textual *reasons* a reader could choose to see this statement as > false. But there's no moment in the text where JKR *explicitly* > tells us Voldemort was lying to Lucius here. And frankly, if this > were a lie, it's a massive one. It's the sort of reveal that should > shake Harry preconceptions to the core. That we never get that > moment (Slytherins *aren't* all baddies?!?) means that JKR didn't > write it which means it doesn't make any sort of story-telling sense > that Voldemort is lying in this scene. Magpie: Just felt compelled to throw out there that I don't know if this is the minority view since it seems the most obvious to me. The Slytherins all leave and don't defend the castle, as Voldemort wanted. They're doing what he wants, abandoning the school to him. It would never have occurred to me to think Voldemort was lying--why would he be lying? Lucius doesn't care what the other Slytherins are doing, he cares that he knows where the other Slytherins are (safely outside the school) and not Draco. Why throw me that information if it's not true since there's no reason for me to care where every single Slytherin is--unless you're actually planning to overturn it later, which doesn't happen. It's both told and shown. I saw them leave. I saw the banners. There seems little reason for the narrator to come in and say, "No, seriously, the Slytherin kids aren't defending the school. Remember when they left before? If you didn't see them again it's because they didn't come back." Betsy: > Because, quite frankly, IMO Harry *does* let us (and Al) know that > Al's not going to end up in Slytherin. Al's desires play a part in > the Hat's sorting, Harry tells him. And Al quite clearly (going by > his great and sincere fear) does *not* want to be in Slytherin. Magpie: That's how it read to me. Slytherins suck throughout the whole series. Within the school, they're the trolls, the bullies, the bigots and the bad guys. At the end they don't join in protecting the school, despite a few Slytherins having helped the good guys in spite of themselves, so winding up in the "perhaps we sort too early" limbo. Can't imagine why any kid, particularly any of these kids in the epilogue, wouldn't fear being in that house. And now here's little Al with the big green eyes all sincerely and earnestly fearing he'll end up in *gasp* Slytherin. The same fear that his big green-eyed heroic good little boy daddy had at his age. So Harry assures him that he loves him just the way he is, and tells us that he named Al after Snape (Harry is noble) and then reminds us of one of the morals of the story that Dumbledore already told us--if you're good enough to want not to be in Slytherin, you're not Slytherin. Why on earth would this kid end up in Slytherin? Even if he didn't know he could choose I can't imagine he'd wind up there, since he isn't a jerk. Harry made the right decision in saying, "Not Slytherin!" when he went under the hat. So would his son. In fact, he already has. Though it would have been funny if Harry actually had been saddled with a Slytherin kid. Imagine him talking to his sullen, ugly son Severus who curses people behind their backs and wants to be in Slytherin. -m From kjones at telus.net Mon Nov 12 20:57:17 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:57:17 -0800 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS-DH7 Message-ID: <4738BE2D.90001@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 179026 Potioncat writes: Would Percy make a better weasel? I take it here that you mean Percy is such a weasel with its negative connotation. According to Webster's New World Dictionary weasel is a "a sly, cunning or sneaky person." Sounds more like Severus, if you ask me. The real weasel, (the one usually meant in folklore) has ginger coloured fur; is a fierce fighter; lives in burrows which are often taken from another animal or was abandoned by another animal; can have large litters; and is the only animal that can kill a Basilisk, but dies in the process. (JKR must have missed that detail.) Actually, Arthur does have a lot of weasel attributes, doesn't he? KJ writes: Excellent points! That does explain better how JKR actually saw Arthur. I still like a spider for Snape though. Great point about Hermione's otter as well. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Colebiancardi for suggestions and patience.:-) KJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 21:01:37 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:01:37 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal -- Hopefull Immortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179027 --- "Mike" wrote: > > Mike: > It isn't hard to imagine how Tom Riddle managed to get others > to follow his lead while he was at Hogwarts. From Dumbledore's > words, he managed to charm the staff into believing him > Minister of Magic material. It seems the other students would > hardly be able to resist those same charms. By all accounts, > Riddle had everything going for him. > > ...edited... bboyminn: One additional point that I don't think has been discussed. We know Voldemort's goal was to conquer Death, and we also know he had gone a long way towards achieving that goal. Also, note that his followers were call 'Death Eaters'. I suspect he strung many DE's along under the hope that if they could get in close enough to Voldemort, get deeply enough into his good graces, Voldemort would reveal to them the secret of immorality. Which by the way, I don't think Voldemort actually achieved. He set himself up so he could not be killed, but not so he could live forever. Note the operative word is 'live'. His time in Albania was existence is a state of non-dead, but it wasn't living. So, I think that is one of the powers Voldemort had over his Death Eaters, the possibility that if he favored you enough, he would reveal his secret. I highly suspect that is exactly what Lucius Malfoy thought. Until he lost favor, I think he fancied himself as Voldemort's number 2; heir to the throne and all it's legacies. I suspect, and this is only my speculation, that deep down Lucius thought he would eventually know the secret that guards against death. In knowing the secret, he would also know the flaw or vulnerability in the magic. I suspect Lucius then intended to kill Voldemort and take his place. He would let Voldemort do all the dirty work in his own name, take all the blame, then later Lucius would take over and /claim/ a new age of enlightenment. Which translates into a whole new dictator, but the same old tyranny. Condensed version: I think Voldemort held a lot of DE's in line with the hope of eventual immortality. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 21:14:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:14:36 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179028 > Betsy Hp: > Honestly, IMO no one has presented any *evidence* to show that > Voldemort's statement here is false. There's been a lot of extra- > textual *reasons* a reader could choose to see this statement as > false. But there's no moment in the text where JKR *explicitly* > tells us Voldemort was lying to Lucius here. And frankly, if this > were a lie, it's a massive one. It's the sort of reveal that should > shake Harry preconceptions to the core. That we never get that > moment (Slytherins *aren't* all baddies?!?) means that JKR didn't > write it which means it doesn't make any sort of story-telling sense > that Voldemort is lying in this scene. Alla: Except of course there was no Slytherin on the battle field fighting against Hogwarts, except Draco and his goons. Textual enough for me. And how is the leap made that it should shake Harry's preconceptions to the core? What if it is, just a fact, you know? I mean, again do not get me wrong, as I said before I do not care and even if I fully agree that Voldemort lied, there is still nothing to argue against the fact that they LEFT. Since I do not put a blame on Mcgonagall at all, this was certainly a bad thing in my mind for them to do ( as I mentioned, it does not overshadow the other Slytherins in my mind, BUT they left, they did not defend Hogwarts) But no I do not share your certainty that he did not lie. I thought that we are sort of supposed to not take on faith pretty much anything that Voldemort says. I mean, that scene where we first learned that Voldemort is a liar, had no clue at all that Voldemort lied, no? ( Hagrid raising werewolf cubs) It was not as significant, dramatic, but still. I think he lied, because I saw no Slytherins on battlefield. But even if he did not, does not change much for me. JMO< Alla. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 22:58:47 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:58:47 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179029 > a_svirn: > I would agree on the whole, except that it's not immediately clear > what sort of protection Voldemort had to offer if any. I didn't get > it from canon that Voldemort "offered protection to his subjects". > Besides, protection from what? If Snape had joined Voldemort when it > looked like he (Voldemort) was likely to win (as, say, Pettigrew did) > then it would have been the case of "seeking protection". But it > seems that Snape joined the club while still at school (though he > probably received the mark only after his graduation). lizzyben: You're right that Voldemort's actual protection was uncertain at best, but from a teen's POV, I think it would look differently. For Snape, the DE's seemed powerful, respected, feared. They'd be the coolest baddest gang on the block. Pre-DH, it seemed like Snape might have joined up to get protection from the Mauraders. That might still be the case, but now I'd say it was more protection from the world in general. IMO joining this group would give Snape a sense of protection & safety; in the sense that being part of any group protects one individual. It's the protection that most people find in a family or circle of friends. Lacking that, people (especially young men) can turn to gangs instead. I don't think that it's the *main* reason, but it's an important one, & the best fit of the three categories Mike mentioned. lizzyben From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 00:00:55 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:00:55 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179030 > lizzyben: > > You're right that Voldemort's actual protection was uncertain at > best, > but from a teen's POV, I think it would look differently. For Snape, > the DE's seemed powerful, respected, feared. They'd be the coolest > baddest gang on the block. Pre-DH, it seemed like Snape might have > joined up to get protection from the Mauraders. a_svirn: Even for pre-DH Snape it doesn't really seem to work. Judging from his "worst memory" he got precious little protection from his house- mates. Actually, if it was protection from the Marauders he wanted his best bet was to stick to Lily. Besides, we know that he followed them around spying and probably trying to get them expelled. It's the behaviour of someone who seeks trouble rather than protection. > lizzyben: That might still be > the case, but now I'd say it was more protection from the world in > general. IMO joining this group would give Snape a sense of > protection & safety; in the sense that being part of any group > protects one individual. It's the protection that most people find > in a family or circle of friends. Lacking that, people (especially > young men) can turn to gangs instead. I don't think that it's the > *main* reason, but it's an important one, & the best fit of the > three categories Mike mentioned. a_svirn: Oh yes, in that sense I agree. Though I wouldn't call it protection. The other two you mentioned upthread ? affirmation and affection ? suit better. He was unpopular, a loner and he wanted to belong. And the junior death eater league was elite of a sort in Slytherin. Does it mean that he was weak? He seemed to be emotionally crippled, almost pathetic in his neediness and that is certainly a weakness. He was weak in the same sense Lupin was weak, but it's not the sort of weakness that brought the likes of Pettigrew to Voldemort. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 00:05:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:05:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179031 Kathryn Jones wrote: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore > > I feel that I must warn you that the length, and tediousness of this chapter is only exceeded by those describing the camping trip. A great deal happens in this chapter, but the author describes it in such a way as to hide the importance of any new happenings. Only seven other chapters are as long as or longer than this one. Carol responds: While it's true that the chapter could have been divided into two, length doesn't always equal tedium. Maybe she was increasing the suspense as to what was in DD's will by making us wait! And I also think that, like Scrimgeour, most readers thought there was more to DD's bequests than appeared on the surface. I enjoyed the chapter, especially the part about the will, myself. I do, however, have some comments about the chapter itself, so, if you'll forgive me, I'll just use bits of your excellent summary as jumping-off points for my own commentary before answering the questions. > Kathryn: > Hagrid gives Harry a furry moleskin pouch as a gift. Carol comments: Just wondering here: Does the Bloomsbury edition say "moleskin" (like Hagrid's coat in PoA)? The American edition says "mokeskin," which I thought was a typo except that its used consistently throughout the book (a moke being a silver-green lizard that can shrink at will, as a fellow listmember mentioned to me offlist--how it could be furry, escapes us, however. I confess that I read it as "moleskin" until she asked me about it, and I was surprised to find "mokeskin" throughout. I guess my mind automatically supplied what it thought was the correct reading.) Anyone else have any thoughts on mokeskin/moleskin? Kathryn: > As they enter the sitting room, Harry flicks his wand at the lights to turn them on. Carol comments: An action that serves in advance to make the Deluminator seem superfluous, right?--though it does turn out to have its uses. (I always wondered why either DD in SS/PS or Mad-Eye in OoP needed the thing when they could as easily have used a wand to put out and relight the street lamps. Maybe the advantage is that, with the light actually sucked out of them, they can't be relit by any means until the balls of light are returned to them?) Kathryn: > Harry asks why Scrimgeour has decided to let them have their things now. Hermione answers again that he must give them up because he is only able to hold them for thirty-one days and the time is up. Carol comments: And yet DD died in early June, right around Draco's seventeenth birthday (June 6). If Scrimgeour confiscated the will at the first opportunity, wouldn't the thirty-one days have been up around three weeks earlier? Why would he wait until June 30 to obtain the will, considering that he's the Minister of Magic and there's no Amelia Bones or other conscientious and high-ranking Ministry official to hinder his doing so? Just wondering if JKR is off in her calculations yet again. Kathryn: > Ron examines his deluminator. When Hermione arrives, she casts "Muffliato", one of the Prince's spells to silence the room. She replies "Times change," in response to Ron's query regarding her use of the spell. Carol comments: A bit ironic that its okay to use Snape's spells now that she knows they're his considering that she also thinks he's DD's murderer. Is she giving tacit approval to Harry's earlier use of Sectumsempra on Draco (which she had previously criticized, and rightly, IMO), or do her words foreshadow Harry's changed views on Sectumsempra? (Maybe the words reflect JKR's own views: desperate times call for desperate measures--not that Muffliato, always a useful spell, is a desperate measure. Maybe all Hermione is saying is that it no longer matters to her whether a spell is Ministry-approved (and considering that the Ministry is already crumbling, with Scrimgeour as the best it now has to offer, perhaps that view is understandable). Kathryn: > Beadle the Bard is a book of children's stories. Carol comments: Technically, Beedle the Bard is the author; the book itself is "Tales of Beedle the Bard," a title that reminded me of "Tales from Grimm" (my childhood edition of the tales by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm). Interesting how often "tale" appears in DH, in contrast to the six previous books: "Kreacher's Tale," "The Tale of the Three Brothers," "The Prince's Tale." I'm not sure of the significance of this motif, but we certainly get a variety of tales within a tale. > > Questions: > > 1. Why does Voldemort seem relatively reasonable in this viewing? Is this a way for the author to tell us that Harry and Voldemort are becoming more indistinguishable from each other? We have often seen Harry unable to think of anything else other than his obsession of the moment. Carol responds: Interesting perspective, but this example of Harry dreaming from LV's perspective is the only one of its kind in the book, IIRC. In all other instances, he feels his scar hurt and is quite able to distinguish LV's rage and/or calculated killing from his own feelings. I thought it was just an indication that the scar connection was unblocked again or unguarded, perhaps strengthened by the destruction of another Horcrux (the ring). Or perhaps, with DD's death and his own victory near at hand (and the distraction of the wand), LV is overconfident, underestimating the danger from Harry and unaware that the scar link is still working. As for his seeming "relatively reasonable," I think that's explainable by overconfidence, too. he's not expecting to be thwarted in his goal. He's not angry; he's eager. And even LV doesn't *usually* kill without a reason (the needless murders of the German woman and her children later in the book may indicate a further loss of control, as the murderous rages almost certainly do). > > 2. Have we heard the name of Gregorovitch before in previous books? Is this another way to add confusion to the separation/connection between the minds and memories of Harry and Voldemort? Are the details of the name, the place abroad, and the Quidditch connection enough of a hint to let us know who Voldemort is looking for? Carol responds: Leave it to Harry, whose memory is not particulaly retentive, to associate Gregorovitch with Quidditch rather than with wands (I'm sure it's the Krum connection, and Krum, despite having been a TWT rival, is in Harry's mind primarily the world's greatest Seeker). I knew right away where I'd heard the name, in GoF ("The Weighing of the Wnds") and that he was the wandmaker who had made Krum's unusually thick hornbeam wand. And so, of course, I connected LV's search with the torture of Ollivander, the twin cores, the destruction of Lucius's wand, etc.--not, of course, with the whole Elder Wand subplot or the Deathly Hallows. JKR was leaving hints for the reader to pick up rather more easily than Harry did without giving away the whole story. I didn't see the confusion between LV's and Harry's minds and memories that you're talking about. LV would have learned about Gregorovitch from Ollivander (as Harry did, too, indirectly), but Harry had his own Gregorovitch memory. He just recalled it imperfectly (as people do so often in real life--"I know I've heard that name somewhere before"--and so he has). As for the Quidditch connection being enough of a hint, for me, it was a momentary distraction. (Huh? Gregorovitch is a foreign wandmaker. What's the Quidditch connection? Oh, yeah. Viktor Krum is the Bulgarian team's Seeker.) > 3. We see Harry hit himself in the eye with his glasses and tie his shoelaces in a knot. Ron suggests that he continues to do up his fly by hand. We have seen Harry perform other minor or unsuccessful spells. Is this repetition of ineptitude a way for the author to increase our concern for Harry. Is this a way for the author to encourage less talented readers that they can be heroes? Carol: I just thought it was a bit of humor and a reminder that he and Ron are still teenage boys who would joke about what would happen to a boy or man if he ineptly zipped up his fly. I didn't see it as Harry being inept so much as being overeager and attempting to use magic for every little thing (a la the Weasley Twins when they came of age--remember the skid marks from the scalding soup kettle and the knife that struck the table just where Sirius's hand had been a second before in OoP?) It served to lighten the mood temporarily. It certainly didn't increase my concern for Harry (though I agreed with Harry himself that he's less powerful and talented than everybody but Snape seems to think). not that I wasn't already concerned for him, but more because of the first few chapters than because of anything in this one. > 4. There appears to be no sensation in either the placing or removal of the Trace. If the Ministry of Magic, for any reason, can apply a trace, what does this say about privacy issues in the Wizarding World? Considering the fact that Harry performed under-aged magic on several occasions, inadvertently, without causing any repercussion from the MOM, does this plot point make consistent sense? Carol: I think we're supposed to believe that accidental magic (such as the broken brandy goblet) is normally ignored if it can pass as an accident or if the person performing it is too young to have a wand (as Sev tells Lily in "The prince's Tale"). I think we're being set up for the Taboo (as we have been since SS/PS by the fear of speaking Voldemort's name). But, of course, the Ministry itself has undergone several changes in attitude in the books: In CoS, we have what I presume to be the normal attitude toward underage magic in connection with magic performed in front of Muggles, essentially a slap on the wrist. In PoA, circumstances have changed: Harry is presumed to be the intended victim of a mass murderer. In OoP, they've changed again, with Harry viewed as a propaganda tool for Dumbledore, who is ostensibly plotting a coup, and Fudge is now persuaded that Harry is a an emotionally unstable liar. And now, of course, the Ministry is about to fall, and by the time that the Taboo is in place, it has already fallen. So, although I certainly see inconsistencies, I think that the repercussions of Harry's performing underage magic depend in large part on the Ministry's attitude toward him at any given time. > 5. This [birthday gift] seems odd to me, as Harry has split with Ginny for her protection. Why would Ron encourage Harry to seek other female company when he knows how upset Ginny is and how Harry feels about Ginny? Does Ron actually understand that Harry is not likely to survive? Carol: First, I don't think that teenagers in general see themselves and their friends as mortal. Nor do I think that Ron is putting two and two together regarding Harry and Ginny. IMO, he's made a great discovery (how girls' minds [supposedly] work and how to "charm" them in more senses than one) and wants to share it with his best friend. (He even gives Harry a thumbs up for complimenting his [Ron's] mother, possibly thinking that they can soften her up through flattery. The old "roses and lollipops" attitude. Give a woman flowers and candy (or compliments on her taste or appearance) and she'll give you anything you want--depending, of course, on whether she's your mother or teacher or sister or girlfriend. Before anyone jumps on me, of course I realize that the whole theory is sexist nonsense, but I think that JKR is laughing at Ron here. At least he's attempting to be tactful, which, for Ron, who has just started to understand his own feelings for Hermione and is still very far from understanding her, considering how she might react to his words is a step forward. As for Harry's applying the technique to Ron's own little sister, whom he has broken up with, I don't think it entered Ron's head. (He may be under the same delusion as Ginny, that Harry may encounter a Veela or some other beautiful girl on their "adventure," and engage in a flirtation or some serious snogging in between duels with Dark wizards. He understands that they're going into danger, but, IMO, he's romanticizing the Horcrux hunt, which will be both tedious and perilous but, with the exception of the Sword of Gryffindor incident, neither as glamorous nor as exciting as he anticipates.) > 6. We have seen Dumbledore's watch, Ron's watch, Molly's clock, and now Fabian's watch. We have also seen time-turners. What is the fascination with time? Carol responds: I don't know about the fascination with time (except that I'm sure everyone has wanted to go back and change something that happened in their lives at one point or another), but the idea of giving someone a watch when they come of age may tie in with the Muggle idea of giving them a watch when they retire. At any rate, it seems to be a traditional gift. For me, the significance is not in the watch itself (though Harry may need one if he hasn't replaced the one he ruined in the Second Task) so much as the fact that the watch belonged to Fabian Prewitt, who died with his brother Gideon heroically facing five Death Eaters. Ron, used to receiving his brothers' cast-offs, appreciated having a new watch of his own but would have regarded Fabian's as yet another hand-me-down. Harry, OTOH, has lost enough loved ones to understand what the watch means to Molly, and he appreciates it far more than he would a new watch that he could easily buy for himself. His reaction to the gift, wordless emotion and a hug, is one of my favorite Harry moments. And I liked the fact that he was still using that beat-up old watch in the epilogue. nice touch, JKR. > > 7. We have seen Hermione as the boys' conscience, their researcher, their tutor. Why are we seeing this "Suzie homemaker" side of Hermione? Is this in character? Is JKR correct in assuming that all young girls want to impress their boyfriends with their homemaking abilities? Carol: Um, I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. My understanding is that Hermione was waiting for Ron's pants ("underpants," in the U.S. edition) to come out of the wash so that she can finish packing--not so much "Suzie Homemaker" as Boy Scout Hermione ("Be prepared" is our used to be the Boy Scout motto). She's practical, preparing for almost any emergency, with her beaded bag and her stacks of books she thinks they might use, whereas they're, well, teenage boys who don't think about packing--or would do it wrong or forget something important. She knows that they'll need the Sneakoscope, at least. (I'm not sure whether Harry ever uses his magical razor or even remembers that it's there, given his appearance in the "Malfoy Manor" chapter.) Maybe she's playing little mother, but she's also thinking in practical terms, as the boys obviously are not. > > 8. Have we seen Hermione obey Ron like this before? Why does JKR make Ron look like an idiot most of the time and then demonstrate this masterful side? Carol: I don't think she makes Ron look like an idiot most of the time. He does, on occasion, assert himself when he thinks that Hermione is butting in. Usually, it's to tell Hermione that Harry can think for himself and to stop nagging him to do what she thinks is the right thing (or not to do what she thinks is wrong). In this instance, I think he believes that this is Weasley family business and that he's his sister's defender and protector, so he wants to deal with Harry "man to man." It may be sexist, but in my experience, it's how teenage boys (and some adult men) think. IMO. JKR is being realistic here rather than politically correct. (And it's no as if Hermione has never silenced Ron when she considers herself to be the authority or the injured party.) > > 9. How does the pouch know that ownership was transferred? Carol: Maybe Hagrid talked to it: "I'm givin' yeh to Harry now, an' he's yer new master." :-) Otherwise, maybe it's like a wand and has some magical means of knowing who its master, erm, owner, is. > > 10. Is this patronus appropriate for Arthur Weasley from what we know about his character? Is it a foregone conclusion that some Weasley will have a weasel for a patronus? Wouldn't Percy make a better weasel? Carol: Well, I hate to bring in JKR's interviews, but she's expressed a fondness for the Mustelid family (weasels, ferrets, otters, etc.), which she considers to be unfairly maligned. (I'm not sure where Draco's transformation into a white ferret comes in, but maybe he was temporarily a tow-headed Weaselby. ;-) ) Hermione's otter Patronus surely represents Ron, another "weasel," or rather Ron's playful side. The Weasleys live in *Otter*y St. Catchpole, another variation on the weasel/otter motif. I don't think that Percy, who loves his family and comes around to the right side in the end, is any more a "weasel" in the derogatory sense of a sly, sneaking person (after all, he's pretty open in his rebellion) than any other member of the family. (IMO, his patronus is probably a beaver, considering that he loves work, even though a beaver is a rodent and not a mustelid.) The badger, symbol of the loyal Hufflepuffs, is also a mustelid, and all mustelids are fearless. So I'd say that assigning the family the name Weasley and the weasel Patronus to Arthur is a kind of left-handed compliment on JKR's part. Both Weasleys and weasels are misunderstood and underestimated. Just my take on the name and the Patronus. > > 11. Does Lupin explain later? Why are they afraid for Scrimgeour to see them? Carol responds: Lupin or Tonks, I forget which, does explain later (IIRC in "The Wedding"), but since this post is already too long, I'll let someone else look up the canon. It's also possible that Lupin thinks that Scrimgeour shares Umbridge's views on werewolves; clearly, he thinks of himself as persona non grata for having married a witch and Tonks as the same for having married a werewolf. > > > 12. Does Scrimgeour see Ron as the weak link? Do we see Ron as the weak link? Ron was portrayed as equally skilled in the first book and was more knowledgeable about Wizarding things than Harry or Hermione. Has this change in position added to the books? Carol: Scrimgeour doesn't know Ron--or Hermione, for that matter. But clearly, he wanted to talk to the kids separately because they'd be more vulnerable that way, unable to work as a team. Ron is only the "weak link" in that he inadvertently blurts out his lack of a close relationship with Dumbledore (which Scrimgeour, probably an former student of DD's himself, would consider to be normal; DD's mentorship of Harry, sporadic as it has been, is highly unusual and highly publicized. A similar connection with Ron or Hermione or any other student does not exist, and Scrimgeour knows it). Harry's knowledge of the WW has to some extent caught up with Ron's (but Ron is still the authority on UVs in HBP) and both of them have learned from Hermione (who also learned from Ron; in CoS, for example, it's Ron who tells Hermione what "Mudblood" means, the movie to the contrary). And in DH, it's Ron who tells them about the Taboo. Harry would have done well to listen to him. All in all, they balance each other out. And Ron at his best is courageous and loyal, more important traits, according to Hermione herself, than books and cleverness. (Both Ron and Hermione get to destroy a Horcrux, with Harry aiding Ron and Ron aiding Hermione. They're a team, and Harry needs them both.) > 13. Does this [Hermione's answering Scrimgeour's questions] seem more like our Hermione? Which Hermione do we like better? Is there consistency with this character? Carol: Certainly, answering Scrimgeour's questions as if he were a teacher is in character for Hermione (though the only teacher she's ever defied as she defies Scrimgeour is Trelawney). It's as if she sees him as simultaneously an authority figure, an intellectual equal, and her moral inferior. But taking the packing and planning into her own hands (rather than trying to get the boys to take part in it and perhaps do an inadequate or inferior job) is in character for Hermione, too, just as she took the jinxing of the parchment and the evacuation of her parents into her own hands. Hermione does not delegate authority well. She wants things done "right" (her way). And, in this instance, she does an excellent job of finding everything that they might need (except food) and a way to bring it all with them. (Let's hope that she doesn't do everything for her children when she grows up, or they'll be far too dependent on her.) > > 14 Many of the laws in the Wizarding World seem intrusive. Is this to maintain some kind of control over magical and powerful citizenry, or is it misuse of power by magical legislators? Hermione shows that the laws in the Wizarding World have the expected checks and balances, but do we see them used? Carol: We've seen that the wizarding laws are all too easily changed and the government too easily taken over through what amounts to a military coup. Maybe the government is too centralized; certainly, from a democratic standpoint, it would benefit from a separate judiciary and from general elections rather than appointed officials, not to mention a free press rather than one government-controlled newspaper and a few independent rags. Maybe JKR is satirizing the British government here; I can't say. (And speaking as an American, I can't honestly say that our antiquated Electoral College system is much better.) > > 15. Didn't we all think that Hermione's knowledge of Quidditch was negligible? Is she studying Quidditch to become more the kind of person most suited to Ron? Carol: I think her knowledge of Quidditch *is* negligible in terms of the names and rankings of players and the best broom and so forth. But in terms of magic (the spells on a broom or a Snitch) or history (the inventor of the Snitch, etc.) she probably knows as much or more than the boys. She's not caught up in the sport itself, but I'm sure she's as interested in the theoretical and historical aspects as she is in magical theory and history of magic in general. And, no, I don't think it has anything to do with Ron (whereas his statement about food being an exception to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration in "The Lost Diadem" has everything to do with Hermione). > > 16. Is there any mention about the flesh memory in any prior books or was this just tossed in as a belated plot point? Was Wood wearing gloves when he first taught the rules to Harry? Carol: Well, JKR couldn't have provided this information earlier without spoiling part of the plot, and I do think sh planned from the beginning for the Snitch that Harry nearly swallowed to play a role in DH, silly tough it seemed at the time. Again, I'll let someone else look it up, but I did notice that Film!Wood wasn't wearing gloves. Oops. > > 17. Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and Harry is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot? Carol: I felt that he needed an adult antagonist other than Snape, and we did have more than a book to wonder where Scrimgeour's loyalties lay. I don't think that the antagonism is contrived--Harry has good reasons for his hostility to the Ministry (though how he expects Scrimgeour to connect the scars on his hand with Dolores Umbridge is unclear; I doubt that Scrimgeour knows about the quill). What i thought was contrived was Scrimgeour's spending all that time studying the will and trying to figure out the secrets of the Snitch, the book and the Deluminator. Hiding in his office for a month when DD was dead and LV could strike at any moment makes no sense given his personality and his Auror past; I think JKR needed him dead to make a DE takeover easy. > > 18. Could anyone please explain to me why a flesh memory in a snitch would be likely to tell the difference between flesh and lips? Carol: Well, not lips but tongue. Maybe it needed Harry's saliva to recognize him. (Sorry. You asked.) > > Extra questions: > > 19. What is the most important "happening" in this chapter: Voldemort's search for Gregorovitch, Harry's birthday, the loss of the trace, the flight of the Lupins, the bequests from Dumbledore or the antagonism of the Minister? Carol: IMO, the bequests, as suggested by the chapter name. Also, each one constitutes a minor mystery and is tied directly or indirectly either to the Horcruxes or the Hallows. > > 20. What parts of this chapter would you have left out as unnecessary to either plot or characterization? Carol: I wouldn't have left anything out since it's all important to varying degrees, but if I were JKR's copyeditor, I'd suggest dividing the chapter in two. Carol, whose only objections to the chapter apply to the book as a whole--inconsistencies with previous books, especially regarding the magical properties of familiar objects and operations, and some too-convenient coincidences From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 00:31:41 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:31:41 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal -- Hopefull Immortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179032 > bboyminn: > > I suspect he strung many DE's along under the hope that if > they could get in close enough to Voldemort, get deeply > enough into his good graces, Voldemort would reveal to them > the secret of immorality. a_svirn: Only if he recruited particularly dim individuals, who would believe any election campaign promise. Always a possibility, though Snape and Rookwood don't fit the profile. > bboyminn: > So, I think that is one of the powers Voldemort had over > his Death Eaters, the possibility that if he favored you > enough, he would reveal his secret. a_svirn: Well, really. They only had to ask themselves, "were I in the Dark Lord's place, would I care to make any of my minions immortal?" Even Crabbe and Goyle would be able to arrive at the right answer. > bboyminn: > I highly suspect that is exactly what Lucius Malfoy thought. > Until he lost favor, I think he fancied himself as > Voldemort's number 2; heir to the throne and all it's > legacies. a_svirn: But why would the immortal Lord need an heir? If you don't die you don't need to bequeath anything to anyone. > bboyminn: I suspect, and this is only my speculation, that > deep down Lucius thought he would eventually know the > secret that guards against death. In knowing the secret, > he would also know the flaw or vulnerability in the magic. > > I suspect Lucius then intended to kill Voldemort and take > his place. He would let Voldemort do all the dirty work in > his own name, take all the blame, then later Lucius would > take over and /claim/ a new age of enlightenment. Which > translates into a whole new dictator, but the same old > tyranny. a_svirn: >From what I remember of canon Lucius was more concerned with survival than with world domination. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 01:02:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:02:45 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179033 lizzyben wrote: > For Snape, I think it was mostly category number 1 - "the weak seeking protection." Snape seemed to ricochet like a pinball from one authority figure to another in his youth, arguably up to his death. Voldemort offered protection to his subjects (at the time), as did Dumbledore. Carol responds: I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Snape weak? We see him bullied all of once, two against one. But we also have Sirius Black's word that he came to school knowing more curses than most seventh years and that he "gave as good as he got" when he fought James alone and was not caught off guard. We see him brilliantly inventing spells that the Trio are still using in DH (and one Dark spell that evidently no one can heal except Snape himself). We see the adult Snape making a fool of Lockhart in CoS and effortlessly parrying every spell that Harry throws at him in HBP. The only time, aside from Snape's worst memory, that Snape looks weak is when he first comes to Dumbledore, not for protection for himself but protection for Lily. And note that Narcissa comes to *him* to protect her son in HBP. Far from looking for *protection* (that's Peter Pettigrew's motive, always looking for the biggest bully on the playground to protect him), I think Snape above all wanted recognition for his many gifts. The only one of DD's list of reasons why the Riddle-era slytherins hung around Tom Riddle that fits him at all, IMOP, is "the ambitious seeking shared glory." Those long, detailed responses to the DADA exam and those inventive potion experiments mark him as ambitious, not in a bad way, but eager to make his mark on wizard society. We see even as a child that he confidently expects his brains and talent and magical power to take him far. He chooses the house that he associates with brains (and which the Sorting Hat tells Harry will help him on the way to greatness). No doubt he wanted friendship and approval, too, which he had found in Slytherin but nowhere else in Hogwarts. It's really no wonder that he joined the Death Eaters. They recognized his brilliance and saw him as one of them, Half-blood or no. Far from ricocheting from one authority to another, little Severus was apparently chosen by Lucius Malfoy as a sort of protege (but that would have lasted only about two years), waivered between his Slytherin friends and Lily (none of them authority figures) until Lily rejected him, remained loyal in his heart to her even after choosing Voldemort as his "master," then firmly and permanently rejected Voldemort (despite the appearance of loyalty to him), loyally and courageously serving DD instead, first to try to save Lily and then to protect her son so that she would not have died in vain and finally because Harry's "death" was the only way to destroy Voldemort. Meanwhile, he saved whatever lives he could whether those lives were directly related to Voldemort's destruction or Harry's survival till the crucial last minute or not. Neither Voldemort, who Cruciod or killed his own DEs if they displeased him, nor Dumbledore, who sent Snape on dangerous mission after dangerous mission, offered protection (except the protection of a job at Hogwarts and his testimony to the Wizengamot that Snape was "no more a Death Eater than I am"--though I do think he kept him out of the cursed DADA position for as long as possible because he needed him--no one else could do the jobs that snape could do.) Severus Snape didn't need anybody to protect him from other DEs, and for many years, he protected himself from Voldemort through his wits, his cunning, and his superb Occlumency, which must have been superb indeed to withstand Legilimency such as Voldemort used on Gregorovitch. Snape's weaknesses were bitterness and a desire for revenge. They were not defenselessness or cowardice or any lack of survival skills. That he could not in the end defend himself is no testimony to weakness. He could not "slither" his way out of Voldemort's mistaken notion that he was master of the Elder Wand. Voldemort also killed Lily, James, Mad-eye Moody, Amelia Bones, and even, indirectly, Dumbledore (the ring Horcrux curse, the potion, and his orders to Draco and Snape). He would have killed Harry were it not for his mother's blood protection transferred to Voldemort himself. At any rate, I do think that young Snape was desperate for approval and recognition. He expected his abilities to take him far. And we see what he might have become had he really been a loyal Death Eater with his quiet superiority to the other DEs in terms of intelligence and self-control and overall ability. Voldemort knew his value; he was only expendable in the end because LV thought he no longer needed servants if he had the Elder Wand. Carol, marveling at what Snape accomplished with his intellectual gifts and magical power and will and courage, with only an occasional word of praise or gratitude or approval as his reward, and wishing he had chosen a better outlet for his gifts to begin with > Mike: > > > Last clues: DE1 said, "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater.... > > He > > > is now no more a Death Eater than I am." (^5) But, Severus Snape > > was > > > always a Death Eater because "you don't just hand in your > > resignation > > > to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death." (^6) And we > > know > > > that it was both for Snape. > > > > > > OK, I cheated a little with the misleading and selective quotes. I > > > admit, I just wanted to beat lizzyben to the punch! :D) > > > > > > Mike > > > > lizzyben: > > > > I've taught you well, grasshopper. :) Of course, DD wasn't a Death > > Eater, but those quotes do reveal a great deal about his real self- > > image. I think DD knows, deep down, that he could've easily become a > > DE as well if Voldemort were around in his day. And he knows that > > his feelings about Muggles once matched GG & LV, & perhaps still do > > in some ways. I love that quote: "He is now no more a Death Eater > > than I am." It has some extra resonance now, post-DH. He's saying "I > > am as much a Death Eater as Severus Snape." Which is really quite a > > statement, considering DD's other statements that seek to emphasize > > how completely *different* he is from Snape. While talking to Snape, > > DD constantly adopts a pose of, "I - righteous and noble epitome of > goodness, You - inferior reprobate sinner." Sort of speaking down to him > from a tower of righteousness. IMO, people who are really secure in > themselves don't need to make other people feel inferior that way. DD > isn't secure in his goodness, & constantly needs to remind Snape of how > much better he is in order to hide how much he feels that they are > really the same. It's a good microcosm of the Gryf/Slyth split in > general - where you can't help noticing that these opposing Houses of > Good and Evil actually have a great deal in common. > > > > > > lizzyben > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar Tue Nov 13 00:12:33 2007 From: liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar (liliput99ar) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:12:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Jones" wrote: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore > I feel that I must warn you that the length, and tediousness of > this chapter is only exceeded by those describing the camping > trip. A great deal happens in this chapter, but the author > describes it in such a way as to hide the importance of any > new happenings. Only seven other chapters are as long as or > longer than this one. """" Nora: Thank you Kathryn for the good summary, I found it very complete and nice with the references to the questions. I would like to mention that I did not found the chapter so long, I liked it very much and found it quite moving. > Questions: > 1. Why does Voldemort seem relatively reasonable in this > viewing? Is this a way for the author to tell us that Harry > and Voldemort are becoming more indistinguishable from each > other? We have often seen Harry unable to think of anything > else other than his obsession of the moment. """" Nora: It looks more like the dreams in OoTP for me, where Harry use to see or sense Voldemort desires without him (Voldemort) knowing it. > 2. Have we heard the name of Gregorovitch before in previous > books? """"" Nora: in fact we did, but I did not remembered it when I first read this chapter, and you? when Harry realized it, yes I did remember without need of going to check in GoF. I thought it was brilliant, and I loved Krum in that part at the wedding. > Is this another way to add confusion to the separation / > connection between the minds and memories of Harry and > Voldemort? Are the details of the name, the place abroad, > and the Quidditch connection enough of a hint to let us > know who Voldemort is looking for? """" Nora: the details you mention could be enough for some readers to remember who Gregorovitch was. > 3. We see Harry hit himself in the eye with his glasses and > tie his shoelaces in a knot. Ron suggests that he continues > to do up his fly by hand. We have seen Harry perform other > minor or unsuccessful spells. Is this repetition of ineptitude > a way for the author to increase our concern for Harry. Is > this a way for the author to encourage less talented readers > that they can be heroes? """" Nora: maybe. But I was not concerned about Harry. Look at Tonks, an Auror, and so clumsy. I think it has nothing (or not so much) to do with magical skills. > 4. There appears to be no sensation in either the placing or > removal of the Trace. If the Ministry of Magic, for any reason, > can apply a trace, what does this say about privacy issues in > the Wizarding World? Considering the fact that Harry performed > under-aged magic on several occasions, inadvertently, without > causing any repercussion from the MOM, does this plot point > make consistent sense? """" Nora: Well, about the MoM spying on citizens that makes sense, and using the Trace for this could done as speculation. Regarding Harry and underage magic, I do not remember any case after his being aware of being a wizard. We have been told that muggleborns (and mugge-raised) are excused from this rule, as they do not know what happens. Remember Lily and her "loads of magic" > 5. This seems odd to me, as Harry has split with Ginny for her > protection. Why would Ron encourage Harry to seek other female > company when he knows how upset Ginny is and how Harry feels > about Ginny? Does Ron actually understand that Harry is not > likely to survive? """" Nora: it can also be that Ron is Ronish as usual, specially now that Harry and Ginny have cut up. Did he encourage Harry to see other girls? I don't remember this (I will check my book). If so, he is soooo... mmmhhh > 6. We have seen Dumbledore's watch, Ron's watch, Molly's clock, > and now Fabian's watch. We have also seen time-turners. What is > the fascination with time? """" Nora: Yes, there is a lot of watches and references to time. In this case, I think it is a tradition, sort of close to real world, to make an special and traditional gift for some special birthday. It was nice. > 7. We have seen Hermione as the boys' conscience, their > researcher, their tutor. Why are we seeing this "Suzie > homemaker" side of Hermione? Is this in character? Is > JKR correct in assuming that all young girls want to impress > their boyfriends with their homemaking abilities? """" Nora: I thought it was one of Molly's tasks > 8. Have we seen Hermione obey Ron like this before? Why does > JKR make Ron look like an idiot most of the time and then > demonstrate this masterful side? """" Nora: I think she is not obeying Ron, but she is trying to make the boys not to hurt each other, or to prevent Ron hurting Harry > 9. How does the pouch know that ownership was transferred? """ Nora: by magic? must be an spell > 10. Is this patronus appropriate for Arthur Weasley from what > we know about his character? Is it a foregone conclusion that > some Weasley will have a weasel for a patronus? Wouldn't Percy > make a better weasel? """" Nora: this I don't know... but I liked the weasel patronus for Arthur. Is there other patronus that we know, related to a family name? > 11. Does Lupin explain later? Why are they afraid for Scrimgeour to see them? """" Nora: Yes, Lupin later explains that the MoM is being quite anti werewolf and they will not favored Harry with their presence at the party. > 12. Does Scrimgeour see Ron as the weak link? Do we see Ron > as the weak link? Ron was portrayed as equally skilled in the > first book and was more knowledgeable about Wizarding things > than Harry or Hermione. Has this change in position added to > the books? """" Nora: maybe Scrimgeour has been making some research and has been told that Ron was not so close to DD. Regarding Ron's skills, I think he is portrayed as less skilled since book one, even if naturally he is more knowledgeable than the other two about wizarding things. > 13. Does this seem more like our Hermione? Which Hermione do > we like better? Is there consistency with this character? """" Nora: Yes it is consistent with the Hermione that is critical of the MoM and its methods. And I like this Hermione. > 14. Many of the laws in the Wizarding World seem intrusive. > Is this to maintain some kind of control over magical and > powerful citizenry, or is it misuse of power by magical > legislators? Hermione shows that the laws in the Wizarding > World have the expected checks and balances, but do we see > them used? """ Nora: need more analysis from my part to answer. Good question. > 15. Didn't we all think that Hermione's knowledge of Quidditch > was negligible? Is she studying Quidditch to become more the > kind of person most suited to Ron? """" Nora: but it is the sort of thing that Hermione would know, isn't it? It is perhaps from Quidditch through the ages (or something like that) - the book Hermione once gave Harry for birthday or Christmas present. > 16. Is there any mention about the flesh memory in any prior > books or was this just tossed in as a belated plot point? Was > Wood wearing gloves when he first taught the rules to Harry? """" Nora: it is the first time we hear it, that I recall. OTOH Wood used golf balls to teach Harry the rules > 17. Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour > and Harry is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot? """"" Nora: I think it is interesting, I do not know if it is necessary, it is the way it is. I mean, it has consequences, but could as well be the same if there has been indiference instead of antagonism. In my opinion. > 18. Could anyone please explain to me why a flesh memory in a > snitch would be likely to tell the difference between flesh > and lips? """" Nora: it has to be very intelligent (?) I imagine it was the mouth - maybe the snitch can make the difference between skin and mucosa. > Extra questions: > 19. What is the most important "happening" in this chapter: > Voldemort's search for Gregorovitch, Harry's birthday, the > loss of the trace, the flight of the Lupins, the bequests > from Dumbledore or the antagonism of the Minister? """" Nora: For me, the bequests from Dumbledore and the private moment of Harry with Ginny. The search of Gregorovitch is also important. > 20. What parts of this chapter would you have left out as > unnecessary to either plot or characterization? """" Nora: Harry's birthday party, maybe. It was nice, but the affection of Weasleys and friends was already shown at breakfast. Regards, Nora (A.) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 01:57:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:57:28 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179035 Carol earlier: > > But, Betsy, as we've tried to show you, this statement is not a *fact.* It's your *interpretation*, and it appears to be a minority view. There's no evidence to support the truth of the statement (it could be one of many false statements made by characters that are never directly contradicted) and all sorts of evidence that it may be false. > > > Betsy Hp replied: > Honestly, IMO no one has presented any *evidence* to show that Voldemort's statement here is false. There's been a lot of extra- textual *reasons* a reader could choose to see this statement as false. But there's no moment in the text where JKR *explicitly* tells us Voldemort was lying to Lucius here. And frankly, if this were a lie, it's a massive one. It's the sort of reveal that should shake Harry preconceptions to the core. That we never get that moment (Slytherins *aren't* all baddies?!?) means that JKR didn't write it which means it doesn't make any sort of story-telling sense that Voldemort is lying in this scene. Carol again: How can we present evidence for something that didn't happen? There are no Slytherin students in the battle or with Voldemort. Not one. The only three students named as not leaving with Filch or Slughorn are Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle. The very fact that Voldemort says they're *all* out there except Draco shows that he's lying. We know of two exceptions, and two exceptions are enough to show that the statement is false. "All" is not the same as "all but two." Nor is there any indication that eleven-, twelve-, and thirteen-year-old children are fighting. The youngest person mentioned is a sixth year. Where is the evidence that any other Slytherin student disobeyed McGonagall's order? It isn't there. I can't prove a negative, that "the Slytherin students didn't fight for Voldemort." All I can say is, there's no evidence, not one iota, to show that they did. Not one name, not one example. We do, however, see the slytherins leaving, and Draco and Crabbe stating that they left the group. The implication is that the group went where it was supposed to go, with Slughorn and Filch to the Hog's Head. "We 'ung back, Potter," says Crabbe. "*We decided not to go*" (DH 628). Every other Slytherin, by implication, went where they were ordered to go, that is, to follow Filch to the RoR, with the Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs, and Gryffindors who are not fighting, either, behind them. And where did they drop out to hide? Outside the RoR, which the other Slytherins must have entered. *We*--Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle--decided not to go. But they're the only ones who made that decision, using Dissilusionment Charms to hide from the crowd and the teachers. I'm also wondering how you reconcile "Let it not be forgotten that Slytherin played its part" in the defeat of Voldemort with all of Slytherin fighting *for* Voldemort? It makes no sense at all. Carol, still waiting for a single piece of evidence that Voldie is telling the truth From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 02:04:49 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:04:49 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179036 > a_svirn: > Even for pre-DH Snape it doesn't really seem to work. Judging from > his "worst memory" he got precious little protection from his house- > mates. Actually, if it was protection from the Marauders he wanted > his best bet was to stick to Lily. Besides, we know that he followed > them around spying and probably trying to get them expelled. It's the > behaviour of someone who seeks trouble rather than protection. > lizzyben: Yeah, I agree that he got very little protection from his housemates as Severus Snape, greasy oddball. Which is even more reason for him to seek an "in" to the group of Slytherins - he was probably flattered when he started getting attention from the Death Eater crowd. Hanging with the DE would be like, I don't know, being chosen for the cheerleading squad or the varsity football team. > a_svirn: > Oh yes, in that sense I agree. Though I wouldn't call it protection. > The other two you mentioned upthread ? affirmation and affection ? > suit better. He was unpopular, a loner and he wanted to belong. And > the junior death eater league was elite of a sort in Slytherin. Does > it mean that he was weak? He seemed to be emotionally crippled, > almost pathetic in his neediness and that is certainly a weakness. He > was weak in the same sense Lupin was weak, but it's not the sort of > weakness that brought the likes of Pettigrew to Voldemort. lizzyben: Yeah, I'd agree that affirmation is a better description than protection, but that's not an option. And really, that's a failure of DD's categories. He was describing LV's contemporaries, IIRC, who would have been the same age & had the same ideology/ambitions as Riddle. But by Snape's generation, LV is recruiting kids, teenagers. Almost every member of Snape's class became a DE - really the wonder would be if Snape *didn't* join. Peer pressure is a powerful factor at that age - and here all the Slyth kids are grouped together, alienated from the rest of the school, and indoctrinated in pure- blooded ideology from an early age. Hogwarts & Slytherin House was basically a Death Eater factory. It's like DD never actually sat down & thought about why all these kids become Death Eaters. (Or probably just thought "oh well, born evil") Totally agree with the description of Snape as "pathetic in his neediness." The Prince's Tale makes me cringe for this very reason. He was so very *needy* in the earlier memories - this kid just needed a hug! Or an afghan! He's the classic at-risk child - abused, bullied, angry, & vulnerable. He just seemed so emotional, so desperate for any recognition of worth & so lacking in any kind of self-esteem. Young Snape was an easy, easy target for recruitment. Was this a weakness? I think Snape thinks it was. In OOTP, he warns Harry: "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 so easily - weak people, in other words - they stand no chance against his powers! He will penetrate your mind with absurd ease, Potter!' Snape's talking about himself here, IMO. That's how he got into the DE. And there is a distinction between someone seeking emotional security & protection, like Snape, & a lackey who wants physical protection, like Pettigrew. I don't mean that Snape was a syncophant, but that his emotional neediness & desire for affirmation led him to join any group that would have him. Snape was looking for love in all the wrong places. And that's a weakness, but it's also a common reaction for many neglected or unloved children. That's why Snape's character kind of breaks my heart. The wizarding world's response to unloved or at-risk children seems to be to toss them in the Slytherin dungeon, ignore them, or dismiss them with contempt as "weak" (see: Merope). IMO, DD's categories reveal the rather fascist ideology of "contempt for the weak" that runs throughout the WW. It's somewhat fitting that the real reasons that teenagers join these organizations never seemed to occur to him. It's like he'd rather judge & feel superior from on high in place of actually understanding the dynamics of his school. lizzyben From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 02:17:31 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:17:31 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179037 > In message #178944 > Potioncat: > > I think Regulus was attracted to the idea of being a True born > Wizard leader who should be free to walk as a Wizard and rule the > Muggles. <<< Mike: I'm a terrible teacher, I should've told potioncat she was excused from this homework assignment since she had already submitted her essay: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178090 In fact, it was this post of hers that prompted this exercise. So we'll just call this answer extra credit, okay PC? > In message #179018 > lizzyben: > I've taught you well, grasshopper. :) Of course, DD wasn't a Death Eater, but those quotes do reveal a great deal about his real self- image. I think DD knows, deep down, that he could've easily become a DE as well if Voldemort were around in his day. And he knows that his feelings about Muggles once matched GG & LV, & perhaps still do in some ways. <<< Mike: This is a little OT: I wrote "Dumbledore Does Lie" posts in two parts and had always intended to finish with part three. Then I read your "Puppetmaster DD" post (#171278, pre-DH) and I felt you had finished my Part III for me. (yes, I know Puppetmaster!DD was not lizzyben's invention nor by any means an exclusive reading, but hers struck a chord for me.) Granted, not all of the things you predicted, and I agreed with, came true; e.g. Dumbledore didn't engineer the release of the prophesy. But he certainly took full advantage of it, by his own admission he was training Harry to be "the chosen one" from the moment Harry's parents were killed. Though I don't hold Dumbledore in quite the contempt that you do, I freely admit that he was very much the puppetmaster to Harry's Chosen One. The main difference is I thought Dumbledore's guidance was needed to not just defeat LV but to also keep Harry alive to do it. The destruction of LV's Horcruxes meant that Harry could have that final battle that ultimately does Riddle in. Elsewise, Voldemort would've kept coming back and would've continued to hunt Harry until he finally found a way to kill him. That much is clear from DH, imo. > In message #179029 > lizzyben: > For Snape, the DE's seemed powerful, respected, feared. They'd be the coolest baddest gang on the block. <<< Mike: You mean they had a "dark glamour"? ;) > In message #179029 & #179030 > lizzyben: > That might still be > the case, but now I'd say it was more protection from the world in > general. IMO joining this group would give Snape a sense of > protection & safety; in the sense that being part of any group > protects one individual. It's the protection that most people find > in a family or circle of friends. Lacking that, people (especially > young men) can turn to gangs instead. I don't think that it's the > *main* reason, but it's an important one, & the best fit of the > three categories Mike mentioned. > a_svirn: > Oh yes, in that sense I agree. Though I wouldn't call it protection. The other two you mentioned upthread ? affirmation and affection ? suit better. He was unpopular, a loner and he wanted to belong. And the junior death eater league was elite of a sort in Slytherin. Does it mean that he was weak? He seemed to be emotionally crippled, almost pathetic in his neediness and that is certainly a weakness. He was weak in the same sense Lupin was weak, but it's not the sort of weakness that brought the likes of Pettigrew to Voldemort. <<< Mike: Well I did say pick your own theory if that fits better. But I thought with Snape there was a degree of desire for "shared glory". By that I mean some of that affirmation you mentioned, a need to be thought of as valuable. Not "glory" as in the sense of being widely acclaimed, which would have been an unlikely goal for any DE in the shadow of Voldemort. But "glory" in the sense that my idol (LV) is acclaimed and I help put him there. > In message #179027 > bboyminn: > So, I think that is one of the powers Voldemort had over his Death Eaters, the possibility that if he favored you enough, he would reveal his secret. > I highly suspect that is exactly what Lucius Malfoy thought. Until he lost favor, I think he fancied himself as Voldemort's number 2; heir to the throne and all it's legacies. I suspect, and this is only my speculation, that deep down Lucius thought he would eventually know the secret that guards against death. In knowing the secret, he would also know the flaw or vulnerability in the magic. <<< Mike: I don't disagree with your speculation here, I can easily see that as Lucius long term plan after joining. But that must have come *after* he joined, surely Voldemort wasn't confiding anything about his immortality quest to mere recruits. So what was the original attraction for Lucius? He doesn't seem to need protection, and he isn't the thuggish type. But I don't quite see him as the shared glory disciple, he seems too independant. Lucius is an enigma for me. He alone amongst all the DEs we were introduced to doesn't seem the type to join LV's organization. When Lucius hissed "Prove it" in CoS, and DD admits that no one will be able to, it showed me that Lucius had as much moxey in his dark plans as LV did. So why did he need LV? I could have bought him as somebody's #2 when Voldemort is still in his purging-the-competition stage (from the original post in this thread), but Lucius Malfoy was too young. Could it be that Abraxus was that #2 and recruited his son after being co-opted into the DEs himself? That seems like too much speculating. I wish someone that gets Lucius better than I do could enlighten me. Mike From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Nov 13 03:33:38 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:33:38 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179038 Potioncat: Extra credit? Is there more? > Mike: > Lucius is an enigma for me. He alone amongst all the DEs we were > introduced to doesn't seem the type to join LV's organization. When > Lucius hissed "Prove it" in CoS, and DD admits that no one will be > able to, it showed me that Lucius had as much moxey in his dark plans > as LV did. So why did he need LV? Potioncat: Many wizarding folk thought LV had the right idea. Lucius is a Dark Wizard, who was attending a school that discouraged the study of dark magic. LV was this incredibly Dark Wizard, who was well versed in Dark Magic. Who knows what he promised Lucius, but I'm sure he offered some prize. Look at HBP. Draco was proud to have been chosen by LV to carry out a special assignment. It's only later that the full impact hits him. > Mike > I could have bought him as somebody's #2 when Voldemort is still in > his purging-the-competition stage (from the original post in this > thread), but Lucius Malfoy was too young. Could it be that Abraxus > was that #2 and recruited his son after being co-opted into the DEs > himself? That seems like too much speculating. I wish someone that > gets Lucius better than I do could enlighten me. Potioncat: My memory is fuzzy here, but didn't Slughorn distance himself from Abraxas pretty quickly when Draco mentioned him? So you may be on to something. (Oh, heck, who am I kidding? My memory looks like a Persian cat.) From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Nov 13 04:06:41 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:06:41 -0000 Subject: WAS Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game/Fascism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179039 > > > >>zgirnius: > > > It's not an anti-feminist view at all; it would be only > > > if we insisted this is the role and responsibility of > > > women, exclusively, in society. > > > > > Betsy Hp: > > My thinking on JKR and her views on woman have to do with > > the utter fear with which female sensuality is dealt with > > in the text, the disdain expressed towards girls acting like > > girls, the way making a boy seem girly was the ultimate put- > > down, and the rather old-fashioned way various tasks were > > assigned. Well, clearly in the Weasley household, the old-fashioned way of assigning tasks prevailed...but we don't know if that was the rule... What we do know is that JKR prized domesticity, parenting, and family above professional success....whether for men OR women... Susan From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 04:24:08 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:24:08 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179040 zgirnius: Thanks, KJ, for a lenghty summary of a lenghty chapter, and some great discussion questions! > 2. Have we heard the name of Gregorovitch before in previous books? zgirnius: Yes, he is the wandmaker who made Viktor Krum's wand (mentioned in GoF, "The Weighing of the Wands"). This is enough of a clue to those of us who remember such trivia, that Voldemort is interested in wands/a wand. > 3. We see Harry hit himself in the eye with his glasses and tie his > shoelaces in a knot. zgirnius: I think this is more about realism. Everyone messes up, sometimes in funny or embarassing ways. > 5. This seems odd to me, as Harry has split with Ginny for her > protection. Why would Ron encourage Harry to seek other female > company when he knows how upset Ginny is and how Harry feels about > Ginny? Does Ron actually understand that Harry is not likely to > survive? zgirnius: Personally I think this gift proves the opposite, that Ron has no inkling that Harry might die. Unlike Hermione's gift, it is of no use for the Horcrux hunt. It is something Harry will have a use for only once the war is over regardless of which witch he chooses to charm. > 7. We have seen Hermione as the boys' conscience, their researcher, > their tutor. Why are we seeing this "Suzie homemaker" side of > Hermione? Is this in character? zgirnius: I did not see this as Hermione being "Suzie homemaker". Her most recent role has been quartermaster, obtaining an organizing all the various items she supposes they will need for their mission. I presumed it was in this capacity that she was packing up Harry's gifts and Ron's clothes, into her nifty little bag of tricks. > 12. Does Scrimgeour see Ron as the weak link? Do we see Ron as the > weak link? Ron was portrayed as equally skilled in the first book > and was more knowledgeable about Wizarding things than Harry or > Hermione. Has this change in position added to the books? zgirnius: Scrimgeour I imagine, hardly knows Ron. Personally, I do not see Ron as the weak link. All three of the Trio have personality flaws, but they have all made contributions in past books (and will in this one). Ron is no longer more knowledgeable than the others, necessarily, but this was never why he became friends with Harry, any more than Harry recruited Hermione to be his walking encyclopedia for all matters academic. > 18. Could anyone please explain to me why a flesh memory in a snitch > would be likely to tell the difference between flesh and lips? zgirnius: I don't see why not. It remembers the first flesh that touched it. I presume this means a Snitch that was caught in a more traditional manner, would open if the Seeker's hand that caught it, touched it. I mean, it could be written so it is only the person that matters, but there is no reason it *has* to be like that. > 19. What is the most important "happening" in this chapter: > Voldemort's search for Gregorovitch, Harry's birthday, the loss of the > trace, the flight of the Lupins, the bequests from Dumbledore or the > antagonism of the Minister? zgirnius: Definitely the bequests from Dumbledore. (As the choice of title suggests). This sets Harry on the trail of all three Hallows, signals the future importance of the sword, gives Ron a way back when he leaves later on, and provides Harry the Resurrection Stone. > 20. What parts of this chapter would you have left out as unnecessary > to either plot or characterization? zgirnius: I personally would not miss Lupin if we saw much less of him in this book. That would certainly cut into his characterization, though. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 04:24:56 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:24:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179041 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Just wondering here: Does the Bloomsbury edition say "moleskin" > (like Hagrid's coat in PoA)? The American edition says "mokeskin" Hi, Carol! The only difference is that in the British edition it is "Mokeskin" (starts with an upper-case M), and in the American edition it is just "mokeskin" :-). In the Russian translation it is "donkey skin" (or should it be "ass's skin"?), which doesn't make much sense, IMO, even though I know that "moke" can mean "donkey". Personally I would never doubt that JKR meant Moke from the "Fantastic Beasts" here, if not for the "furry" aspect of this supposedly lizard skin, which confuses me even today :-). zanooda, wondering if JKR forgot her own description of Mokes in the "Fantastic Beasts". From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 05:04:55 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:04:55 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179042 > > Betsy Hp: > > Honestly, IMO no one has presented any *evidence* to show that > > Voldemort's statement here is false. zgirnius: Yes, they have. Crabbe and Goyle are in Slytherin, and neither of them joined Voldemort. Particularly not Crabbe, for the excellent reason that he was already dead, having died before ever leaving the castle. > Magpie: > Just felt compelled to throw out there that I don't know if this is > the minority view since it seems the most obvious to me. The > Slytherins all leave and don't defend the castle, as Voldemort > wanted. They're doing what he wants, abandoning the school to him. > It would never have occurred to me to think Voldemort was lying-- why > would he be lying? zgirnius: The sense in which people are saying he lied is that the Slytherins did not physically join Voldemort - he was not accompanied by the entire horde of young Slytherins, not did they fight for him. And, this does seem to be what Voldemort means, because he contrasts the other Slytherins' behavior with Draco's. In the sense you mean (simply leaving the school ahead of the battle to go to relative safety), all the underage students "joined" Voldemort, as did over half the of-age Ravenclaws, and a few of-age Hufflepuffs. We saw the underage students, and members of various houses, including all the Slytherins, leave. No one is disputing this. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 05:42:14 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:42:14 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179043 > zgirnius: > The sense in which people are saying he lied is that the Slytherins > did not physically join Voldemort - he was not accompanied by the > entire horde of young Slytherins, not did they fight for him. And, > this does seem to be what Voldemort means, because he contrasts the > other Slytherins' behavior with Draco's. lizzyben: Sorry if this was already brought up, but if LV was lying, how would he know that Draco was still in the castle? The students evacuated to Aberforth's tavern right before the battle, & presumably went home from there. But LV is with Malfoy in the Shrieking Shack. If the evacuated Slytherin students didn't go over to his camp, how would LV know that Draco wasn't among them? He must have *seen* the evacuated Slytherin students in order to notice that Draco wasn't among them, which lends credence to his contention that they promptly headed over to the LV camp. In addition, his statement is never overturned or corrected in canon. So, LV says that the Slyth students came and joined him, it's supported by corraborating evidence, & it isn't contradicted or overturned later. I didn't think LV was lying. It seems almost, well, subversive to argue that he was. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 07:19:02 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:19:02 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179045 > lizzyben: > Sorry if this was already brought up, but if LV was lying, how would > he know that Draco was still in the castle? zgirnius: LV does not know Draco is in the castle. He says, and I quote, "He did not come and join me, like the rest of the Slytherins. Perhaps he has decided to befriend Harry Potter?" All this means about Draco's location, is the rather obvious fact that he is not there with Voldemort. Voldemort knows this by the evidence of his own five senses. > lizzyben: > If > the evacuated Slytherin students didn't go over to his camp, how > would LV know that Draco wasn't among them? zgirnius: Where does it say Voldemort knows Draco us not among evacuated SLytherins? *If* he does, the students could have been seen by a DE patrolling Hogsmeade. Or, it could be that, even though we saw neither hide nor hair of such a person, *a* Slytherin joined Voldemort and reported it (this could also happen by the alternative of *a* Slytherin student being captured during the evacuation attempt, and exercising his/her cunning by feigning relief s/he has reached the 'right side'). Or, and this is what I consider most likely, Voldemort was, as has been suggested, *lying*. If he enjoys making Lucius suffer, not alerting him to the possibility that Draco was evacuated from the castle to a neutral location would be a fine way to do it. And, as has been pointed out, LV's statement to Lucius, because it includes the phrase 'like the rest of the Slytherins', is false. Crabbe never left the castle. From greatraven at hotmail.com Tue Nov 13 09:55:58 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:55:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's bed (Was: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179046 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sbursztynski" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > > > -> I agree that there would be fewer students at Hogwarts because the > > > Muggle-borns weren't attending > > > > Sue: Actually, I noticed a glitch here. Dean Thomas is on the run because of being > Muggle- > > born, but for some reason, JKR seems to have forgotten that Colin Creevey was also > > Muggle-born and killed the poor kid off in the Battle of Hogwarts! > > Geoff: > Is there a glitch here? As far as Dean is concerned, I think not... I just l > ooked at "The Lost Diadem" (UK edition between pp.460-468) and without > trying to quote overlarge chunks, the relevant bits seem to be as follows: > > Neville comes through Ariana's portrait (p.460) and takes the Trio > back into a room Harry does not recognise. > > On the way: > "Well it got more difficult as time went on," said Neville. "We lost Luna > at Christmas and Ginny never came back after Easter" (p.463) > > When they reach their destination: > '"Where are we?" > "Room of Requirement, of course!" said Neville.' (p.465) > > "And the Carrows can't get in?" asked Harry looking round for the door. > "No," said Seamus Finnigan, whom Harry had not recognised until he > spoke: Seamus' face was bruised and puffy.' (p.465) > > So we see the Hogwarts students hiding out in the RoR. Then: > > '"Look"," Harry began, without knowing what he was going to say but it > did not matter: the tunnel door had just opened behind him. > "We got your message, Neville! Hello you three, I thought you must be > here!" > It was Luna and Dean. Seamus gave a great roar of delight and ran to > hug his best friend. > "Hi everyone!" said Luna happily, "Oh, it's great to be back!" > "Luna," said Harry distractedly, "what are you doing here? How did you-?" > "I sent for her," said Neville holding up the fake Galleon. "I promised her > and Ginny that if you turned up I'd let them know." (p.468) > > This surely explains the presence of Dean and Luna. It is possible that > Colin returned in a similar fashion.... Sue: Yes, it's entirely possible, but not the impression I got. He was shooed away by an irritated Professor McGonagall, along with the all other under-age kids, when he tried to stay. I don't think it's anything as complicated as his coming back with the Galleon, or why wasn't he mentioned in the group of kids coming in through the portrait? I think JKR was tired and had a deadline and wrote something that she might later have noticed and said, "Whoops!" It wouldn't be the first time. (THAT was probably when she had Hagrid saying he had to return to motorbike to Sirius Black in PS and then, in POA, saying Sirius had told him to keep it! ;-D) > From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 12:38:03 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:38:03 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179047 > Mike: > Lucius is an enigma for me. He alone amongst all the DEs we were > introduced to doesn't seem the type to join LV's organization. When > Lucius hissed "Prove it" in CoS, and DD admits that no one will be > able to, it showed me that Lucius had as much moxey in his dark plans > as LV did. So why did he need LV? a_svirn: I was always puzzled by that myself. Add to that that Lucius was supposed to call some half-blood muggle-bread nobody his Lord and Master, and that really makes little sense. > Mike: > I could have bought him as somebody's #2 when Voldemort is still in > his purging-the-competition stage (from the original post in this > thread), but Lucius Malfoy was too young. Could it be that Abraxus > was that #2 and recruited his son after being co-opted into the DEs > himself? a_svirn: Yeah, and maybe he didn't really die from dragon-pox. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 13:46:20 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:46:20 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179048 > >>lizzyben: > > Sorry if this was already brought up, but if LV was lying, how > > would he know that Draco was still in the castle? > >>zgirnius: > LV does not know Draco is in the castle. He says, and I quote, "He > did not come and join me, like the rest of the Slytherins. Perhaps > he has decided to befriend Harry Potter?" All this means about > Draco's location, is the rather obvious fact that he is not there > with Voldemort. Voldemort knows this by the evidence of his own > five senses. Betsy Hp: And he knows Draco *should* be there because all of the other Slytherins (of age or not, that's getting far too detailed for a JKR novel, frankly ) are with him. Otherwise, why would Draco *not* being there stand out? And also, he out and out states that the other Slytherins are with him. Which means he's bald-faced lying and Harry doesn't pick up on it despite being an unnoticed observer within Voldemort's head (and having already picked up much more sensitive information than the loyalties of House Slytherin). > >>lizzyben: > > If the evacuated Slytherin students didn't go over to his camp, > > how would LV know that Draco wasn't among them? > >>zgirnius: > Where does it say Voldemort knows Draco us not among evacuated > SLytherins? Betsy Hp: Where Voldemort says "join me, like the rest of the Slytherins". Voldemort knows where the Slytherins are and that Draco is not among them. Hence his little dig to Lucius. > >>zgirnius: > *If* he does, the students could have been seen by a DE patrolling > Hogsmeade. Betsy Hp: Heh. Now I'm picturing a DE being all Romper Room with Voldemort. "I saw Davey and Susey and Blaise and Roy..." It's this sort of scrambling that speaks to the lack of textual support, IMO. Slytherin left Hogwarts, walked over to Voldemort's camp, and hey, where's pretty young Draco who I've had such personal dealings with? Better ask dear old dad. > >>zgirnius: > Or, it could be that, even though we saw neither hide nor > hair of such a person, *a* Slytherin joined Voldemort and reported > it (this could also happen by the alternative of *a* Slytherin > student being captured during the evacuation attempt, and > exercising his/her cunning by feigning relief s/he has reached > the 'right side'). Betsy Hp: Even though we saw neither hair nor hide? I'd think if were just one, that one would be named. That no names are used speaks more strongly for it being a group. > >>zgirnius: > > And, as has been pointed out, LV's statement to Lucius, because it > includes the phrase 'like the rest of the Slytherins', is false. > Crabbe never left the castle. Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think you're straining at details here. We know Crabbe and Goyle (and Draco as well) were doing something *for* Voldemort. So they're not an example of a Slytherin not serving. But we also know that Draco is one student Voldemort knows pretty darn well. If a herd of Slyhterins trooped over to his side, Voldemort would notice Draco's absence far more than he'd notice Crabbe or Goyle's. And finally, when is this statement of Voldemort's ever pointed to as a lie by the text? Harry doesn't think to himself, "But Voldemort's lying because Crabbe and Goyle weren't there either!" And he never says, "But Voldemort's lying, I haven't seen one Slytherin student fighting!" Which, IMO, means that Voldemort wasn't lying, JKR never meant for us to parse his statement to such depth, and as far as she's concerned, Slytherin students of a certain age were fighting alongside Voldemort. > >>Carol: > > I can't prove a negative, that "the Slytherin students didn't fight > for Voldemort." All I can say is, there's no evidence, not one iota, > to show that they did. > Betsy Hp: Yes there is, Carol. Voldemort's statement that the Slytherins *joined* with him. So there's evidence right there that they *did* join with Voldemort and no evidence to suggest otherwise. JKR doesn't have to state something twice. Especially something that I think to her mind should be a bit of a no-brainer. Slytherins are the bad house ergo they joined with Voldemort as soon as they got the chance. This is like asking for a specifc role call of all Orcs present on the side of evil at a certain battle in the LotRs. Of *course* they fought on the wrong side, they're *Orcs*. If JKR was cleverly laying clues (that she never revealed) that all of the stuff about Slytherin was a lie, she'd have included a role call with the battle. She doesn't. Death Eaters are wearing masks so they aren't all identifiable. We have no idea who killed Colin Creevy. So the lack of a specific name (beyond Draco, Crabbe and Goyle) is proof of nothing, IMO, and Voldemort's statement stands unchallenged. Betsy Hp From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 13:14:53 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:14:53 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > Sorry if this was already brought up, but if LV was lying, how > would > > he know that Draco was still in the castle? > > zgirnius: > LV does not know Draco is in the castle. He says, and I quote, "He > did not come and join me, like the rest of the Slytherins. Perhaps he > has decided to befriend Harry Potter?" All this means about Draco's > location, is the rather obvious fact that he is not there with > Voldemort. Voldemort knows this by the evidence of his own five > senses. lizzyben: No, he's telling Lucius that Draco is still at the site of the battle, Hogwarts castle. The scene is described: "The sounds of the assault on the castle were muffled and distant. ... 'My Lord... please... my son...." "If your son is dead, Lucius, it is not my fault. He did not come and join me, like the rest of the Slytherins." Malfoy then begs LV to stop the battle & go to Hogwarts himself to get Potter (presumably so that he can go as well to find Draco). This scene tells the Malfoys that Draco is still within the castle, which leads to Narcissa's betrayal & their desperate search of the castle in the midst of battle. So Lucius understands from LV's statement that Draco is still at Hogwarts. And what I'm saying is, how does Voldemort know this? You say that LV knows this by the evidence of his own five senses - how would LV *have* that evidence unless the evacuated students had come to his camp & he had the chance to notice that Draco was not there with them? > > lizzyben: > > If > > the evacuated Slytherin students didn't go over to his camp, how > > would LV know that Draco wasn't among them? > > zgirnius: > Where does it say Voldemort knows Draco us not among evacuated > SLytherins? lizzyben: Voldemort says that. The scene takes place as underage students (and all Slytherins) are evacuating from Hogwarts to the tavern. LV says "He did not come and join me, like the rest of the Slytherins." This tells us that 1.) LV knows that the Slytherin students have left Hogwarts and 2.) LV knows that Draco was not among the evacuating students. How would he know this? Well, if the evacuated Slytherin students all came over to his camp, as he says they did, he would have a chance to know both of these facts. It's corraborating evidence that LV's statement is true. If he were just making stuff up, there's no way he could know that Draco wasn't among the evacuated students. zgirnius: > *If* he does, the students could have been seen by a DE patrolling > Hogsmeade. Or, it could be that, even though we saw neither hide nor > hair of such a person, *a* Slytherin joined Voldemort and reported it > (this could also happen by the alternative of *a* Slytherin student > being captured during the evacuation attempt, and exercising his/her > cunning by feigning relief s/he has reached the 'right side'). lizzyben: This is more plausible alternate scenario. I could buy the Death Eater spy idea, or the lone Slytherin mole who joins LV's camp to report information. The problem with that is I can't really see LV bothering with a spy just to report if Draco is there/not there, and a lone Slytherin kid probably can't say with certainty if Draco left before or after him. The only way LV could be sure of this is if every other evacuated Slytherin joined his camp, as he says that they did. zgirnius: Or, > and this is what I consider most likely, Voldemort was, as has been > suggested, *lying*. If he enjoys making Lucius suffer, not alerting > him to the possibility that Draco was evacuated from the castle to a > neutral location would be a fine way to do it. > > And, as has been pointed out, LV's statement to Lucius, because it > includes the phrase 'like the rest of the Slytherins', is false. > Crabbe never left the castle. lizzyben: This is not plausible to me. Because if LV was lying, it had the incredible coincidence of also being true. Draco in fact did not leave the castle with all the other Slytherins; He, Crabbe & Goyle remained at Hogwarts. Let's say LV has no idea what happened & is just making stuff up to torment Lucius. He decides to lie & state that Draco hasn't evacuated & might die in the battle, not realizing that his lie is in fact the actual truth. First of all, that's a pretty big coincidence. Second of all, LV's manner is far too casual for this to be a huge whopper he's telling Lucius - Lucius brings up Draco first, & LV cooly says that it's not his fault if Draco died as Draco was foolish enough not to join him as the other Slytherins did. It's all very matter-of-fact, because it is actually a fact. Crabbe has no relevance at all, for one simple reason: LV doesn't know what Crabbe looks like. He does know what Draco looks like, because he's been living in the Malfoy's house for months, he inducted Draco into the Death Eaters, he gave Draco his HBP assignment, etc etc. So, if a sea of evacuated Slytherin students immediately join his side, he can look over the crowd and think "Ah, no Draco. I shall torment Lucius with this information." He's not going to do an exact head count "Ah, there are sixty-five students, so based on JKR's contradicting statements about the number of students, that means that 2-6 Slytherins aren't here..." And even if LV did notice somehow that other students are missing, it's not relevant to the conversation. The conversation is about Draco, & LV tells Lucius that Draco didn't join him with the other evacuated Slytherins, and so is still in danger during the battle. Lucius doesn't care about Crabbe, Goyle, etc. So, I'd consider it plausible if some other Slytherin students didn't join LV's camp. But I think it's *most* plausible that the evacuated Slytherin kids did join his camp. That's corraborated by LV's statement, supporting evidence, & the lack of any reversal in this information by the end of the novel. Really, the only reason to think it's not true is that we'd hate to think that every Slytherin child joined LV's side. I'm just puzzled that people would argue with such certainty that LV was lying to Lucius, when the "lie" about Draco's absence is actually true. LV's statement is never contradicted in canon, and no one discovers "oh, wait, the Slytherin kids *didn't* go over to LV's side! Wow!" Finally, because that statement is never revealed to be a lie by the end of the book, it's canon. It's JKR's way of making sure we know that Slytherins really, really suck. I really doubt that a kid reading DH will think, "Voldemort is obviously lying here, since Crabbe is still within Hogwarts, and possibly he had a DE stationed to tell him that Draco isn't with the evacuated Slytherins." Instead, IMO most readers will conclude: "The other Slytherins joined Voldemort, because Slytherins are bad guys." It's the simplest reading, the one supported by canon, & one that is never contradicted within the book. It almost seems like people are arguing against the book because they don't like what it says. And I'm all for subversive or contradictory readings, but it is going against author intent IMO. It's like arguing that Harry decided to free Kreacher after asking for a sandwich, or Albus Severus will be a good Slytherin, etc. Sure, it's *possible*, but it's not in the book. Because JKR didn't put it there. In this case, she chose to include LV saying that all the evacuated Slytherin students joined his side, and chose not to reveal that that was a lie. I think she did this to let readers know that the Slytherin students are just as bad as McGonegal thought they were, and as a plot point to allow the Malfoys to learn Draco's actual location. lizzyben From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Nov 13 16:33:18 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:33:18 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179050 > > > Mike: > > Lucius is an enigma for me. He alone amongst all the DEs we were > > introduced to doesn't seem the type to join LV's organization. When > > Lucius hissed "Prove it" in CoS, and DD admits that no one will be > > able to, it showed me that Lucius had as much moxey in his dark plans > > as LV did. So why did he need LV? > > a_svirn: > I was always puzzled by that myself. Add to that that Lucius was > supposed to call some half-blood muggle-bread nobody his Lord and > Master, and that really makes little sense. Pippin: Lucius's character was easy for me to understand (hmmm...should I admit that? ) He thinks his blood status entitles him to the best of everything (peacocks!) , and anyone so presumptuous as to stand between Lucius and the best of everthing needs to be...removed. He feels threatened by the growing power of Muggleborns and it feels good to strike back with a bit of Muggle torture. He flattered Voldemort's pretensions just as he flattered Fudge's, for the same reason. He needed them for the messy job of removing people who didn't respond to threats and were too well-protected for poison or curses (his favored weapons per CoS.) He doesn't, IMO, have any more interest in the day-to-day tedium of running the wizarding world that Voldemort does. He never wanted to be a Dark Lord himself, he just didn't want those upstarts at the ministry telling him, Lucius Malfoy, what sort of magic he could or couldn't use. Lucius for me is analogous to the German upper class and high-powered industrialists who supported Hitler because they thought he would keep the Communists down for them. They thought they could control him. By the time they realized they couldn't, it was too late. I don't think Lucius ever wanted Voldemort back. That's why he didn't go looking for him. DH!Lucius has of course lost all his influence, but it seems he realized finally that the best of everything was to have his son alive and whole. Not that I think he became a nicer person, but I think he'd had enough of being an outlaw at the end. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 18:00:58 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:00:58 -0000 Subject: The Snitch's "flesh memory" (Was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179051 > > 18. Could anyone please explain to me why a flesh memory in a snitch would be likely to tell the difference between flesh and lips? > > zgirnius: > I don't see why not. It remembers the first flesh that touched it. I presume this means a Snitch that was caught in a more traditional manner, would open if the Seeker's hand that caught it, touched it. I mean, it could be written so it is only the person that matters, but there is no reason it *has* to be like that. Carol: But if a Snitch opens only for the first person who touched it, how did Dumbledore get it to open so that he could put the Resurrection Stone inside it (and then reenchant it not to open but to show the message, "I open at the close" at the touch of Harry's mouth/tongue and then open, again at the touch of Harry's mouth, at that specific moment)? Yes, DD is a master magician, a great sorcerer, but he doesn't have Harry's mouth and he was not the first person to touch it, so how could he open it in order to do all that other stuff, including *not* open but only show a message at the touch of Harry's mouth? Maybe the Snitch's flesh memory normally reveals a message along the lines of "You caught me" rather than opening up? After all, the important thing is to reveal the identity of the Seeker who caught it (rather like a photo that shows which horse really won a close race) and most Snitches would be empty since their makers don't normally hide prizes or anything else inside them. (Or JKR didn't think it through, which would not surprise me.) Carol, wondering what Scrimgeour expected to happen when Harry touched the Snitch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 18:33:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:33:10 -0000 Subject: "Mokesin" or "moleskin"? (Was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179053 Carol: If you read the list from your e-mail, please ignore the unfinished version of this message (now deleted from the list itself) that I accidentally sent! Don't know what key I touched to do that! Carol earlier: > > Just wondering here: Does the Bloomsbury edition say "moleskin" (like Hagrid's coat in PoA)? The American edition says "mokeskin" > zanooda responded: > Hi, Carol! The only difference is that in the British edition it is "Mokeskin" (starts with an upper-case M), and in the American edition it is just "mokeskin" :-). In the Russian translation it is "donkey skin" (or should it be "ass's skin"?), which doesn't make much sense, IMO, even though I know that "moke" can mean "donkey". Personally I would never doubt that JKR meant Moke from the "Fantastic Beasts" here, if not for the "furry" aspect of this supposedly lizard skin, which confuses me even today :-). > zanooda, wondering if JKR forgot her own description of Mokes in the "Fantastic Beasts". > Carol responds: Thanks! Which makes me wonder (again) whether Hagrid's *moleskin* overcoat in PoA (Am. ed. 112) was originally *mokeskin* but changed by a copyeditor who thought it was a typo. How did the Russian translator handle that one? (It's in "Talons and Tea Leaves" right before Hagrid tells the students to open their books, which no one knows how to do.) I seem to recall "moleskin" used elsewhere to describe that coat, which would not, of course, have to shrink to prevent anyone from stealing it. Which brings us to whether moleskin, if that's the right word, is the "furry" cotton fabric used for clothing or the skin of several thousand moles made into a coat. The former, I hope! BTW, I sent zanooda a link to a moleskin Sorting Hat (made of moleskin fabric, not the skin of moles!), which I thought might resemble the fabric of Hagrid's moleskin overcoat. Here it is for the enjoyment of other list members who care about such minutiae: http://www.villagehatshop.com/harry-potter_sorting-hat_movie-version.html But the capital "m" in "Mokeskin" in the Bloomsbury edition and the repeated use of that word does suggest that "mokeskin" is the right word and refers to the shrinking silver-green (Slytherin-colored) lizard of FB, and we can only wonder how even JKR (who thinks that a horned toad is an amphibian) could think that a lizard would be furry--or why Hagrid would buy a purse in Slytherin colors. Carol, reluctantly counting her missent post in today's quota and wondering whether JKR knows that "moke" really does mean "donkey" in English From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 19:10:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:10:01 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179054 Magpie wrote: > > Just felt compelled to throw out there that I don't know if this is the minority view since it seems the most obvious to me. The Slytherins all leave and don't defend the castle, as Voldemort wanted. They're doing what he wants, abandoning the school to him. It would never have occurred to me to think Voldemort was lying--why would he be lying? > zgirnius explained: > The sense in which people are saying he lied is that the Slytherins did not physically join Voldemort - he was not accompanied by the entire horde of young Slytherins, not did they fight for him. And, this does seem to be what Voldemort means, because he contrasts the other Slytherins' behavior with Draco's. > > In the sense you mean (simply leaving the school ahead of the battle to go to relative safety), all the underage students "joined" Voldemort, as did over half the of-age Ravenclaws, and a few of-age Hufflepuffs. We saw the underage students, and members of various> houses, including all the Slytherins, leave. Carol adds: Exactly. If *not joining the fight against Voldemort* is the same as *fighting for Voldemort*, then every underage student (except Ginny and Colin Creevey) and all those of-age Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs, and Gryffindors who didn't join the fight (essentially, every seventh-year and of-age sixth year who wasn't in the DA, plus Zacharias Smith) fought for Voldemort. (What they really did, of course, is evacuate under orders.) Voldemort is *not* saying that the Slytherins obediently left the castle. He's saying that every Slytherin except Draco *actually joined the battle on his side*, for which there is not a shred of evidence (and which we *know* to be untrue in the case of Crabbe and Goyle, the most likely of the Slytherins to actually fight for Voldemort). LV is not saying that they evacuated to safety along with the majority of students from all Houses, as they were supposed to do, and which no one regards as "fighting for Voldemort" if the students are Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, or Hufflepuffs (though I do think we're supposed to see Zacharias Smith as a coward). It's a double standard to regard the Slytherin evacuation as cowardice or joining Voldemort when it's exactly what all the students were ordered to do and it's not regarded that way for students from the other Houses. (The of-age students from other Houses who were allowed to fight for Hogwarts were an exception to the rule, which was "evacuate if you're a Slytherin or underage or for any reason, don't want to risk your life defending Hogwarts.) Anyway, the question at issue is whether "all of Slytherin", including first through fifth-years, actually fought on Voldemort's side as he claimed, for which the only evidence is Voldemort's word, not whether they evacuated to safety as they were ordered to do and Harry saw them doing. So Magpie's statement that "the Slytherins all leave" is exactly what those who say that Voldemort is lying are also saying. We're arguing that the Slytherins did not fight for Voldemort as Voldemort claims. They evacuated as they were supposed to do, along with all but about a dozen of-age students, most if not all of whom had been hiding in the RoR, and one or two underage students who sneaked into the battle. Not a single Slytherin is identified as joining the battle on either side (including Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle), which means that there is no evidence to support Voldemort's statement to Lucius that all except Draco were fighting alongside the DEs, which is not at all the same as evacuating to safety as ordered. Carol, imagining the horror that would have resulted if any Slytherins had actually joined LV and faced the wrath of shoot-to-kill McGonagall From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 19:24:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:24:12 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179055 Betsy Hp: > And he knows Draco *should* be there because all of the other Slytherins (of age or not, that's getting far too detailed for a JKR novel, frankly ) are with him. Otherwise, why would Draco *not* being there stand out? Carol responds: Because Draco (alone of the Slytherins, so far as we know) is a Death Eater (and LV would have no trouble recognizing him instantly). If Draco has the Dark Mark, as seems likely, he would have been summoned to join LV, and Voldemort would regard his absence as the disobedience of an order. Of course Voldemort noticed his absence, just as he noticed Snape's and Karkaroff's in the graveyard. (And *Harry* would have noticed the *presence* of unhooded Slytherin students among the Death Eaters had any been present.) Carol, using her last post of the day to make this small but obvious point From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Nov 13 19:58:07 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:58:07 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179056 > lizzyben:> > And even if LV did notice somehow that other students are missing, > it's not relevant to the conversation. The conversation is about > Draco, & LV tells Lucius that Draco didn't join him with the other > evacuated Slytherins, and so is still in danger during the battle. > Lucius doesn't care about Crabbe, Goyle, etc. So, I'd consider it > plausible if some other Slytherin students didn't join LV's camp. > But I think it's *most* plausible that the evacuated Slytherin kids > did join his camp. That's corraborated by LV's statement, supporting > evidence, & the lack of any reversal in this information by the end > of the novel. Really, the only reason to think it's not true is that > we'd hate to think that every Slytherin child joined LV's side. Potioncat: I'm joining late, and I've read some, but by no means all of the posts in this thead. So...sorry if this point has been brought up or even worked to death. I agree with Lizzyben (and others) that LV's main goal is to torment Lucius. The point is, Draco isn't here. He could be dead. LV says Draco didn't join him like the rest of the Slytherins. But, rest of the Slytherins doesn't have to mean all of the Slytherins. And we know that at least 2 other Slytherins aren't there. My son is in a Scout troop made up of boys from different schools. So if I ask him "Were all the Cardinal Forest boys there?" I don't mean all 60 or so boys who attend CFES, but all the boy scouts who are from CFES. So "rest of the Slytherins" would mean those Slytherins who were DEs or DE connected or even, that clump of Slytherin students who did show up. My real point has nothing to do with whether LV is telling a lie; but rather whether there's hope that some Cough**Theo**cough didn't join LV. Pretty much, Slytherin House appears as the villain after DH. I'm not sure if JKR intended that, or if the bigger picture became blurry while she worked on the smaller details. In an interview she had stated that not all Slytherins had DE ties, and that some students from other houses did have DE ties. If she really intended that, she didn't show it. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 20:00:03 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:00:03 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179057 > Pippin: > Lucius's character was easy for me to understand (hmmm...should I > admit that? ) He thinks his blood status entitles him to the best of > everything (peacocks!) , and anyone so presumptuous as to stand > between Lucius and the best of everthing needs to be...removed. > He feels threatened by the growing power of Muggleborns and it > feels good to strike back with a bit of Muggle torture. > > He flattered Voldemort's pretensions just as he flattered Fudge's, for > the same reason. He needed them for the messy job of removing > people who didn't respond to threats and were too well-protected > for poison or curses (his favored weapons per CoS.) a_svirn: Yes, but unlike Fudge, Voldemort had very real power, not just pretentious. He was quite simply too dangerous to trifle with. More importantly, it was *Lucius's* job, not Voldemort's to weed out the undesirables. I don't see how Lucius could have been delusional enough to believe that Voldemort would do the dirty work for him, when it was exactly the other way round. Lucius doesn't come across as a brilliant mind, but he's not a troll either. > Pippin: > He doesn't, IMO, have any more interest in the day-to-day tedium > of running the wizarding world that Voldemort does. He never > wanted to be a Dark Lord himself, he just didn't want those upstarts > at the ministry telling him, Lucius Malfoy, what sort of magic he > could or couldn't use. a_svirn: But he was ok with having an upstart half-blood as his Master? > Pippin: > Lucius for me is analogous to the German upper class and high- powered > industrialists who supported Hitler because they thought he would keep > the Communists down for them. They thought they could control him. By > the time they realized they couldn't, it was too late. a_svirn: I don't think they were particularly interested in stopping him. Hitler did wonders for German economy. And he did keep communists down. He got rid of their Jewish competitors. He even provided some of those industrialists with cheep slave labour. And unlike death eaters they didn't have to risk their lives and limbs in the line of duty. On the contrary, Hitler even got rid of Rohm and his thuggish Sturmabteilungen to please the industrialists. Compared to them those members of wizading upper crust families who jointed Voldemort got a shockingly bad bargain. They were expected to give up everything from their dignity to their lives (and those of their nearest and dearest) and had only the thrill of killing and torture to balance the scale. That may have been enough for such derange persons as Bellatrix, but Lucius doesn't strike me as deranged. He had too much to loose and very little to gain by joining, particularly if ? as you say ? he didn't want to be a Dark Lord. So he didn't want to be a lord, but longed to be a servant? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Nov 13 20:06:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:06:12 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179058 > Betsy Hp: > Honestly, I think you're straining at details here. We know Crabbe > and Goyle (and Draco as well) were doing something *for* Voldemort. > So they're not an example of a Slytherin not serving. But we also > know that Draco is one student Voldemort knows pretty darn well. If > a herd of Slyhterins trooped over to his side, Voldemort would notice > Draco's absence far more than he'd notice Crabbe or Goyle's. > > And finally, when is this statement of Voldemort's ever pointed to as > a lie by the text? Harry doesn't think to himself, "But Voldemort's > lying because Crabbe and Goyle weren't there either!" And he never > says, "But Voldemort's lying, I haven't seen one Slytherin student > fighting!" Which, IMO, means that Voldemort wasn't lying, JKR never > meant for us to parse his statement to such depth, and as far as > she's concerned, Slytherin students of a certain age were fighting > alongside Voldemort. Magpie: Or they just obediently went to his camp to wait it out, which is bad enough. I don't think they even have to be fighting. Voldemort said to give up the castle and they did. Whether or not he uses them to fight against other students when he makes his entrance doesn't even matter. Pansy was choosing Voldemort's mercy in handing Potter over. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 20:14:56 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:14:56 -0000 Subject: The Snitch's "flesh memory" (Was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179059 > 16. Is there any mention about the flesh memory in any prior > books or was this just tossed in as a belated plot point? Was > Wood wearing gloves when he first taught the rules to Harry? """" Nora: it is the first time we hear it, that I recall. OTOH Wood used golf balls to teach Harry the rules Mike now: Each team/house has it's own practice equipment. They use a previously exposed snitch for practice sessions, they don't care who touched it first. When I read the "flesh memory" passage, it struck a familiar chord. I don't remember being surprised by it. Could this idea have been presented somewhere before? Maybe in "Quidditch Through the Ages" or in some other context? It's almost like primary imprinting of some newborn species. Where they associate the first thing that they see as their parent, which I suppose Hagrid thought dragons did. ;) > > 18. Could anyone please explain to me why a flesh memory in a > > snitch would be likely to tell the difference between flesh and > > lips? > zgirnius: > I don't see why not. It remembers the first flesh that touched it. > I presume this means a Snitch that was caught in a more > traditional manner, would open if the Seeker's hand that caught it, > touched it. I mean, it could be written so it is only the person > that matters, but there is no reason it *has* to be like that. > > Carol: > But if a Snitch opens only for the first person who touched it, how did Dumbledore get it to open so that he could put the Resurrection Stone inside it (and then reenchant it not to open but to show the message, "I open at the close" at the touch of Harry's mouth/tongue and then open, again at the touch of Harry's mouth, at that specific moment)? Yes, DD is a master magician, a great sorcerer, but he doesn't have Harry's mouth and he was not the first person to touch it, so how could he open it in order to do all that other stuff, including *not* open but only show a message at the touch of Harry's mouth? Mike: Let's take a look at Scrimgeour's words on the matter.

"It occurs to me that Dumbledore, who had prodigious magical skill, ... might have enchanted this Snitch so that it will open only for you." So it does appear that Scrimgeour puts forth the idea that this Snitch was tampered with by Dumbledore to open at Harry's touch. Evidently, Scrimgeour got it in his head that DD had somehow hidden something *inside* the snitch. Which was an amazingly correct guess on Scrimmy's part. > Carol: > Maybe the Snitch's flesh memory normally reveals a message along the lines of "You caught me" rather than opening up? After all, the important thing is to reveal the identity of the Seeker who caught it (rather like a photo that shows which horse really won a close race) and most Snitches would be empty since their makers don't normally hide prizes or anything else inside them. (Or JKR didn't think it through, which would not surprise me.) Mike: Yes indeed. I would say it much more likely that DD tampered with the message, changing it from the "You caught me" or whatever to the "I open at the close." After all, the Snitch eventually did open, but only at the right time and with prompting from Harry's words. How Scrimgeour guessed that DD had hidden something inside and had enchanted the Snitch to open,... maybe a history of dealing with DD taught him to expect brilliant and tricky ploys. > Carol, wondering what Scrimgeour expected to happen when Harry > touched the Snitch Mike: To open. He said so. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 20:45:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:45:06 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179060 lizzyben: It almost seems like people are arguing against the book because they don't like what it says. Alla: Nope. It is more like I really **see** it in the book. As I mentioned before, if I did not see it in the book, I really could care less. I am not invested in Slytherins, I have no problem whatsoever with JKR writing Voldemort's statement as true. If she chose to write them ALL as wrotten through and through, works for me just fine. I do not need to see evil redeemed necessarily. I love fairy tales and it would work perfectly for me to read it as fairy tale ending, where evil gets fully exposed and destroyed. Problem is that is not quite what I see **in the book**. lizzyben: And I'm all for subversive or contradictory readings, but it is going against author intent IMO. It's like arguing that Harry decided to free Kreacher after asking for a sandwich, or Albus Severus will be a good Slytherin, etc. Alla: Or maybe it is like arguing that author really shows us fascist ideology in Gryffindors, I think. I happen to think that this is really going against author's intent. Does that make your reading somehow less valid, because I think that it goes against author's intent? Lizzyben: Sure, it's *possible*, but it's not in the book. Because JKR didn't put it there. Alla: I see. Crabb not joining Voldemort as possible evidence of him lying is not in the book, but Gryffindor kids being trained as heroes somehow translating into them growing in fascists as you postulated yesterday with multiple not in the book materials is actually in the book? Lizzyben: In this case, she chose to include LV saying that all the evacuated Slytherin students joined his side, and chose not to reveal that that was a lie. I think she did this to let readers know that the Slytherin students are just as bad as McGonegal thought they were, and as a plot point to allow the Malfoys to learn Draco's actual location. Alla: Or maybe she wrote that many Slytherins (of age) had no desire to join the battle BUT did not want to join with Voldemort either. JMO, Alla From wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au Tue Nov 13 20:25:37 2007 From: wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au (Lesley McKenna) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:25:37 +1100 (EST) Subject: The Snitch's "flesh memory" (Was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <153350.40774.qm@web59103.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179061 Carol: But if a Snitch opens only for the first person who touched it, how did Dumbledore get it to open so that he could put the Resurrection Stone inside it (and then reenchant it not to open but to show the message, "I open at the close" at the touch of Harry's mouth/tongue and then open, again at the touch of Harry's mouth, at that specific moment)? Maybe the Snitch's flesh memory normally reveals a message along the lines of "You caught me" rather than opening up? Carol, wondering what Scrimgeour expected to happen when Harry touched the Snitch Hi Carol. The snitch doesn't open for anyone as a result of the flesh memory. I imagine that some kind of spell is cast if there is a dispute over who caught the snitch and it will reveal who caught or touched the snitch first. Dumbledore used his prodigious magic to open the snitch, put the ring inside, seal it seamlessly again and then have the message appear when Harry touched the snitch to his lips. The only thing I have a quibble with about the sudden revelation of the flesh memory is that in Philospher's Stone, when Wood is showing Harry the balls and explaining the rules of Quidditch to him, both Wood and Harry touched the snitch and nowhere does it say that either has gloves on. Also, I'm pretty sure Madam Hooch is pretty free and easy with the snitch. So this is obviously something JK thought of for the last book; but hey, that's fine with me. We can't expect her to have had everything thought out from the moment she started writing the series. I love book 7. wrappedinharry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 20:57:02 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:57:02 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal -- Seduction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179062 --- "a_svirn" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > I suspect he strung many DE's along under the hope that if > > they could get in close enough to Voldemort, get deeply > > enough into his good graces, Voldemort would reveal to them > > the secret of immorality. > > a_svirn: > Only if he recruited particularly dim individuals, who would > believe any election campaign promise. Always a possibility, > though Snape and Rookwood don't fit the profile. > bboyminn: Keep in mind that I am not saying the Voldemort is promising this. What I am saying is that the DE's are hoping for it. But that is a subtle form of manipulation; almost a form of seduction. Seduction is the art of instilling desire. If I seduce you, I make you want to want me. That way, in this darker context, you are condemned by your own actions and desires, not by the actions of the object of your desire. Seduction is a very powerful art. So, Voldemort frequently speaks to his DE's using phrases like 'we', 'we are oppressed', 'we deserve our rightful place'. Then compounds that by constantly pointing out that he is doing so much to achieve immortality, with the implication that when /I/ find the ultimate answer, /we/ will have it. So relative to immortality, I see Voldemort engaged in a subtle form of seduction. He isn't telling his DE's that he will make them immortal, he is making them want the secret and feel that they can get it - if only.... By wanting the secret badly enough, they are willing to do anything to win his favor. If he makes them /want/ enough, he can make them dance like puppets on a string. Just as someone obsessed with sexual desire can be manipulated by the object of that desire. Notice that none of the DE's does anything for apparent personal gain or recognition, and I am well away that what I am saying is somewhat self-contradictory, but none the less true. No one ever says, I have achieved this or that. It is not about personal accomplishments for personal sake. It is always about being 'honored above all others'. It is about moving up the food chain and gaining Voldemort's favor. Really, a very excellent and thorough implementation of seduction on Voldemort's part. He has made everything about him, the object of desire, and his favor. No one seeks to accomplish lofty goals. No one really seek Wizards in Power. All those actions are secondary to currying Voldemort's favor. And I contend, that that seduction is enhanced by the implications of immortality. If you can only make Voldemort love you enough, then he might trust you enough to reveal his secrets. Terrible as the result is, you really do have to admire Voldemort's skill at seduction. It's the ultimate form of control. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 21:31:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:31:11 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179063 Potioncat: My real point has nothing to do with whether LV is telling a lie; but rather whether there's hope that some Cough**Theo**cough didn't join LV. Pretty much, Slytherin House appears as the villain after DH. I'm not sure if JKR intended that, or if the bigger picture became blurry while she worked on the smaller details. In an interview she had stated that not all Slytherins had DE ties, and that some students from other houses did have DE ties. If she really intended that, she didn't show it. Alla: AH. But this is a different angle IMO and I basically agree with you, sort of. I totally agree that whether or not they actually joined Voldemort, Slytherin HOUSE as an entity appears to be a villanous one. As I totally thought they would at the end. Notice that I say HOUSE, not the people in it. HOUSE with the poisonous ideology, I did not think will be anything other than villain. But House is just that, a basically mirage, is it not? I thought that it was brilliantly done when JKR made a point of Slytherins leaving, whom we basically did not even get to meet through the story ( well, except Draco of course) and when she showed individuals Slytherins IMO that they are decent, etc. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Nov 13 21:34:04 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:34:04 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179064 potioncat: > My real point has nothing to do with whether LV is telling a lie; but > rather whether there's hope that some Cough**Theo**cough didn't join > LV. > > Pretty much, Slytherin House appears as the villain after DH. I'm not > sure if JKR intended that, or if the bigger picture became blurry > while she worked on the smaller details. In an interview she had > stated that not all Slytherins had DE ties, and that some students > from other houses did have DE ties. If she really intended that, she > didn't show it. > Pippin: She made it easy to assume that Slytherin House is the villain. But did she make it *right*? Only in so much as it's fair to divide the world into good people and Slytherins. I think I can show that we're not supposed to think it's wise to do that. The assumption that the Slytherins left to join Voldemort has more canon than we've been considering. "There are kids of Death Eaters you've just sent to safety." says Aberforth, (DH 31) The first to assume that means they joined Voldemort is Harry. "So how come you three aren't with Voldemort?" asked Harry (DH 31) Crabbe explains that they didn't join the evacuation. "We 'ung back, Potter. We decided not to go. Decided to bring you to 'im." (DH 31) Harry has his vision of Voldemort tormenting Lucius, and here we hear him apparently confirm Harry's assumption, "He did not come and join me like the rest of the Slytherins." ch 32 But canon offers us no proof. Harry sees DE's fighting in the castle. ch 32 "while Death Eaters both masked and unmasked duelled students and teachers." We see Draco pleading with (not trying to join) a masked DE. Harry recognizes Yaxley and Fenrir among the attackers, but not as far as we know, any Slytherin students. After viewing Snape's memories, he passes by Ginny comforting an injured girl. "It's all right," Ginny was saying. "It's OK. We're going to get you inside." "But I want to go *home* (italics in the orginal)," whispered the girl. "I don't want to fight anymore!" "I know," said Ginny, and her voice broke. "It's going to be all right." Here at last we are given an honorable reason to withdraw from the battle -- Hogwarts is not home to everyone and not everyone has the nerve or the ability to fight a losing battle. And this is "all right" -- it's not cowardice or treachery. But Harry realizes that "he *was* home. Hogwarts was the first and best home had known. He and Voldemort and Snape had all found home here..." DH 33 This is the explanation for why Harry and Snape continued to follow Dumbledore's plan even after they found out it didn't (apparently) allow for Harry's survival. Harry and Snape were fighting for the same thing, to save the best home they had ever known, and like Frodo Baggins, they fought knowing it would not be saved for them. Harry finds no Slytherin students in Voldemort's encampment. And in King's Cross, he hears the following: "That which Voldemort does not value, he takes no trouble to comprehend. Of house-elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. *Nothing*" (emphasis original). The emphasis on what Voldemort does not know turns the reader towards what we know of these things that Voldemort does not. House-elves remind us of Dobby, but also of Kreacher and Regulus. "Children's tales" refers to the Tales of Beedle the Bard, but also The Prince's Tale of the children Lily and Severus. Regulus's is a story of love, Snape's story is of loyalty to Dumbledore, and Draco's "innocence" was stressed in HBP and maintained in DH, where Draco still refused to kill and saved the unconscious Goyle from the fire. It is of Regulus, Snape and Draco, these three Slytherins, that Voldemort knows and understands nothing. And if he does not understand these three that were in his service, it hardly seems likely that he understands the others better. We are shown that he, unlike Harry, unwisely assumes that Narcissa can be trusted to tell him the truth. Harry understands that Narcissa wishes to rejoin her son, and no longer cares whether Voldemort wins. It seems likely that the other Slytherins, wherever they went, went only to rejoin their families, DE or otherwise, like the rest of the evacuees. Surely the Order did not leave them milling around Aberforth's tiny pub! Harry also discovers that Slughorn has joined with Order member Charlie Weasley to lead back to Hogwarts the residents of Hogsmeade and the family and friends of those who stayed to fight. Slughorn then joins Kingsley and McGonagall in duelling Voldemort. Harry's understanding of Narcissa is confirmed when he sees the wandless Malfoys running through the battle not even trying to fight, searching for their son. Voldemort continues to understand nothing. He scarcely seems to believe what Harry is telling him about the Elder Wand, and that of course is his undoing. So, IMO, only by ignoring what canon tells us of loyalty, love and innocence is the reader able to think that the Slytherins deserve Voldemort's opinion of them. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 22:45:40 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:45:40 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179065 > Betsy Hp: > Honestly, I think you're straining at details here. We know Crabbe > and Goyle (and Draco as well) were doing something *for* Voldemort. zgirnius: Honestly, I think you are ignoring the text here. Voldemort did not know what Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle were doing. Are you suggesting he once upon a time, between trips hunting the Elder Wand, called Vincent Crabbe to himself and said: "If Potter ever comes to the school, and the Carrows and Snape go missing, and my forces lay siege to the castle, and the other teachers make all the other Slytherins leave, you go hide in the castle and bring me Harry Potter", all on the off-chance such a set of circumstances might arise? I doubt it, because if he had, he would have made it quite clear to Vinnie that Potter was on no account to be killed (the instructions the other DEs have, viz the conversation of Voldmeort and Snape later in the same chapter, the convcersatoin with Lucius in which the statement under discussion was made, as well as Draco's statements in the ROR, and Snape's at the end of HBP). > BetsyHp: > If > a herd of Slyhterins trooped over to his side, Voldemort would notice > Draco's absence far more than he'd notice Crabbe or Goyle's. zgirnius: Aha! We have now moved down from a definitive statement that I must accept ALL the Slytherins fought for Voldemort, to the suggestion that perhaps you will settle if I agree a 'herd' of them showed up. If Crabbe and Goyle had orders, as you suggest above, then Voldemort *does* know them as well as Draco, and would certainly note their absence, since their presence would constitute disobedience. > Betsy Hp: > And finally, when is this statement of Voldemort's ever pointed to as > a lie by the text? Harry doesn't think to himself, "But Voldemort's > lying because Crabbe and Goyle weren't there either!" zgirnius: Nor does Harry think to himself "Mercy me! All the Slytherins will be fighting my friends!!" He gives Ron and Hermione a precis of what he learned, that omits this "fact". He is not in there to evaluate the truthfulness of Voldemort's dealings with his subordinates, he is there for specific information - where Voldemort is and what he is doing. Harry perceives Voldemort's train of thought before Lucius addresses him, which is related to Horcruxes, not Lucius and his worries. During the conversation, however, we get no further such cues from Voldemort. And nowhere in the whole episode of Harry watching Voldemort, do we get any reaction by Harry himself. > BetsyHp: And he never > says, "But Voldemort's lying, I haven't seen one Slytherin student > fighting!" Which, IMO, means that Voldemort wasn't lying, JKR never > meant for us to parse his statement to such depth, and as far as > she's concerned, Slytherin students of a certain age were fighting > alongside Voldemort. zgirnius: We have now moved from a herd arriving at the camp, to students of a certain age actually fighting. (This is good, I *really* hope Rowling would have made Harry notice if ickle firsties were fighting and dying for Voldemort, or standing around to witness his murder). The absence of Crabbe, Goyle, and Draco makes a sizable dent in the contingent of "Slytherins of a certain age", I would point out. > Betsy Hp: > If JKR was cleverly laying clues (that she never revealed) that all > of the stuff about Slytherin was a lie, she'd have included a role > call with the battle. She doesn't. zgirnius: When did a single, one-line statement become "all of the stuff"? Note noone is saying there were Slytherins in the ROR, and noone is denying they all left when McGonagall told them to. What is being debated is one single fact about them - whether we must accept it as a canon fact, that Slytherin students fought for Voldemort in the Battle of Hogwarts. Nor have I seen the assertion that the statement by Voldemort was a deliberately constructed puzzle by Rowling which some are too dense to grasp. My own position is that your argument takes a single line of dialogue which is included primarily for the purpose of character development for the Malfoy family, and tries, unconvincingly, to make a federal case against Slytherin students out of it. As I see it, Voldemort lied or exaggerated because it pleased him to make Lucius suffer. And it worked as intended, and that was that. We have seen Voldemort has this motive, and we have been told about it, on assorted occasions since "Spinner's End" in HBP. We do not need evidence highlighted for us by Harry to entertain the suspicion that Voldemort might be lying on any given occasion. He was already accomplished in that art as a boy in a Muggle orphanage. Statements by characters in fiction are not "facts" until disproved. They are statements by characters, period, and we the readers decide whether or not to believe them, based on how we understand those characters, and what supporting/contradictory evidence there is. I see no supporting evidence, which I consider telling in itself. The image of Hogwarts students fighting Hogwarts students in a deadly battle is a powerful one, yet we are not shown it. Against the statement, we have the one fact that contradicts it, discussed above. And we have the puzzling question of Slughorn, who it is implied led his students to safety in the Hog's Head. Aberforth, who witnessed the hundreds of kids trooping through his pub, states that children of Death Eaters were sent into safety, whioch suggests Slytherins got as far as the pub before doing...whatever. Further, the battle is already raging when Aberforth turns up, but students who joined Voldemort would need to come back from Hogsmeade to the Forest on foot or by broom, which means that 'joining' here could mean 'showing up at the DE camp after the battle has been joined at the castle'. Actually, for Voldemort to know, that's how it would have to be, as he is sitting out the fighting in the Shack, a fact Harry *does* remark on. Thus, if Rowling wants me to believe from this that Slytherins fought (rather than some fraction of them maybe sitting in the Forest waiting for their mommies and daddies), she *really* needs to show me, or at least have someone tell me. Voldemort does not, since the statement under discussion is made before the final battle. And noone else does later. No named or unnamed dead bodies in Slytherin school uniform appear, no named or unnamed Slytherin students are seen battling their classmates, nothing. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 13 23:43:04 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:43:04 -0000 Subject: "Mokesin" or "moleskin"? (Was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol: If you read the list from your e-mail, please ignore the > unfinished version of this message (now deleted from the list itself) > that I accidentally sent! Don't know what key I touched to do that! > > Carol earlier: > > > Just wondering here: Does the Bloomsbury edition say "moleskin" > (like Hagrid's coat in PoA)? The American edition says "mokeskin" > > > zanooda responded: > > Hi, Carol! The only difference is that in the British edition it is > "Mokeskin" (starts with an upper-case M), and in the American edition > it is just "mokeskin" :-). In the Russian translation it is "donkey > skin" (or should it be "ass's skin"?), which doesn't make much sense, > IMO, even though I know that "moke" can mean "donkey". Personally I > would never doubt that JKR meant Moke from the "Fantastic Beasts" > here, if not for the "furry" aspect of this supposedly lizard skin, > which confuses me even today :-). > > > zanooda, wondering if JKR forgot her own description of Mokes in the > "Fantastic Beasts". Geoff: Sorry to muddy the waters but I have the Bloomsbury hardback de luxe edition - which is identical in text layout to the standard hardback and softback editions - and I find: 'Hagrid was waiting for his class at the door of his hut. He stood in his **moleskin** overcoat, with Fang the boarhound at his heels, looking impatient to start.' (POA "Talons and Tea Leaves" p.86 UK edition) Zanooda, can you please enlighten me where you have Mokeskin with an upper case M in your copy or are you referring to my next quote? In DH, however, we do have: 'He (Hagrid) pulled out a small, slightly furry drawstring pouch with a long string, evidently intended to be worn round the neck. "Mokeskin. Hide anythin' in there an' no one but the owner can get it out. They're rare, them."' (DH "The Will of Albus Dumbledore" p.102 UK edition) Obviously, the upper case is used in this quote because the word is the start of a sentence but it is capitalised in the middle of a sentence later in the same chapter: '...and Harry filled Hagrid's Mokeskin purse, not with gold, but with those items he most prized...' (DH "The Will of Albus Dumbledore" p.111 UK edition) Mark you, if it's donkey skin, would you describe that as furry? Geoff A great fan of Eeyore... From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 00:29:07 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:29:07 -0000 Subject: "Mokesin" or "moleskin"? (Was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Zanooda, can you please enlighten me where you have Mokeskin > with an upper case M in your copy or are you referring to my next > quote? > '...and Harry filled Hagrid's Mokeskin purse, not with gold, but with > those items he most prized...' > (DH "The Will of Albus Dumbledore" p.111 UK edition) zanooda: Yes, that's the quote that I meant ( DH p.111). In the American edition this passage is on p.132, and the word in question (mokeskin) begins with a lower-case "m" there :-). As for Hagrid's coat, I didn't write anything about it, I only meant DH and Harry's mokeskin pouch. It doesn't really matter if it's upper-case or lower-case M, the point is that Harry's pouch is "mokeskin", not "moleskin", and I really want to know what "moke" is. If it's a lizard, why is it furry? If it's a donkey, why does its skin have magic qualities? > Geoff: > Mark you, if it's donkey skin, would you describe that as furry? zanooda: At least it's much "furrier" than lizard skin :-) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 01:19:24 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:19:24 -0000 Subject: "Mokesin" or "moleskin"? (Was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179068 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Thanks! Which makes me wonder (again) whether Hagrid's *moleskin* > overcoat in PoA (Am. ed. 112) was originally *mokeskin* but changed > by a copyeditor who thought it was a typo. How did the Russian > translator handle that one? zanooda: I'm pretty sure that Hagrid's coat is "moleskin" - fabric or fur, I don't know. In Russian translation the coat is made of mole fur (poor little moles!), not fabric, and same goes for French translation, it's called "manteau en poil de taupe" there :-). > Carol: > I seem to recall "moleskin" used elsewhere to describe that coat, > which would not, of course, have to shrink to prevent anyone from > stealing it. zanooda: I remember the word "moleskin" used to describe the coat in PS/SS, when Hagrid comes to the library to take books about dragons. And, certainly, no one would want a coat that shrinks and disappears every time someone approaches its owner :-)! > Carol: > But the capital "m" in "Mokeskin" in the Bloomsbury edition and the > repeated use of that word does suggest that "mokeskin" is the right > word and refers to the shrinking silver-green (Slytherin-colored) > lizard of FB, and we can only wonder how even JKR (who thinks that a > horned toad is an amphibian) could think that a lizard would be > furry--or why Hagrid would buy a purse in Slytherin colors. zanooda: I think Hagrid didn't buy the pouch for Harry, he just *had* it, maybe for a long time, from somewhere. As for the color - come on, such a useful object, who cares about the color :-)! Besides, it's not like Gryffindors won't touch anything green! If we are to believe JKR's interviews (hmm :-), Ginny Weasley played for Holyhead Harpies for a few years, and their uniforms are green! I don't think she came to her first game and said: "I'm a Gryffindor and I'm not wearing your stinking half-Slytherin uniform!" LOL! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 02:27:58 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:27:58 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179069 Alla: Great job, amazing summary and cool questions. I must warn you though - I am confused as to how you phrased some of them, so I am not trying to be snippy ( afraid it may come out as such), it is just confusion. > Questions: > > 1. Why does Voldemort seem relatively reasonable in this viewing? Is > this a way for the author to tell us that Harry and Voldemort are > becoming more indistinguishable from each other? We have often seen > Harry unable to think of anything else other than his obsession of the > moment. Alla: I am not sure what you mean by reasonable? That he is not killing anybody or did you mean something else? Because I simply took it as that he will no doubt kill when he finds what he needs. IMO. > 3. We see Harry hit himself in the eye with his glasses and tie his > shoelaces in a knot. Ron suggests that he continues to do up his fly > by hand. We have seen Harry perform other minor or unsuccessful > spells. Is this repetition of ineptitude a way for the author to > increase our concern for Harry. Is this a way for the author to > encourage less talented readers that they can be heroes? Alla: No, no concern at all, well no more than usual anyways :) Harry messes up often enough, so that was to me just one of those times. > 5. This seems odd to me, as Harry has split with Ginny for her > protection. Why would Ron encourage Harry to seek other female > company when he knows how upset Ginny is and how Harry feels about > Ginny? Does Ron actually understand that Harry is not likely to > survive? Alla: Annoyed at Ron as I was, I was also odly cheered by his attitude. In a sense that he did not seem to feel that Harry would not survive. > 7. We have seen Hermione as the boys' conscience, their researcher, > their tutor. Why are we seeing this "Suzie homemaker" side of > Hermione? Is this in character? Is JKR correct in assuming that all > young girls want to impress their boyfriends with their homemaking > abilities? Alla: I am not sure how do you know that JKR assumes that all young girls want to impress their boyfriends with their homemaking abilities? I thought Hermione just took the kitchen as part of being in charge Hermione as always, so yes, seemed very in character Hermione to me. > 8. Have we seen Hermione obey Ron like this before? Why does JKR make > Ron look like an idiot most of the time and then demonstrate this > masterful side? Alla: Um, Hermione realised that Ron is not an idiot? I do NOT think that JKR makes Ron look as an idiot most of the time, that is why I am not surprised by his masterful side, you know? Sorry. :( > 10. Is this patronus appropriate for Arthur Weasley from what we know > about his character? Is it a foregone conclusion that some Weasley > will have a weasel for a patronus? Wouldn't Percy make a better weasel? Alla: I thought it was appropriate for Arthur as in to stress that he is the head of the family in symbolic way. > 12. Does Scrimgeour see Ron as the weak link? Do we see Ron as the > weak link? Ron was portrayed as equally skilled in the first book and > was more knowledgeable about Wizarding things than Harry or Hermione. > Has this change in position added to the books? Alla: What change in position? I still found Ron to be very knowledgeable about wizarding things through the books. I mean, Hermione is the fountain of knowledge in general, but she still never heard about the Tales of Beattle the bard, Ron did though. > > 13. Does this seem more like our Hermione? Which Hermione do we like > better? Is there consistency with this character? Alla: I am SORRY. What do you mean by it? That she told Scrimgeour off? Is there a contradiction here? With what situation? Hermione never had a problem telling people off, no? I mean, she had a problem doing it to the teachers when she was young, but she had no problem as she got older, no? And Scrimegeour is not the teacher and Hermione had no problem dealing with another Ministry employee even two years ago, or am I totally confused and you meant something completely different? > 17. Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and Harry > is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot? Alla: No, not at all, not in light of everything Harry had to endure from the Ministry IMO. I mean, I think that maybe they could have find some common ground, but IMO Scrimgeour did not try hard enough and contributed to antagonising Harry himself. Thank you again and SORRY about my confusion. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 14 02:50:37 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:50:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179070 10. Is this patronus appropriate for Arthur Weasley from what we know > about his character? Is it a foregone conclusion that some Weasley > will have a weasel for a patronus? Wouldn't Percy make a better weasel? JKR says that she likes weasles, and considers them to be unfairly maligned. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=7 Since Arthur is likewise unfairly maligned in his post at MOM, his Patronus (from JKR's point of view) is singularly apt. - CMC From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 02:53:12 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:53:12 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179071 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > Honestly, I think you're straining at details here. We know Crabbe > > and Goyle (and Draco as well) were doing something *for* > Voldemort. > > zgirnius: > Honestly, I think you are ignoring the text here. > Thus, if Rowling wants me to believe from this that Slytherins fought > (rather than some fraction of them maybe sitting in the Forest > waiting for their mommies and daddies), she *really* needs to show > me, or at least have someone tell me. Voldemort does not, since the > statement under discussion is made before the final battle. And noone > else does later. No named or unnamed dead bodies in Slytherin school > uniform appear, no named or unnamed Slytherin students are seen > battling their classmates, nothing. Montavilla47: I'm beginning to wonder what the heck we're fighting about here. Perhaps if would help if we look at a few options? Voldemort declares that Draco did not join him, "like the rest of the Slytherins." I'm going to assume that "Slytherins" in this context refers to current students at Hogwarts (as of that morning) and not to all those who ever attended Hogwarts (i.e., Voldemort is not using "Slytherins" as a synonym for his adult Death Eaters.) So, by the "rest of the Slytherins," Voldemort could conceivably be talking about: a. All the current Slytherin students from 1-7th years. b. All the "of age" Slytherin students. c. All the "of age" Slytherin students with a family connection to the Death Eaters. d. An indeterminate number of Slytherins, probably between 5-20, who formed enough of a group that Voldemort preferred the term "the rest" rather than "that sorry lot of three or four Slytherins who showed up. Stinkin' cowards." e. The Professor and Mary Ann. Looking at that array of options, it seems to me that it's quite possible that not all the Slytherins who left Hogwarts joined up with Voldemort. It seems obvious that the first years wouldn't. Not that Voldemort wouldn't use them if he could, but they'd be pretty useless on a battlefield.... Heh. No, they wouldn't. I just realized that historically, children have been used on battlefields (not just by those cruel militias we hear about who kidnap children and force them to fight). Children have been used to play drums and to perform various tasks around an army. I'm remembering that in Henry V (Branagh's version), there are a number of boys helping out--until they're slaughtered by the French. But Voldemort doesn't need to be *lying* in order to use the term "the rest of the Slytherins" to refer to a group that is smaller than the entire Slytherin House body. Moreover, it really doesn't matter, did it? The point is that NONE of the Slytherins cares enough about the Anti- Voldemort cause (or Pro-Harry, take your pick) to join the other students who rebel against the school authorities. Thus, no flags in the RoR. It is a Slytherin student who proposes turning over Harry Potter--the one person who can possibly defeat Voldemort according to the rumors--in order to save their skins. It is the entire Slytherin Student Body that McGonagall throws out of the school as untrustworthy--and not one of them even hesitates to leave (except the three who stay behind for nefarious purposes). And the strong implication is that SOME Slytherin students join Voldemort's forces. I'll admit that Voldemort is a liar, and so we cannot take his words as face value. I would counter that with Harry's disability in terms of recognizing students who are not in his House or his year. It's just as possible that Harry simply didn't recognize any Slytherin students who were fighting Voldemort as being different from the other "unmasked" Death Eaters as it is that Voldemort was deliberately lying to Lucius about the presence of Slyterin students in his army. Montavilla47 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 04:04:08 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:04:08 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179072 > Montavilla: > Moreover, it really doesn't matter, did it? The point is that > NONE of the Slytherins cares enough about the Anti- > Voldemort cause (or Pro-Harry, take your pick) to join the > other students who rebel against the school authorities. zgirnius: I agree none of it really matters, and I agree that it is unlikely any Slytherins of school age fought on the 'good side' in the battle. (Not impossible, mind you. If you and Betsy can have your masked, unidentified, unmentioned, effectively invisible Slytherins of a certain age fighting for Voldemort in the battle, some other reader can have his or her anonymous Slytherins of a certain age who came back with Sluggie and the large crowd of reinforcements after helping the young 'uns get away). What I have been arguing, is that it is a perfectly reasonable, noncontrarian, evidence-based interpretation of the text that what you said in the quote above, is ALL that can be said with certainty about Slytherins of school age. I don't think any Slytherin student openly took up arms for Voldemort. I don't think it is reasonable to insist that Voldemort's statement to Lucius means they did. I personally, cannot imagine that Rowling envisioned Slytherin students battling against their schoolmates and teachers, and *failed to mention it*! I was cheated of a Pansy/Ginny showdown ?! If Rowling reveals in an interview that she did, this will prove my understanding of her intent was wrong - but it will not change the fact that she failed to show it. > Montavilla: > It is a Slytherin student who proposes turning over Harry > Potter--the one person who can possibly defeat Voldemort > according to the rumors--in order to save their skins. zgirnius: That Pansy Parkinson is pro-Voldemort to some extent, should not come as a surprise to anyone who read HBP. That would not be a sensible reason to offer for turning Harry over, though, not if she had any hope of persuading others. > montavilla: > It > is the entire Slytherin Student Body that McGonagall throws > out of the school as untrustworthy--and not one of them > even hesitates to leave (except the three who stay behind > for nefarious purposes). zgirnius: I don't see how McGonagall's fit of temper shows much about the House. She thought they were all untrustworthy, perhaps, but I see no evidence they all were. She was committing the logical fallacy of guilt by association. > montavilla: > And the strong implication is that SOME Slytherin students > join Voldemort's forces. zgirnius: This supposed strong implication that they *fought* never even entered my mind in my two readings of DH. I became aware others entertained the possibility by reading this list. The Slytherins all left. None stayed to fight against their kin/the kin of their housemates, under the leadership of a woman who demonstrated that she despises them. I did not find it surprising, or disturnbing. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 04:26:04 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:26:04 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179073 > > Pippin: > > He thinks his blood status entitles him to the best of > > everything (peacocks!), and anyone so presumptuous as to stand > > between Lucius and the best of everthing needs to be...removed. > > He feels threatened by the growing power of Muggleborns and it > > feels good to strike back with a bit of Muggle torture. Mike: Really? You think a 15-17 year old Lucius felt threatened by Muggleborns? Felt they could keep him from gaining his rightful place at the head of his family's empire? Can you tell by my question marks that I'm not seeing this connection? > > Pippin: > > He flattered Voldemort's pretensions just as he flattered > > Fudge's, for the same reason. He needed them for the messy job > > of removing people who didn't respond to threats and were too > > well-protected for poison or curses. > > a_svirn: > Yes, but unlike Fudge, Voldemort had very real power, not just > pretentious. He was quite simply too dangerous to trifle with. > More importantly, it was *Lucius's* job, not Voldemort's to weed > out the undesirables. I don't see how Lucius could have been > delusional enough to believe that Voldemort would do the dirty > work for him, when it was exactly the other way round. Lucius > doesn't come across as a brilliant mind, but he's not a troll > either. Mike: Pippin, do you see Voldemort being flattered by anyone? The man (if it's fair to call him a *man*) has zero regard for his followers. As a_svirn said, Lucius is no idiot. So what would be the chance that Lucius would attempt the same ploy on Voldemort that he uses with Fudge. And a_svirn has another good point about *who* would have been expected to do the dirty work. > > Pippin: > > He doesn't, IMO, have any more interest in the day-to-day tedium > > of running the wizarding world than Voldemort does. He never > > wanted to be a Dark Lord himself, he just didn't want those > > upstarts at the ministry telling him, Lucius Malfoy, what sort > > of magic he could or couldn't use. > > a_svirn: > But he was ok with having an upstart half-blood as his Master? Mike: This is an aside to why he joined in the first place, but where would Lucius get the idea that having Voldemort running the British WW would somehow relieve him of the day-to-day tedium? Who did he think would be doing those jobs? As to why Lucius joined in the first place, so far, I like Potioncat's explanation the best: In message #179038 Potioncat: Many wizarding folk thought LV had the right idea. Lucius is a Dark Wizard, who was attending a school that discouraged the study of dark magic. LV was this incredibly Dark Wizard, who was well versed in Dark Magic. Who knows what he promised Lucius, but I'm sure he offered some prize. Look at HBP. Draco was proud to have been chosen by LV to carry out a special assignment. Mike: So we're back to "dark glamour" again. Maybe it's as simple as that. Maybe Lucius comes from one of those old wizarding families that was used to using whatever dark magic that they felt like using. So when they see their perceived "rights" being taken away, coincident with the rise of Muggleborns' authority, the false cause and effect analysis gives the Malfoys reason to look elsewhere for recourse. And there sits Voldemort, champion of the pure-bloods, decrier of the Muggleborn usurpation. Aha, that looks like the way to go. Maybe it's not as complicated as I thought?! Mike From kjones at telus.net Wed Nov 14 04:40:23 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:40:23 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <473A7C37.8040407@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 179074 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > Alla: > > Great job, amazing summary and cool questions. I must warn you > though - I am confused as to how you phrased some of them, so I am > not trying to be snippy ( afraid it may come out as such), it is > just confusion. > > > Questions: > > > > 1. Why does Voldemort seem relatively reasonable in this > viewing? Is > > this a way for the author to tell us that Harry and Voldemort are > > becoming more indistinguishable from each other? We have often > seen > > Harry unable to think of anything else other than his obsession of > the > > moment. > > Alla: > > I am not sure what you mean by reasonable? That he is not killing > anybody or did you mean something else? Because I simply took it as > that he will no doubt kill when he finds what he needs. IMO. KJ writes: I felt that JKR went to some lengths in this paragraph to make Voldemorte seem like your average guy going to the grocery. It just seemed so ordinary to me. His thoughts to himself vary considerably from the speeches he gives to the Deatheaters and to Peter. Maybe it is her way of pointing out how banal evil can be. > snip > > 7. We have seen Hermione as the boys' conscience, their > researcher, > > their tutor. Why are we seeing this "Suzie homemaker" side of > > Hermione? Is this in character? Is JKR correct in assuming that > all > > young girls want to impress their boyfriends with their homemaking > > abilities? > > Alla: > > I am not sure how do you know that JKR assumes that all young girls > want to impress their boyfriends with their homemaking abilities? I > thought Hermione just took the kitchen as part of being in charge > Hermione as always, so yes, seemed very in character Hermione to me. KJ writes: The portrayal of Hermione in this chapter just seemed odd to me. She is busy in the kitchen, doing laundry, packing the boys clothes, doing the boys laundry, decorating for the party. Forgetting to bring food. This just isn't Hermione. What changed? > > > 8. Have we seen Hermione obey Ron like this before? Why does > JKR make > > Ron look like an idiot most of the time and then demonstrate this > > masterful side? > > Alla: > > Um, Hermione realised that Ron is not an idiot? I do NOT think that > JKR makes Ron look as an idiot most of the time, that is why I am > not surprised by his masterful side, you know? > > Sorry. :( > KJ writes: Don't be sorry! I feel like an idiot over "moleskin." It just bothers me that Ron was so cool in the first book. He was a hero in the chess match. Next book, he breaks his wand and can't be trusted to do anything. In PoA, Ron gets to be the owner of the rat who wasn't a rat, and scrub out all of the bedpans in the hospital wing. In Goblet of Fire he was almost as unpleasant as Snape. Ron was the one who ate the chocolate meant for Harry which was saturated in love potion, and he got to be the one to be poisoned by the drink. Ron got somewhat shafted all through the books, I think compared with the start. > > 12. Does Scrimgeour see Ron as the weak link? Do we see Ron as > the > > weak link? Ron was portrayed as equally skilled in the first book > and > > was more knowledgeable about Wizarding things than Harry or > Hermione. > > Has this change in position added to the books? > > Alla: > > What change in position? I still found Ron to be very knowledgeable > about wizarding things through the books. I mean, Hermione is the > fountain of knowledge in general, but she still never heard about > the Tales of Beattle the bard, Ron did though. KJ writes: As above, I felt that as the books progressed, Muggles or Muggle-raised wizards were shown to be smarter or more experienced in general knowledge. The wizard-raised were only knowledgeable in their own area, which was magic. As the Muggle-raised students became more proficient in magic, it seemed as though JKR was making their characters seem deficient in some way compared to Harry and Hermione and others. Ron was treated like the weak link to the extent that DD knew that he would leave Harry and Hermione and need a way to get back to them. > > > > > 13. Does this seem more like our Hermione? Which Hermione do we > like > > better? Is there consistency with this character? > > Alla: > > I am SORRY. What do you mean by it? That she told Scrimgeour off? > Is there a contradiction here? With what situation? > > Hermione never had a problem telling people off, no? I mean, she had > a problem doing it to the teachers when she was young, but she had > no problem as she got older, no? > > And Scrimegeour is not the teacher and Hermione had no problem > dealing with another Ministry employee even two years ago, or am I > totally confused and you meant something completely different? KJ writes: I liked Hermione, the know-it-all, instead of Hermione the laundress, cook, and bottle-washer. She cried too much in this book, but it never stopped her making up the tent and cooking dinner, what there was of it. > > > 17. Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and > Harry > > is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot? > > Alla: > > No, not at all, not in light of everything Harry had to endure from > the Ministry IMO. I mean, I think that maybe they could have find > some common ground, but IMO Scrimgeour did not try hard enough and > contributed to antagonising Harry himself. > > Thank you again and SORRY about my confusion. KJ writes: Great answers Alla, and thank you for contributing. KJ From kspilman at hotmail.com Wed Nov 14 05:41:17 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:41:17 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179075 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:26:04 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity > > Pippin: > > He thinks his blood status entitles him to the best of > > everything (peacocks!), and anyone so presumptuous as to stand > > between Lucius and the best of everthing needs to be...removed. > > He feels threatened by the growing power of Muggleborns and it > > feels good to strike back with a bit of Muggle torture. Mike: Really? You think a 15-17 year old Lucius felt threatened by Muggleborns? Felt they could keep him from gaining his rightful place at the head of his family's empire? Can you tell by my question marks that I'm not seeing this connection? Katie:I think you are not seeing this connection because Lucius is working very hard to not let anyone see this connection. His false (pretend) pride in his blood status is used as a cover for his insecurities. I think a main theme in this series is that there is no such thing as evil, just insecurity, which everyone has in them. > > Pippin: > > He flattered Voldemort's pretensions just as he flattered > > Fudge's, for the same reason. He needed them for the messy job > > of removing people who didn't respond to threats and were too > > well-protected for poison or curses. > > a_svirn: > Yes, but unlike Fudge, Voldemort had very real power, not just > pretentious. He was quite simply too dangerous to trifle with. > More importantly, it was *Lucius's* job, not Voldemort's to weed > out the undesirables. I don't see how Lucius could have been > delusional enough to believe that Voldemort would do the dirty > work for him, when it was exactly the other way round. Lucius > doesn't come across as a brilliant mind, but he's not a troll > either. Mike: Pippin, do you see Voldemort being flattered by anyone? The man (if it's fair to call him a *man*) has zero regard for his followers. As a_svirn said, Lucius is no idiot. So what would be the chance that Lucius would attempt the same ploy on Voldemort that he uses with Fudge. And a_svirn has another good point about *who* would have been expected to do the dirty work. Katie: Harry think of himself, Snape, and Tom as three of a kind, the lost boys of Hogwarts. Harry joined the Dumbledore Club and Snape joined the Voldemort Club both looking for acceptance and a surrogate family. I don't think it is unrealistic that Voldemort found a similar type of acceptance from his followers. Sadly, because he has never known love he seeks power believing that will bring him love and happiness. The most noteworthy thing I think Lucius does in the entire series is pat young Snape on the back when he is a prefect and Snape is sorted into his house. Lucius knows how to flatter and make people feel accepted, he also knows how to ostracize. _________________________________________________________________ Boo!?Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Nov 14 13:01:07 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:01:07 -0000 Subject: Ron, Hermione, Time was (Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus In-Reply-To: <473A7C37.8040407@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179076 Potioncat: I'm picking up a few questions to answer, and commenting on other answers. I've snipped throughout, and rearranged the order of some of the questions. 5. This seems odd to me, as Harry has split with Ginny for her protection. Why would Ron encourage Harry to seek other female company when he knows how upset Ginny is and how Harry feels about Ginny? Does Ron actually understand that Harry is not likely to survive? Potioncat: This stood out even as I was reading it. It doesn't seem that Ron understands "why" Harry stopped the relationship with Ginny. In my mind, Harry had put it on hold, but Ron seems to think it's over. I thought Ron was hoping this book would help Harry charm Ginny. Then Ron's upset over the kiss. I'm just as puzzled as you. But, our knowing that Ron has read "Twelve Fail-Safe Ways to Charm Witches" affects how we see his interactions with Hermione in DH. There seems to have been some genuine relationsip building tips in the book. I wonder if it involves dragon's blood? And face it. Isn't this one of the funniest lines in the book? Ron says, "Explains everything you need to know about girls." "I've learned a lot. You'd be surprised, it's not all about wandwork either." 6. We have seen Dumbledore's watch, Ron's watch, Molly's clock, and now Fabian's watch. We have also seen time-turners. What is the fascination with time? Potioncat: I don't know. These books are also about death and grief. About having time or no time with loved ones. About wishing you could go back and talk to someone who has passed on. Carol's already mentioned how receiving a Weasley family watch was particularly special to Harry. We see at the end of the book that he still uses it. And I can only think that one day it will belong to one of his children. > KJ writes: >It just bothers me that Ron was so cool in the first book. He was a >hero in the chess match. Ron got somewhat shafted all > through the books, I think compared with the start. Potioncat: We almost got him back in "The Elder Wand." Ron squares his shoulders and starts to go to the Shreiking Shack after LV. But Harry, of course, steps up. Many fans had predicted that Ron would make a similar act and die in the last book. Others predicted he'd be lured away. > KJ writes: >As above, I felt that as the books progressed, Muggles or > Muggle-raised wizards were shown to be smarter or more experienced >in general knowledge. The wizard-raised were only knowledgeable in their own area, which was magic. Potioncat: Actually, it even goes farther. Most of the really powerful and innovative were either Half-blood or Muggleborn: Snape, Hermione, Harry(?), Lily. Possibly DD. LV (in his own way) I had some others, but they escape me. The Pureblood that stand out are James and Sirius and I guess GG. > KJ writes: (PC:I've snipped and combined different portions of KJ's comments) > Have we seen Hermione obey Ron like this before? >The portrayal of Hermione in this chapter just seemed odd to me. > She is busy in the kitchen, doing laundry, packing the boys clothes, doing the boys laundry, decorating for the party. Forgetting to bring food. This just isn't Hermione. What changed? Potioncat: Well, we have seen Hermione perform housekeeping sorts of things in earlier books. I think she's cleaned up after the boys---but I can't really remember where I read that. OTOH, we know why Ron is behaving differently toward Hermione. Perhaps that hints a bit at the early birthday gift Mrs. Weasley gave Hermione. Molly knew that Hermione's mother wasn't likely to know about it, "Twelve Ways to Bewitch your Wizard." From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 14:00:10 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:00:10 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179077 > >>Montavilla: > > Moreover, it really doesn't matter, did it? The point is that > > NONE of the Slytherins cares enough about the Anti- > > Voldemort cause (or Pro-Harry, take your pick) to join the > > other students who rebel against the school authorities. > > Betsy Hp: Exactly! The entire point that I was making is that Slytherin is the bad guy house. They didn't show up in the RoR, they left when Hogwarts needed all of those brave and true to stick around, and enough of them went over to Voldemort for him to mention them as a group. Ergo, Slytherin House is a bad house. > >>zgirnius: > I agree none of it really matters, and I agree that it is unlikely > any Slytherins of school age fought on the 'good side' in the > battle. (Not impossible, mind you. If you and Betsy can have your > masked, unidentified, unmentioned, effectively invisible Slytherins > of a certain age fighting for Voldemort in the battle, some other > reader can have his or her anonymous Slytherins of a certain age > who came back with Sluggie and the large crowd of reinforcements > after helping the young 'uns get away). Betsy Hp: No Zara, they can't. In fanfic? Sure. But to argue that *within* the text there's an unremarked Slytherin who comes back and fights for Hogwarts is insupportable because there is no text supporting it. I'd also like to clarify (because you've been attempting to back me into a postion I'm not actually holding ) that I'm not saying the masked fighters *must* be Slytherin students (that'd be in the fanfic realm as well, I think). I'm saying that by having people fight for Voldemort who go unnamed and even undescribed lessens the argument that we can tell who was actually fighting for Voldemort via a roll call. We simply don't know. Honestly, the Slytherins who joined Voldemort may have been patted on the head for choosing the right side and sent home for all I know. What I *do* know is that we've got a mention within the text for Slytherins going to Voldemort. What we don't have mentioned within the text is anything to suggest Voldemort's statement about that was a lie. And we don't have a statement of any sort within the text saying that Slytherin students came back to fight for Harry's side. > >>zgirnius: > > I don't think any Slytherin student openly took up arms for > Voldemort. Betsy Hp: Actually, Crabbe, Goyle and Draco did. (Bit ironic, really. ) Ooh, but while I'm at this point... > >>Pippin: > > We see Draco pleading with (not trying to join) a masked DE. > Betsy Hp: Draco wasn't trying to *join* the Death Eater, he was trying to make clear he'd *already* done so: "I'm Draco Malfoy, I'm Draco, I'm on your side!" [DH scholastic p.645] Or are we supposed to think Draco was lying? > >>zgirnius: > I personally, cannot imagine that Rowling envisioned Slytherin > students battling against their schoolmates and teachers, and > *failed to mention it*! > Betsy Hp: She may not have meant for the Slytherins students to fight. That would have shown a certain perverse bravery after all. But in the same token, I find it hard to believe that JKR meant to redeem Slytherin house and then failed to mention it. > >>zgirnius: > I don't see how McGonagall's fit of temper shows much about the > House. She thought they were all untrustworthy, perhaps, but I see > no evidence they all were. She was committing the logical fallacy > of guilt by association. Betsy Hp: Right, but the Potter series is a study in logical fallacies, frankly. It's that oh dear maths thing, and it's the reason, IMO, the group has gone round and round about Slytherin, House Elves, Unforgivables and the like. And while I do see something darkly perverse in having Slytherin House be a bad guy house, there is nothing in the text to contradict McGonagall's "fit of temper". No Slytherin student says they want to stay, no Slytherin student comes back, and of course, no Slytherin student took part in the resistence in the first place. In this case, I think JKR *meant* for the association to be reason of guilt. Though a very few brave souls (Snape, Regulus, Slughorn) managed to claw their way out. Sort of. > >>zgirnius: > > The Slytherins all left. None stayed to fight against their kin/the > kin of their housemates, under the leadership of a woman who > demonstrated that she despises them. I did not find it surprising, > or disturnbing. Betsy Hp: Heh. Me neither. It's why I don't take Harry's victory as much of one, and I think it's why there are those of us who see these books as rather dark and ugly. Of *course* the Slytherins despised Dumbledore. How could they not? And of *course* Snape had to be so abused and neglected he'd come to associate abuse to love and so joined with those who despised him to the end. It's an ugly brutal world, and JKR's "heroes" are ugly, brutal people. But it *is* JKR's world, so as per her definition of things, the Slytherins are the bad guys. (They're bigots, don't you know.) Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 14:54:10 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:54:10 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179078 > Mike: > So we're back to "dark glamour" again. Maybe it's as simple as that. > Maybe Lucius comes from one of those old wizarding families that was > used to using whatever dark magic that they felt like using. So when > they see their perceived "rights" being taken away, coincident with > the rise of Muggleborns' authority, the false cause and effect > analysis gives the Malfoys reason to look elsewhere for recourse. And > there sits Voldemort, champion of the pure-bloods, decrier of the > Muggleborn usurpation. Aha, that looks like the way to go. > > Maybe it's not as complicated as I thought?! > a_svirn: Maybe. But somehow it still doesn't look simple to me. We are talking about the WW aristocracy (natural nobility and all that), after all. It is one thing to resent muggleborns and mugglephils taking away their natural right to practice the Dark Arts (whatever they are). It is quite another thing, however, to renounce the most natural right to be one's own master. Why on earth should they? The Black seniors may have approved on Voldemort agenda, but they didn't take to death eating. They probably thought they were even darker (Black in fact) than this self-styled Lord and certainly purer. Why would all those natural noblemen and noblewomen want to impersonate house-elves? As you said, however glamorous Voldemort might have been, he never showed anything but contempt to his followers. To use my favourite Shakespearean malapropism they all had a "great infection to serve". It was practically a pandemic among the purebloods (perhaps inbreeding had lowered their resistance?) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 16:21:05 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:21:05 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179079 > Alla: > > AH. But this is a different angle IMO and I basically agree with you, > sort of. I totally agree that whether or not they actually joined > Voldemort, Slytherin HOUSE as an entity appears to be a villanous one. > > As I totally thought they would at the end. Notice that I say HOUSE, > not the people in it. HOUSE with the poisonous ideology, I did not > think will be anything other than villain. > > But House is just that, a basically mirage, is it not? > > I thought that it was brilliantly done when JKR made a point of > Slytherins leaving, whom we basically did not even get to meet > through the story ( well, except Draco of course) and when she showed > individuals Slytherins IMO that they are decent, etc. > a_svirn: I don't quite understand what you mean by "mirage", but as for decent people and villainous entities I'd say it is the other way round. The bad and the good characters in HP books are defined through association. The Order of the Phoenix's reson d'etre is to fight Evil, therefore its members are good guys by definition. (Even though some of them are petty thieves and would-be murderers.) Scrimgeour might have done his best to stop Voldemort, indeed, he laid down his life fighting him, yet he still doesn't qualify as a good guy ? precisely because he wasn't part of this band of brothers and sisters. And if the house of Slytherin is evil then it follows that Slytherins are bad eggs. Frankly, I think it even holds true in real life. I mean, would a decent person form a part of some villainous entity? Say, join Koo-Klux Klan? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Nov 14 17:22:00 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:22:00 -0000 Subject: Comparisons & contrasts re: DD, Snape and LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179080 Reading the first six books I thought JKR was going for the contrast of Evil Voldemort vs. Good Dumbledore. Now I'm pretty convinced the contrast meant to be important for Harry was seemingly Good Dumbledore who betrayed Harry in his eyes at one point, and seemingly bad Snape who redeemed himself in Harry's eyes. Eventually the two merged into Albus Severus, both good enough to name a son after them. Voldemort was entwined with Dumbledore throughout the story, most specifically in DH when it came to having an interest in defeating death, Hallows vs. Horcruxes. So they became the comparison rather than the contrast in my view, both described as secretive, working alone and asking too much from their followers for instance. What do others think, did you follow a similar process in reading through the series or different? From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 17:51:54 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:51:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - Scrimgeour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179081 KJ: > 17. Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and Harry > is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot? Prep0strus: I'd like to build on that and ask what people think of the character of Scrimgeour and his purpose in the series at large. He's a bit of a mystery to me. His entrance and presentation in the story led me to believe he would have a much more important role to play in the story at large. I guess in the end it comes down to the view of the ministry - new face, same old crap. But I was disappointed to find out there wasn't more, and was wondering how others felt about it. JKR is good at giving a quick image of a character, but I felt like her description was even more powerful than usual with Scrimgeour. And his comparison to a 'lion' surely must have instigated Gryffindor thoughts in readers other than myself - these are not things that JKR is usually subtle about. The image of a lion, the image of a snake... these are rote symbols in the WW. And his personality, so different from Fudge's... I got the feeling something was really going to happen with the ministry. I even got the feeling that old Rufus might have knowledge of secrets we had not been told yet... he certainly is reminiscent of Mad-Eye - scarred and brusque, and there's probably a lot below the surface. Was he finally going to align the ministry with Dumbledore? Would he reveal the secrets Dumbledore's been hiding? Was he a Voldemort plant? Did he have some radically different approach to the WW? No. He was just a guy who pretty much kept everything how it was. Removing Fudge was politically expedient, not a move actually designed to accomplish anything. Rufus was a powerful image of a man who amounted to very little but a sounding board for Harry - representative of the not-evil-but-lame forces that impeded him. I was disappointed, because I felt that his introduction was so strong that surely he would matter more to the story. When he was simply killed off-stage, I was befuddled. I just didn't understand why such a big deal had been made of him for him to not do anything worthwhile or unique. It reminds me of my feelings about the time invested in Draco in HBP for such a poor payoff in DH. I realize that Scrimgeour is not nearly the character Draco is, but I'm curious whether anyone else had a response like mine, or whether people simply expected him to be and accepted him as this tertiary character with little impact or purpose of character. ~Adam (prep0strus) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 18:11:46 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:11:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - Scrimgeour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <839568.30623.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179082 Adam wrote: <<>> And his [Scrimgeour's] personality, so different from Fudge's... I got the feeling something was really going to happen with the ministry. I even got the feeling that old Rufus might have knowledge of secrets we had not been told yet... he certainly is reminiscent of Mad-Eye - scarred and brusque, and there's probably a lot below the surface. Was he finally going to align the ministry with Dumbledore? Would he reveal the secrets Dumbledore's been hiding? Was he a Voldemort plant? Did he have some radically different approach to the WW? <<>> I was disappointed, because I felt that his introduction was so strong that surely he would matter more to the story. When he was simply killed off-stage, I was befuddled. I just didn't understand why such a big deal had been made of him for him to not do anything worthwhile or unique. It reminds me of my feelings about the time invested in Draco in HBP for such a poor payoff in DH. I realize that Scrimgeour is not nearly the character Draco is, but I'm curious whether anyone else had a response like mine, or whether people simply expected him to be and accepted him as this tertiary character with little impact or purpose of character. ~Adam (prep0strus) ***Katie replies: I agree, Adam. I thought the not-so-subtle connections between Scrimgeour looking like a lion, and Harry being in Gryffindor, had some real significance. Like so many other things in HP, however, it turned out to be a lot of fanfare for nothing. I actually expected a big twist with Scrimgeour. I thought that Harry would discover that he was actually on Harry's side and that he would become an ally. I was expecting that in DH, we would discover that Scrimgeour was an undercover OotP member, working from inside the ministry and had been all along...or that Harry's bravery and determination would turn Scrimgeour into an ally. I certainly expected more than for him to be exactly what he seemed to be, which was a Fudge, just with a different personality, and then for him to be killed "off-screen"...ugh. I think the thing I was most disappointed in was that Scrimgeour was just like Fudge, really. He was a figurehead, with little real power. He wanted to use Harry for his own purposes, and he wanted to control the minds and bodies of the WW. He just went about it in a different way. That was incredibly UN-dynamic, and it could have been a much more interesting storyline, had Scrimgeour brought something new to the story...unfortunately, he just brought more of the same. Katie --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 19:21:41 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:21:41 -0000 Subject: Comparisons & contrasts re: DD, Snape and LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179083 > Jen: > Reading the first six books I thought JKR was going for the contrast > of Evil Voldemort vs. Good Dumbledore. Now I'm pretty convinced the > contrast meant to be important for Harry was seemingly Good > Dumbledore who betrayed Harry in his eyes at one point, and seemingly > bad Snape who redeemed himself in Harry's eyes. Eventually the two > merged into Albus Severus, both good enough to name a son after > them. Voldemort was entwined with Dumbledore throughout the story, > most specifically in DH when it came to having an interest in > defeating death, Hallows vs. Horcruxes. So they became the > comparison rather than the contrast in my view, both described as > secretive, working alone and asking too much from their followers for > instance. What do others think, did you follow a similar process in > reading through the series or different? zgirnius: Well, the revelations about Dumbledore certainly did show some commonality with Tom Riddle, in terms of secrecy, some common interests, and asking a lot of their followers. On the other hand, the big difference I always suspected, is still there. Dumbledore's understanding of those followers is light-years beyond Voldemort's, and it is because of his ability to empathize and his understanding of 'the power of love'. Dumbledorealso, IMO, does have genuine affection for other people, something of which Riddle is incapable. You draw a contrast with Snape, but I would not, as Harry's impression of Dumbledore as betrayer and Snape as (shockingly) his protector is fleeting. Though it is quite powerfully written, the short scene in which Dumbledore reveals Harry "must" die is probably my favorite scene of the series. Harry, after surviving his 'inevitable' death comes to realize that Dumbledore always did hope his plan would enable Harry to win *and* live, and saw no other way to accomplish it. The Dumbledore revelations of DH instead, in my mind, bring up *parallels* to Snape. Both, as children, experienced suboptimal home lives (DD's marred by tragedy, Snape's by parents who could not get along). Both, as young adults, were led astray by friends whose dark sides both ignored, and both came to see their mistakes when those mistakes proved to have devastating consequences for their loved ones. There has also been, though you did not mention it, a comparison/contrast of Snape to Voldemort, made most explicit at the end of HBP when Harry comments on the similarities between their chosen names. Of the four central half-blood characters, they are the two with Muggle fathers and witch mothers, both sets unhappily married. (Harry and Dumbledore, also half-bloods, are both children of Muggleborn mothers). The DH revelations prove (to me anyway) that these two characters were always more different than similar. Riddle was extremely self-sufficient emotionally, incapable of love and uninterested in receiving it, by the time we meet him pre-Hogwarts. Little Snape longed for a friend and finally found one in Lily. Voldemort saw power as the only purpose to have, power over others, and over death. Snape in school may have been attracted by the Death Eaters becaue of the power he thought it would give him, but to him, it seems to me, it was a tool - a way to belong somewhere, to be able to protect himself, and to impress others. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 19:24:15 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:24:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - Scrimgeour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179084 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > > KJ: > > 17. Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and Harry > > is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot? > > Prep0strus: > I realize that Scrimgeour > is not nearly the character Draco is, but I'm curious whether anyone > else had a response like mine, or whether people simply expected him > to be and accepted him as this tertiary character with little impact > or purpose of character. > Montavilla47: I missed out on most of the pre-HBP excitement about Scrimgeour-- I didn't read the teaser description of him and so on. But I also found him a disappointment. Perhaps the point was to show that Fudge wasn't really the problem with the Ministry--that no matter who led it, it was never going to be effective? The way that the ministry was portrayed in HBP came off to me like a satiric response to government response to 9/11 and terrorism in general. That's probably American bias, because in the U.S., the government was very ineffective (although the local response to the emergency was admirable--at least the firefighters and police were. I'd rather not start a debate on the command center or details like that.) There was also a lot of fuss and silly information--like the big idea of duct-taping your windows and the Homeland Security Alerts color wheel. So, the safety brochures and Scrimgeour wanting Harry to pop in to the Ministry to boost morale seemed like a take off on silly government P.R. plans. (And how was Harry supposed to "pop" into the Minstry, anyway? He was at school most of the year.) But, all the same, I felt like neither Dumbledore nor Harry was giving Scrimgeour any help at all--which was really petty of them. Would it hurt to give some moral support to the Ministry, now that it *was* doing the right thing? The thing that really annoyed me was Harry demanding that Stan Shunpike be released, when he had nothing to go on but rumors. Sure, Stan Shunpike *most likely* innocent of involvement with the Death Eaters--but Harry should have been demanding a review of the evidence, instead of demanding that a prisoner be released simply because he said so. Why should he *assume* that there was no reason to arrest Stan Shunpike? It's sort of the same assumption that James makes about his friends, isn't it? Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 19:30:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:30:24 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179085 Betsy Hp wrote: > > I'd also like to clarify (because you've been attempting to back me into a postion I'm not actually holding ) that I'm not saying the masked fighters *must* be Slytherin students (that'd be in the fanfic realm as well, I think). I'm saying that by having people fight for Voldemort who go unnamed and even undescribed lessens the argument that we can tell who was actually fighting for Voldemort via a roll call. We simply don't know. Carol responds: Where would the Slytherin students have obtained Death Eater masks on such short notice? Even Draco, whom we know to be a Death Eater, and his friends Crabbe and Goyle, whose fathers are Death Eaters and who allied themselves with the Carrows, don't have such masks or else have no opportunity to put them on. With the exception of Stan Shunpike in "The Seven Potters" (apparently Imperiused) and Pius Thicknesse in "the Battle of Hogwarts" (definitely Imperiused), the only people whose masks slip are actual Death Eaters. Greyback and his hangers-on wear DE robes because they're Snatchers. Obviously, the Slytherins attending Hogwarts are not Snatchers. Where, then, would they get DE robes and masks? Your apparent assumption that the of-age Slytherins are all DEs has no basis in canon. If we see a masked DE, it's always an adult male and, with the exceptions of Shunpike and Thicknesse, always a real DE. By the time Harry reaches the DE camp, the Slytherins have evacuated along with most of the students from the other houses, and it's most unlikely that Slughorn, Filch, and Aberforth together have allowed any of them to run off to the battlefield should they be so inclined. Only Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle have slipped from their ranks undetected, not to fight but (ostensibly) to capture Harry for Voldemort. Harry invisibly enters the camp and sees "a crowd of completely silent, watchful Death Eaters. Some of them were still masked and hooded; others showed their faces" (DH Am. ed. 702). "Still masked and hooded from the previous confrontation in "The Battle of Hogwarts." In contrast, most of the students "shepherded to the Great Hall by teachers and prefects" are wearing "traveling cloaks over their pajamas" (603)--clothing that would be rather easy for Harry to spot among the DEs, masked or unmasked. Note that this detail is mentioned again a few pages later: "The *four* long House tables were lined with disheveled students, some in traveling cloaks, others in dressing gowns" (608)--not one in a DE robe, hood, and mask, or carrying such a thing with them to put on when it comes time to fight for the Dark Lord's cause. And all of these humdreds of students except the handful who stay behind to fight for Hogwarts are shepherded to the RoR by teachers and prefects. Only Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, and apparently Colin Creevey (who shouldn't be in school at all) fall out of line. There is no way for the horde of Slytherins, or even just the of-age Slytherins, who evacuate *first* to go back through three other Houses to the front doors to join Voldemort. And Mrs. Longbottom seals the door of the passage from the Hog's Head so that no one can come that way (624). At any rate, the Death Eaters are either unmasked and recognizable (Yaxley. Dolohov, Rookwood, et al.) or masked DEs who wore their masks and robes to the battle as the Slytherin students could not possibly have done. Harry notes, in addition to the masked and unmasked DEs (the latter including the Malfoys, Rowle, Dolohov, Yaxley, Bellatrix, and the wannabe DE Greyback), two giants, Nagini, the bound Hagrid, and Voldemort himself (702). He does not notice any students in pajamas and traveling cloaks. Had Pansy, Theo Nott, or Blaise Zabini been present, he would have recognized them and the narrator would have recorded their presence. Carol, who thinks that if a single Slytherin student had been present in the DE camp or in the battle, JKR would have informed us, just as she informed us of the whereabouts of the only known student DE, Draco, and his two pro-Voldemort cronies From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 19:44:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:44:01 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179086 a_svirn wrote: > Maybe. But somehow it still doesn't look simple to me. We are talking about the WW aristocracy (natural nobility and all that), after all. It is one thing to resent muggleborns and mugglephils taking away their natural right to practice the Dark Arts (whatever they are). It is quite another thing, however, to renounce the most natural right to be one's own master. Why on earth should they? The Black seniors may have approved on Voldemort agenda, but they didn't take to death eating. They probably thought they were even darker (Black in fact) than this self-styled Lord and certainly purer. Why would all those natural noblemen and noblewomen want to impersonate house-elves? As you said, however glamorous Voldemort might have been, he never showed anything but contempt to his followers. Carol responds: At the time that, say, Lucius Malfoy joined the DEs, he probably didn't expect to be treated like a House-Elf, and he certainly didn't find it degrading to bait and torment Muggles. He enjoyed cursing people with impunity, and that, I imagine, is one of the attractions to him of Death Eating, along with the pure-blood agenda that attracted young Regulus Black. It's not all that different from what young Dumbledore dreamed of--Wizards ruling Muggles--except that for Lucius and those who shared his views (Yaxley and Travers, for example), there would be a hierarchy: the old pure-blood Wizarding families at the top (carrying out Voldemort's agenda, which is also their own), then talented Half-Bloods like snape, then the Muggle-borns doing any dirty work that required magic, and then Squibs and Muggles as "natural" slaves, doomed by their inferiority to serve their masters or die. House-Elves, Goblins, "half-breeds," and others would be still lower, probably classified as beasts. Lucius Malfoy loves being lord of the manor. He probably thought that by joining Voldemort, he could have both power, or rather influence, and prestige without any effort beyond poisoning or cursing those who got in his way. Carol, quite sure that Lucius never dreamed that the Dark Lord would torment *his* family or treat him like a servant in his own home From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 20:46:32 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:46:32 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179087 > >>Betsy Hp wrote: > > > > I'd also like to clarify (because you've been attempting to back > > me into a postion I'm not actually holding ) that I'm not > > saying the masked fighters *must* be Slytherin students (that'd > > be in the fanfic realm as well, I think). I'm saying that by > > having people fight for Voldemort who go unnamed and even > > undescribed lessens the argument that we can tell who was > > actually fighting for Voldemort via a roll call. We simply don't > > know. > >>Carol responds: > Where would the Slytherin students have obtained Death Eater masks > on such short notice? > Betsy Hp: Doesn't this seem to be entering the realm of the ridiculous? I don't know, Carol. Maybe they're magic masks that pop into being when two Death Eaters smash their marks together and cry "Death Eater Masks! Initiate!" But if that's all you've got to suggest that Voldemort's words to Lucius were a lie that JKR meant for her readers to catch, I think you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, IMO. Unless specific text challenges it, I think we're going to have to go with Voldemort's word. As far as Voldemort is concerned, Slytherins joined with him. What that means, I don't know. Maybe they just gave him their best Slytherin cheer before he headed out to storm the castle. But we do know Voldemort was feeling pretty positive about Slytherin throughout that last battle. So he didn't feel his old house betrayed him. > >>Carol, who thinks that if a single Slytherin student had been > present in the DE camp or in the battle, JKR would have informed > us, just as she informed us of the whereabouts of the only known > student DE, Draco, and his two pro-Voldemort cronies Betsy Hp: And I'm just as sure that if JKR wanted us readers to come away from the text thinking House Slytherin had stood against Voldemort in the end, she'd have told us so. She didn't, ergo they didn't, ergo sweet young Al didn't want anything to do with that horrid house. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 21:19:29 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:19:29 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179088 > >>Betsy Hp: > > My thinking on JKR and her views on woman have to do with > > the utter fear with which female sensuality is dealt with > > in the text, the disdain expressed towards girls acting like > > girls, the way making a boy seem girly was the ultimate put- > > down, and the rather old-fashioned way various tasks were > > assigned. > >>Susan: > Well, clearly in the Weasley household, the old-fashioned way > of assigning tasks prevailed...but we don't know if that was > the rule... > > What we do know is that JKR prized domesticity, parenting, and > family above professional success....whether for men OR women... Betsy Hp: As far as assigning tasks go, I was thinking of how Hermione did the cooking and foraging while the Trio hung out in the woods. It seemed very out of character to me. (Well, to an extent: Hermione always did relish playing "mother" to her two boys.) Both Ron and Harry had more practical experience in the kitchen per canon. And as the lone country boy, Ron would have made more sense doing the mushroom hunting than suburban Hermione. JKR does seem to put the domestic above anything else, but at the same time she paints it as a rather dead-end life of quiet desperation. It was his fear of being trapped caring for his brother and sister that left Dumbledore open for the beautiful Grindelwald to tempt. And the romance seems quite dead between Arthur and Molly. Actually, I'd say romance was quite dead within the series. But I think that has to do with the fear of female sensuality. It's hard to get romantic with something you think is out to kill you. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179021 > >>lizzyben: > And connecting this w/the disdain the wizarding world in general has > for "girly-girl" traits like crying & empathy, and the total > valuation of "masculine" traits like courage, strength, & power. > This also reminds me of a fascist society. Historians disagree on > their definitions of fascism, but almost all include "disdain for > femininity" as a common element. > > But Eco mentioned one other element that just made my jaw drop: in > fascist societies, people are trained to become "heroes", and > choosing death is seen as the most heroic act of all. > Betsy Hp: This was a fascinating post, lizzyben. And I think it ties into what I found to be one of the oddest juxtaposes of the series. In HBP, when I thought JKR was telling a completely different story, we have two women appear at Snape's house. Both claim a certain motherly interest in Draco. One has come to try and save Draco's life by having Snape swear to protect him. The other states, rather grandly, that Draco should be proud to die for his cause. At the time, I thought the "good mother" choice rather obvious. The woman trying to save her son was the better woman. But then, in DH, Lily, the perfect mother, and as far as I can tell, proves me wrong. "Lily's smile was the widest of all. She pushed her long hair back as she drew close to him, and her green eyes, so like his, searched his face hungrily, as though she would never be able to look at him enough." "You've been so brave." [DH scholastic ed. p.699] And so a mother sends her son off to certain death. And is she ever proud that he's willing to die for his cause. That Lily is herself dead is probably a help. I mean, the sooner Harry dies, the sooner Lily will see him again. But it's an odd position for a mother to take. But I think it means that Narcissa's "coddling" of her son weakens him. The way Harry chuckles over Draco using his mother's wand: I think we're supposed to see Draco as a chick who's too timid to leave the nest, and Narcissa as the too involved mother who keeps him there. Lily, by being proud that Harry's heading off to die, is the better mother. Which, yeah, I find a bit odd and not a little perverse. Betsy Hp From bowie_alicat at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 21:22:24 2007 From: bowie_alicat at yahoo.com (bowie_alicat) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:22:24 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179089 Without a doubt, a time turner. I have a definite need for more time, and would love the opportunity to have a re-do in many situations!! alison From kspilman at hotmail.com Wed Nov 14 21:27:45 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:27:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - Scrimgeour In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179090 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:24:15 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - Scrimgeour --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > > KJ: > > 17. Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and Harry > > is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot? > > Prep0strus: > I realize that Scrimgeour > is not nearly the character Draco is, but I'm curious whether anyone > else had a response like mine, or whether people simply expected him > to be and accepted him as this tertiary character with little impact > or purpose of character. > Katie S.I feel like Scrimgeour was introduced to make the fall of the ministry seem more prominent. Here was a man who was clearly a capable, fierce fighter against dark wizards, probably the best person FOR the job at the time, and LV still killed him and infiltrated the ministry--something he failed to accomplish last time. I think the build up on Scrimgeour was to show how things were WORSE this time than last time LV was in power. The fact that he died without giving up Harry serves no other real purpose other than to show that it wasn't that he was weak, it was just that governments can do very little against "evil" (whatever that is). Had Fudge been killed and the ministry infiltrated we would have rolled our eyes, shrugged and said, "What did you expect?" But when Scrimgeour was killed and the ministry fell I literally had chills. Montavilla47: I missed out on most of the pre-HBP excitement about Scrimgeour-- I didn't read the teaser description of him and so on. But I also found him a disappointment. Perhaps the point was to show that Fudge wasn't really the problem with the Ministry--that no matter who led it, it was never going to be effective? The way that the ministry was portrayed in HBP came off to me like a satiric response to government response to 9/11 and terrorism in general. That's probably American bias, because in the U.S., the government was very ineffective (although the local response to the emergency was admirable--at least the firefighters and police were. I'd rather not start a debate on the command center or details like that.) There was also a lot of fuss and silly information--like the big idea of duct-taping your windows and the Homeland Security Alerts color wheel. So, the safety brochures and Scrimgeour wanting Harry to pop in to the Ministry to boost morale seemed like a take off on silly government P.R. plans. (And how was Harry supposed to "pop" into the Minstry, anyway? He was at school most of the year.) But, all the same, I felt like neither Dumbledore nor Harry was giving Scrimgeour any help at all--which was really petty of them. Would it hurt to give some moral support to the Ministry, now that it *was* doing the right thing? The thing that really annoyed me was Harry demanding that Stan Shunpike be released, when he had nothing to go on but rumors. Sure, Stan Shunpike *most likely* innocent of involvement with the Death Eaters--but Harry should have been demanding a review of the evidence, instead of demanding that a prisoner be released simply because he said so. Why should he *assume* that there was no reason to arrest Stan Shunpike? It's sort of the same assumption that James makes about his friends, isn't it? Montavilla47 _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 21:34:47 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:34:47 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179091 > a_svirn wrote: > Maybe. But somehow it still doesn't look simple to me. We are > talking about the WW aristocracy (natural nobility and all that), > after all. It is one thing to resent muggleborns and mugglephiles > taking away their natural right to practice the Dark Arts (whatever > they are). It is quite another thing, however, to renounce the most > natural right to be one's own master. Why on earth should they? > The Black seniors may have approved on Voldemort agenda, but they > didn't take to death eating. Mike: This is the crux, isn't it? Sirius told us that Voldemort had a lot of people convinced he was right. And yet his parents, from Riddle's generation, did not join. We don't know if Abraxas Malfoy joined, but I'm thinking he didn't. So what made these non-joining pure-bloods from Riddle's generation think it was a good idea for their sons and daughter's to join? My perception is that the Blacks may have been old money (witness the Tapestry) that could have fallen on harder times. Certainly not to the degree of the Gaunts, but 12 GP is no manor in the country, is it? So, possibly the Blacks were looking for a way to rebuild their wealth when Voldemort came along. But the Malfoys still had their wealth. So, as you asked, why would they (or Lucius) choose subserviency to Voldemort? > a_svirn wrote: > Why would all those natural noblemen and noblewomen want to > impersonate house-elves? As you said, however glamorous Voldemort > might have been, he never showed anything but contempt to his > followers. > > Carol responds: > At the time that, say, Lucius Malfoy joined the DEs, he probably > didn't expect to be treated like a House-Elf, and he certainly > didn't find it degrading to bait and torment Muggles. He enjoyed > cursing people with impunity, and that, I imagine, is one of the > attractions to him of Death Eating, along with the pure-blood > agenda that attracted young Regulus Black. Mike: But the natural question is, why would he need to join the DEs to practice his Muggle tormenting? Further, does his desire to have his fun with Muggle torture outweigh the natural desire to be master of your own domain, especially for a pseudo-aristocrat like Malfoy? Even if he didn't know he would eventually be treated no better than a House Elf, he was agreeing from the get-go to be an underling. > Carol: > Lucius Malfoy loves being lord of the manor. He probably > thought that by joining Voldemort, he could have both power, > or rather influence, and prestige without any effort beyond > poisoning or cursing those who got in his way. Mike: Doesn't joining someone else's organization mean you are no longer the "Lord of the Manor"? Unless he was under the delusion that he was joining as a junior partner to be eventually promoted to top dog upon his *master's" retirement. Since that's not the type of vibe that I got from Voldemort's recruitment angle, I'm thinking that would not be a reasonable expectation for an intelligent man like Lucius Malfoy to believe. > Carol, quite sure that Lucius never dreamed that the Dark Lord > would torment *his* family or treat him like a servant in his own > home Mike: Intelligent but short-sighted will lose your dignity and then your fortune. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 22:16:59 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:16:59 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179092 --- "bowie_alicat" wrote: > > Without a doubt, a time turner. I have a definite need for > more time, and would love the opportunity to have a re-do > in many situations!! > > alison > bboyminn: At Time Turner would be nice, but it would also be dangerous. If you used it and made a mistake, it could have bad consequences. As to needing 'more time', you have to understand that that is somewhat of an illusion. True you can create more time for yourself, but you live it in linear time. For example, while everyone else lived their normal 24 hour days, you could time turn back and create 36 hour days, but after several 36 hour days and the corresponding additional work, I think you would start to get a little weary. Notice how exhausted Hermione got using the time turner. Still there might be a way around that. You could sleep for 8 hours, wake up, time turn back 4 hours and sleep an additional 4. There must be some drawback to that, but at the moment I don't see it. Of course, much like Hermione time turning for her classes, there would be times when there was more than one of you in existence. One of you could be pestering your son to get up and get dress for school, while the other 'you' could be pestering your daughter, and a third 'you' could be making breakfast for everyone. Still, down the road, you would pay for all that extra effort. But I have to admit, there are times when I would gladly pay the piper later for the extra help now. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 22:31:11 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:31:11 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179093 > Mike: Sirius told us that Voldemort had a lot > of people convinced he was right. And yet his parents, from Riddle's > generation, did not join. We don't know if Abraxas Malfoy joined, but > I'm thinking he didn't. So what made these non-joining pure-bloods > from Riddle's generation think it was a good idea for their sons and > daughter's to join? a_svirn: Perhaps the sons and daughters didn't ask their permission? From what Kreacher said it didn't look that Romulus consulted his parents much. > Mike: > My perception is that the Blacks may have been old money (witness > the Tapestry) that could have fallen on harder times. Certainly not > to the degree of the Gaunts, but 12 GP is no manor in the country, > is it? So, possibly the Blacks were looking for a way to rebuild > their wealth when Voldemort came along. a_svirn: Well, I didn't get that feeling from No.12. Granted it looked somewhat dilapidated, but I think it was from neglect rather than from the lack of money. From what Sirius had said money had never been a problem for the Blacks. Besides, Romulus doesn't strike me as a rapacious young man. I think it was glory he was after. > > > > Carol responds: > > At the time that, say, Lucius Malfoy joined the DEs, he probably > > didn't expect to be treated like a House-Elf, and he certainly > > didn't find it degrading to bait and torment Muggles. He enjoyed > > cursing people with impunity, and that, I imagine, is one of the > > attractions to him of Death Eating, along with the pure-blood > > agenda that attracted young Regulus Black. > > Mike: > But the natural question is, why would he need to join the DEs to > practice his Muggle tormenting? Further, does his desire to have his > fun with Muggle torture outweigh the natural desire to be master of > your own domain, especially for a pseudo-aristocrat like Malfoy? Even > if he didn't know he would eventually be treated no better than a > House Elf, he was agreeing from the get-go to be an underling. a_svirn: Exactly. He was agreeing to be branded as other man's property, and had to grovel at Voldemort's feet and call him Master from the start. I mean, really, if one is treated as a house elf at some graveyard why shouldn't one expect the same treatment elsewhere? And does it really matter where? The point is one is no longer one's own master. And all this for the pleasure of cursing muggles with impunity? If he got such a kick out of it he could do it easily enough on his own or with a few of his cronies. In fact, he *did* it easily enough at the World Cup. Right under the noses of the Ministry > > > > Carol: > > Lucius Malfoy loves being lord of the manor. He probably > > thought that by joining Voldemort, he could have both power, > > or rather influence, and prestige without any effort beyond > > poisoning or cursing those who got in his way. > > Mike: > Doesn't joining someone else's organization mean you are no longer > the "Lord of the Manor"? Unless he was under the delusion that he was > joining as a junior partner to be eventually promoted to top dog upon > his *master's" retirement. Since that's not the type of vibe that I > got from Voldemort's recruitment angle, I'm thinking that would not > be a reasonable expectation for an intelligent man like Lucius Malfoy > to believe. a_svirn: Hear, hear! Then again, maybe wasn't really all that intelligent. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 23:15:09 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:15:09 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179094 > bboyminn: > > Notice how exhausted Hermione got using the time turner. Still > there might be a way around that. You could sleep for 8 hours, > wake up, time turn back 4 hours and sleep an additional 4. > There must be some drawback to that, but at the moment I don't > see it. > > Of course, much like Hermione time turning for her classes, > there would be times when there was more than one of you in > existence. Mike: This idea tickled me. Imagine after another long day and a night of lots of homework, Hermione goes to bed at 2am. She decides to sleep until 6am, and time turn back for an additional 4 hours sleep. When she does time turn back, she climbs into bed with her original self. Which meant that her original self woke up at 6am next to her time turned self and had to make sure not to wake her time turned self when getting out of bed to time turn back. :D From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Nov 14 23:37:06 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:37:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <473B86A2.4090406@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 179095 >>>> zgirnius: >> If you and Betsy can have your >> masked, unidentified, unmentioned, effectively invisible Slytherins >> of a certain age fighting for Voldemort in the battle, some other >> reader can have his or her anonymous Slytherins of a certain age >> who came back with Sluggie and the large crowd of reinforcements >> after helping the young 'uns get away). > > Betsy Hp: > No Zara, they can't. Random832: Then neither can you, is all she was saying. Betsy Hp: > In fanfic? Sure. But to argue that *within* > the text there's an unremarked Slytherin who comes back and fights > for Hogwarts is insupportable because there is no text supporting it. Random832: There's also no text contradicting it. There's no text supporting any slytherin students on either side of the battle, and it's highly unlikely that it would have been unmentioned (much less so than DD being gay going unmentioned, since the actions of the slytherin students is highly relevant to the story, and DD's orientation not so much). Ergo, canon is that they left and never looked back. Betsy Hp: > What we don't have mentioned within > the text is anything to suggest Voldemort's statement about that was > a lie. Random832: Nothing, of course, except for the facts that [A] Voldemort is a notorious liar, and [B] at least part of his statement (viz. Crabbe and Goyle, "the rest of" the Slytherins) was demonstrably false. --Random832 From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 02:42:12 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:42:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40711141842q3ad99c3fp3d21b901ba538954@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179096 > Betsy Hp: > Actually, I'd say romance was quite dead within the series. But I > think that has to do with the fear of female sensuality. It's hard > to get romantic with something you think is out to kill you. Kemper now: I'm not sure what you mean. I'd say romance never really lived in the series for it to die. And thank God for that. But as far as female sensuality is concerned, Ginny seems comfortable in her sensuality and sexuality. Her brother, iirc, seems to imply she's a slut to some degree which she seems to infer and fiercely defend. It is a small scene (to tired to search for canon) but it struck me and stuck with me. Also, iirc, Ginny is the one in control of her flings. She is always the one doing the dumping and emasculating at least one of her exes. Once he kisses Ginny, he seems comfortable with her sensuality and hopeful with her sexuality. But again, it is thankfully short lived. Perhaps JKR has no interest in writing romance but it seemed the natural thing to incorporate into characters of that age. Romance is absent in the first few books, her characters are young. > > >>lizzyben: > > > > But Eco mentioned one other element that just made my jaw drop: in > > fascist societies, people are trained to become "heroes", and > > choosing death is seen as the most heroic act of all. > > > > Betsy Hp: > This was a fascinating post, lizzyben. And I think it ties into what > I found to be one of the oddest juxtaposes of the series. In HBP, > when I thought JKR was telling a completely different story, we have > two women appear at Snape's house. ... One has come to ... save Draco's life > The other states ... that Draco should be proud to die for his cause. > > At the time, I thought the "good mother" choice rather obvious. The > woman trying to save her son was the better woman. But then, in DH, > Lily, the perfect mother, and as far as I can tell, proves me wrong. > > "Lily's smile was the widest of all. She pushed her long hair back > as she drew close to him, and her green eyes, so like his, searched > his face hungrily, as though she would never be able to look at him > enough." > "You've been so brave." [DH scholastic ed. p.699] > > And so a mother sends her son off to certain death. And is she ever > proud that he's willing to die for his cause. That Lily is herself > dead is probably a help. I mean, the sooner Harry dies, the sooner > Lily will see him again. But it's an odd position for a mother to > take. > > ... Lily, by being proud that Harry's heading off to die, is the > better mother. Which, yeah, I find a bit odd and not a little > perverse. Kemper now: I see Lily more as Mother Mary in this scene. It is what I imagine she would say to her son as he carried his cross. (I'm not trying to equate a Harry is Jesus thing) Lily and Mary don't send their son off to die, their sons have chosen this. Harry dieing to save others is different than Draco dieing to serve Voldemort. I don't think Lily anticipates Harry's death as she looks at him hungrily (a word which I find to be a bit perverse but whatever) as though she will soon starve from the sustaining food that is the sight of her son. Kemper From kspilman at hotmail.com Thu Nov 15 03:41:17 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:41:17 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: <700201d40711141842q3ad99c3fp3d21b901ba538954@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40711141842q3ad99c3fp3d21b901ba538954@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179097 > > >>lizzyben: > > > > But Eco mentioned one other element that just made my jaw drop: in > > fascist societies, people are trained to become "heroes", and > > choosing death is seen as the most heroic act of all. > > > > Betsy Hp: > This was a fascinating post, lizzyben. And I think it ties into what > I found to be one of the oddest juxtaposes of the series. In HBP, > when I thought JKR was telling a completely different story, we have > two women appear at Snape's house. ... One has come to ... save Draco's life > The other states ... that Draco should be proud to die for his cause. > > At the time, I thought the "good mother" choice rather obvious. The > woman trying to save her son was the better woman. But then, in DH, > Lily, the perfect mother, and as far as I can tell, proves me wrong. > > "Lily's smile was the widest of all. She pushed her long hair back > as she drew close to him, and her green eyes, so like his, searched > his face hungrily, as though she would never be able to look at him > enough." > "You've been so brave." [DH scholastic ed. p.699] > > And so a mother sends her son off to certain death. And is she ever > proud that he's willing to die for his cause. That Lily is herself > dead is probably a help. I mean, the sooner Harry dies, the sooner > Lily will see him again. But it's an odd position for a mother to > take. > > ... Lily, by being proud that Harry's heading off to die, is the > better mother. Which, yeah, I find a bit odd and not a little > perverse. Kemper now: I see Lily more as Mother Mary in this scene. It is what I imagine she would say to her son as he carried his cross. (I'm not trying to equate a Harry is Jesus thing) Lily and Mary don't send their son off to die, their sons have chosen this. Katie S.:I thought the Harry as a literary parallel to Jesus was painfully obvious, dying selflessly to save the world, the love of the world bringing him back to life, his father (Dumbledore) sacrificing him to save the world, etc. . _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ? together at last. ?Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Nov 15 04:05:10 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:05:10 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Notice how exhausted Hermione got using the time turner. Still > there might be a way around that. You could sleep for 8 hours, > wake up, time turn back 4 hours and sleep an additional 4. > There must be some drawback to that, but at the moment I don't > see it. > Allie: Now THAT is a fabulous idea. But does that mean you would have to sleep next to yourself in bed? Because that might be a little weird... :) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 05:57:16 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:57:16 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179099 > Betsy Hp: > No Zara, they can't. In fanfic? Sure. But to argue that *within* > the text there's an unremarked Slytherin who comes back and fights > for Hogwarts is insupportable because there is no text supporting it. zgirnius: There is a statement by the portrait of Phineas Nigellus Black that people must not forget, Slytherin played its part too (paraphrase). I'm certain he meant those students! I am not suggesting Slytherins did come back. I am merely stating that your position seems about as reasonable to me. There is a total absence in the relevant parts of the text, which are the battle scenes, of any Slytherin students fighting for either side. Nor does anyone report having seen Slytherin students fighting on either side, or having knowledge that Slytherin students were fighting for either side. Which is why I believe, da da dum, no Slytherin students were fighting for either side. I also believe that any other position is fanficcy in a way mine is not. I saw no Slytherins, therefore there were none. Not, I saw none, but they could have been wearing masks for some reason we could imagine for ourselves, or Rowling could have not mentioned them for some reason we could imagine for ourselves, or they could have all been wearing invisibility cloaks, if that strikes our fancy. It all requires an step beyond the text, a leap of imagination, which simply supposing they were not there in the text because...*they weren't there* does not. Betsy Hp: > I'm saying that by having people fight for > Voldemort who go unnamed and even undescribed lessens the argument > that we can tell who was actually fighting for Voldemort via a roll > call. We simply don't know. zgirnius: People described as 'masked and unmasked Death Eaters' ARE described, and in a way which makes me think they are not current students of Slytherin House. Draco, all of HBP suggests to me, was the unique student DE. > Betsy Hp: > Honestly, the Slytherins who joined Voldemort may have been patted on > the head for choosing the right side and sent home for all I know. zgirnius: As long as you don't insist I must accept that they fought, I'm happy. Heck, according to Aberforth, the ones that did come, if any did, may have wanted to see Mommy or Daddy. > > >>zgirnius: > > > > I don't think any Slytherin student openly took up arms for > > Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: > Actually, Crabbe, Goyle and Draco did. (Bit ironic, really. ) > Ooh, but while I'm at this point... zgirnius: "Openly". And Draco managed to misplace his arms before he had any opportunity to take them up. > Betsy Hp: > Draco wasn't trying to *join* the Death Eater, he was trying to make > clear he'd *already* done so: > > "I'm Draco Malfoy, I'm Draco, I'm on your side!" [DH scholastic p.645] > > Or are we supposed to think Draco was lying? zgirnius: I sure do, depending, of course, on exactly what that means. In a formal sense, it was a statement of fact. On the other hand, he was certainly not, that we saw, *fighting* on that side. > Betsy Hp: > She may not have meant for the Slytherins students to fight. That > would have shown a certain perverse bravery after all. But in > the same token, I find it hard to believe that JKR meant to redeem > Slytherin house and then failed to mention it. zgirnius: Her hero, her golden boy, can honestly say to his son when it is all over, that it will not matter to him in the slightest if his son winds up in that house. To me, this is a statement that the house is one good people can come out of. Is that redemption for Slytherin House? I have no idea. Redepemtion is a notion I ascribe to individuals, not dormitories. I always expected that statements like "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" to be proved wrongheaded (and I did not need to wait very long, as it proved). > Betsy Hp: > In this case, I think JKR *meant* for the association to be reason > of guilt. zgirnius: I don't. If anything, I saw McGonagall's outburst as an extenuating circumstance. And, what guilt? None of the students who left are shown doing anything objectionable thereafter. They left. Like assorted students from other houses. > > >>zgirnius: > > > > The Slytherins all left. None stayed to fight against their > > kin/the kin of their housemates, under the leadership of a woman > > who demonstrated that she despises them. I did not find it > > surprising, or disturbing. > Betsy Hp: > And of *course* Snape had to be > so abused and neglected he'd come to associate abuse to love and so > joined with those who despised him to the end. It's an ugly brutal > world, and JKR's "heroes" are ugly, brutal people. zgirnius: Sorry, you may have lost me. In case I am grasping some of what you are saying...Snape did not switch sides because he wanted to be on the side that despised him. He switched sides first because he wanted to be on the side that would protect Lily, and later because he wanted to be on the side that would protect her son. And at some point, having switched sides, I believe he came to appreciate being on the side that would not have killed her, if the situation were reversed. Both sides include characters who show themselves to be quite prejudiced, but cold- blooded murder is exclusively the tool of the bad guys in this world, and Snape came to realize he wanted no part in that. "Only those I could not save" and all that. That it was the side of those who despised Snape doubtless did not add any cheerfulness and amiability to his disposition. This was just another thing he bore. > Besty Hp: > But it *is* JKR's world, so as per her definition of things, the > Slytherins are the bad guys. (They're bigots, don't you know.) zgirnius: If you are quoting an interview comment, I would like to see it, or at least get a paraphrase. It would make the discussion easier to follow. As a generalization, "Slytherins are bigots" would reflect that more virulently bloodist people come out of that House than any other, from what we have seen. Though since she has said there are children of Death Eaters in other houses in another interview (the one post- HBP with Sparts and Agnelli), it's not the only place bigots come from in her mental image of her world. She has also included in her books Slytherins who were not bigots. (Andromeda Black, who married Ted, and who is not the only member of the Ancient and Most Noble House to get blasted off the family tree for betrayal of her blood. Slytherins all, until Sirius came along). So neither "All Slytherins are bigots" nor "All Slytherins are evil" is true. In the sense that the evil Harry was destined to defeat was Voldemort and his followers, adherents to the pureblood supremacist cause, yes, Slytherin House is the house of the bad ideology. But that's not something from which we can draw conclusions about individual Slytherins, any more than we may conclude that his daring, wit, and chivalry set Peter Pettigrew apart. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 06:15:55 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:15:55 -0000 Subject: what magical object would you want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179100 > bboyminn: > As to needing 'more time', you have to understand that that is > somewhat of an illusion. True you can create more time for > yourself, but you live it in linear time. zgirnius: This had not escaped me, it is a daydream of mine to have a TT. I would want a Time-Turner for a single purpose: I would put the kids to bed, amuse myself half the night, set the TT back to the moment my kids fell aslepp, and enjoy a long, restful night's sleep without giving up my precious free hours. > bboyminn: > Notice how exhausted Hermione got using the time turner. Still > there might be a way around that. You could sleep for 8 hours, > wake up, time turn back 4 hours and sleep an additional 4. > There must be some drawback to that, but at the moment I don't > see it. zgirnius: Me either, except by setting the TT back first as I suggest, you accrue three advantages. 1) You can sleep for 12 hours without waking up to mess with the TT, and (more important) 2) By having been awake and aware in the house in which you plan to sleep, during the time in which you plan to sleep, you can know nothing untoward has happened that would militate against TT use, and (most important) 3) you don't have to share a bed with your sleeping self for four hours. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 15 07:40:16 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:40:16 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179101 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katie Spilman wrote: Kemper: > > I see Lily more as Mother Mary in this scene. It is what I imagine > > she would say to her son as he carried his cross. (I'm not trying to > > equate a Harry is Jesus thing) Lily and Mary don't send their son off > > to die, their sons have chosen this. Katie S.: > I thought the Harry as a literary parallel to Jesus was painfully obvious, > dying selflessly to save the world, the love of the world bringing him > back to life, his father (Dumbledore) sacrificing him to save the world, etc. Geoff: Speaking personally as a Christian, I have always held that Harry is not a Christ figure. Although he is not specifically written as a believer, like a practising Christian can aim at being Christ-like which isn't the same thing. Again, canon is quite explicit in that Harry does not die. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 13:55:21 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:55:21 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: <700201d40711141842q3ad99c3fp3d21b901ba538954@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179102 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Actually, I'd say romance was quite dead within the series. But I > > think that has to do with the fear of female sensuality. It's hard > > to get romantic with something you think is out to kill you. > >>Kemper now: > I'm not sure what you mean. I'd say romance never really lived in > the series for it to die. And thank God for that. Betsy Hp: Oh yes, I don't mean romance was there and JKR killed it. It seems to be something she can't handle full stop. > >>Kemper: > But as far as female sensuality is concerned, Ginny seems > comfortable in her sensuality and sexuality. > Betsy Hp: Yes, and it's one of full attack mode. When we're supposed to start thinking of her as a sexual person, we never see her that she's not attacking (usually physically, sometimes verbally) someone. Because I think, for JKR, that's what female sensuality is: an attack. And something that weakens men. JKR needed Harry to have a girl he could make babies with for the epilogue, so she needed to invent Ginny. And I do find it fascinating that she made Ginny as much like Harry as possible (though far more aggressive, because female). But then as soon as it was established that Ginny and Harry would willingly breed, Ginny is whisked away. Because in the end, she'd only weaken Harry. *Especially* if they had sex. (Though Ginny is hyper-alert to protecting Harry against other aggressive females. Hence her making sure Cho doesn't lead Harry to the Ravenclaw dorms.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And so a mother sends her son off to certain death. And is she > > ever proud that he's willing to die for his cause. That Lily is > > herself dead is probably a help. I mean, the sooner Harry dies, > > the sooner Lily will see him again. But it's an odd position for > > a mother to take. > > > > ... Lily, by being proud that Harry's heading off to die, is the > > better mother. Which, yeah, I find a bit odd and not a little > > perverse. > >>Kemper now: > I see Lily more as Mother Mary in this scene. It is what I imagine > she would say to her son as he carried his cross. (I'm not trying > to equate a Harry is Jesus thing) Betsy Hp: Ooh, ick, really? She was there, wasn't she? In the end? And I don't recall her cheering Jesus on. > >>Kemper: > Lily and Mary don't send their son off to die, their sons have > chosen this. Betsy Hp: Right. Just as Draco chose to serve Voldemort, making Bellatrix the better mother-figure in that scene. Just as suicide bombers have chosen to become martyrs. So their proud mothers are also good mothers per the series I suppose. > >>Kemper: > Harry dieing to save others is different than Draco dieing to serve > Voldemort. Betsy Hp: Well, yes, there's definitely a better cult of personality in these books. Dying for Dumbledore is much better than dying for Voldemort. > >>Kemper: > I don't think Lily anticipates Harry's death as she looks at him > hungrily (a word which I find to be a bit perverse but whatever) as > though she will soon starve from the sustaining food that is the > sight of her son. Betsy Hp: Yeah, that word and her flipping her hair was an odd descriptive choice, IMO. (I kind of boggled at it myself.) I imagine that Lily was eager for Harry to die so she could then touch him hungrily. But then, that's mothers for you! (Seriously, that entire scene squicked me on so many different levels.) Betsy Hp From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 15 15:07:32 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:07:32 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179104 > > Betsy Hp: > > No Zara, they can't. In fanfic? Sure. But to argue that *within* > > the text there's an unremarked Slytherin who comes back and fights > > for Hogwarts is insupportable because there is no text supporting > it. > > zgirnius: > There is a statement by the portrait of Phineas Nigellus Black that > people must not forget, Slytherin played its part too (paraphrase). > I'm certain he meant those students! Magpie: I love that line, because it's perfectly well chosen (and of course I don't think he's referring to non-existant students that un-write the ideas given in the text over and over). They *played* their part. As a house they didn't *do* their part. The ones who did their part at all are special cases, and even they also supported Voldemort's rise before having personal reasons to act against him. Despite themselves, Slytherins were instrumental in the victory. Just as Gollum had a part to play in the destruction of the Ring. Zara; > > I am not suggesting Slytherins did come back. I am merely stating > that your position seems about as reasonable to me. There is a total > absence in the relevant parts of the text, which are the battle > scenes, of any Slytherin students fighting for either side. Nor does > anyone report having seen Slytherin students fighting on either side, > or having knowledge that Slytherin students were fighting for either > side. Which is why I believe, da da dum, no Slytherin students were > fighting for either side. Magpie: Me too. They went to Voldemort, as Voldemort says, but that doesn't mean they fought in the battle. They're traitors, but not Death Eaters. (Incidentally, referring to Random's point, I don't think of Voldemort as a big liar generally. He certainly will lie for his purposes, but he doesn't lie to his followers much that I remember. He lied as Tom Riddle but as Voldemort he's pretty straightforward. And I think the idea that he's lying in this moment makes little sense. He seems to have stopped lying at all in DH, and I can't see how or why he'd be lying about what he's saying to Lucius here.) > > Betsy Hp: > > She may not have meant for the Slytherins students to fight. That > > would have shown a certain perverse bravery after all. But in > > the same token, I find it hard to believe that JKR meant to redeem > > Slytherin house and then failed to mention it. > > zgirnius: > Her hero, her golden boy, can honestly say to his son when it is all > over, that it will not matter to him in the slightest if his son > winds up in that house. To me, this is a statement that the house is > one good people can come out of. Is that redemption for Slytherin > House? I have no idea. Redepemtion is a notion I ascribe to > individuals, not dormitories. Magpie: I think it's clearly a statement of support of his son. He loves him no matter what he does, no matter what house he's in. He's his father--what kind of father would reject his son based on what House he was Sorted into? It's also an easy enough statement for Harry to make that requires very little respect for Slytherin. Al is a little Tiny Tim who's so good at heart he's already frightened that the Hat might look into his heart and see a little Slytherin there, and he's heroic dad can of course tell him the solution to that, since he went to Hogwarts with the same fear and knows that will make the hat put you somewhere else. There's no real fear that Al will end up in Slytherin. Slytherin students have been fairly easily spotted throughout canon through a couple of different traits and Al has none of them. If you're afraid of being an icky Slytherin, you're not a Slytherin by definition. I think this is far more about Harry being a great guy than Slytherin being a great house. In fact the whole of Harry's hatred of Slytherin/Slytherins was dropped in the last book. They were the bad guys, but Harry no longer had much personal against them just in time for the reveal with Snape. I remember a great thread on the group pre-DH about Jane Austen and the important moment of Lizzie realizing she'd been wrong about Darcy. Some on the list thought Lizzie was never really that wrong, others thought the whole point was Lizzie realizing how her prejudice had made her behave. If JKR was thinking of P&P at all, she seems to have had the former reading. Yeah, Harry was wrong, but there was no need for any personal crisis for Harry. > zgirnius: > I don't. If anything, I saw McGonagall's outburst as an extenuating > circumstance. > > And, what guilt? None of the students who left are shown doing > anything objectionable thereafter. They left. Like assorted students > from other houses. Magpie: Yes, I think the only objectionable bit is their not taking place in the battle where the brave and true would be, if they're of age. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Nov 15 13:39:09 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:39:09 -0700 Subject: Beowulf, DnD, and Rowling's dragons References: Message-ID: <001901c8278c$e6bb5300$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179105 I just watched the movie Beowulf, where the monster is essentially a DnD polymorph gold dragon. It's intelligent, can change shape, and plots the downfall of man via seduction. They breathe fire and can swim underwater, although in the movie, it was called a water spirit (which would have been a DnD "naga"). Then I think of Rowling's dragons- basically they are your run of the mill animal. It breathes fire, but by contrast to the DnD/Beowulf movie variety, they aren't intelligent or sentient. Rowling seems to have picked other creatures to be the intelligent interactors with the wizards, mainly the house elves. How would the series be different if she had created the dragons be sentient or intelligent? The dragons certainly wouldn't have been the stooges for the goblins- being kept in the dark against their will to guard the gold inside Gringots, and the whole tri-wizard tournament would have been different, as the dragons would have been smarter not to step on their own eggs. Certianly if dragons were intelligent, they might have been recuited for the use of Voldemort, filling the role the giants did for that final battle at Hogwarts. And, Harry would not have had his excape from Gingotts on the back of a dragon (or could he have, if the dragon was in on the financial gain?) Shelley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 15:55:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:55:42 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179106 Kemper wrote: > > > > I see Lily more as Mother Mary in this scene. It is what I imagine she would say to her son as he carried his cross. (I'm not trying to equate a Harry is Jesus thing) Lily and Mary don't send their son off to die, their sons have chosen this. > > Katie S.: > > I thought the Harry as a literary parallel to Jesus was painfully obvious, dying selflessly to save the world, the love of the world bringing him back to life, his father (Dumbledore) sacrificing him to save the world, etc. > > Geoff: > Speaking personally as a Christian, I have always held that Harry is not a Christ figure. Although he is not specifically written as a believer, like a practising Christian can aim at being Christ-like which isn't the same thing. > > Again, canon is quite explicit in that Harry does not die. > Carol responds: But a Christ figure is not Christ, nor does he have to die. He (or she) is a flawed human being who nevertheless shares traits in common with Christ, in this case, the willingness to sacrifice himself to save others. That he does not actually die (though he could have chosen to remain where he was and "go on" to the afterlife) is immaterial. I agree with Kemper that Lily (symbol of purity whether we like her as a character or not) is proud of her son for his courage and selflessness. If anyone knows the power of Love magic, it's Dead!Lily, who saved her son from Avada Kedavra (certain death to everyone else, even DD) through her own self-sacrifice. It's not that she's glad he's dying, as Betsy suggested (though her "hungry" look reminds me of little Severus's "greedy" one, and is probably described with a different adjective simply because of Harry's view of the particular character at the time); it's that she's moved by his courage. It's very similar, perhaps identical, to DD's reaction: "You wonderful boy. You brave, brave man." Like Christ, he is choosing to sacrifice himself to save others from a great evil (in Christ's case, death; in Harry's case, Voldemort). Obviously, Harry's sacrifice is not on the same scale. Obviously, too, a near-death experience is not death. But Harry doesn't know that he's going to survive. He *can't* know that or his sacrifice won't be a sacrifice and the Love magic won't work. We can find other Christ figures in literature who don't die, with Frodo (flawed at the end despite his gentleness and mercy to Gollum and growing wisdom and courage) being perhaps the most obvious example. A character doesn't have to die and be resurrected (like Gandalf) to be a Christ figure. And, BTW, only Christian authors deliberately create Christ figures, though the motif of the hero visiting the Underworld and returning alive is found any many mythologies, including Greek myths. I'm a bit more troubled by Dumbledore as a God figure. He may seem omniscient to Harry early on, and he seems wise and benevolent to many readers until DH, and "King's Cross" reveals that he does love Harry and did expect him to survive, but a just and merciful and omniscient and omnipotent God he's definitely not. Just, sadly, a puppet-master tempted by power, who at least learned that Wizards have no right to rule Muggles. Strange how he seems to give his teachers free rein and yet all the time, he's pulling their strings in other ways, at least if they happen to be involved in any way in the fight against Voldemort, and concealing information from everyone because he fully trusts no one, not even Harry (or Snape). Once again, a Christ figure is *Christlike* in some way. That does not mean he's an allegorical representation of Christ himself. It could be argued that Harry is simultaneously a Christ figure, the Chosen One, and an Everyman figure in that he has to struggle with the burden of his own sins (faults) and to maintain faith (in the wisdom of DD, though that disturbs me because he's so unGodlike) and hope (for victory over LV but also for life after death, which he doesn't believe in, despite Luna and Hermione actually telling him the same thing, until he turns over the Resurrection Stone ("King's Cross" confirms that belief, which doesn't have to be openly stated by the narrator any more than his forgiveness of Snape does, forgiveness of those who have trespassed against us also being a Christian motif). Carol, not saying that DH *has* to be read in this way, only that the evidence is there for eyes that wish to see it From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 16:03:52 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:03:52 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179107 > Potioncat: > LV says Draco didn't join him like the rest of the Slytherins. But, rest of the Slytherins doesn't have to mean all of the Slytherins. > And we know that at least 2 other Slytherins aren't there. So "rest of the Slytherins" would mean those Slytherins > who were DEs or DE connected or even, that clump of Slytherin > students who did show up. > My real point has nothing to do with whether LV is telling a lie; but > rather whether there's hope that some Cough**Theo**cough didn't join > LV. lizzyben: Oh, yeah, there's hope for Theodore Nott! In my alternate version, he & Zabini just roll their eyes at the whole thing & head for Hogsmeade station. I don't think LV is lying & his statement is corraborated by extrinsic evidence. But he's not concentrating on accounting for every single Slytherin. If a sea of Slyths show up on the DE side, LV would notice Draco's absence, but he wouldn't notice the absence of a few anonymous students. So it's *possible* that a few other Slytherins didn't join the crowd. And I actually don't think that the Slytherin kids joined the battle on the DE side. LV's statement implies that Draco is still in the Hogwarts battle, & therefore in danger of death, unlike the *rest* of the Slytherins. He's saying that the wise Slytherin students who joined him are safe, while unwise Draco is still in danger in the battle. I don't think he would say that if the Slytherin students were actually back at Hogwarts as well. And Lord knows JKR doesn't miss an opportunity to tell us how much the Slytherins suck. If some traitor Slytherins were fighting w/the DE, I think that would've been mentioned in the text. Finally, actually fighting for a cause (however misguided) would show *courage*. Courage is a Gryffindor virtue, & in JKR's eyes, the ultimate virtue. In the Great Hall, all the Houses were judged on their willingness to fight: the majority of Gryffindors stayed to fight, while all the Slytherins turned tail & ran (after Pansy tried to sell out Harry Potter). The message there is that Slytherins are *cowards*, while Gryffindors are courageous. It would mess with that message if some Slytherin students came back to fight in the battle. By risking their lives & fighting for a cause (however awful), they would be showing courage & bravery - and that's not the Slytherin way. No, I think LV was telling the truth; the Slytherin students joined his side, and then waited out the battle in safety behind enemy lines. Potioncat: > Pretty much, Slytherin House appears as the villain after DH. I'm not > sure if JKR intended that, or if the bigger picture became blurry > while she worked on the smaller details. In an interview she had > stated that not all Slytherins had DE ties, and that some students > from other houses did have DE ties. If she really intended that, she > didn't show it. lizzyben: I think she always intended it. Slytherin is the house of bad guys, and the judgements about them are true. As soon as they had the chance, the Slytherin students rushed over to Voldemort's side. Why? Who knows? I can't imagine any Hogwarts student thinking that Voldemort is a good cause to join after being tortured & tormented by Death Eaters all year. Wouldn't the little first years want to go home to their family instead of joining the creepy scary monster guy? You'd think, but no. I can't fathom the Slytherin mind - they don't think the way normal people do. The motivation here makes no sense, but it just seems to be - they did it because they're Slytherins, and they're bad. Therefore, they naturally joined the bad guy. On another thread, people are having trouble understanding Lucius' motivation for sticking with Voldemort, but again I think it's just that simple - he's bad, so of course he goes with the bad guy. What more do you need to know? Some people (including me) have criticized McGonegal for holding all the Slytherins guilty by association & telling Slughorn that she will shoot to kill. But JKR then makes sure to tell us that all the evacuated Slytherin students actually joined Voldemort. So, McGonegal's snap judgments were *correct* - the Slytherin students were snakes in the grass who should be kicked out of Hogwarts. Or maybe should be exorcised & kicked out of wizarding society entirely. And yeah, JKR had previously said that Slytherins are not all bad. But in the same interview you mentioned, JKR also jokingly said "couldn't they just shoot them all?" And that joke ended up being the most relevant statement. In the end of DH, McGonegal threatens to shoot the Slytherin students, and the text backs her up on that position. She's assuming that the Slytherins are traitors, and then we learn that that assumption was correct - the Slytherin students actually were traitors & bad guys. McGonegal's reaction was over-the-top, violent, paranoid and *correct*. Because Slytherins are really just worthless people who would turn Hogwarts over to the bad guys. I don't know why it was so important for JKR to beat us over the head with this particular message. It just seemed so over- the-top in DH. Yes, Slytherins suck, I get it! lizzyben From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 16:26:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:26:14 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179108 Betsy Hp: > Yes, and it's one of full attack mode. When we're supposed to start > thinking of her as a sexual person, we never see her that she's not > attacking (usually physically, sometimes verbally) someone. Because > I think, for JKR, that's what female sensuality is: an attack. And > something that weakens men. > > JKR needed Harry to have a girl he could make babies with for the > epilogue, so she needed to invent Ginny. And I do find it > fascinating that she made Ginny as much like Harry as possible > (though far more aggressive, because female). But then as soon as it > was established that Ginny and Harry would willingly breed, Ginny is > whisked away. Because in the end, she'd only weaken Harry. > *Especially* if they had sex. (Though Ginny is hyper-alert to > protecting Harry against other aggressive females. Hence her making > sure Cho doesn't lead Harry to the Ravenclaw dorms.) Carol responds: I agree on two points: that JKR doesn't depict romance well and that Ginny is, well, aggressive and not at all the wonderful character JKR sees her as being. (Soory, Ginny fans, but the only time I liked her is when she stood up to Draco early in CoS. Well, that and telling Harry what it's like to be possessed. He was acting like an idiot and he should have asked an authority on the subject.) However, it's Ginny, not Harry, who's being protected in DH, not from sex but from danger, as Harry makes clear at the end of HBP. And she's still being protected in DH by her mother because she's underage. Ron, too, is protecting her--not explicitly from sex, although she's the one who would get pregnant if they didn't use Contraceptio, or whatever the contraceptive spell is, but from a broken heart. And while it's true that Ginny is aggressive toward her rivals, Hermione's jealousy manifests itself in an attack on *Ron* ("Oppugno!") and Cho's in words and tears. IOW, each feels the same emotion but manifests it according to her personality. Both Ron and Harry also feel jealousy; Ron's jealousy of Viktor Krum in GoF results in accusing Hermione of "fraternizing with the enemy" and in HBP the idea that Hermione may have kissed Viktor two years earlier leads him to stop speaking to her. He's *still* jealous in DH, this time of Harry (combined with his envy of Harry as the Chosen One and his own sense of inferiority), with the result that he walks out on both Harry and Hermione. (He symbolically kills all these demons when he destroys the Horcrux.) Harry, too, is quite capable of jealousy, as we see in his chest monster and fantasies of revenge on his rivals. The only difference is that Harry, for the most part, keeps his jealousy under control. JKR is also, of course, making quite sure that her teenage heroines don't get pregnant or engage in underage sex, setting a bad example for young female readers. (She said something of the sort in an interview, and since it's not an analysis of her characters or an interpretation of the books but a reason for not taking sex beyond "snogging" and groping, I think, for once, we can credit that statement.) I see no threat to the *boys* from female sexuality--unless they marry a woman like Blaise Zabini's mother. Nor does Ginny's aggressiveness against Zacharias Smith have anything to do with sexuality. And when Harry does get to kiss Ginny, both in HBP and DH, its represented as a blissful escape from harsh reality. The only threat to *him* of having her along would be that he might get sidetracked from his mission. The threat to her is that she might get killed (not to mention that she's not even sixteen when we see her kissing Harry, given her August birthday per JKR's website, and is still a child even in the view of the WW). On a sidenote, Betsy said somewhere that she thought that the romance between Molly and Arthur had died. I offer "Mollywobbles" as evidence to the contrary. And Molly is none too pleased with the attention that Arthur pays to the beautiful half-Veela Apolline Delacour. (The behavior of boys and men around Veela is just, IMO, a comic jab at RL men's reactions to beautiful, seductive women.) Carol, none too sure that jealousy is really a sign of true love but seeing it as far more apparent in JKR's characters of both sexes than any threat to boys or men from female sexuality (the only threat being to *girls* who might be thought of as "scarlet women" if they behave like Lavender Brown) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 16:45:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:45:21 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / LOTR spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179109 Carol: In the unlikely event that you've never read LOTR or seen the film, please skip this post. Magpie wrote: > I love that line, because it's perfectly well chosen (and of course > I don't think he's referring to non-existant students that un-write > the ideas given in the text over and over). They *played* their > part. As a house they didn't *do* their part. The ones who did their > part at all are special cases, and even they also supported > Voldemort's rise before having personal reasons to act against him. > Despite themselves, Slytherins were instrumental in the victory. > Just as Gollum had a part to play in the destruction of the Ring. Carol responds: Forgive me, but that's not a fair comparison. Gollum did have a few impulses toward goodness or loyalty toward Frodo but was too damaged by the Ring itself and by centuries of suffering, hatred of everything including himself, and abuse by Sauron's servants to have a true and complete change of heart. In the end, he wanted the Ring for himself (as did Frodo, but only after a protracted struggle to get it to Mount Doom to destroy it). Gollum's final, selfish triumph led both to his death and to the destruction of the Ring (and to the maimed Frodo's return to himself, as far as that could be achieved). The Slytherin heroes, Regulus and Snape, are very different in that both acted selflessly, Regulus sacrificing himself for a House-Elf and the destruction of a Horcrux; Snape risking his life repeatedly and finally losing it, but not before he delivered a crucial message without which Harry could not have won the battle. Neither remained on the side of evil, or on his own side. (Every character in the books, from Harry and Dumbledore to Narcissa and Lucius to Bellatrix and Voldemort to Wormtail to James and Lily to Lupin and Tonks to Ron and Hermione to the House-Elves to Xenophilius Lovegood to the heroic and wholly admirable Neville acts for personal reasons. The Slytherins are no different from the Gryffindors in that respect.) And Slughorn was never on the side of the Death Eaters and Voldemort. He overcame the Slytherin tendency (identified by Phineas Nigellus and personified by Pansy) of putting himself. If you want to characterize someone as a Gollum who set aside evil to help in the victory of good without really caring about principle or right or wrong or anything except personal concerns, I'll grant you Narcissa. But even she acted out of love, as Gollum assuredly did not. Carol, noting that Hermione's apparent devotion to principle (SPEW, etc.) follows her discovery that she herself belongs to a sometimes reviled minority group From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 17:01:56 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:01:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40711141842q3ad99c3fp3d21b901ba538954@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40711150901g4dbba4f3ya875b2aa7346edf2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179110 > > >>Kemper earlier: > > I see Lily more as Mother Mary in this scene. It is what I imagine > > she would say to her son as he carried his cross. (I'm not trying > > to equate a Harry is Jesus thing) > > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, ick, really? She was there, wasn't she? In the end? And I > don't recall her cheering Jesus on. Kemper now: I don't read Lily's statement or gestures (the icky hair flip) as cheering on Harry to his death. Rather, I see it (the statement not the gesture) as emotional support much like Mary's presence is emotional support to Jesus. I believe that Lily wants her son to live hence her sacrifice that Halloween night. I also believe that Mary wanted her son to live otherwise why hide/run from Herod? On a side thought... Maybe Mary is more like Snape, thinking she brought Jesus in this world to live as Snape thought he was protecting Harry so that he, Harry, might live. Poor Snape, big asp attacked instead of assumed. > > > >>Kemper earlier: > > > Lily and Mary don't send their son off to die, their sons have > > chosen this. > > Betsy Hp: > Right. Just as Draco chose to serve Voldemort, making Bellatrix the > better mother-figure in that scene. Just as suicide bombers have > chosen to become martyrs. So their proud mothers are also good > mothers per the series I suppose. Kemper now: Draco is different. Draco and martyr are sent out to kill. Draco recognizes his error and wants out. He realizes his mom is right. Narcissa as Mother knows best. > > >>Kemper earlier: > > > Harry dieing to save others is different than Draco dieing to serve > > Voldemort. > > Betsy Hp: > Well, yes, there's definitely a better cult of personality in these > books. Dying for Dumbledore is much better than dying for Voldemort. > Kemper Now: Harry doesn't die /for/ Dumbledore. Harry dies for Hogwarts sans Slytherin Kemper From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 15 17:39:54 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:39:54 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / LOTR spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol: > In > the > unlikely > event > that > you've > never > read > LOTR > or > seen > the > film, > please > skip > this > post. > > Magpie wrote: > > > I love that line, because it's perfectly well chosen (and of course > > I don't think he's referring to non-existant students that un- write > > the ideas given in the text over and over). They *played* their > > part. As a house they didn't *do* their part. The ones who did their > > part at all are special cases, and even they also supported > > Voldemort's rise before having personal reasons to act against him. > > Despite themselves, Slytherins were instrumental in the victory. > > Just as Gollum had a part to play in the destruction of the Ring. > > Carol responds: > Forgive me, but that's not a fair comparison. Gollum did have a few > impulses toward goodness or loyalty toward Frodo but was too damaged > by the Ring itself and by centuries of suffering, hatred of everything > including himself, and abuse by Sauron's servants to have a true and > complete change of heart. In the end, he wanted the Ring for himself > (as did Frodo, but only after a protracted struggle to get it to Mount > Doom to destroy it). Gollum's final, selfish triumph led both to his > death and to the destruction of the Ring (and to the maimed Frodo's > return to himself, as far as that could be achieved). > > The Slytherin heroes, Regulus and Snape, are very different in that > both acted selflessly, Regulus sacrificing himself for a House-Elf and > the destruction of a Horcrux; Snape risking his life repeatedly and > finally losing it, but not before he delivered a crucial message > without which Harry could not have won the battle. Magpie: I'm not characterizing either of them as Gollum. I said there is a diffference between playing a part and doing your part, and Slytherin as a house, imo, does not do its part in fighting for the school the way the others do. Even Snape and Regulus joined up to help Voldemort at first. But then Voldemort did exactly the wrong thing to a Slytherin. He asked them to choose him and his ideals over the people they loved, and that wasn't going to happen. That set up a grudge in them to take Voldemort down. The book never says Slytherin is worthless, exactly, but they're not equal to the other houses. Carol: Neither remained on > the side of evil, or on his own side. (Every character in the books, > from Harry and Dumbledore to Narcissa and Lucius to Bellatrix and > Voldemort to Wormtail to James and Lily to Lupin and Tonks to Ron and > Hermione to the House-Elves to Xenophilius Lovegood to the heroic and > wholly admirable Neville acts for personal reasons. The Slytherins are > no different from the Gryffindors in that respect.) And Slughorn was > never on the side of the Death Eaters and Voldemort. He overcame the > Slytherin tendency (identified by Phineas Nigellus and personified by > Pansy) of putting himself. Magpie: We all do everything for personal reasons if you dig deeply enough. Nothing is truly altruistic. It's certainly true that the Gryffs have good personal reasons for going fighting Voldemort, but that doesn't make them all the same as the Slytherins imo. Especially not in the eyes of the book. Neville might be sworn to hate Voldemort because of his parents but even without that he would not have joined him. These characters don't need to get points for doing something right because they start out doing things right and wanting to be good. And they remain generally good people (in the eyes of somebody like Harry). Carol: > > If you want to characterize someone as a Gollum who set aside evil to > help in the victory of good without really caring about principle or > right or wrong or anything except personal concerns, I'll grant you > Narcissa. But even she acted out of love, as Gollum assuredly did not. Magpie: I don't want to characterize one person as Gollum, actually. I don't think he has a parallel in this universe. But if there is a Gollum house of Hogwarts it's obviously Slytherin, full of slinkers and stinkers. Even if some of them overcome that enough to be more associated with Gryffindor. Carol: Carol, none too sure that jealousy is really a sign of true love but seeing it as far more apparent in JKR's characters of both sexes than any threat to boys or men from female sexuality (the only threat being to *girls* who might be thought of as "scarlet women" if they behave like Lavender Brown) Magpie: I find the depiction of sex quite weird in the Potterverse. We get the stairs to the girl's dorm, which seems a nod to the obvious fact that boys are going to be trying to get into the girl's beds. And yet based on what we see of our male heroes it's completely unnecessary and in fact ought to be the other staircase. Sexually the boys are all far more passive while the girls scheme, ogle and attack. It's girls who buy love potions throughout the books...because apparently 16 year old boys would never want a drug that would make a girl eager to throw herself at him. Myrtle, Hepzibah, Romilda and Merope are all predatory. Ginny sets her sights on Harry at 10 and never stops. Hermione gets frustrated when Ron doesn't step up and go after her the way he should. But then there's also the old-fashioned undercurrent of girls being "scarlet women"--Hermione for her non-affair with Harry, Ginny's brothers getting worried when she sees all of 2 boys in a year, and now Lavender for snogging Ron. Oh, and Cho pretty much drags Harry throughout their entire aborted affair and apparently Ginny still feels the need to defend Harry against her (and Fleur's little sister) a year later. It's nice of JKR to not have any of her girls pregnant at all (who would want the book going there, after all?) but I don't know what kind of lesson any girl would get if she were trying to learn about sex from HP. (I was a little put off by her interview where she seemed to suggest that Ron needed to use Lavender to be "worthy" of Hermione since she had snogged Viktor--but then, I thought Ron/Lavender could have been a believable, real teenaged relationship in real life.) It seems like the boys are the ones who spend all their time trying to avoid man-traps from their female classmates. Meanwhile the best Harry can do is sometimes think a girl has pretty hair and be sad at the idea of Ginny perhaps wedding another man other than him. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 18:33:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:33:32 -0000 Subject: Female sexuality in HP (Was: Slytherin as villains / LOTR spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179112 Magpie wrote: > I find the depiction of sex quite weird in the Potterverse. We get the stairs to the girl's dorm, which seems a nod to the obvious fact that boys are going to be trying to get into the girl's beds. Carol responds: You're referring to the slide that prevents a boy from climbing those stairs, right? We do get Hermione's comment about the old-fashioned attitude of the Founders (trusting girls more than boys) in that regard. But it would be inconvenient for the plot if Hermione couldn't enter the boys' dormroom, and I suppose we need an explanation (other than that Harry and Ron never thought of it) why they're never in hers. (Also, Ginny has to get in Harry's room to steal back the diary in Cos.) Magpie: > And yet based on what we see of our male heroes it's completely > unnecessary and in fact ought to be the other staircase. Sexually > the boys are all far more passive while the girls scheme, ogle and > attack. It's girls who buy love potions throughout the > books...because apparently 16 year old boys would never want a drug > that would make a girl eager to throw herself at him. Myrtle, > Hepzibah, Romilda and Merope are all predatory. Ginny sets her > sights on Harry at 10 and never stops. Hermione gets frustrated when > Ron doesn't step up and go after her the way he should. But then > there's also the old-fashioned undercurrent of girls being "scarlet > women"--Hermione for her non-affair with Harry, Ginny's brothers > getting worried when she sees all of 2 boys in a year, and now > Lavender for snogging Ron. Oh, and Cho pretty much drags Harry > throughout their entire aborted affair and apparently Ginny still > feels the need to defend Harry against her (and Fleur's little > sister) a year later. Carol responds: And yet there's an element of realism here, isn't there? Girls mature sexually earlier than boys in RL. I don't find it at all surprising, for example, that both Harry and Ron are clueless about Cho's behavior in OoP or that Ron takes several years longer than Hermione to figure out that he's attracted to her (he knows that he likes her as a friend, but he doesn't recognize his own jealousy or sexual attraction). Why? Could it be, in part, because girls in the WW, like girls in the RL, are programmed to look for *romance* whereas, for boys, a relationship with a girl is a kind of sexual experimentation that, until OoP for Harry and HBP for Ron, the boys aren't really ready for? Girls (other than Hermione and perhaps Ginny) wear lipstick and exhibit other signs of wanting to be attractive to boys. Parvati knows how to dance and has to "steer" Harry, who has no clue what to do with his feet. Asking a girl out probably *is* a big deal for a boy of fourteen who's still emotionally a child in many respects, just getting used to his new voice and body and unable to understand how girls think (the ones who are intent on getting boys to notice them, that is, or the ones who want boys to be aware of their *feelings*, like Cho in OoP and Lavender in HBP). Typical boys of fourteen or even fifteen would rather think about sports, in this case, Quidditch, than whether they're attractive to girls. OTOH, "snogging" has its attractions, but it's a whole lot easier if the girl does the pursuing. Maybe Hogwarts is a bit too much like the world of Jane Austen, in which finding a husband is almost a duty (and the mother's job if the daughter isn't doing her part). Jane Austen's heroines really have no other options. Or maybe they resemble girls of the 1950s, some (by no means all) of whom went to college to obtain their MRS degree. (The WW has no colleges; the girls have to find and attract their future husband at Hogwarts since the field will be considerably narrowed by the time they leave school if they can only find future husbands in their own career field. At any rate, the girls who don't marry Muggles or relatives seem to find their husbands at Hogwarts, the Weasleys, the Potters, the Lestranges, and the Malfoys being examples.) Real girls think about their hair, their clothes, their makeup, their nails, their accessories. (I was an exception, as is Hermione except on Yule Ball night, but surely Parvati and Lavender and Cho resemble typical teenage girls in some ways? If it weren't for the requirement to wear school uniforms, we'd probably hear them discussing the latest fashions.) Boys *might* worry about their hair or complexion or uncool clothes, but it doesn't take up the same proportion of their time as it does for girls. And boys in general (not all boys, of course) are more interested in sports than girls are. (Maybe that's why Ginny is so "wonderful"; she plays and talks about Quidditch, and unlike Cho (also a Quidditch player), she doesn't let her emotions get in the way of her performance. At any rate, I don't think what we see in HP is so much girls as sexual predators (they're not out to get the boys to have sex with them). It's girls wanting boys to *like* or "love" them. Having a boyfriend is a status symbol for a girl. It's also, for Hogwarts girls (including Ginny with Harry, the only boy she *really* wants), a prelude to marriage. Carol, who thinks that girls really are more interested than boys in boy/girl relationships and remembers turning up her nose at "boy-crazy" girls as early as fifth grade (age ten to eleven) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 18:58:57 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:58:57 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179113 > >>lizzyben: > > And Lord knows JKR doesn't miss an opportunity to tell us how much > the Slytherins suck. If some traitor Slytherins were fighting w/the > DE, I think that would've been mentioned in the text. Betsy Hp: Hah! Okay, *this* is a reason I can buy for deciding Slytherins didn't actually *fight* for Voldemort. I suppose they just gave him the Slytherin version of a thumbs up and then scampered off to hide under their beds (at their homes, not Hogwarts, obviously). More than likely pushing little firsties out of their way. > >>lizzyben: > Finally, actually fighting for a cause (however misguided) would > show *courage*. Courage is a Gryffindor virtue, & in JKR's eyes, > the ultimate virtue. In the Great Hall, all the Houses were judged > on their willingness to fight: the majority of Gryffindors stayed > to fight, while all the Slytherins turned tail & ran (after Pansy > tried to sell out Harry Potter). The message there is that > Slytherins are *cowards*, while Gryffindors are courageous. It > would mess with that message if some Slytherin students came back > to fight in the battle. > Betsy Hp: Yes, that makes sense. Also, JKR was positioning the house to remain at Hogwarts (for some odd reason). If all of Slytherin came haring over the ramparts, that Hogwarts did *not* forever remove them from the school would make no sense. Instead Slytherin remains bad, but tolerable. Which gives our heroes a group to be tolerant of, but also a group to smack around when the mood so moves them. > >>lizzyben: > > McGonegal's reaction was over-the-top, violent, paranoid and > *correct*. Because Slytherins are really just worthless people who > would turn Hogwarts over to the bad guys. I don't know why it was > so important for JKR to beat us over the head with this particular > message. It just seemed so over-the-top in DH. Yes, Slytherins > suck, I get it! Betsy Hp: I share your confusion, quite frankly. What was the point of Slytherin? They don't teach Harry anything: he recognized their innate badness quite instinctively. I guess they gave him an opportunity to forgive someone, but I'm not sure I ever really saw him forgive. He just kind of... got over them (as I believe Magpie has put it). So it's not like Harry's dealings with Slytherin helped him grow as a character. I guess they provided some bad guys (a team to boo and hiss at during quidditch season, for example) but they were pretty lame in that role, too. And I'm afraid I rather miss the point of Voldemort being from that house and wanting just that house in Hogwarts. Balance maybe? But then, the story doesn't end with any kind of equality. So yeah, they confuse me. Betsy Hp From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 15 19:44:19 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:44:19 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179114 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Kemper wrote: > > > > > > I see Lily more as Mother Mary in this scene. It is what I > imagine she would say to her son as he carried his cross. (I'm not > trying to equate a Harry is Jesus thing) Lily and Mary don't send > their son off to die, their sons have chosen this. > > > > Katie S.: > > > I thought the Harry as a literary parallel to Jesus was painfully > obvious, dying selflessly to save the world, the love of the world > bringing him back to life, his father (Dumbledore) sacrificing him to > save the world, etc. > > > > Geoff: > > Speaking personally as a Christian, I have always held that Harry is > not a Christ figure. Although he is not specifically written as a > believer, like a practising Christian can aim at being Christ-like > which isn't the same thing. > > > > Again, canon is quite explicit in that Harry does not die. > > > Carol responds: > But a Christ figure is not Christ, nor does he have to die. He (or > she) is a flawed human being who nevertheless shares traits in common > with Christ, in this case, the willingness to sacrifice himself to > save others. That he does not actually die (though he could have > chosen to remain where he was and "go on" to the afterlife) is > immaterial. Geoff: I think the problem here is that we are using labels differently for what we are describing. To me, a Christ "figure" is someone who is directly representing Christ in a story situation or similar scenario. No human can be, because, as you say, we are flawed beings whereas Jesus is God in human form so Harry, for example, in my terminology, cannot be a Christ figure. As an aside, we can have a Christ figure in a story as in the Narnia books where Aslan is immortal and is the "son of the great Emperor -beyond-the-sea" and hence has tohe power to die to save someone. Harry and all the others can be Christ "like" because that is what Christians are enjoined to be... "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus" as Paul puts it in the letter to the Phillipians. And, although we know nothing about the faith (or lack of it) which Harry, Ron and the others hold, we see that they do lean in the direction of doing good, like all of us although we often fail to achieve our goals in that direction. Referring back to your earlier comment that "he does not actually die... is immaterial" seems to miss the point that it was a main plank in Katie S.'s post, hence my answering it. From vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 15 20:01:29 2007 From: vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk (vivida89) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:01:29 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179115 This is my first post, so please excuse me if I did anything wrong. However after reading DH two times, there's an urgent question that doesn't leave me alone. Thus would be the role of Sirius Black in the last book. I always saw Sirius Black as my favorite character (along with Remus Lupin) and at first I used to idolize him, saying he had perfectly well reasons for what he did and for how he behaved, but after thinking a HUGE LOT, I came to the conclusion he's not perfect - and this should be so, because no one *can* be perfect. Anyway, I do have the opinion that JKR fairly dislikes Sirius, or at least doesn't think too much of him. Sure, in one of her interviews she does state she LIKES him, but that he's not perfect. No problem there, it's okay. But just why this in DH -- I had the impression she was sort of devaluating him. She keeps saying over and over, Sirius is NOT perfect, he has flaws. We got that. I think everyone knows this. And since PoA I assume everyone gets the point that he's gone slightly mad in Azkaban. He's reckless, impulsive, an utter git composed to people he doesn't care about, haughty,... He actually does have some traits I really dislike and yet he's my favorite character. But since the "Haunting of Devaluation of SB" goes on, I start to doubt his character. I don't know if I make an overdone fuss of it, but it really bothers me. In DH, page 418, last sentences it's said: "...He seemed to set on the course to become just as reckless a godfather to Teddy Lupin as Sirius Black had been to him." Page 590, somewhere a bit above the middle: "Bellatrix laughed, the same the same exhilarated laugh her cousin Sirius had given as he toppled backwards through the veil..." As to quote number one, I hope she only wanted to emphazise the fact that Sirius really was NO good godfather for Harry. He acted a bit off-hand and slightly careless, for example in OotP when he told Harry he'd thougt he was more like James. This is but only because Sirius has gone a bit mad in Azkaban and he somehow switches the fronts, he's confused about it. No thing there. Quote number two really got me. My mouth stands open every time I read it, my eyes narrow -- how can she? How can JKR compare Sirius with someone he dislikes? How can she compare his death to the death of the one woman he was actually killed by? And moreover, it seems like JKR wants to stress the fact that Sirius was a Black in the end, if not as black literally as the other family members but he still was. And I think he doesn't deserve this, in no way. Sirius was haughty and off-balanced, it's okay, we know! Why does she have to do this to his memory, when he fell so ungraciously? I just don't see behind this. Maybe I'm being a bit childish about this fact, but it really really bothers me. In the chapter "The Forest Again", Sirius reappears. We can see that along with James, Lily and Lupin he is an important person to Harry. I nearly cried because of this scene, it was so utterly beautiful. I thought JKR stopped, well, "taunting" (exxagerated, sorry there!) SB indirectly but when we got to the epilogue... I was like "erm okay"? Sirius wasn't mentioned often in that book and I completely understand this, because he's no minor character. But even WHEN she does mention him it's nearly everything connected with bad things. Okay, about the epilogue; there were James jr, Lily jr, even Albus SEVERUS (with whom Harry didn't have as much to do as with Sirius) but Sirius isn't ever mentioned once. I still hope the second name of James jr was James Sirius. I really do hope because it seems unfair to me that Sirius should just be forgotten. In contrary to that Harry names one of his children after Snape it's just plain unfair that Sirius apparently doesn't get a role of it. Am I the only one seeing this? The only one having a problem with it? vivida89 From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 21:05:00 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:05:00 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179116 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > > Yes, and it's one of full attack mode. When we're supposed to start > > thinking of her as a sexual person, we never see her that she's not > > attacking (usually physically, sometimes verbally) someone. Because > > I think, for JKR, that's what female sensuality is: an attack. And > > something that weakens men. > > > > JKR needed Harry to have a girl he could make babies with for the > > epilogue, so she needed to invent Ginny. And I do find it > > fascinating that she made Ginny as much like Harry as possible > > (though far more aggressive, because female). But then as soon as it > > was established that Ginny and Harry would willingly breed, Ginny is > > whisked away. Because in the end, she'd only weaken Harry. > > *Especially* if they had sex. (Though Ginny is hyper-alert to > > protecting Harry against other aggressive females. Hence her making > > sure Cho doesn't lead Harry to the Ravenclaw dorms.) > > Carol responds: > I agree on two points: that JKR doesn't depict romance well and that > Ginny is, well, aggressive and not at all the wonderful character JKR > sees her as being. (Soory, Ginny fans, but the only time I liked her > is when she stood up to Draco early in CoS. Well, that and telling > Harry what it's like to be possessed. He was acting like an idiot and > he should have asked an authority on the subject.) > > However, it's Ginny, not Harry, who's being protected in DH, not from > sex but from danger, as Harry makes clear at the end of HBP. And she's > still being protected in DH by her mother because she's underage. Ron, > too, is protecting her--not explicitly from sex, although she's the > one who would get pregnant if they didn't use Contraceptio, or > whatever the contraceptive spell is, but from a broken heart. Montavilla47: I still don't get how breaking up with Ginny was supposed to protect her. I guess it would keep her from potentially becoming Tonks with a big belly and no hubby around, since Harry *had* to go Horcrux hunting. But it seemed ridiculous to me that Harry and Ginny spent weeks as the main topic of discussion in the rumor circles of Hogwarts and then he breaks up with her two minutes before everyone leaves for the trains and *no one* mentions to Voldemort that Harry Potter's girlfriend is running around, just waiting to be used as bait? Or heck, the Ministry for that matter. They're trying to catch Harry Potter, too, right? Why not bring in Ginny and force Harry to come after her? Montavilla47 From kspilman at hotmail.com Thu Nov 15 21:20:47 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:20:47 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: <700201d40711150901g4dbba4f3ya875b2aa7346edf2@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40711141842q3ad99c3fp3d21b901ba538954@mail.gmail.com> <700201d40711150901g4dbba4f3ya875b2aa7346edf2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179117 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com From: iam.kemper at gmail.com Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:01:56 -0800 Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... > > >>Kemper earlier: > > I see Lily more as Mother Mary in this scene. It is what I imagine > > she would say to her son as he carried his cross. (I'm not trying > > to equate a Harry is Jesus thing) > > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, ick, really? She was there, wasn't she? In the end? And I > don't recall her cheering Jesus on. Katie S.:Mary Magdelene (not sure on spelling) was there, Mary, Jesus's mother, I do not believe, was there. Kemper now: I don't read Lily's statement or gestures (the icky hair flip) as cheering on Harry to his death. Rather, I see it (the statement not the gesture) as emotional support much like Mary's presence is emotional support to Jesus. I believe that Lily wants her son to live hence her sacrifice that Halloween night. I also believe that Mary wanted her son to live otherwise why hide/run from Herod? On a side thought... Maybe Mary is more like Snape, thinking she brought Jesus in this world to live as Snape thought he was protecting Harry so that he, Harry, might live. Poor Snape, big asp attacked instead of assumed. > > > >>Kemper earlier: > > > Lily and Mary don't send their son off to die, their sons have > > chosen this. > > Betsy Hp: > Right. Just as Draco chose to serve Voldemort, making Bellatrix the > better mother-figure in that scene. Just as suicide bombers have > chosen to become martyrs. So their proud mothers are also good > mothers per the series I suppose. Kemper now: Draco is different. Draco and martyr are sent out to kill. Draco recognizes his error and wants out. He realizes his mom is right. Narcissa as Mother knows best. Katie S.:At that point in the story, Draco had not realized his error yet. Narcissa even laments that he is excited about the assignment, and says of course he is, he is a dumb, young kid who has no idea what he has gotten himself into. > > >>Kemper earlier: > > > Harry dieing to save others is different than Draco dieing to serve > > Voldemort. > > Betsy Hp: > Well, yes, there's definitely a better cult of personality in these > books. Dying for Dumbledore is much better than dying for Voldemort. > Kemper Now: Harry doesn't die /for/ Dumbledore. Harry dies for Hogwarts sans Slytherin Kemper Katie S.:I don't think Harry is dying for Hogwarts so much as the people he loves: Ginny, Ron, Hermione, the rest of the Weasley clan... . K _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kspilman at hotmail.com Thu Nov 15 21:48:12 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:48:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179118 Vivida89: Page 590, somewhere a bit above the middle: "Bellatrix laughed, the same the same exhilarated laugh her cousin Sirius had given as he toppled backwards through the veil..." Quote number two really got me. My mouth stands open every time I read it, my eyes narrow -- how can she? How can JKR compare Sirius with someone he dislikes? How can she compare his death to the death of the one woman he was actually killed by? And moreover, it seems like JKR wants to stress the fact that Sirius was a Black in the end, if not as black literally as the other family members but he still was. And I think he doesn't deserve this, in no way. Sirius was haughty and off-balanced, it's okay, we know! Why does she have to do this to his memory, when he fell so ungraciously? I just don't see behind this. Maybe I'm being a bit childish about this fact, but it really really bothers me. Katie S.:I thought this laughter was to show the family resemblance, to show some foreshadowing to the impending event, and to show that LV and his followers were not truly "evil," they were just different. It is no coincidence that there are so many foils in the series, and Bellatrix and Sirius both died in a rush of overconfidence, something both sides are guilty of. There is no black and white, good and evil, Gryffindor and Slytherin, there are only flawed people, which we all are. _________________________________________________________________ Boo!?Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 22:00:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:00:17 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179119 > Betsy Hp: > Hah! Okay, *this* is a reason I can buy for deciding Slytherins didn't actually *fight* for Voldemort. I suppose they just gave him the Slytherin version of a thumbs up and then scampered off to hide under their beds (at their homes, not Hogwarts, obviously). More than likely pushing little firsties out of their way. Carol responds: Are you picturing a whole horde of Slytherins leaving the Hog's Head to fight in the battle? Why would they do that, when the whole point of evacuating everybody to the Hog's Head (including underage students from all houses, none of whom are being labeled as cowards) was to allow them to go to safety? If they wanted to go home to their beds (and they probably did), it would be counterproductive to go onto the battlefield, which would mean leaving the Hog's Head and going all the way to the gates and from there to the school--a long walk, as we know from all the Hogsmeade visits. It would be much easier and much more sensible just to Apparate home from the Hog's Head like the students from the other Houses. (Exactly what arrangements were made for underage students, I don't know. I imagine they side-Apparated with older students considerate enough to help them or with Slughorn.) Anyway, if your intention is to stay safe, the stupidest thing to do after being evacuated to safety is to return to the battlefield. Betsy Hp: > Also, JKR was positioning the house to remain at Hogwarts (for some odd reason). If all of Slytherin came haring over the ramparts, that Hogwarts did *not* forever remove them from the school would make no sense. Instead Slytherin remains bad, but tolerable. Which gives our heroes a group to be tolerant of, but also a group to smack around when the mood so moves them. Carol: JKR was *not* "stationing the house to remain at Hogwarts." They were supposed to follow Filch to the RoR and go from there along the passage to the Hog's Head, where Aberforth was waiting. Aberforth does not return to Hogwarts until every last student has left his pub, not to return to Hogwarts, but to go home, including the children of Death Eaters he says were "sent to safety" (DH Am. ed. 622). (Potioncat, does this mean that Theo Nott got sent home, along with all the other Slytherins except Draco and Co.? I think it does.) Obviously, no Slytherin students came "haring over the ramparts." They evacuated to safety and stayed there, just like the majority of students from the other three Houses, not one of whom (with the possible exception of the less-than-brave Zacharias Smith) is being referred to as "bad." They do what McGonagall orders them to do, and you're condemning them for it? Why? It would have been sheer idiocy to return to fight for either side once they'd been evacuated. The whole *point* was to get to safety. And that means getting *out* of Hogwarts, taking the invisible passageway to the Hog's Head, where Voldemort could not possibly have seen them. Carol, who thought she was done with this subject but could not ignore such a glaring error From vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 15 20:36:20 2007 From: vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk (vivida89) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:36:20 -0000 Subject: Comparisons & contrasts re: DD, Snape and LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179120 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > The DH revelations prove (to me anyway) that these two > characters were always more different than similar. Riddle > was extremely self-sufficient emotionally, incapable of love > and uninterested in receiving it, by the time we meet him > pre-Hogwarts. Little Snape longed for a friend and finally > found one in Lily. Voldemort saw power as the only purpose > to have, power over others, and over death. Snape in school > may have been attracted by the Death Eaters becaue of the > power he thought it would give him, but to him, it seems to > me, it was a tool - a way to belong somewhere, to be able to > protect himself, and to impress others. I agree with you completely! There may be main similarities in the mentioned characters and thus also the incidents in their pasts, but what is the excruciating point in differentiating this characters is that VD, also not as his former self Tom Riddle, does not understand the mechanics of love. You could compare the characters Dumbledore-Snape-Riddle in the first observation of their pasts and say they were all fairly interested in the Dark Arts, which is no lie. The common thing of Dumledore and Snape now is their "turn", the change they go through and become "good", though Snape is not entirely good (for he fought for his own reasons). Dumbledore and Snape both needed a really cruel event (DD-- death of Ariana, Snape-- Death of Lily) to see the point of their actions and to therewith change. The thing is: Tom Riddle is in no way good. He is the absolute, finite bad guy. He does not show any remorse. He is completely oblivious of what he does. He never understands there is such a thing as love is. He did not experience love, e.g. from his parents and/or friends or girl/boyfriends, no, he was always alone and he never even craved for something like this. He is a creature completely without feelings -- only the longing to have power, to be mighty above all. vivida89 From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 22:29:47 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:29:47 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40711141842q3ad99c3fp3d21b901ba538954@mail.gmail.com> <700201d40711150901g4dbba4f3ya875b2aa7346edf2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40711151429k2f0e6c6cv9100e056f9f9108f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179121 > > Betsy Hp: > > Ooh, ick, really? She was there, wasn't she? In the end? And I > > don't recall her cheering Jesus on. > Katie S.:Mary Magdelene (not sure on spelling) was there, Mary, Jesus's > mother, I do not believe, was there. Kemper now James and Joses are referred to as brothers of Jesus. Their mother, Mary, was present with Mary Magdalene. Most if not all Christians believe that Jesus was an immaculate conception of a virgin but don't believe that she remained remained chaste after bearing Jesus. > Kemper earlier: > Draco is different. Draco and martyr are sent out to kill. Draco > recognizes his error and wants out. He realizes his mom is right. > Narcissa as Mother knows best. > Katie S.:At that point in the story, Draco had not realized his error yet. > Narcissa even laments that he is excited about the assignment, and says of > course he is, he is a dumb, young kid who has no idea what he has gotten > himself into. Kemper now: He knows his error watching the Muggle Studies hover, moan, plead and die. He knows his error at the top of the tower. He probably knows it during his cry sessions with Myrtle. > Kemper earlier: > Harry doesn't die /for/ Dumbledore. Harry dies for Hogwarts sans > Slytherin > Katie S.:I don't think Harry is dying for Hogwarts so much as the people he > loves: Ginny, Ron, Hermione, the rest of the Weasley clan... Kemper now: If that were so, his love sacrifice wouldn't have effected anyone not Hermione or the W's that Voldemort was throwing spells at. Kemper, grateful for Katie's responses but imploring her to slash and snip with glee the replies from me and others as she responds :) From kspilman at hotmail.com Thu Nov 15 22:55:05 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:55:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: <700201d40711151429k2f0e6c6cv9100e056f9f9108f@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40711141842q3ad99c3fp3d21b901ba538954@mail.gmail.com> <700201d40711150901g4dbba4f3ya875b2aa7346edf2@mail.gmail.com> <700201d40711151429k2f0e6c6cv9100e056f9f9108f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179122 Kemper earlier: James and Joses are referred to as brothers of Jesus. Their mother, Mary, was present with Mary Magdalene. Most if not all Christians believe that Jesus was an immaculate conception of a virgin but don't believe that she remained remained chaste after bearing Jesus.Katie S. now:You seem to know better than I, I defer to you on this one. > Kemper earlier: > Draco is different. Draco and martyr are sent out to kill. Draco > recognizes his error and wants out. He realizes his mom is right. > Narcissa as Mother knows best. > Katie S.:At that point in the story, Draco had not realized his error yet. > Narcissa even laments that he is excited about the assignment, and says of > course he is, he is a dumb, young kid who has no idea what he has gotten > himself into. Kemper now: He knows his error watching the Muggle Studies hover, moan, plead and die. He knows his error at the top of the tower. He probably knows it during his cry sessions with Myrtle.Katie S. now: But at the time Narcissa is begging for Draco's life and Bella is insisting it would be an honor to die for the Dark Lord, at the beginning of HBP, Draco has not seen his error, that comes at the end of HBP. > Kemper earlier: > Harry doesn't die /for/ Dumbledore. Harry dies for Hogwarts sans > Slytherin > Katie S.:I don't think Harry is dying for Hogwarts so much as the people he > loves: Ginny, Ron, Hermione, the rest of the Weasley clan... Kemper now: If that were so, his love sacrifice wouldn't have effected anyone not Hermione or the W's that Voldemort was throwing spells at. Katie S. now:Earlier I was implying that DD was sacrificing his son much in the same way God sacrificed his son. However,if Harry had made his sacrifice for Hogwarts the building would not have been able to be damaged. It could be argued, and I would agree, that he died for everyone in Hogwarts, but I would not say sans Slytherin because when Slughorn is dueling Voldy, no curses hit him.Kemper earlier: "Kemper, grateful for Katie's responses but imploring her to slash and snip with glee the replies from me and others as she responds :)"Katie S. now: Katie S., Never sure where to snip and slash at :) _________________________________________________________________ Boo!?Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 23:30:38 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:30:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: <700201d40711151429k2f0e6c6cv9100e056f9f9108f@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40711141842q3ad99c3fp3d21b901ba538954@mail.gmail.com> <700201d40711150901g4dbba4f3ya875b2aa7346edf2@mail.gmail.com> <700201d40711151429k2f0e6c6cv9100e056f9f9108f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40711151530u35d015e9g40e16414ac59336@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179123 > > Kemper now > James and Joses are referred to as brothers of Jesus. Their mother, > Mary, was present with Mary Magdalene. > Most if not all Christians believe that Jesus was an immaculate > conception of a virgin but don't believe that she remained remained > chaste after bearing Jesus. > montims: When I lived in Tuscany, all the Italians (Catholics) I spoke to about this assured me Mary was intact until the day she died - the "brothers" were in fact cousins, mistranslated in the English. Otherwise she would not have been assumed into heaven directly on August 15th (a holiday in Italy). It is of no relevance to me, other than that I used to stop Italian children frequently for saying "Christians do/believe such and such..." when what they meant was Catholics do/believe that, and it is only fair to reverse the process... And looking on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary), I find: According to Roman Catholic doctrine and the traditions of the Catholic Church , the Blessed Virgin Mary (Mary, the mother of Jesus ) "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."[1]This means that Mary was transported into Heaven with her body and soul united. The feast day recognizing Mary's passage into Heaven is celebrated as *The Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary* by Roman Catholics. This doctrine was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950 in his Apostolic Constitution *Munificentissimus Deus *. In those denominations that observe it, the Assumption is commonly celebrated on August 15 . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cottell at dublin.ie Thu Nov 15 23:57:20 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:57:20 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: <700201d40711151429k2f0e6c6cv9100e056f9f9108f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > Most if not all Christians believe that Jesus was an immaculate > conception of a virgin They don't. They believe in the virgin birth. The immaculate conception is a specifically Roman Catholic belief, which concerns the conception, not of Jesus, but of his mother. It is not shared by Protestant or Eastern Orthodox traditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception The two are frequently confused. Mus From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 01:29:50 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:29:50 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179125 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Hah! Okay, *this* is a reason I can buy for deciding Slytherins > > didn't actually *fight* for Voldemort. I suppose they just gave > > him the Slytherin version of a thumbs up and then scampered off > > to hide under their beds (at their homes, not Hogwarts, > > obviously). More than likely pushing little firsties out of > > their way. > >>Carol responds: > Are you picturing a whole horde of Slytherins leaving the Hog's Head > to fight in the battle? Betsy Hp: I picture very little about this book. The logistical nightmares involved in the effort make my head hurt. And lizzyben has convinced me that no Slytherin students took part in the fighting (except for that initial effort by Crabbe et al). I remain, however, convinced that Voldemort got something he saw as a support vote from the current students of his house. Hence his remark to Lucius. > >>Carol: > Why would they do that, when the whole point of evacuating > everybody to the Hog's Head (including underage students from all > houses, none of whom are being labeled as cowards)... Betsy Hp: Zach Smith was definitely labeled a coward. And I'd say the pecking order of bravery was made quite clear by JKR as the various students left the battle, with Slytherin at the very, very bottom. > >>Carol: > ...was to allow them to go to safety? Betsy Hp: For Slytherin it was getting the bad house out of their hair. McGonagall was quite clear about that, IMO. > >>Carol: > > It would be much easier and much more sensible just to Apparate > home from the Hog's Head like the students from the other Houses. > Betsy Hp: About as much sense as the Trio taking two months to tune into a radio station. I'm not fussed about logistics at all, since the author obviously doesn't care. Somehow, for some reason, and in some way, enough Slytherins showed their support in such a way that Voldemort remarked on it. Heck, they may have just yelled, "Yay, Voldemort" before apparating home (leaving the little firsties shivering in the cold). > >>Betsy Hp: > > Also, JKR was positioning the house to remain > > at Hogwarts (for some odd reason). If all of Slytherin came haring > > over the ramparts, that Hogwarts did *not* forever remove them > > from the school would make no sense. Instead Slytherin remains > > bad, but tolerable. Which gives our heroes a group to be tolerant > > of, but also a group to smack around when the mood so moves them. > >>Carol: > JKR was *not* "stationing the house to remain at Hogwarts." They > were supposed to follow Filch to the RoR and go from there along the > passage to the Hog's Head, where Aberforth was waiting. > Betsy Hp: Oh, sorry, I was unclear. I meant once the battle was over and everything went back to normal (next year or whatever) there was still a Slytherin house at the school rather than just three houses or a brand new "Slughorn" house or something. So while JKR had Slytherin House be as bad as possible (bigots! horrible, horrible bigots! also cowards! and damn girly with their frilly pink!), she couldn't let them be *too* bad or it'd be beyond odd that the House was kept around. > >>Carol: > > They do what McGonagall orders them to do, and you're condemning > them for it? Betsy Hp: As lizzyben pointed out upthread, Slytherin house is condemned by being exactly what McGonagall feared (knew?) they would be. So it's more JKR condemned them. I'm just recognizing that this is what happened. > >>Carol: > Why? Betsy Hp: Million dollar question. Wherefore Slytherin? I'm still confused on that issue. Maybe so Harry could be a "bad boy" but for perfectly saintly reasons? I don't know, I'm grasping. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 02:18:12 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:18:12 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: <700201d40711150901g4dbba4f3ya875b2aa7346edf2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179126 > >>Kemper earlier: > > I see Lily more as Mother Mary in this scene. It is what I imagine > > she would say to her son as he carried his cross. (I'm not trying > > to equate a Harry is Jesus thing) > >> Betsy Hp: > > Ooh, ick, really? She was there, wasn't she? In the end? And I > > don't recall her cheering Jesus on. > >>Kemper now: > I don't read Lily's statement or gestures (the icky hair flip) as > cheering on Harry to his death. Betsy Hp: The hungy look is what I found icky. Though combining it with personal grooming did push things for me. (What was JKR thinking there?) And yeah, I'm going to say her "so brave" remark was meant to be encouraging. Especially combined (heh) with all of her boys telling Harry how cool and easy death is. > >>Kemper: > > I believe that Lily wants her son to live hence her sacrifice that > Halloween night. > Betsy Hp: Sure, Lily wants her baby to live. Her full grown son? I didn't see her trying to figure out another way, so I'm going to have to go with, positive about the death thing. > >>Kemper now: > Draco is different. Draco and martyr are sent out to kill. Draco > recognizes his error and wants out. He realizes his mom is right. > Narcissa as Mother knows best. Betsy Hp: And this also condemns Draco. It's tied in, I think, with him using her wand. Draco has not become a man because he's too dependent on a woman is how I read it. (Another example of the danger of the female to the male. > >>Kemper Now: > Harry doesn't die /for/ Dumbledore. Harry dies for Hogwarts sans > Slytherin Betsy Hp: Harry dies to kill Voldemort, which was what Dumbledore wanted. (And also? Kudos for the . Took me a bit (just a bit!) to figure it out. ) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179112 > >>Magpie: > > I find the depiction of sex quite weird in the Potterverse. We > > get the stairs to the girl's dorm, which seems a nod to the > > obvious fact that boys are going to be trying to get into the > > girl's beds. And yet based on what we see of our male heroes it's > > completely unnecessary and in fact ought to be the other > > staircase. > > Betsy Hp: There's something almost... repressed about it, isn't there. And there's very much a sense that the boys are sweet and virginal and the girls are... not. Even the girls who aren't as interested in sex (Hermione and I'd say even Ginny in that it's no big deal to her) seem to *know* all about it. Their lack of interest seems of a more jaded sort (been there, done that, thought of England the whole time). Whereas Harry seems genuinely innocent. And Ron is, for the most part, quite ignorant (ignorant enough for little sister Ginny to give him a pat on the head). > >>Carol: > > But it would be inconvenient for the plot if Hermione couldn't > enter the boys' dormroom, and I suppose we need an explanation > (other than that Harry and Ron never thought of it) why they're > never in hers. (Also, Ginny has to get in Harry's room to steal > back the diary in Cos.) Betsy Hp: Yes, but JKR as author could figure such things out however she wished. This is how she did it. And so it's valid to see meaning beyond the point A to point B stuff, IMO. Plus, it ain't just the stairs. > >>Carol: > > Could it be, in part, because girls in the WW, like girls in the > RL, are programmed to look for *romance* whereas, for boys, a > relationship with a girl is a kind of sexual experimentation > that, until OoP for Harry and HBP for Ron, the boys aren't really > ready for? > > Or maybe they resemble girls of the 1950s, some (by no means all) > of whom went to college to obtain their MRS degree. > Betsy Hp: Hmm... I think this is the view JKR has. That girls are mechanically looking for proper breeding mates and boys are rather innocently tripping along until the girl traps him. Again, the sexual predator is the female out to get the more innocent male. It's a very negative (and fearful) way I think, of looking at female sexuality. Betsy Hp From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Nov 16 02:48:55 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:48:55 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Hmm... I think this is the view JKR has. That girls are > mechanically looking for proper breeding mates and boys are rather > innocently tripping along until the girl traps him. Again, the > sexual predator is the female out to get the more innocent male. > It's a very negative (and fearful) way I think, of looking at > female sexuality. One could add to the list plenty of other women. Bellatrix who is clearly sexually obsessed with Voldemort, Molly who used a love potion on Arthur (funny how we forget that*), Merope (poor Merope), Tonks who gets her man even though it seems to be against his better judgement, Lavender who is in there as a blow-up doll, Cho whose trauma is actually derided, Padma and Parvati, who are as alike in their superficiality as in their looks. One also remembers Florence, no better than she ought to have been behind the greenhouses; we thought she was kissing Snape, once, but that no longer seems likely - and the weirdly flirtatious Hepzibah Smith. Apart from that, with the sole exception of Andromeda, it's hard to think of a single instance of a sexually active woman who is shown as straightforward in her sexuality. There are plenty of other women in there - but they're either mothers and thus sanctified (apart from poor damned Merope, the ghastly Mrs Black or Eileen Prince), or entirely sexless, MacGonagall being a case in point. Oh, and Umbridge, who is a caricature of menopausal horror. * Of course, Molly shouldn't attract any opprobrium for this - she's a Gryffindor and so her actions are Right. Mus From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 02:52:21 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:52:21 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40711151852x1de38d59g5e6053bb15684ec7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179128 > Mus: > Apart from that, with the sole exception of Andromeda, it's hard to > think of a single instance of a sexually active woman who is shown as > straightforward in her sexuality. Kemper now: Maybe Fleur? From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Nov 16 03:00:51 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:00:51 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: <700201d40711151852x1de38d59g5e6053bb15684ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179129 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > Kemper now: > Maybe Fleur? Mus can admit when she's wrong: Yes, Fleur. Still, if the only counter-example is the foreign bird who marries a minor character.... She's a predictable trope, though - only the foreign bird is allowed to be sexually honest? And she's explicitly identified with a particular stereotyped portrayal of female sexuality, first seen at the Quidditch World Cup. In canon, she certainly is shown to turn out all right, but is she the only example of someone who completely escapes her birthright? Mus From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 03:10:56 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:10:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40711150901g4dbba4f3ya875b2aa7346edf2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40711151910u2d95caa4g2adcef90887fed76@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179130 > Betsy Hp: > The hungy look is what I found icky. Though combining it with > personal grooming did push things for me. (What was JKR thinking > there?) And yeah, I'm going to say her "so brave" remark was meant > to be encouraging. Especially combined (heh) with all of her boys > telling Harry how cool and easy death is. Kemper now: Harry called her boys for emotional support. Not for rahs. > Betsy Hp: > Sure, Lily wants her baby to live. Her full grown son? I didn't see > her trying to figure out another way, so I'm going to have to go > with, positive about the death thing. Kemper now: Yes, her son. And full grown? No... If Harry was Lily's age when she died, then maybe I can see her being ok with a twentysomething Harry's death. I still think Lily knew Harry wouldn't die. Why else look so hungrily? (By the by... is there a different British interpretation/definition for 'hungrily' in this sense? God, I hope so.) > > >>Kemper earlier: > > Draco is different. Draco and martyr are sent out to kill. Draco > > recognizes his error and wants out. He realizes his mom is right. > > Narcissa as Mother knows best. > > Betsy Hp: > And this also condemns Draco. It's tied in, I think, with him using > her wand. Draco has not become a man because he's too dependent on a > woman is how I read it. (Another example of the danger of the female > to the male. Kemper now: I don't quite see the condemnation. Please explain further. I see son using mother's wand as female power but am not sure of the danger. > Betsy Hp: > Harry dies to kill Voldemort, which was what Dumbledore wanted. Kemper now: Killing Voldemort saves the Wizard and Muggle world Yes, Dumbledore wanted that, but so does Harry. > Betsy Hp: > (And also? Kudos for the . Took me a bit (just a bit!) to > figure it out. ) Kemper now: grin > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179112 > > >>Magpie: > > > I find the depiction of sex quite weird in the Potterverse. > > > > > Betsy Hp: > There's something almost... repressed about it, isn't there. > ...Harry seems genuinely innocent. And Ron is, for the > most part, quite ignorant (ignorant enough for little sister Ginny to > give him a pat on the head). Kemper now: I though it odd that Harry was not struck by Fleur. But he's not innocent. Maybe he's bi. Ron, though ignorant, desperately wants to be learned in the carnal. It is not hard to imagin him in revelry flying his freak flag with someone and (h)Uranus. Kemper From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Nov 16 03:23:39 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:23:39 -0000 Subject: Comparisons & contrasts re: DD, Snape and LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179131 > zgirnius: > Well, the revelations about Dumbledore certainly did show some > commonality with Tom Riddle, in terms of secrecy, some common > interests, and asking a lot of their followers. On the other hand, > the big difference I always suspected, is still there. Dumbledore's > understanding of those followers is light-years beyond Voldemort's, > and it is because of his ability to empathize and his understanding > of 'the power of love'. Dumbledorealso, IMO, does have genuine > affection for other people, something of which Riddle is incapable. Jen: I agree with all the differences you mention. I meant more that the differences between the two were highlighted for 6 books, then the big 'aha' moment was about the similarities they had. Personally I didn't suspect DD & LV would have much in common by the end of DH, that instead new information would solidify DD in his role of the Good one instead of him taking a walk on the dark side in DH. Or that he would be revealed as *gasp* Machievellian (I'm still recovering from that announcement by JKR). I realize others read that coming a mile away, but I didn't believe DD would be called a puppetmaster in the final analysis. Zara: > There has also been, though you did not mention it, a > comparison/contrast of Snape to Voldemort, made most explicit at > the end of HBP when Harry comments on the similarities between > their chosen names. Of the four central half-blood characters, they > are the two with Muggle fathers and witch mothers, both sets > unhappily married. (Harry and Dumbledore, also half-bloods, are > both children of Muggleborn mothers). The DH revelations prove (to > me anyway) that these two characters were always more different > than similar. Jen: Come to think of it, the paragraph you're talking about in HBP might be interesting to look at in light of DH. I'm thinking of this section: 'Yeah that fits,' said Harry. 'He'd played up the pure-blood side so he could get in with Lucius Malfoy and the rest of them...he's just like Voldemort. Pure-blood mother, Muggle father...ashamed of his parentage, trying to make himself feared using the Dark Arts, gave himself an impressive new name - *Lord* Voldemort - the Half-Blood *Prince* - how could Dumbledore have missed -? ' (chap. 30, p. 594, UK ed.) There's not much in DH for why Snape was accepted in Slytherin and became part of the DE crowd as a half-blood. Maybe it was only the dark arts connection as mentioned in Prince's Tale, but the Half- blood Prince moniker says there was something going on for Snape re: his heritage. Was the Half-Blood Prince name meant to be Snape playing up his pure-blood side? Was he indeed 'ashamed' of his parentage? Now I'm wondering just how much of Harry's analysis above is accurate for Snape's story since there wasn't much in DH to explain the time between Lucius patting him on the back when he's sorted, and Snape later becoming part of the young DEs with Mulciber/Avery. Jen From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Nov 16 13:10:24 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:10:24 -0000 Subject: Character Development Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179132 Theo Nott, Florence, Agnes...just a few of JKR's many named but unknown characters. There are so many who spend some time with Harry or near Harry, then move on. JKR told us a little about Theo, and something of Dean Thomas's father. Did that information peak your curiosity? Did something in canon make you think a character was going to play a role later, but the character did not? For example, did knowing (or not knowing) about Dean's father affect how you felt during his scenes? How did canon or interviews color your impressions of characters? Did anyone surprise you, speak to you, grab your imagination? What do you think about the way JKR wrote characters? Did she "play fair"? Potioncat hoping this isn't too much like an earlier post--but has forgotten that one anyway. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Nov 16 12:55:57 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:55:57 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179133 > > Carol responds: > Are you picturing a whole horde of Slytherins leaving the Hog's Head > to fight in the battle? Why would they do that, when the whole point > of evacuating everybody to the Hog's Head (including underage students > from all houses, none of whom are being labeled as cowards) was to > allow them to go to safety? If they wanted to go home to their beds > (and they probably did), it would be counterproductive to go onto the > battlefield, which would mean leaving the Hog's Head and going all the > way to the gates and from there to the school--a long walk, as we know > from all the Hogsmeade visits. Potioncat: Actually, it would be even farther. The DEs are camped at Aragog's lair. That was a pretty long walk into the Forbidden Forest after getting back to the castle. Although, it doesn't seem as long in DH as it was in CoS. How would the Slytherins know where the DEs were? Harry had to follow two DEs to the site. We know that some form of communication is possible with the Dark Mark, but we don't know if any of the Slytherins have the Mark. Oh shoot. These students could just Apparate...but I'll bet that not all of them are good at it yet. McGonagall's purpose for evacuating students was to get them out of danger, and obviously to remove any enemies. Of the of-age students who chose to leave we have half of Gryffindor, a little more Hufflepuffs, even more Ravenclaws and all of the Slytherins. The Slytherins left because they did not want to fight for Harry and St. Cripin. Well, come to think of it, that's why the others left. Aberforth comes into the castle as the battle is starting and comments that children of DEs were sent to safety. Slughorn doesn't return till after the first battle. He's with Charley, leading a new wave of fighters. (Hogsmeade folk, and parents of those who remained behind.) So we can imagine that Horace saw to it that Slytherin students were "sent to safety" whatever that means and by whatever process. As far as I'm concerned, we don't know where the Slytherins went. Some may have gone to LV, I'd guess most went home. So we still don't know what LV really meant by the "rest of the Slytherins." But I'd think only those Slytherins who had already been inducted into the DEs would have been able to join LV. > > Carol: (Potioncat, > does this mean that Theo Nott got sent home, along with all the other > Slytherins except Draco and Co.? I think it does.) Potioncat: Yes, in my earlier post I didn't mean I hoped he fought for Hogwarts, I just hope he didn't join LV. > Carol: It would have been sheer idiocy to > return to fight for either side once they'd been evacuated. The whole > *point* was to get to safety. And that means getting *out* of > Hogwarts, taking the invisible passageway to the Hog's Head, where > Voldemort could not possibly have seen them. Potioncat: Well, if the person who returns to fight is on your side, you consider it sheer courage. ;-) > Carol, who thought she was done with this subject but could not ignore > such a glaring error Potioncat who never expected to join this thread and isn't at all sure which side she just supported. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 14:41:28 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:41:28 -0000 Subject: Comparisons & contrasts re: DD, Snape and LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179134 > Jen: > There's not much in DH for why Snape was accepted in Slytherin and > became part of the DE crowd as a half-blood. Maybe it was only the > dark arts connection as mentioned in Prince's Tale, but the Half- > blood Prince moniker says there was something going on for Snape re: > his heritage. Was the Half-Blood Prince name meant to be Snape > playing up his pure-blood side? Was he indeed 'ashamed' of his > parentage? a_svirn: I don't think a half-blood can play his or her pure-blood side, any more than a royal bastard can play his royal side. Some tried, but ended up a head shorter. One is either legitimate or not, either pure or not, there are no sides to it. The best Snape could do was to avoid the subject altogether, and the adjective "half-blood" seems to defeat that purpose. I think it was his private joke and a rather bitter one at that. A prince who is not quite a prince, a Slytherin to the core, whose very right to be in Slytherin is somewhat questionable. A boy who doesn't quite fit anywhere, yet desperately wants to claim his place among the elite. Jen: Now I'm wondering just how much of Harry's analysis above > is accurate for Snape's story since there wasn't much in DH to > explain the time between Lucius patting him on the back when he's > sorted, and Snape later becoming part of the young DEs with > Mulciber/Avery. a_svirn: I believe it was a classic "services in exchange for patronage" kind of deal. Judging by Sectumsempra and Maffiato he had much to offer and he badly wanted to be part of the crowd. From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 14:51:55 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:51:55 -0000 Subject: Another thing (was JKR, the female and facism) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > > I still don't get how breaking up with Ginny was supposed to protect > her. I guess it would keep her from potentially becoming Tonks with > a big belly and no hubby around, since Harry *had* to go Horcrux > hunting. > > But it seemed ridiculous to me that Harry and Ginny spent weeks > as the main topic of discussion in the rumor circles of Hogwarts and > then he breaks up with her two minutes before everyone leaves for > the trains and *no one* mentions to Voldemort that Harry Potter's > girlfriend is running around, just waiting to be used as bait? > > Or heck, the Ministry for that matter. They're trying to catch > Harry Potter, too, right? Why not bring in Ginny and force Harry > to come after her? > > Montavilla47 > Trelawney... we speculated for years about her being at Hogwarts as Dumbledore's way of protecting her. Then she's at Hogwarts under the management of the Death Eaters for a whole school year, seemingly untouched by them. At the end, she's lobbing crystal balls at them (are crystal balls that easy to find, and that incidental to her? I would have gone with full sherry bottles, myself). I guess that Voldemort just dropped the idea of finding out the contents of the Prophecy because he had a new obsession, which none of his Death Eaters even had a clue about, even though they had the wandmaker captive in the Malfoy dungeon for ... how long? Sorry, I know this is a completely different topic, but your post brought it to mind as one of those storylines that worked for one purpose, maybe two, then got reduced in the last book to a mark on a checklist. lealess From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 15:39:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:39:16 -0000 Subject: Character Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179136 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Theo Nott, Florence, Agnes...just a few of JKR's many named but unknown > characters. There are so many who spend some time with Harry or near > Harry, then move on. JKR told us a little about Theo, and something of > Dean Thomas's father. Did that information peak your curiosity? Did > something in canon make you think a character was going to play a role > later, but the character did not? For example, did knowing (or not > knowing) about Dean's father affect how you felt during his scenes? > > How did canon or interviews color your impressions of characters? Did > anyone surprise you, speak to you, grab your imagination? What do you > think about the way JKR wrote characters? Did she "play fair"? > > > Potioncat hoping this isn't too much like an earlier post--but has > forgotten that one anyway. > Alla: I take it we are restricting ourselves to minor characters here or at least those that started as minor? I will tell you one thing. I can and was intrigued by some of the minor characters or the characters that started as minor, but for such thing to happen the character has to really do something, or at least I have to hear from somebody else that character did something. I do not get intrigued if character's name mentioned and that's it, I usually could care less about "name only" characters. So, the information on the website about Theo peeked my curiosity indeed, I wanted to meet him and get to know him. I was especially intrigued that JKR seems to think of him as loner, and while I was never particularly attached to the "good Slytherin" idea, I certainly would not mind him to be one. I would have been especially pleased if he had been shown as someone who can resist Draco and his goons on the daily basis. Not because he likes Harry, but simply because he cannot stand Draco, etc. I was also intrigued by Regulus from the first time Sirius mentions him, when we had no idea yet about RAB thing, etc. I was intrigued by him for very simple reason that beside Sirius' annoyance I absolutely heard affection and regret. So, I was wondering about what kind of "person" Regulus was. Funnily, when JKR mentioned Sirius in book first it sooo went off my radar and I was not curious much to find out more about him. Dean Thomas' story actually did not interest me much for some reason. Whom else I was intrigued about? After I read Elkins' Crouch novella long time ago, I did realize that I should have been intrigued about them, so much depth she discovered in those characters, but I don't know, I just was not much. LOVE your threads as always. Alla. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 16:54:20 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:54:20 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Actually, it would be even farther. The DEs are camped at Aragog's > lair. That was a pretty long walk into the Forbidden Forest after > getting back to the castle. Although, it doesn't seem as long in DH > as it was in CoS. How would the Slytherins know where the DEs were? > Harry had to follow two DEs to the site. We know that some form of > communication is possible with the Dark Mark, but we don't know if > any of the Slytherins have the Mark. Oh shoot. These students could > just Apparate...but I'll bet that not all of them are good at it yet. Montavilla47: I don't think the Slytherin students would need to go all the way to the camp in the forest. After all, the Death Eaters were in control of Hogsmeade. So, as soon as they got to the Hogshead, they had only to step outside to be in Voldemort's territory. We don't (as far as I know), have a map showing the proximity of the FF to Hogwarts and Hogsmeade. I assumed that the Death Eater forces assembled in Hogsmeade and proceeded through the forest to Hogwarts, rather than going through the gates. It may have been a shorter route, and it seems like a weak spot in the defenses of the castle--that was how Crouch, Sr. was able to approach the castle in GoF. I always figured that Dumbledore (and all the Headmasters before him), relied on the dangerous beasts of the forest to deter any attackers. Potioncat: > McGonagall's purpose for evacuating students was to get them out of > danger, and obviously to remove any enemies. Of the of-age students > who chose to leave we have half of Gryffindor, a little more > Hufflepuffs, even more Ravenclaws and all of the Slytherins. The > Slytherins left because they did not want to fight for Harry and St. > Cripin. Well, come to think of it, that's why the others left. > > Aberforth comes into the castle as the battle is starting and > comments that children of DEs were sent to safety. Slughorn doesn't > return till after the first battle. He's with Charley, leading a new > wave of fighters. (Hogsmeade folk, and parents of those who remained > behind.) So we can imagine that Horace saw to it that Slytherin > students were "sent to safety" whatever that means and by whatever > process. Montavilla47: I wonder how the students got to safety, given that the Death Eaters were controlling the town and had set anti-Apparation alarms. I suppose it wasn't worth it to the Death Eaters to capture the children. And, after all, they were all purebloods and, since they were headed home, they weren't obstructing Voldemort in any way. Which makes me wonder why Voldemort said, "rest of the Slytherins," rather than "the rest of the students." There would have been a steady stream of students leaving the area. Unless they flooed from the Hogshead, which really makes the most sense of all. In which case, Voldemort wouldn't have seen *any* students, unless the students made a point of leaving the Hogshead by the door--going directly into the Death Eater camp (in Hogsmeade). At which point, Voldemort might have patted them on the head and sent them home, or given the older ones masks, or set them to non-combat tasks, like gathering wood for their fire, cleaning up the Shrieking Shack, etc. Incidently, Aberforth seems to think that the Slytherin students are all the children of Death Eaters, since he criticizes the Dumbledore forces for not keeping them all hostage. Montavilla47 From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 16 17:12:51 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:12:51 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179138 > Montavilla47: > But it seemed ridiculous to me that Harry and Ginny spent weeks > as the main topic of discussion in the rumor circles of Hogwarts and > then he breaks up with her two minutes before everyone leaves for > the trains and *no one* mentions to Voldemort that Harry Potter's > girlfriend is running around, just waiting to be used as bait? > > Or heck, the Ministry for that matter. They're trying to catch > Harry Potter, too, right? Why not bring in Ginny and force Harry > to come after her? > Pippin: Because, per Ron's behavior in DH, no one, not even Harry's best friend, realizes that he broke up with her to protect her. Apparently, everyone thinks they broke up because they didn't get along. Thus Ron's gift of Twelve Ways and his accusation that Harry is messing Ginny about. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 17:25:37 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:25:37 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179139 > Montavilla47: > Unless they flooed from the Hogshead, which really makes the most > sense of all. In which case, Voldemort wouldn't have seen *any* > students, unless the students made a point of leaving the Hogshead > by the door--going directly into the Death Eater camp (in > Hogsmeade). At which point, Voldemort might have patted them > on the head and sent them home, or given the older ones masks, > or set them to non-combat tasks, like gathering wood for their > fire, cleaning up the Shrieking Shack, etc. zgirnius: And in the case of some of those children (Theo Nott comes to mind, sorry, Potioncat), Flooing home would be pointless. Papa Nott is in the Forest, one presumes, and Mama Nott is long dead. Montavilla: > Incidently, Aberforth seems to think that the Slytherin students are > all the children of Death Eaters, since he criticizes the Dumbledore > forces for not keeping them all hostage. zgirnius: No, he thinks that *some* of them are. (At least one, Theo Nott, is known to be by us as well). "There are kids of Death Eaters you've just sent to safety" means there are some kids who are kids of Death Eaters, not that all the kids are. He also does not suggest all the Slytherins shiyld have been held hostage, just 'a few'. (Presumably, the few who are kids of Death Eaters, since why anyone in the DE camp would care about the others is not clear to me). From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 16 17:32:45 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:32:45 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179140 Montavilla47 > Unless they flooed from the Hogshead, which really makes the most > sense of all. In which case, Voldemort wouldn't have seen *any* > students, unless the students made a point of leaving the Hogshead > by the door--going directly into the Death Eater camp (in > Hogsmeade). Pippin: What if it was Lucius who found out from other Death Eaters that their children had been sent home? Then he begs Voldemort for any news about his son (perhaps fearing that Draco is indeed being held hostage) to which Voldemort replies with his unverifiable statement about the rest of the Slytherins having joined him. As Lucius has no way of telling whether the rest of the Slytherins have joined or not, why *shouldn't* Voldemort lie about it? He lies for fun. Harry notes his relish at it elsewhere. Voldemort seems to have removed his forces from Hogsmeade to the forest, otherwise he would have noticed that Charlie and Slughorn were assembling a counterforce. If he left scouts behind, perhaps they were overpowered before they could warn him. Montavilla: > Incidently, Aberforth seems to think that the Slytherin students are > all the children of Death Eaters, since he criticizes the Dumbledore > forces for not keeping them all hostage. Pippin: He says "a few Slytherins hostage" DH ch 31 He does seem to think that only Slytherins would be children of Death Eaters. Apparently Pettigrew's defection wasn't enough to shake the assumption that dark wizards only spring from Slytherin. But Wizards aren't noted for their logic. Pippin From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 17:52:58 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:52:58 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179141 > Montavilla: > > Incidently, Aberforth seems to think that the Slytherin students are > > all the children of Death Eaters, since he criticizes the Dumbledore > > forces for not keeping them all hostage. > > zgirnius: > No, he thinks that *some* of them are. (At least one, Theo Nott, is > known to be by us as well). "There are kids of Death Eaters you've > just sent to safety" means there are some kids who are kids of Death > Eaters, not that all the kids are. He also does not suggest all the > Slytherins shiyld have been held hostage, just 'a few'. (Presumably, > the few who are kids of Death Eaters, since why anyone in the DE camp > would care about the others is not clear to me). > Montvilla47: Thanks, Zara. I was misremembering the line. I apologize for the error. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 18:10:10 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:10:10 -0000 Subject: Character Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Theo Nott, Florence, Agnes...just a few of JKR's many named but unknown > characters. There are so many who spend some time with Harry or near > Harry, then move on. JKR told us a little about Theo, and something of > Dean Thomas's father. Did that information peak your curiosity? Did > something in canon make you think a character was going to play a role > later, but the character did not? For example, did knowing (or not > knowing) about Dean's father affect how you felt during his scenes? > > How did canon or interviews color your impressions of characters? Did > anyone surprise you, speak to you, grab your imagination? What do you > think about the way JKR wrote characters? Did she "play fair"? Prep0strus: I certainly enjoy when characters are introduced subtly, but over time are revealed to be something more. So I would say that I definitely was disappointed not to have a little bit more of that in the characters you mentioned. JKR's world is so broad and diverse that I would have loved for it to go in the direction of all these characters having important parts to play, rather than focusing on our three main characters in a tent (especially when I didn't even see very much personal growth in those characters). I've mentioned recently how I expected more of Scrimgeour... I also thought we'd definitely find out more about Zabini or Nott, if not both. I was very disappointed in how all the members of the DA faded away to nothing - I really would have liked to find out more about all of them. Especially our other Gryffindors who we've watched participate in class for several years but do little else. It isn't even Dean that gets to me - it's Seamus. Maybe because we got Dean's story outside of canon, so I put it out of my head, or maybe it's because we see him a little more in the run in DH. But I feel we don't know Seamus at all - and he's the only male Gryffindor in Harry's year that's like that. Dean pops up a lot more than Seamus - I guess because JKR has more in her mind for him. But Hogwarts is a small place. I know Harry has his two best friends, but I'd imagine after that he'd spend the most down time (did he ever have down time?) with his bunkmates. The point you bring up also works in the reverse - I've never been able to warm to Luna for precisely the reason that she wasn't brought in slowly. Some people think she's this awesome character, and I can't even look at her that way - she always seems like a shoehorned johnny-come-lately to me. I mean, you can see the clues to Ginny being Harry's eventual girl in the very first book. And Cho being his first relationship was hinted at books before that happened as well. JKR has the ability to drop subtle hints about characters that will matter later on. But Luna just showed up, all ready to be a major secondary character. I'm sure part of my love of Lee (besides his sense of humor) is because he's a small character who had a place in the story that slowly grew and became more important. Kreacher showed up relatively late, but in a small way that grew into something more, which I really enjoyed. For me, I guess it's not precisely when they show up - but how quickly they go from being a mention to being a full-blown main character. The quicker it is, the less satisfying it is for me. (Barring the first book, of course.) I think, in general, I'm on the side of wishing I had seen more of every minor character - and because of that, I'm less of a fan of every more major character that simply showed up later in the series. Sure, a new professor shows up every book, so I get that and can't fault JKR for it. Still, I'd rather spend some time with McGonnegal or Flitwick than Slughorn who couldn't be bothered to show his face until book 6. So when that encyclopedia comes out, I'll be devouring the nuggets on every minor DA member and DE member, and probably ignoring the long sections on our main characters. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 19:09:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:09:48 -0000 Subject: Character Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179143 potioncat wrote: > > Theo Nott, Florence, Agnes...just a few of JKR's many named but unknown characters. There are so many who spend some time with Harry or near Harry, then move on. JKR told us a little about Theo, and something of Dean Thomas's father. Did that information peak your curiosity? Did something in canon make you think a character was going to play a role later, but the character did not? Csrol responds: I definitely thought that Theo Nott would play a role in DH, especially since she went to the trouble of mentioning his backstory and personality on her website. I do hope that she publishes that dialogue between him and Draco Malfoy even though I won't consider it canon because it never made it into the books (any more than Hermione's sister or Mafalda Weasley or Pyrites did, or, more to the point, Hermione's father witnessing Godric's Hollow, since at least Theo Nott appeared as a character. But to point out a "stringy" or "weedy" Slytherin who can see Thestrals, briefly link him with Draco after the DoM fiasco, have Hermione name him and tell us that his father is a Death Eater, have that father injured and abandoned by Lucius Malfoy (apparently Theo didn't know that) and then, apparently, arrested with the others (we hear that Slughorn neglected to issue Theo an invitation to his luncheon after learning this information from Blaise Zabini, of all people), and despite his absence from the Slytherin sixth-year compartment (maybe he's with the four unnamed female Slytherins of their year?) and yet still associating with Draco in Potions class (maybe because they're the two who ought to have been in the Slug Club but were excluded)--all that and then not a single mention of him in DH--unless he's the one of the Slytherins with a DE parent mentioned by Aberforth who escaped to safety rather than being held hostage as Aberforth recommended. I was disappointed, to say the least. I'd like to have seen Theo openly rejecting his DE heritage, and I'd like to know what happened to his father, too old to be a DE, injured and abandoned, and then arrested. Nott Sr. should have been sent to St. Mungo's and given a chance to do community service rather than being sent to Azkaban with his middle-aged fellow DEs, IMO. I don't think his heart is in torture, coercion, and murder, however eager he may once have been to join up; he's just afraid of retribution from Voldemort, so he abjectly obeys him despite being about sixty years old. (If he's one of the original DEs, he's older than that.) And poor Theo--sixteen or nearly sixteen at the end of OoP and motherless, with his father in Azkaban. It's like Albus Dumbledore's situation at nearly eighteen, except that Theo is still technically a child. I wonder who took care of him or whether he was forced to fend for himself. (Not to ruffle any feathers, but a House-Elf would have come in handy for the poor boy.) And another thing I want to know, speaking of the DEs in the MoM raid: Whatever happened to the baby-headed Death Eater and who was he? I have him narrowed down to Crabbe Sr. or possibly Rabastan (though I think Rabastan was one of the two followers of Bellatrix, which would mean that it was Vincent Crabbe's father--and perhaps explain why he turned completely evil in DH). Anyway, I know that JKR had a lot of plot threads to wind together (or *un*ravel, if we accept the literal meaning of denouement, which always struck me a the opposite of what it ought to mean), and it's not surprising that she left a few plot threads dangling, but in the case of Theo, she provided quite a bit of information, enough to arouse our curiosity and make at least some of us think he would be important, only to drop the ball in the last book. At least we got to see Augusta Longbottom (Neville's gran), being something other than a tyrannical grandmother and we got to meet Andromeda Black Tonks, but other characters with defined personalities (as opposed to mere names) turned out to be just filler. Why introduce little Dennis Creevey, who fell into the lake and was rescued by the Giant Squid--not to mention somehow sneaks out to Hogsmeade to attend the first DA meeting when he's only a second year, if he's not going to play a role? It's his brother, Colin, who fights in the battle and dies young. (Could it be *Dennis* Creevey that McGonagall orders to stay with the evacuees? Not that either of them should be there as they're Muggle-borns.) Carol, also disappointed that the Giant Squid, who appeared in every previous book, turned out to be just a piece of scenery like the winged boars and less important than the gargoyles, who rated a line after they were damaged by the DEs From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 16 19:12:51 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:12:51 -0000 Subject: Another thing (was JKR, the female and facism) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179144 lealess: > Trelawney... we speculated for years about her being at Hogwarts as > Dumbledore's way of protecting her. Then she's at Hogwarts under the > management of the Death Eaters for a whole school year, seemingly > untouched by them. At the end, she's lobbing crystal balls at them > (are crystal balls that easy to find, and that incidental to her? I > would have gone with full sherry bottles, myself). > > I guess that Voldemort just dropped the idea of finding out the > contents of the Prophecy because he had a new obsession, which none of > his Death Eaters even had a clue about, even though they had the > wandmaker captive in the Malfoy dungeon for ... how long? Pippin: What if...Snape really did hear the whole prophecy, and Dumbledore tried to make Voldemort (and Harry) *think* he'd missed part of it? Then after Dumbledore's gone, Snape could pretend to discover evidence that there wasn't any missing part after all. Harry does seem to think that Voldemort is going to know what he means by "either must die" even though that's in the supposedly concealed part. We know the DE's were aware of Voldemort's quest for a new wand. Whether Snape ever figured out that it was the Elder Wand that Voldie was after...well, if he did, he wouldn't say, would he. It's clever...after Voldemort takes Harry's blood into himself, love is still the power Voldemort knows not, but not the power he *has* not. That's the Elder Wand. Pippin who thinks Trelawney using her crystal balls as weapons is proof that she knows they're not much good for foretelling From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 16 19:19:08 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:19:08 -0000 Subject: Character Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179145 > At least we got to see Augusta Longbottom (Neville's gran), being > something other than a tyrannical grandmother and we got to meet > Andromeda Black Tonks, but other characters with defined personalities > (as opposed to mere names) turned out to be just filler. Why introduce > little Dennis Creevey, who fell into the lake and was rescued by the > Giant Squid--not to mention somehow sneaks out to Hogsmeade to attend > the first DA meeting when he's only a second year, if he's not going > to play a role? It's his brother, Colin, who fights in the battle and > dies young. (Could it be *Dennis* Creevey that McGonagall orders to > stay with the evacuees? Not that either of them should be there as > they're Muggle-borns.) > > Pippin: We heard Ron and Hermione briefly planning how she could pretend to have wizarding ancestors. I assume Colin and Dennis were able to pull it off, perhaps because the DE's found it easier to believe that they had wizarding ancestry than that two Muggleborns could be born to the same parents. That Colin had a brother makes his death more poignant since we know there's someone who'll miss him. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 19:55:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:55:15 -0000 Subject: Another thing (was JKR, the female and facism) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179146 Lealess wrote: > Trelawney... we speculated for years about her being at Hogwarts as Dumbledore's way of protecting her. Then she's at Hogwarts under the management of the Death Eaters for a whole school year, seemingly untouched by them. Carol responds: Under the management of Severus Snape, rather. I expect he made sure that the classes other than those run by the Carrows (who probably didn't know about the connection between Trelawney and the Prophecy as they weren't at the MoM and Snape's not about to tell them) ran as normally as possible. McGonagall would probably have kept an eye on Trelawney, too. At any rate, Snape can't do anything about the DE-run MoM's decision to put the Carrows in charge of discipline, but I expect he ran a tight ship otherwise, doing whatever he could to prevent the Carrows from taking over completely and keeping out any other DEs via sealed-up passages and so on. Dumbledore expects Snape to protect the students (not completely, but to minimize the damage). I suspect he protected Trelawney as well, considering that she's alive and well and tossing crystal balls at the end of the book. (How much does one of those things weigh, anyway?) Lealess: At the end, she's lobbing crystal balls at them (are crystal balls that easy to find, and that incidental to her? I would have gone with full sherry bottles, myself). Carol responds: Ah. That one I can answer canonically. Her shelves were filled with them (along with hundreds of teacups): "The shelves running around the circular walls [of Trelawney's classroom] were crammed with dusty-looking feathers, stubs of candles, many packs of tattered playing cards, countless silvery crystal balls, and a huge array of teacups" (PoA 102 Am. ed.). It's in "Talons and Tea Leaves" if you have the Bloomsbury edition. > Lealess: > I guess that Voldemort just dropped the idea of finding out the contents of the Prophecy because he had a new obsession, which none of his Death Eaters even had a clue about, even though they had the wandmaker captive in the Malfoy dungeon for ... how long? > Carol responds: I agree that he had a new obsession, but also, he'd rid himself of "the only one he ever feared," whom he believes has been killed on his orders, and he's ready to take over the MoM and presumably, from there, the WW, when the little detail of Harry's wand attacking him on its own returns his focus to Ollivander and the problem of the brother wands (which he thought would be solved by using Lucius Malfoy's wand against Harry's). The Prophecy can presumably wait until he has the proper wand, and when he learns about the "unbeatable" Elder Wand, the Prophecy apparently ceases to matter (or else it can wait--the stealing of his Horcruxes puts another crimp in his plans, making it necessary to kill Harry sooner rather than later, in his view). As for how long he's had Ollivander captive, that we can answer. He disappears at about the same time as Florean Fortescue (another loose plot thread), between the end of OoP and the beginning of HBP (the night of the second Friday in July for all four opening chapters if my calculations are correct) and "Malfoy Manor" occurs during Easter vacation (it appears to be a March Easter). So Ollivander is Voldemort's captive for a little more than a year and nine months (early to mid-July 1996 to late March 1998). (In RL, Easter fell on April 12 in 1998, but JKR seems not to have looked up that bit of information.) Of that time, Ollivander spends at least nine months (mid-to late July 1997, the time frame of "The Rise of Lord Voldemort") to late March 1998 in the Malfoys' secret chamber beneath the drawing room (mentioned by Draco back in CoS and apparently not discovered by Mr. Weasley either time that he searched the house for Dark artifacts because Harry forgot to mention it. At least *that* detail found its way into DH!) Carol, who thinks that, all in all, Trelawney was a lot better off with Snape as headmaster than she was under Umbridge and no worse off than she was under Dumbledore From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 22:59:50 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:59:50 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Character Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711161459l76ecc87ey896b5222ff2aa83f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179147 Not so much. If she had chosen to develop some of the minor characters stories more fully it would have been nice, but they were just that, minor characters, in the story to support the major characters not to tell their own stories. It would be nice to learn a little more about Ernie or Hannah or Susan, but otherwise...oh yeah guess I should add here that I was never as enthralled with the Creevey brothers as some fans seem to be. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 03:07:10 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:07:10 -0000 Subject: Wish Fulfillment (Or Not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179148 > ~Adam (prep0strus) wrote: > > I wanted to pose the question - name something (minor or major) > that you wanted to see in the series, and got, and name something > else you wanted to see and didn't - and it doesn't have to just be > expectations between HBP and DH. Mike: Major thing that I got: Harry was a Horcrux (well, pseudo-Horcrux). As I had said, if after all the hints throughout the series (the pain in his scar when LV is near, speaking parseltongue, the weird audio-visual connection between him and LV) it had turned out to be nothing, I would have been extremely disappointed. Minor things I got: Riddle's main point of questioning Slughorn in "A Sluggish Memory" was to find out about *multiple* Horcruxes because he already knew how to make them. Got to meet Andromeda and Ted Tonks. I also missed Lee, glad to have him back. His Quidditch commentary throughout the books was hilarious. Major thing I didn't get: A better reason for Snape ultimately being on the "good" side. Although I didn't mind LOLLIPOPS or TEWW EWW or whatever you want to call it, I expected a more substantive reason for Snape than the 'love of Lily'. I was glad that Snape never really was Dumbledore's Man, even if he followed DD's orders. I thought it was disgusting that he was following orders of portrait!Dumbledore. Why couldn't Snape have been given a mission like Harry was, and carried it out by his own devices? Why couldn't we have actually gotten a scene where Snape consults with all the former Headmasters, something that we knew Dumbledore had done in previous books? Minor thing I didn't get: The Fidelius Secret's status after the death of the SK. Actually, I got this from Hermione, I just got it badly. If Sirius had been the Potters SK, and he was the most likely candidate, Voldemort may have allowed Sirius to "[die] rather than betray [his] friends" and then go after whoever else might have known the secret that would have been the weakest link. Would the plot have really suffered if she had come up with a better way to force the Trio into the camping trip from hell? How about letting the Trio get the locket back safely to 12 GP. Then, have them try a *Diffindo* on it and have the spell backfire to blow part of the roof off. Hermione immediately realizes what this means and they apparate out of there after telling Kreacher to go to Hogwarts. This also would've given us a definitive answer as to how Hagrid found Harry in the ruins of the cottage at GH, and tied up that loose thread as to why Kreacher was outed from the Hogwart's kitchen to enter the battle. Mike, who would've gladly volunteered to be JKR's continuity editor ;) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Nov 17 04:43:21 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:43:21 -0000 Subject: Slytherin as villains / Ender vs. Harry SPOILERS for Ender's Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179149 > zgirnius: > And in the case of some of those children (Theo Nott comes to mind, > sorry, Potioncat), Flooing home would be pointless. Papa Nott is in > the Forest, one presumes, and Mama Nott is long dead. Potioncat: But Theo has gone somewhere for 2 summers, and he is "of age" now because he's a 7th year. So I would think he could floo home. But you bring up a good point, there are lots of kids from Hogwarts who might not have a completely safe place to go. Obviously, Slughorn alone could not have seen that all 200 or so students were tended to, but I don't think we're meant to think about that. I've seen Nott Snr mentioned twice. Did we ever hear what happened to him after the MoM battle? Does his name come up in DH? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 04:55:46 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:55:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH7 - Scrimgeour, Another Wish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179150 > KJ: > > 17. Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour > > and Harry is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot? > > Prep0strus: > I'd like to build on that and ask what people think of the > character of Scrimgeour and his purpose in the series at large. > He's a bit of a mystery to me. His entrance and presentation in > the story led me to believe he would have a much more important > role to play in the story at large. Mike: His introduction as the chief of the Auror office (in OotP) that was "asking ... funny questions" about Sirius was foretelling. He was a company man. He couldn't be trusted in on the secret of where Sirius was. He wasn't Order material. > Prep0strus: > I guess in the end it comes down to the view of the ministry - new > face, same old crap. But I was disappointed to find out there > wasn't more, and was wondering how others felt about it. Mike: I view the Aurors as the Military branch in the WW. More times than not, advancing in rank in the military during peacetime is a result of political saavy and having advocates in higher places, in my experience. This is the impression I got from Scrimgeour. He didn't rock the boat on the way up, and look where it got him. Why should he rock the boat now? Stick to what got you there. > Prep0strus: > JKR is good at giving a quick image of a character, but I felt like > her description was even more powerful than usual with Scrimgeour. > And his comparison to a 'lion' surely must have instigated > Gryffindor thoughts in readers other than myself - these are not > things that JKR is usually subtle about. The image of a lion, the > image of a snake... these are rote symbols in the WW. Mike: I've no doubt that Scrimgeour was a good Auror as a beginning and intermediate trooper. He was probably quite competent in the job, and most likely sought out the type of assignments that would get him noticed (and also injured if he wasn't the best in the business. In fact, getting injured on the job probably helped him get exposure that he wouldn't have gotten otherwise.) I'd be willing to bet that the "lion" look was a purposeful facade, complimenting his natural features with a particular hairstyle to inspire the comparison. (I wonder if he always limped on the same leg? Did anyone check? ). > Prep0strus: > And his personality, so different from Fudge's... I got the feeling > something was really going to happen with the ministry. I even got > the feeling that old Rufus might have knowledge of secrets we had > not been told yet... he certainly is reminiscent of Mad-Eye - > scarred and brusque, and there's probably a lot below the surface. Mike: I never trust a character that harbors an injury, if we don't know why he got it. For all we know, Scrimmy splinched himself running from a fight and chose to keep the injury as proof that he had fought the bad guys. Sort of like shooting yourself in the foot. Mad-Eye, we knew where he got some of his injuries, and Dumbledore vouched for him. OTOH, although Dumbledore admits Scrimmy is "A more decisive and forceful personality than Cornelius" (big deal, who isn't?) and "a man of action ... and does not underestimate Lord Voldemort." Prep0strus: > I was disappointed, because I felt that his introduction was so > strong that surely he would matter more to the story. When he was > simply killed off-stage, I was befuddled. I just didn't understand > why such a big deal had been made of him for him to not do anything > worthwhile or unique. Mike: I too was disappointed in Scrimgeour, but not in JKR. I admit I had higher hopes for him in the beginning of HBP, but for the reasons I gave above I understand why those hopes didn't pan out. For me, this mirrors your feelings on Slytherins. It would have been fine if they (both Slyths and Scrimmy) would have had a better showing than they did, but I wasn't expecting it and it wasn't a deal breaker when it didn't happen. **************** I forgot a wish that I didn't get, and this discussion of Scrimgeour reminded me. Aurors. It was Harry's aspiration to become one. There was such a build up for Mad-Eye, the first one we were introduced to. And Mad- Eye's exploits were legendary (though in the past). Harry was truly impressed that Tonks was one. And then... nothing! We never hear of anything that any Auror does fighting the Dark side in Harry's time, unless that Auror was an Order member and doing Order business. :( From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Nov 17 05:01:11 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:01:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's protection (was Re: Another thing (was JKR, the female and facism) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179151 > > Carol responds: > Under the management of Severus Snape, rather. I expect he made sure > that the classes other than those run by the Carrows (who probably > didn't know about the connection between Trelawney and the Prophecy as > they weren't at the MoM and Snape's not about to tell them) ran as > normally as possible. McGonagall would probably have kept an eye on > Trelawney, too. Potioncat: We know that terrible things happened under the Carrows' influence. But we also know that Luna wasn't taken from Hogwarts, she was snatched off the train. And Ginny wasn't allowed to leave Hogwarts to go to Hogsmeade. We know it was full of DEs. So, Snape seems to have been able to protect those under his roof to some extent. Although, if LV had asked for Trelawney, I think Snape would have given her up. From catlady at wicca.net Sat Nov 17 11:43:05 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:43:05 -0000 Subject: House Elves / Chapter 7 / Lucius, Lucius, Lucius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179152 Miles wrote in : << For all we know, goblins and elves *could* have the same ancestors and at some point their way parted - associating with humans, and living on their own. >> It could be -- many of us thought Professor Flitwick was part House Elf until Rowling revealed that he was part Goblin. Imagine wizards kidnapping a few goblins and putting such powerful spells on them that they and their descendents would fawn all over humans! Kind of like breeding wolves into dogs. Kathryn Jones summarized Chapter 7 in : << Ginny ignores this change of subject and continues. She does not know what to give him, and decides to give him something to remember her by. She then kisses him. They are still well involved, as Ron barges into the room. >> Ginny was obviously determined to have sex with him. She wasn't going to take 'No' for an answer, and he had no idea what was happening, so I wonder if it could count as rape. I didn't understand why she had such a foolish plan -- some romantic notion that two virgins figuring out sex by trial and error would be glorious? she'd been reading Eggplant's pre-DH posts and wanted to have a baby to remember Harry by after his heroic death? << From this scroll he reads,"To Ronald Bilius Weasley, I leave my deluminator in the hope that he will remember me when he uses it". He then took an object from the pouch, which resembled a silver cigarette lighter and leaned forward to hand it to Ron. >> It was called a put-outer in PS/SS and OoP, so why does it suddenly have a new name? << Writing appears on the snitch, which says "I open at the close." None of them is able to form any ideas or conclusions as to the meaning of this message. >> I wondered why not, as I was able to form several erroneous ideas as to the meaning. I knew one noun meaning of 'close' is part of a garden ... here's the definition from American Heritage Dictionary http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/C0415300.html "4. An enclosed place, especially land surrounding or beside a cathedral or other building. 5. Chiefly British A narrow way or alley." So I expected them to sneak to some 'close' on the Hogwarts grounds to try it, probably unsuccessfully. I also thought of the phrase 'the close of day', and the inscription in THE HOBBIT that could be seen only for a short time, at twilight, when allegedly both one's seeing in the light ability and one's seeing in the dark ability are active. So try, unsuccessfully, to open it while holding it up to the setting sun. While in the garden at Hogwarts... And I imagined it opening with a hinge in the back, so the top lifts up at an angle rather than being pulled off or having a sliding door, so the hinge would be 'the close' (well, it made sense when I thought it) and there would be something on the hinge that has to be touched for it to open (maybe mechanical rather than magical, like some kind of latch holding the hinge down until the latch is pushed aside). But I suppose she thought the book was quite long enough without having them dream up and try out all these unsuccessful methods. Pippin wrote in : << He thinks his blood status entitles him to the best of everything (peacocks!) >> Peacocks aren't that expensive. Some years ago a woman in APA-L who is far from rich said she bought a pair of peafowl for her front yard (in Pacoima) and IIRC they cost $75 for the male and $50 for the female. That was my reaction as soon as that DE commented on the peacock. I've just wasted too much time searching around for current prices, and it seems one can buy an adult pair for $300 (and up and up for newfangled colors) and chicks for $30 each. Most of the people selling them don't seem to be rich, either. a_svirn wrote in : << [Voldemort] was quite simply too dangerous to trifle with. >> Lucius had an exaggerated sense of his invulnerability. << More importantly, it was *Lucius's* job, not Voldemort's to weed out the undesirables. I don't see how Lucius could have been delusional enough to believe that Voldemort would do the dirty work for him, when it was exactly the other way round. >> I see the specific 'dirty work' that Voldemort would do for Lucius was to be the figurehead, the name and face of the coup/ conquest/ revolution, and Lucius would be hidden/invisible in that context. Voldemort would terrify all and sundry; Lucius, in Voldemort's name, would recruit some people to be Death Eaters, and Lucius's recruits would recruit enough bruisers and spies to overthrow the opposed government and subdue the population. The Death Eaters would respect Lucius as a high-ranking Death Eater and the Ministry, until overthrown, would respect Lucius as a rich man who was not on Voldemort's side. I'm sure that Lucius expected that when Voldemort ruled the wizards, he would do and command what Lucius flattered and manipulating him into doing and commanding. I'm sure Lucius expected that he would be able to build himself such a secure situation, right under Voldemort's nose, that at some point he could arrange for Voldemort to die or be eternally imprisoned in a lead bottle sealed with the sign of a seven pointed star and thrown into the sea. And, as Steve bboyminn wrote in : << then later Lucius would take over and /claim/ a new age of enlightenment. Which translates into a whole new dictator, but the same old tyranny. >> (Steve, it would be good if he did it before Voldemort completely destroyed the economy!) I used to be sure that Voldemort knew what Lucius was thinking, and intended to keep Lucius around as long as he was useful, and then off him just before he made his move. Which one of them killed the other would depend on how good was Voldemort's timing. I used to wonder which it would be -- the killed one would be so surprised! << But he was ok with having an upstart half-blood as his Master? >> He was okay with calling that upstart half-blood 'Master' as long as that half-blood was the strong horse on which he was riding to victory. I'm sure he viewed it as play-acting. I've had a couple of different speculations about how Lucius and Voldemort got together. One is if Lucius's father or older brother or uncle or whatever was one of Tom Riddle's original gang -- in those days, Riddle was perfectly good at seducing people by being so charming and likeable and all that, so he might even have made that Malfoy think he was offering for them to be co-leaders because Tom had the ideas but Malfoy had the status to have followers. And then Tom might have spent some time studying old books of Dark Magic at Malfoy Manor before going to seek 'the worst of our kind' in other countries. And he might have been Lucius's godfather, so Lucius grew up accustomed to him. And maybe the reason that Lucius is Lord of the Manor at such a young age is that he killed his father and older brother and that was the first time that the Dark Mark was seen in the sky over a murder ... If Voldemort, on his return to Britain, newly recruited the adult Lucius because he would be useful, he would have had to dredge up his Tom Riddle memories of how to be charming. That might not have been so difficult ... in the graveyard circle, it seemed that Voldemort actually felt a drop of affection for Lucius, enough to let him get away with being 'slippery'. I thought it might be that enough of the boy from the orphanage remained inside Voldemort that he was quite impressed with himself for hanging with a toff. Alas, he got over it in later books. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Nov 17 13:55:05 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:55:05 -0000 Subject: House Elves / Chapter 7 / Lucius, Lucius, Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179153 Catlady: > Ginny was obviously determined to have sex with him. She wasn't going > to take 'No' for an answer, and he had no idea what was happening, so > I wonder if it could count as rape. I didn't understand why she had > such a foolish plan -- some romantic notion that two virgins figuring > out sex by trial and error would be glorious? she'd been reading > Eggplant's pre-DH posts and wanted to have a baby to remember Harry by > after his heroic death? Pippin: If she intended on having sex, she'd have taken more steps to ensure their privacy. And how do you know she's a virgin? Or that Harry's so naive he wouldn't know what she had in mind? Catlady: > It was called a put-outer in PS/SS and OoP, so why does it suddenly > have a new name? Pippin: Because its inventor (JKR or DD, take your pick) finally thought of one. Catlady: > Peacocks aren't that expensive. Pippin: No, but they're showy and not otherwise useful. The tent at the QWC with the peacocks in front no doubt belonged to the Malfoys. Wizards who keep them would use silencing charms; their cries could be mistaken for that "piteous human scream" that Draco made. They go on all night in season. Pippin whose neighbor used to keep them From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Nov 17 14:16:31 2007 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:16:31 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179154 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vivida89" wrote: > In DH, page 418, last sentences it's said: "...He seemed to set > on the course to become just as reckless a godfather to Teddy > Lupin as Sirius Black had been to him." Marianne: I believe she said something similar in one of her recent interviews regarding Harry and Teddy Lupin. Something along the lines of Harry being a better godfather (or better choice for godfather) for Teddy than Sirius ever was to Harry. I thought that quite peculiar as the circumstances around Teddy's growth from childhood are radically different than the situation Harry was in. Teddy, to our knowledge, is not being pursued by an evil overlord. There is no wizard war going on as he grows up. Thus, there may be no instances were someone might behave "recklessly" in response to both circumstances and nature. I guess Sirius would have been a better godfather had he stayed in the tropics and simply wrote encouraging letters to Harry . vivida: > In the chapter "The Forest Again", Sirius reappears. We can > see that along with James, Lily and Lupin he is an important > person to Harry. I nearly cried because of this scene, it was > so utterly beautiful. Marianne: I thought this sort of odd, too. I wondered why Remus and Sirius were suddenly portrayed as much younger than they were at the time of their deaths. I could understand if they appeared as healthy men in their late 30s, as they would have had Sirius not suffered the ravages of Azkaban and Remus not suffered from the strains of being a werewolf, but it seemed to me that JKR was regressing (maybe that's not quite the right word) them back to the times that they were happiest, which would have been before everything went so drastically wrong. Or maybe she just wanted them to look similar in age to James and Lily. Whatever, it just struck me as strange. vivida: Okay, about > the epilogue; there were James jr, Lily jr, even Albus SEVERUS > (with whom Harry didn't have as much to do as with Sirius) but > Sirius isn't ever mentioned once. I still hope the second name > of James jr was James Sirius. I really do hope because it seems > unfair to me that Sirius should just be forgotten. In contrary > to that Harry names one of his children after Snape it's just > plain unfair that Sirius apparently doesn't get a role of it. Marianne: I'm with you whole-heartedly on this. I had also hoped that Harry would have said something when he visited his parents' grave to acknowledge Sirius's loss. He could have said something like, once this war was over, that he would memorialize Sirius in some way next to James and Lily. Even if that was not made explicit later in the epilogue, I would have assumed Harry did it. But, nothing. I'm also curious if JKR will ever show Sirius's birthday on the calendar on her website. The theory used to be that only live characters ever showed up, which was true to a point. However, some of the characters whose birthdays were revealed are now definitely dead. Marianne From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Nov 17 14:16:37 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:16:37 -0000 Subject: Character Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179155 > > Alla: > > I take it we are restricting ourselves to minor characters here or at least those that started as minor? Potioncat: I was thinking along that line, but if someone has something to say about the JKR's skill at developing a particular character over the course of the series that would be good. > Alla: > I will tell you one thing. I can and was intrigued by some of the > minor characters or the characters that started as minor, but for > such thing to happen the character has to really do something, or at > least I have to hear from somebody else that character did something. Potioncat: Although Selwyn doesn't interest me, he is a good example of what JKR does well. She introduces him rather smoothly during LV's pursuit of Harry. I think he may appear once more. But his name's main role is for us to understand what Umbridge is doing when she says her locket shows her connection to the Selwyns. We know what kind of people the Selwyns are; we know know the locket does no such thing; and we probably doubt she has such connections. >Alla: > I do not get intrigued if character's name mentioned and that's it, I > usually could care less about "name only" characters. Potioncat: Is there a literary law or rule of thumb about naming characters? Many of us thought that if a character was named, he would be important at some point. Remember the furry-faced patient in the ward at St. Mungo's? Her name was Agnes. The list put forth some effort to determine what her role might have been and who her son was. It seems her real role was to deflect our attention from the Healer and Bode's plant. Although I'm not fully certain that JKR didn't forget that Snape's mother's name was Agnes, not Eileen. >Alla: > So, the information on the website about Theo peeked my curiosity > indeed, I wanted to meet him and get to know him. I was especially > intrigued that JKR seems to think of him as loner, and while I was > never particularly attached to the "good Slytherin" idea, I certainly would not mind him to be one. Potioncat: Exactly. He seemed to be emphasized a few times in addition to having the little bit of information on the web site. So it looked like he was being introduced for a purpose. I even worried about him as he left Hogwarts after his father was injured. >Alla: > Funnily, when JKR mentioned Sirius in book first it sooo went off my > radar and I was not curious much to find out more about him. > > Dean Thomas' story actually did not interest me much for some reason. Potioncat: I think "young Black" was one reason so many fans began to really study the books. We found out there were clues and foreshaddowings...pretty soon every "if and or but" became important. > > Alla: > After I read Elkins' Crouch novella long time ago, I did realize that > I should have been intrigued about them, so much depth she discovered > in those characters, but I don't know, I just was not much. Potioncat: Do you mean her many posts about them? or was there one particular essay? She had come up with a most fascinating story for them. >Alla: > LOVE your threads as always. Potioncat: Thank you! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 16:21:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:21:06 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179156 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vivida89" > wrote: > > > > In DH, page 418, last sentences it's said: "...He seemed to set > > on the course to become just as reckless a godfather to Teddy > > Lupin as Sirius Black had been to him." > > Marianne: > > I believe she said something similar in one of her recent interviews > regarding Harry and Teddy Lupin. Something along the lines of Harry > being a better godfather (or better choice for godfather) for Teddy > than Sirius ever was to Harry. I thought that quite peculiar as the > circumstances around Teddy's growth from childhood are radically > different than the situation Harry was in. Teddy, to our knowledge, > is not being pursued by an evil overlord. There is no wizard war > going on as he grows up. Thus, there may be no instances were > someone might behave "recklessly" in response to both circumstances > and nature. I guess Sirius would have been a better godfather had > he stayed in the tropics and simply wrote encouraging letters to > Harry . > Alla: Heeee, I totally hear you Marianne. But here is I guess a perfect example of how I never get why JKR's opinions of character, any character would be bothersome. Given the circumstances (Azkaban and all that), I absolutely think that Sirius did the best he could, let me stress again **given the circumstances**. So, I definitely think that here JKR compares apples and oranges. I mean, DUH, guess for whom I think it would have been much easier to be a good godfather. What I am trying to say, I disagree with her here and I do not care. But having said that, this is JKR's opinion, you know? And I am free to disregard it as I please, which I do. I am just reacting in general to people being bothered by JKR opinions of different characters. Not even specifically to what you wrote Marianne, since I agree with you :) I find this comparison odd. But what I am trying to say is that we are free to disregard it, no? What I see in the books is the man suffering for twelve years for no reason and escaping it because he wanted to save Harry from Pettigrew ( and to kill Pettigrew of course). What I see in the books is the man, half crasy as he is leaving his tropical paradise the very moment Harry needs him, and leaving off rats and all that and never going back to that paradise, because he loves Harry. What I see in the book, the man stuck in the house where he escaped from as youth for the sake of the order and Harry, STILL trying to tell Harry what is going on despite DD wanting to keep it a secret. So, really, DUH JKR again. I love Harry's character dearly, but comparing him being a godfather to Teddy and Sirius to him is strange to me. I do respect author's opinion very much, but here I am throwing it out of the mental window of my imagination and pretending it does not exist ;) JMO, Alla From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 18:48:51 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:48:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH7 - Scrimgeour, Another Wish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179157 > Mike: > I too was disappointed in Scrimgeour, but not in JKR. I admit I had > higher hopes for him in the beginning of HBP, but for the reasons I > gave above I understand why those hopes didn't pan out. For me, this > mirrors your feelings on Slytherins. It would have been fine if they > (both Slyths and Scrimmy) would have had a better showing than they > did, but I wasn't expecting it and it wasn't a deal breaker when it > didn't happen. > Prep0strus: See, the reason I was disappointed in JKR was that my expecting 'more' of him wasn't necessarily expecting him to be a better minister - but a better character. I would have been interested in him being a DE, or in him orchestrating some major betrayal of Harry - but for the greater good, not in league with Voldy, etc. But when I think about it, there's almost no character I DIDN'T want more of. From Draco to Umbridge to Lupin to Snape to Blaise to Charlie to Ginny... I would have liked to see more of almost everyone. Even the main three characters, but at that point maybe it's that I wish to have seen different from them rather than more, precisely. But from almost everyone else - more. Is it like a band or a comedian, where 'leave them wanting more' is a good result? I'm not sure it applies the same way to authors, but it probably does to some extent. It leads me to a question though - who did you NOT want to see more of? I'd like to know who people were fully satisfied with, or even which characters might have been overexposed, and you could have had a little less of, rather than wanting more. I'll start. Dumbledore. Got a little more of him than I was expecting, or, it turns out, I really wanted. Felt like I got more of him when he was dead than in the first 6 books combined. And I guess I like my Dumbledore in small doses. Xenophilius. Ok, he was a character introduced in this book, so maybe it's hard to compare... but I didn't really care about him or the time spent with him, so it was too much. Luna. I'm not a Luna fan, as I've said, and while I won't say she was overexposed, I wasn't left wanting more either. Molly. Again, it's not that I think we saw too much of her, but that I was satisfied with what we got and didn't feel the need to see more. (Except maybe see her reset her clock) Slughorn. I got as much as I needed from Sluggy too. I don't have any real urge to find out any more about him. Pansy. I think I'd gag if I had to spend any more time with Pansy. Ok, that's the list I can think of right now. Pretty much everyone else, from small to large characters, I really could have explored their parts in the story further. Anyone else? ~Adam (Prep0strus) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 19:06:20 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:06:20 -0000 Subject: House Elves / Chapter 7 / Lucius, Lucius, Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179158 > a_svirn wrote in > : > > << [Voldemort] was quite simply too dangerous to trifle with. >> > Catlady: > Lucius had an exaggerated sense of his invulnerability. a_svirn: Why? Once he ceded his own freedom to Voldemort he became extremely vulnerable. Couldn't help it. I don't see how he could expect it otherwise. a_svirn: > << More importantly, it was *Lucius's* job, not Voldemort's to weed > out the undesirables. I don't see how Lucius could have been > delusional enough to believe that Voldemort would do the dirty work > for him, when it was exactly the other way round. >> > > Catlady: > I see the specific 'dirty work' that Voldemort would do for Lucius was > to be the figurehead, the name and face of the coup/ conquest/ > revolution, and Lucius would be hidden/invisible in that context. > Voldemort would terrify all and sundry; Lucius, in Voldemort's name, > would recruit some people to be Death Eaters, and Lucius's recruits > would recruit enough bruisers and spies to overthrow the opposed > government and subdue the population. a_svirn: And what would be the point of that? Revolutionary leaders aren't in the habit of stepping politely aside once they come to power and abdicate in favour of their minions. They are more likely to reshuffle those minions from time to time just in case they get ideas. You are painting Lucius as a clever puppet master, but canon does not support this view. Voldemort had never been anyone's puppet, and unless Lucius was labouring under some particularly weird delusions of grandeur he couldn't believe that Voldemort would do any "dirty work" for him by simple expedient of being his Master (with capital M) and holding the WW firmly under his (Voldemort's) control. > Catlady: The Death Eaters would respect > Lucius as a high-ranking Death Eater and the Ministry, until > overthrown, would respect Lucius as a rich man who was not on > Voldemort's side. > > I'm sure that Lucius expected that when Voldemort ruled the wizards, > he would do and command what Lucius flattered and manipulating him > into doing and commanding. a_svirn: I'd agree with that if we didn't know a little more about the death eater's customs and every day practices. In order to become a death eater Lucius had to practically enslave himself to Voldemort. He could ? with some effort ? maintain the Lord of the Manor image for the Ministry's benefit, but certainly not before the death eaters. They were all expected to abase themselves to equal degree. He may have been put in charge of some missions (thus doing the dirty work for Voldemort), but he had no real power, because he relinquished *all* of it to Voldemort from the start. > Catlady: > I'm sure Lucius expected that he would be able to build himself such a > secure situation, right under Voldemort's nose, that at some point he > could arrange for Voldemort to die or be eternally imprisoned in a > lead bottle sealed with the sign of a seven pointed star and thrown > into the sea. And, as Steve bboyminn wrote in > : > << then later Lucius would take over and /claim/ a new age of > enlightenment. Which translates into a whole new dictator, but the > same old tyranny. >> a_svirn: Well, I still don't see how he could have been so cheerfully optimistic. Besides, why take such a roundabout route to power? Surely it would be more fun and less risky if he (and other purebloods) overthrew the Ministry on their own? Without enslaving themselves to this half-blood self-proclaimed Lord? Considering that they were doing exactly that anyway? This way Lucius could have been the Lord and others would have to do *his* dirty work. Granted, there would still be Voldemort to deal with, but without powerful wizards to back him he would be less formidable. According to this scenario Lucius could afford to negotiate with Voldemort instead of grovelling at his feet. And he would be a player instead of a pawn. > a_svirn: > << But he was ok with having an upstart half-blood as his Master? >> > > Catlady: > He was okay with calling that upstart half-blood 'Master' as long as > that half-blood was the strong horse on which he was riding to > victory. I'm sure he viewed it as play-acting. a_svirn: I am sure he didn't. Voldemort *was* his master. Actors can switch off their play acting mode. Death eaters couldn't. As Sirius very justly pointed out you can't tender your resignation to Voldemort. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 19:29:48 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:29:48 -0000 Subject: JKR, the female and facism (wasRe: WAS Slytherin as villains... In-Reply-To: <700201d40711151910u2d95caa4g2adcef90887fed76@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179159 > >>Betsy Hp: > > The hungy look is what I found icky. Though combining it with > > personal grooming did push things for me. (What was JKR thinking > > there?) And yeah, I'm going to say her "so brave" remark was meant > > to be encouraging. Especially combined (heh) with all of her boys > > telling Harry how cool and easy death is. > >>Kemper now: > Harry called her boys for emotional support. Not for rahs. Betsy Hp: Okay. I think maybe we're tomato-tomahto-ing? The point is, Lily et al were all very encouraging as Harry marched off to die. I personally found that disturbing. It seemed very cult of death-ish, IMO. I didn't dig the emotional support. > >>Kemper now: > > If Harry was Lily's age when she died, then maybe I can see her > being ok with a twentysomething Harry's death. > I still think Lily knew Harry wouldn't die. Betsy Hp: Hmm... I just wish there'd been something to suggest that within the text. As it is, all I've got to go with is Harry's family encouraging him as he heads off to die. An encouragement Dumbledore counted on (which I think *very* strange) as he gave Harry his death ring for that purpose. > >>Kemper: > Why else look so hungrily? (By the by... is there a different > British interpretation/definition for 'hungrily' in this sense? > God, I hope so.) Betsy Hp: I hope so, too. Though, since I really, *really* doubt JKR was trying to hint at what she appears to be hinting at, I think she was just trying to show that Lily missed her son. She just... erred a bit in her word choice, IMO. (Combined with everything else, I think this also goes towards JKR's discomfort with having her female characters express a positive emotion. There's alway seems to be something negative and aggressive about it.) > >>Kemper: > > > > He realizes his mom is right. Narcissa as Mother knows best. > >>Betsy Hp: > > And this also condemns Draco. It's tied in, I think, with him > > using her wand. Draco has not become a man because he's too > > dependent on a woman is how I read it. (Another example of the > > danger of the female to the male. > >>Kemper now: > I don't quite see the condemnation. Please explain further. I see > son using mother's wand as female power but am not sure of the > danger. Betsy Hp: I'd *love* to explain further. First, Draco using his mother's wand is commented on, and it's commented on negatively. "Winners, keepers, Malfoy. Who's lent you theirs?" "My mother." Harry laughed, though there was nothing very humorous about the situation. [DH scholastic p.628] Harry's laughing about Draco using his mother's wand. Because, IMO, it's a negative. It means Draco's a bit of a weeny, a mama's boy. If that were all, I'm not sure I'd see Draco's connection with the female as a negative. But there's more. Draco is painted as a weak, girly-type boy throughout the scene. He first appears standing behind Crabbe and Goyle, barely spotted between them. As the fight starts, he's quickly disarmed, and is described: "The wandless Malfoy cowered behind a three-legged wardrobe as Hermione charged toward them..." [ibid p. 631] So even his mother's borrowed strength is too much for him. By the time Harry rescues him from the fire, Draco has been reduced to hysterics, screaming and sceaming and "holding Harry so tightly it hurt" [p.634]. When we next see Draco he's "pleading" for his life with one of his fellow Death Eaters, Harry rescues him (again), and we're told: "Malfoy looked around, beaming, for his savior". [p.645] So we have Draco with his mother's wand, described as small, cowering, hysterical, and coquettish. Obviously Draco is supposed to be seen as weak and faltering and cowardly. And JKR does so by making him... girly. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > ...Harry seems genuinely innocent. And Ron is, for the most part, > > quite ignorant (ignorant enough for little sister Ginny to give > > him a pat on the head). > >>Kemper now: > I though it odd that Harry was not struck by Fleur. But he's not > innocent. Maybe he's bi. Betsy Hp: Harry has long struck me as gay, frankly. It's always been the boys he's noticed (Tom, Bill, Cedric, etc.) then the girls really. But that's where I see the innocence. Harry is not really interested in having any sort of sexual relationship with Cho, and Ginny is the one to push him in their relationship. There's something very naturally virginal about him. He's always suprised, confused, and for the most part annoyed, when girls express a sexual interest in him. (Hilariously, IMO, Harry was cool with Slughorn's interest, and even worked it a little to get the information he needed. Probably because flirting with a man was a lot less scary than flirting with a woman for him. In JKR's world, the women are the scary predators.) > >>Kemper: > Ron, though ignorant, desperately wants to be learned in the carnal. > It is not hard to imagin him in revelry flying his freak flag with > someone and (h)Uranus. Betsy Hp: IMO, Ron was the most normal kid in the bunch. He's interested in sex, would like to have some, and is endearingly awkward about the whole thing (which as a teenager he *should* be). I think JKR is... semi-comfortable with male sexuality -- it existing, I mean. But there's also a certain amount of contempt for Ron *because* he's so interested in the ladies. It's used as a means to paint him as a fool. His weakness with Fleur, for example. Harry, by his *lack* of interest is shown as the stronger more dignified boy. (Which actually, is a reason I don't think Harry's subtextual gayness is a positive thing. I think it's there as a negative reaction to female sexuality rather than a positive exploration of male sexuality, if that makes any sense at all.) Betsy Hp From vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 17 18:58:41 2007 From: vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk (vivida89) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:58:41 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179160 > Alla: > So, really, DUH JKR again. I love Harry's character dearly, but > comparing him being a godfather to Teddy and Sirius to him is > strange to me. > > I do respect author's opinion very much, but here I am throwing it > out of the mental window of my imagination and pretending it does > not exist ;) Vivida89: Oh really, that was said perfectly. I couldn't have expressed it in any better way. I think you got the point all right: The author does have the authority to edit the book, to put up facts that we have to believe in (what you call canon) since, well, it's sort of HER book. But just because it's HER book it doesn't mean we have to follow blindly. I disregard some of JKR's opinions and I have no problem admitting that. She wrote the book, I'm all thankful for that and things, but I won't let my own opinion get drowned with it. What I am trying to say is as follows: I think she dislikes the character of Sirius Black in a strange way and therewith visualizes it on the book. I noticed the same thing when she said in an interview that because Arthur Weasley was her favorite character, whom she intended to let die in the beginning, she changed HIS death actually to the death of Arthur Weasley. Again, I have no right to complain because it's her book and her point of view and she's free to express it that way. But in one way I completely felt, well, actually sort of betrayed =/. In my opinion she should have sticked to her former plan because she herself said she writes the books the way she wanted them to be. Okay, back to Sirius Black: The thing is that I started to doubt my love for this character. In the beginning I loved him for his good looks and because he was just plain cool and stuff, but as I grew up I started to see potential behind the character. It built up itself with every book and he was my favorite character along with Lupin. But since I have read DH my opinion for him is not the same it used to be... I feel like JKR wants to tell us: Stop loving Sirius Black, he's nothing more than a playboy with huge flaws and a reckless guy. I really have trouble to get back loving him. Naturally I shouldn't let get my opinion be influenced by it, but... she's the author, you know, she has to know about the characters... Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with all of you: SB's treatment was not exactly what you could call fair. Vivida89 From vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 17 19:15:54 2007 From: vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk (vivida89) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:15:54 -0000 Subject: First war with VD - did James trust Remus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179161 In the era of Pre-Azkaban, meaning the time after the Marauders leave Hogwarts and before Lily and James die and Sirius gets imprisoned - do you think that James trusted Remus? In PoA we get to know that it was like everyone suspected everyone. Remus suspected Sirius and Sirius suspected Remus. This is also why Sirius asked James to switch the figure of the secret keeper to Peter. That James initially agreed with that shows me he saw the need why to do this. Meaning he must have distrusted Remus as well - which I can not think of, not after DH. In DH, I don't know in which chapter anymore, but it's shortly after they take Harry away from Privet Drive number four, it comes out that there must have been a spy. Harry says outloud he trusts EVERYONE of them. And what strikes me as funny is now the way Remus reacts; he says something that Harry is like James and that James trusted also everyone (whether it's good or bad). What is strange about it is the way he says it, somehow bitterly and full of regrets. Like he doesn't want Harry to be that way. If James trusted everyone, he must have trusted Remus as well. Did he only agree to make Peter the secret keeper because Sirius was his best friend and he didn't want to reject him? I can see James clearly as a person who would have trusted his friends still if it was utterly obvious WHO was the spy. I suppose he didn't want to believe that any of his friends could have been capable of betraying him. Vivida89 From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Nov 17 21:07:43 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:07:43 -0000 Subject: Twelve Fail-safe Ways to Charm Witches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179162 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore Ron gives Harry his birthday gift, a book titled "Twelve Fail-safe Ways to Charm Witches"(12FSWCW). AUSSIE: While we are still on Chp 7 discussions, we should work out what the 12 Fail-Safe ways to Charm Witches are (this would be easier for us than working out the 12 uses of Dragon's blood.) (By the way, the key word is CHARM, not "make sexual trophey". JKR may be conscious she is still writing this with a young daughter around. She would prefer to encourage booys to be "Charming", not preditory.) The gift to Harry, I think, is similar to a husband buying a fishing rod for his wife ... he wants to use it himself. Ron can't let Hermione see him with a book of that title, so he gives it to Harry. We can get some ideas of what hides inside that book from 3 sources: 1- The way Ron acts differently. 2- How Hermions responds differently 3- The twin have also read it and will win the attention of veela cousins in the next chapter. Possible Chapters in 12FSWCW 1. COMPLIMENTS: Ron uses a compliment at breakfast, and Hermione gushes. 2. Protectivenes/Comforting: In Chap 6, Ron would put his arm around Hermione in a comforting, non-sexual, way. In Chap 7, he is protective of Ginny by telling off Harry. In Chap 8, he shows jealousy when Krum sits at their table, and Ron takes Hermione to the dance floor (Remember how Ron hated dancing at the Yule Ball (GOF)? Also, even though Ron and Hermione slept in the same tent, we do not find they sent a Mufflato spell on the sleeping Harry to start "horizontal ball-room dancing". The most they did (in Grimauld Place) was hold hands while they slept on different levels. So what are the other chapters? A clean environment was not one ... Ron was happy to lay back in a messy room while Hermione sat sorting books in the corner. We may not work out any wand waving, but that doesn't stops from delving into the other chapters. Aussie PS., if this topic comes up in the Sunday discussion, copy, edit, and post some good ideas ... thankyou From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 21:20:46 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:20:46 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179163 > vivida89: > She keeps saying over and over, Sirius is NOT perfect, he has > flaws. zgirnius: Yes, and as others have already pointed out in response to this, we as readers can disagree that he does have flaws (a position I would personally consider untenable in light of his characterization in the books), or decide that we like him anyway (a perfectly reasonable difference of opinion with the author about what makes a character worthy of being liked by us). For example, I am not a huge Sirius fan, but Snape is my favorite character. I would not deny he is a "mean teacher" based on the text of the books, but this has never bothered me nearly as much as Rowling apparently thinks it ought to, if I had to guess based on her interview comments. > vivida89: > In DH, page 418, last sentences it's said: "...He seemed to set > on the course to become just as reckless a godfather to Teddy > Lupin as Sirius Black had been to him." zgirnius: This expresses Harry's opinion of Sirius, and how seriously Harry takes his responsibility as a godfather, it seems to me. You can disagree with Harry. Also, we can see that Harry does not really have the option to be a better godfather, since he is busy saving the world, so we could take this to mean the same about Sirius. (I would not, but someone could). > vivida89: > Page 590, somewhere a bit above the middle: "Bellatrix laughed, > the same the same exhilarated laugh her cousin Sirius had given > as he toppled backwards through the veil..." > Quote number two really got me. My mouth stands open every time > I read it, my eyes narrow -- how can she? How can JKR compare > Sirius with someone he dislikes? zgirnius: In my own view, this is entirely consistent with what I see as a strand woven throughout the books in which Sirius is compared to his cousin. They definitely have a good deal in common. -They are both Blacks, and the eldest siblings of their families. -They both share a certain arrogance that probably comes from the family. -They share a strong family resemblance. Both were blessed with unusually good looks physically, and both are dark. -They are both brave. I presume I do not need to explain this to you about Sirius, but it is certainly also true of Bella. Consider, for example, her defiant support of Voldemort after his apparent death. -They are capable of great loyalty (to James, to Voldemort). -They are both reckless (Bella's death shows hers, Sirius can be faulted for this, IMO, in his decision to go after Peter without telling anyone anything first, and if he truly did not think through the business with Snape and the werewolf, for not thinking that through). -They both served long stints in Azkaban, where they both lost their good looks and both came out a tad unstable. I feel there are other passages in the books that underline their similarity. The argument Snape and Sirius have in "Occlumency" (OotP) to me bears a strong resemblance to the argument Bella and Snape have in "Spinner's End" (HBP). Both Bella and Sirius express their distrust of Snape and their contempt of his spying (Sirius with his disparaging remark about Snape's closeness to Malfoy, something that would be obviously desirable in a spy, Bella with her comment about 'slithering out of action'). So that they died in very similar ways does not surprise me. There is of course, a crucial difference. Sirius was in the MoM to rescue children from their would-be murderers; Bella was engaged by Molly in a duel after she attacked Molly's underage daughter. But at the level of personality and style, I think those two characters are similar and it makes sense that they died for the same reason - for not taking their opponents seriously enough. The mistake was in character for both. > vivida89: > Okay, about > the epilogue; there were James jr, Lily jr, even Albus SEVERUS > (with whom Harry didn't have as much to do as with Sirius) zgirnius: Actually, Harry knows Snape for seven years, compared to two for Sirius. In six of those seven years, he sees Snape on a daily basis, which is only true of Sirius that one summer at the start of OotP. He also has the rather odd but strongly felt friendship with young Snape that he develops in HBP (until he learns who his 'friend' really is.) So Harry actually did have a lot to do with Snape. There's also this parallel I see, that Harry inherited these two men from his parents. Sirius considered James his best friend, and was willing to die for him. The same can be said of Snape and Lily. Both men transferred this protection onto Harry. The latter is something Harry did not even remotely suspect until the end of DH; that makes it no less true. > vivida89: > I still hope the second name > of James jr was James Sirius. I really do hope because it seems > unfair to me that Sirius should just be forgotten. zgirnius: This is the beauty of ignoring interviews. The middle names of James and Lily are not in the text, so they can be whatever you want them to be. Just as in my version of DH, the reason we never saw Snape's portrait was because it was hung in some corner and it was sleeping when Harry stopped by. (They do right after they appear, I figure - just like Dumbledore's did at the end of HBP). But Sirius got his final farewell in the Forest; I don't think Rowling intended his omission in the Epliogue as a slight, she simply wanted that scene to be the last work on Sirius. (And as you say, it is a very *nice* last word.) Telling us Al's middle name was Severus told us something new in a way telling us James's was Sirius, would not have. We know that Harry loves Sirius with all of his flaws - why else was Sirius in the Forest? On the other hand, a choice to name a son after Snape tells us Harry's view of the man has changed. From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 17 21:19:13 2007 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:19:13 -0000 Subject: Character Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179164 > Prep0strus: > I've never been able to warm to Luna for precisely the reason > that she wasn't brought in slowly. Some people think she's > this awesome character, and I can't even look at her that way > - she always seems like a shoehorned johnny-come-lately to me. > I mean, you can see the clues to Ginny being Harry's eventual > girl in the very first book. And Cho being his first relationship > was hinted at books before that happened as well. JKR has the > ability to drop subtle hints about characters that will matter > later on. But Luna just showed up, all ready to be a major > secondary character. Winterfell: I didn't mind the way JKR brought Luna into the storyline, per se. She isn't the kind of subtle character that you can mention briefly in one book and then gradually bring her more prominently into the plots. Luna is a quirky character to be sure, but from the very beginning and definately by the end of DH, she is a major favorite of mine. I don't think subtle hints about Luna's character would have worked as well as it did with other minor characters who just have bit roles in each book. Winterfell, who believes that just because Luna didn't arrive until OotP, doesn't mean she isn't an awesome character. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 21:39:37 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:39:37 -0000 Subject: Lucius, Lucius, Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179165 > > Catlady: > > I see the specific 'dirty work' that Voldemort would do for > > Lucius was to be the figurehead, the name and face of the coup/ > > conquest/revolution, and Lucius would be hidden/invisible in > > that context. Voldemort would terrify all and sundry; Lucius, > > in Voldemort's name, would recruit some people to be Death > > Eaters, and Lucius's recruits would recruit enough bruisers > > and spies to overthrow the opposed government and subdue the > > population. Mike: The time for doing that, if indeed it was Lucius' plan, would have been those 13 years Voldemort was stuck in Albania as vapor. Did you see any new DEs beholden to Lucius? Crabbe and Goyle come the closest and they were obviously DEs before Voldemort's fall at GH. Where were the new recruits (in LV's name) that Lucius would use to subvert the absent Voldemorts hold over the other DEs. The extent of Lucius' manipulations, that I saw, was to sneak the diary into Ginny's books. (Ironically, had this worked Lucius would have brought Voldemaort back sooner). If it was ever his intent to be the one to overthrow the Ministry, those donations/bribes were way too slow of a subversive method to work. Unless he was sure that Voldemort was gone for good. > a_svirn: > And what would be the point of that? Revolutionary leaders aren't > in the habit of stepping politely aside once they come to power > and abdicate in favour of their minions. They are more likely to > reshuffle those minions from time to time just in case they get > ideas. Mike: Precisely. I think George Washington is the only revolution leader to step aside after winning, and the grateful colonials still made him president under the new government. And I don't think Voldemort or Lucius were planning to institute a democratic-republic. > a_svirn: > You are painting Lucius as a clever puppet master, but canon does > not support this view. Voldemort had never been anyone's puppet, Mike: I thought that Voldemort assigning Lucius to be in charge of the MoM raid was not only punishment for the diary misuse, it was Voldemort the puppetmaster putting Lucius in a position to fail. Lucius wasn't depicted in canon as a tactical leader, he was the "slippery", Ministry subverter that took charge in torturing the defenceless Muggles. Lucius could Imperiuse for LV which, by definition, wasn't open antagonism against a foe that could put up a defence. If the target was capable of defending him/herself, according to canon, the Imperius wouldn't work and therefore wouldn't be attempted. The spellcaster had to catch the target unawares, a perfect type of job for the "slippery" Lucius. > > Catlady: > > The Death Eaters would respect Lucius as a high-ranking > > Death Eater and the Ministry, until overthrown, would respect > > Lucius as a rich man who was not on Voldemort's side. Mike: Nice plan, too bad Lucius didn't try it. It was all a case of what a_svirn said about the appearance of "Lord of the Manor": The facade for the Ministry wouldn't hold water for the other DEs. > > Catlady: > > I'm sure that Lucius expected that when Voldemort ruled the > > wizards, he would do and command what Lucius flattered and > > manipulating him into doing and commanding. Mike: In order for that to work, Voldemort would have to care what his DEs thought about him. He doesn't! It's all about Voldemort "honoring above all others" those DEs that put out exceptional service. That's the phrase that Voldemort bandies about and his minions parrot, and yet who did we ever see get "honored" in any way, shape, or form? > a_svirn: > They were all expected to abase themselves to equal degree. He may > have been put in charge of some missions (thus doing the dirty work > for Voldemort), but he had no real power, because he relinquished > *all* of it to Voldemort from the start. Mike: Yes, that is an important point. Joining Voldemort meant becoming subservient from the start, whatever one's ultimate goal might have been. How could hitting out of the bunker at the start be better than teeing the ball up in the tee box? One may have farther to go but one certainly isn't starting out from a hole. > > Catlady: > > I'm sure Lucius expected that he would be able to build himself > > such a secure situation, right under Voldemort's nose, that at > > some point he could arrange for Voldemort to die or be eternally > > imprisoned in a lead bottle sealed with the sign of a seven > > pointed star and thrown into the sea. > a_svirn: > Well, I still don't see how he could have been so cheerfully > optimistic. Besides, why take such a roundabout route to power? > Surely it would be more fun and less risky if he (and other > purebloods) overthrew the Ministry on their own? Without enslaving > themselves to this half-blood self-proclaimed Lord? Mike: The only thing that makes sense to me was if Voldemort had started his reign by intimidating or eliminating any dark wizards that didn't join him. If Lucius was convinced that any extra-Voldemortian activity would get him killed while LV was around, and if he knew he couldn't or wouldn't stop himself from getting involved, then I understand his decision to join Voldemort. > a_svirn: > Granted, there would still be Voldemort to deal with, but > without powerful wizards to back him he would be less > formidable. According to this scenario Lucius could afford > to negotiate with Voldemort instead of grovelling > at his feet. And he would be a player instead of a pawn. Mike: Except Voldemort was there with his power base before Lucius was out of school. It would have been Lucius that was doing the catching up. (Unless you mean to do it between the wars. Then I agree, a much more viable option. Alas, Lucius didn't see it that way.) Besides, I didn't get the impression that Voldemort did a lot of "negotiating". This is certainly a more dignified plan, more befitting of one such as Lucius. I would have loved for Lucius to have tried and failed a Ministry takeover during GoF. Then he somehow convinces Fudge (or Umbridge who convinces Fudge) that Dumbledore was behind the failed attempt. Probably too much to cram into that book, what with all the Hermione, Ron, Krum love triangle to explore - blech! Mike, wondering if the Lucius takeover was the "getting off track" thing that JKR admitted happened in GoF that required a major overhaul in the middle of writing the book? From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sat Nov 17 23:28:30 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:28:30 -0900 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's protection (was Re: Another thing (was JKR, the female and facism) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179166 On 2007, Nov 16, , at 20:01, potioncat wrote: > So, Snape seems to have > been able to protect those under his roof to some extent. Although, > if LV had asked for Trelawney, I think Snape would have given her up. As clever as Snape was at twisting people around to his way of thinking (see the chapter with Bella and Sissy at Spinner's End), I can well imagine that, had LV asked for Trelawney, Snape could have easily convinced him that Trelawney was absolutely worthless, as she herself knew nothing of the prophecy that she had made. And, as far as both LV and Snape know, she has never again made a true prophecy. I doubt if Snape was told about the exam prophecy and the connection with Peter Pettigrew. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 00:41:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:41:26 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179167 Marianne wrote: > I wondered why Remus and Sirius > were suddenly portrayed as much younger than they were at the time > of their deaths. I could understand if they appeared as healthy men > in their late 30s, as they would have had Sirius not suffered the > ravages of Azkaban and Remus not suffered from the strains of being > a werewolf, but it seemed to me that JKR was regressing (maybe > that's not quite the right word) them back to the times that they > were happiest, which would have been before everything went so > drastically wrong. Or maybe she just wanted them to look similar in > age to James and Lily. Whatever, it just struck me as strange. > Carol responds: Neither of them was all that old when he died. Black was about 36; Lupin (like snape) was 38. I thought they looked younger in the afterlife than Harry had ever seen them simply because the causes of their suffering had fallen away: Black was no longer suffering the ravages of Azkaban (or even the depression he suffered from living uselessly in his mother's house); Lupin would no longer be turning into a werewolf every month. Essentially, they look as they would have looked had one not been a prisoner for twelve years and the other not bitten by a werewolf. (We notice that Dumbledore looks as he did before his hand was destroyed by the cursed Ring Horcrux. I imagine when George Weasley enters the afterlife, he'll have his ear back.) Alternatively, they may be as young as you imagine them (the same age as Lily and James at death). If so, maybe a dead person can choose to appear a certain age in the afterlife. Either way, they've left behind the burdens that plagued them in RL. I'm surprised that James and DD still wore glasses when Harry (who could have chosen to join them) no longer needed his. (I think his missing glasses symbolized cleansed perception, though, and maybe that was inapplicable in the case of the other two.) Carol, doubting that Mad-eye Moody, who lost his magical eye soon after he lost his life, is limping around behind the Veil on a claw-footed wooden leg and wearing an eye patch (unless he has chosen to do so) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 00:51:41 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:51:41 -0000 Subject: Character Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179168 Potioncat wrote: > Although Selwyn doesn't interest me, he is a good example of what JKR > does well. She introduces him rather smoothly during LV's pursuit of > Harry. I think he may appear once more. But his name's main role is > for us to understand what Umbridge is doing when she says her locket > shows her connection to the Selwyns. We know what kind of people the > Selwyns are; we know know the locket does no such thing; and we > probably doubt she has such connections. Carol responds: I'm only interested in Selwyn as a plot device, not a character, but I did notice that he was one the two DEs who raided Xeno Lovegood's house. (The other is the suaver and apparenlty more intelligent Travers, whom we see again in the Gringotts chapter.) They're apparently Ministry employees, and it may well have been Umbridge who sent them. I *do* think that Umbridge has a connection to the Selwyns. If she's a Half-Blood, as I suspect, she'd seize on her connection with a pure-blood family, and not just any pure-blood family that starts with "S" (she could have said "Smith"--given Hepzibah, Zacharias, and Zach's haughty father, glimpsed in HBP, I'm pretty sure they're pure-bloods) but one that's actually connected with her. And how else could she have obtained Mad-eye's magical eye unless a DE gave it to her? Carol, laying odds that Umbridge *is* related to Selwyn (and we see what kind of person *he* is in "The Tale of the Three Brothers" chapter > From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 02:20:42 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:20:42 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH7 - Scrimgeour, Another Wish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179169 > Prep0strus: > See, the reason I was disappointed in JKR was that my expecting > 'more' of him wasn't necessarily expecting him to be a better > minister - but a better character. Mike: I understand what you're saying, but it all comes to the same thing, doesn't it? You wanted a better character, I thought he was fine as he was. I look at Scrimgeour as the antithesis of the adage, 'war time hero, peace time f*** up'. Scrimmy was a peace time climber, but in over his head when war time came. Which is not that uncommon when you look back through history at generals moving into political positions of power. Especially military coup generals. > Prep0strus: > But when I think about it, there's almost no character I DIDN'T > want more of. From Draco to Umbridge to Lupin to Snape to Blaise > to Charlie to Ginny... I would have liked to see more of almost > everyone. > > It leads me to a question though - who did you NOT want to see more > of? I'd like to know who people were fully satisfied with, or even > which characters might have been overexposed, and you could have > had a little less of, rather than wanting more. Mike: I'll play. First I'll respond to yours. ;) > Dumbledore. I agree, too much of him after he was dead. I especially hated his portrait still pulling the puppet strings. > Xenophilius. > Luna. I had no need nor use for Xeno. I suppose JKR painted herself into a corner with the Lovegoods as the purveyers of the ridiculous. Still, couldn't Auntie Muriel have been the one to spill the beans on the Three Brothers and the Deathly Hallows? I can take or leave Luna. I agree with what you said about her being foisted on us fully realised. I'll also add that I thought it highly unlikely she would ever have turned up for the initial meeting of the DA in the Hogshead. Who would've told her in the first place? > Slughorn. I kinda liked Sluggy. I wish we would have found out that he was in on his old friend Dumbledore's plans more than he was, which was essentially not at all. > Pansy. Why couldn't Slytherin have had a pretty, conniving girl in the mold of Blaise Zabini's mum? Instead we get pug-faced Pansy, cackling inanities at every turn. ~CrabbenGoyle - they were a waste of ink for six and three quarters books. The get seperated from their conjoined condition when Crabbe gets his big moment, casting Fiendfyre. Of course Goyle compensates by being unconscious the rest of the way. He doesn't even rate mentioning at the post-war gathering when all the Malfoys are huddled in the Great Hall. Did he die? Eh, who cares! ~Tonks, Nymphadora - too much of her, or rather, too much of the Tonks as portrayed. She was an Auror and a Metamorphmagus. So what is her assigned role for two books? A love obsessed woman craving the company of Remus Lupin of all people. Why couldn't she have been the seventh Potter by metamorphing herself into Harry? Why introduce a Metamorphmagus if all she's going to use it for is to make funny noses to amuse Hermione and Ginny? Oh, did Lupin strike anyone here as the irresistable sort? Mike, wondering why Tonks didn't morph into various DEs to create havoc with the Ministry by planting mis-information? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 03:51:28 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 03:51:28 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179170 > Vivida89: > > Oh really, that was said perfectly. I couldn't have expressed it in > any better way. I think you got the point all right: The author does > have the authority to edit the book, to put up facts that we have to > believe in (what you call canon) since, well, it's sort of HER book. > > But just because it's HER book it doesn't mean we have to follow > blindly. I disregard some of JKR's opinions and I have no problem > admitting that. Alla: Well, thank you :) I love to read her interviews, if I agree with her opinions, I happily adopt them as canon extensions, if I disagree with her opinions, I happily ignore them, it is as simple as that, you know? Vivida89 > But since I have read DH my opinion for him is not the same it used to > be... I feel like JKR wants to tell us: Stop loving Sirius Black, he's > nothing more than a playboy with huge flaws and a reckless guy. I > really have trouble to get back loving him. Naturally I shouldn't let > get my opinion be influenced by it, but... she's the author, you know, > she has to know about the characters... Alla: I am sorry you feel this way :( I do not really care whether JKR is trying to tell me to stop loving Sirius Black, lol. All the reasons I started liking the character are there in the books, thus I doubt I will ever stop. I started to like him because despite twelve years of suffering he was still able to feel love and at least try to give support to the boy who badly needed it. I liked him for that and I felt for him suffering unjustly. I see his flaws, recklessness and others, but I really think that given his post Azkaban state, he at least tried, so whatever JKR says, I like the character very much. I do not think she dislikes him that much by the way, just that she was always primarily interested in kids and adults by definition had to take second seat in that ride. I wanted more for adults, Sirius and others, I did, but luckily I was very much interested in Harry, so I was okay to adjust my expectations and go read fanfic if I want more Sirius and other adults to play with in my imagination. vivida89: > She keeps saying over and over, Sirius is NOT perfect, he has > flaws. zgirnius: Yes, and as others have already pointed out in response to this, we as readers can disagree that he does have flaws (a position I would personally consider untenable in light of his characterization in the books), or decide that we like him anyway (a perfectly reasonable difference of opinion with the author about what makes a character worthy of being liked by us). Alla: To be sure, as many people know I am a huge Sirius' fan, but of course I do not take the position that he has no flaws. Sure he does and I can see them in the books. I take the position that he has a plenty good qualities as well as flaws AND I like him anyways too. My disagreement with JKR is specifically over her bizarre comparison of Harry and Sirius' as godfathers. If Harry had spent twelve years in Azkaban and was a godfather to a kid who was being hunted by evil maniac, then I would consider the comparison to be less bizarre, maybe. IMO of course. But of course Sirius had plenty flaws. Zgirnius: But Sirius got his final farewell in the Forest; I don't think Rowling intended his omission in the Epliogue as a slight, she simply wanted that scene to be the last work on Sirius. (And as you say, it is a very *nice* last word.) Telling us Al's middle name was Severus told us something new in a way telling us James's was Sirius, would not have. We know that Harry loves Sirius with all of his flaws - why else was Sirius in the Forest? On the other hand, a choice to name a son after Snape tells us Harry's view of the man has changed. Alla: Agreed about Sirius getting his final farewell in the forest and a nice one too, yes. I mean I think she chose spot on who are Harry's **loved** ones in the forest. But even though I also agree that story wise it makes sense that Al's name tells us more new info, I would still love to hear that James's second is Sirius. I do hope she puts it in encyclopedia. JMO, Alla From aceworker at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 04:00:23 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:00:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Character Development/Mafilda and how the novels could have been different Message-ID: <473350.84409.qm@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179171 I understand why JKR focused on the three in tent. Trying to write a broader based narrative switching back and forth from the school and the trio would have been confusing (I know this because I've tried it) and also would have spoiled the DA surprise at the end and it also heightened the tension of DH to be worrying about so many of the trio's friends. The minor character I'm most intrigued with is Michael Corner. Ginny's first boyfriend, and Cho's third. The minor hints JKR drops of his character suggest something bold but kind about him. He engages my imagination and I imagine him to have a minor bit of the saving people thing. I imagine he sort of saved Cho from her own misery, that he's reasonably kind to Luna (Ginny never would have tolerated him at all if he weren't), that he has the guts to stand up to Ginny's anger and jealousy over Cho (it seems to he who starts the argument over his comforting Cho) and he saves that first year from the chains (risking his life, being horribly tortured and not seeming to complain about it). Aside from that, there are a few things I would have liked to have seen in the final battle. Just one mention of Susan Bones throwing a Death Eater across the hall, so we know for sure if the Amelia Bones's neice even had the courage to be there. Why did JKR mention the Bones's family as being a family that fights the dark almost as hard as the Weasley's yet never show us their courage, even in a passing way? Also I would have liked a mention of what happened exactly to Lavender. She leaves us a bit of a cliffhanger there. You'd think at least one of the trio would have asked after her, at least or been relieved to see her sitting at the table. I think JKR dropped the ball slightly on that, as not mentioning it did seems a bit unrealistic to me. (It would have been even better had Ron tried to fight through the onrushing spiders to get to her, as it would have shown that he cared at least, and was not the cad he was for using her so.) Isn't it also a bit odd that Padma wasn't seen fighting by her sister's side. Or was Padma a coward, little things like that. It didn't bother me about the Creeveys. I just assumed that they had been on the run like Dean and probably Justin had to be (there was no way Justin could havc hid his mugglebornness since the events of COS would have been public knowledge to the DE's.) And then they came when Neville summoned them with the coin. Although why the Carrows didn't guess at the coin; I couldn't understand, as surely Draco would have mentioned it at one point.I think that's a wide plot hole (Although JKR could say that Draco purposely hid the fiact somehow from Voldemort.). Also perhaps one of the Order members, or DA members who was pure-blood hid them somehow. I like to imagine Cho or someone else running a safe house. The minor character I miss the most, was the one cut from the novel's to be replaced by Luna: The Weasley cousin Mafilda. JRK should have played with her some more and kept her, if even in a minor way. She would most likely have ultimately been a good Slytherin that would have balanced the houses, she would have been a good foil to play off of Gabriella's sweetness at the wedding and I have a feeling that the scene in the final battle where Ginny finds the young dying girl would have worked much more effectively if the dying girl had been her cousin. We lost a lot of potential character development for Ginny because Mafilda was cut. Mafilda would have given Ginny a real rival only a year or two yonger then here. Certainly a much more formidable enemy then Pansy. Don't get me wrong I love Luna. But Mafilda would have added a whole new element to the books. If JKR ever does a rewrite of the books she should consider shoehorning her in somewhere by having her join Hogwarts in the first or second book, and this avoid the being to young reason she used for cutting her. A Mafilda gloating over a mssing Ginny would certainly rachet up the tension in COS. She also could have been the romantic partner for Nott and thus bring him more into the story. If she does rewrites she can also find places to foreshadow Luna in the first few books. Mafilda is foreshadowed but not Luna. Also, it points out something. At one time, JKR considered having muggle-borns in Slytherin as I believe Mafilda was either muggle-born or very nearly so, as the most she could have been was the child of a squib and a muggle. OOP was a crucible on which this series turned, as based on her interviews and from what she's posted on the webstie, she clearly second guessed herself and made many changes to her plan while writing it. Again, I'm glad she did, as Luna is a superb creation, one of the best minor characters in fiction IMHO. :-) DA Jones ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Nov 18 12:34:34 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:34:34 -0000 Subject: Character Development/Mafilda and how the novels could have been different In-Reply-To: <473350.84409.qm@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179172 career advisor wrote: > > Aside from that, there are a few things I would have liked to have seen in the final battle. Just one mention of Susan Bones throwing a Death Eater across the hall, so we know for sure if the Amelia Bones's neice even had the courage to be there. Why did JKR mention the Bones's family as being a family that fights the dark almost as hard as the Weasley's yet never show us their courage, even in a passing way? Potioncat: The MTMNBN version of SS/PS and CoS tricked ito thinking that Susan would have an important part later on. At the sorting, everything sort of comes to a standstill as she takes her place. In CoS she sits with Hermione in one of the classes. It wasn't until later that I realised the actress was the director's daughter. But, I did expect Susan and her Auntie Amelia to have a larger role in the books. >Career Advisor: > Also I would have liked a mention of what happened exactly to Lavender. She leaves us a bit of a cliffhanger there. You'd think at least one of the trio would have asked after her, at least or been relieved to see her sitting at the table. Potioncat: I like having so many characters with their own personalities, but they come and go like bit actors in a mini-series. "Sorry, Lavender can't come for this episode, she's under contract with Snicket." Career Advisor: And then they came when Neville summoned them with the coin. Although why the Carrows didn't guess at the coin; I couldn't understand, as surely Draco would have mentioned it at one point.I think that's a wide plot hole (Although JKR could say that Draco purposely hid the fiact somehow from Voldemort.) Potioncat: I can't quite get my mind around DH!Draco. One moment he seems to be protecting Harry and the next he's back to his old self. But given that he doesn't seem too happy to be a DE, he may have simply avoided offering any information that wasn't asked for. And, well, I don't think the Carrows had much ability to guess at anything. > From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Nov 18 15:32:38 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:32:38 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179173 > Alla: > My disagreement with JKR is specifically over her bizarre comparison > of Harry and Sirius' as godfathers. If Harry had spent twelve years > in Azkaban and was a godfather to a kid who was being hunted by evil > maniac, then I would consider the comparison to be less bizarre, > maybe. IMO of course. Pippin: At the time that Harry makes the comparison, young Teddy Lupin *is* being hunted by an evil maniac. Bella's got orders to prune him from her family tree, remember? Further, before he went to Azkaban, Sirius recklessly proposed the secret keeper switch and recklessly went after Peter without backup. There's also Sirius's choice to risk his life needlessly at the MoM. I mean, I love that he, like Tonks, couldn't bear to be idle when someone he loved was in danger, but it was still imprudent. JKR has to underline that to show that despite what Harry thought at first, Snape's goading was not a factor. The idea that a character has to be perfect to be likeable, or that JKR apportioning faults as well as virtues to her characters is somehow unfair to them -- well, I don't get it. Who wants to read about perfect people? Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Nov 18 15:49:39 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:49:39 -0000 Subject: DH!Draco was Re: Character Development/Mafilda and how In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179174 > Potioncat: > I can't quite get my mind around DH!Draco. One moment he seems to be > protecting Harry and the next he's back to his old self. But given > that he doesn't seem too happy to be a DE, he may have simply avoided > offering any information that wasn't asked for. And, well, I don't > think the Carrows had much ability to guess at anything. > > Pippin: Good lord, the kid is barely eighteen years old, and even worse off than Regulus. At least Regulus had Kreacher. All Draco's got is Goyle (and Crabbe, but that trust turns out to be misplaced.) Like Regulus, or Ron for that matter, he dare not endanger his parents by confiding in them. Harry spent most of DH twiddling his thumbs in a tent, is Draco so different? Sometimes it seems to me that the only real difference between the Gryffindors and the Slytherins is that the Gryffindors find it easier to work together, not because they're more trustworthy but because they share the illusion that they are. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 15:51:34 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:51:34 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179175 > > Alla: > > > My disagreement with JKR is specifically over her bizarre comparison > > of Harry and Sirius' as godfathers. If Harry had spent twelve years > > in Azkaban and was a godfather to a kid who was being hunted by evil > > maniac, then I would consider the comparison to be less bizarre, > > maybe. IMO of course. > > Pippin: > At the time that Harry makes the comparison, young Teddy Lupin > *is* being hunted by an evil maniac. Bella's got orders to prune him > from her family tree, remember? Alla: I was talking about JKR comparison in the interview, which I thought referred to Harry being a godfather after war. And I still do not remember Harry spending twelve years in Azkaban. Pippin: > Further, before he went to Azkaban, Sirius recklessly proposed the > secret keeper switch and recklessly went after Peter without backup. > There's also Sirius's choice to risk his life needlessly at the MoM. > I mean, I love that he, like Tonks, couldn't bear to be idle when > someone he loved was in danger, but it was still imprudent. JKR has > to underline that to show that despite what Harry thought at first, > Snape's goading was not a factor. > > The idea that a character has to be perfect to be likeable, or that > JKR apportioning faults as well as virtues to her characters is > somehow unfair to them -- well, I don't get it. Who wants to > read about perfect people? Alla: I am sorry, Pippin, but I am incredibly confused. I just spend several paragraphs in this VERY post saying that Sirius has flaws, so I really really wonder where in my post you found the idea that I want to read about perfect people or that I think that Sirius does not have flaws? As an aside, I love that Sirius went to risk his life for Harry and do not find it reckless at all,in fact, had he not go, I would have been quite annoyed, but sure I find the Secret keeper switch to be reckless and several other Sirius' actions too. What I DO find disagreeable is JKR comparing Harry and Sirius as godfathers, because I think that for Harry to be godfather to little Teddy, was how to put it was much easier affair. By the way, while little Teddy was hunted by evil Bella, Teddy still had his parents, so yeah I do not remember Harry needing to do anything for him at that time like Sirius coming to Harry in GoF. Let me say it again, I love JKR's opinions and hope she will share as much as she has in her imagination with us, but I find this comparison to be bizarre, very very bizarre. JMO, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Nov 18 16:26:53 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:26:53 -0000 Subject: Character Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179176 Prep0strus: > I think, in general, I'm on the side of wishing I had seen more of > every minor character - and because of that, I'm less of a fan of > every more major character that simply showed up later in the > series. Sure, a new professor shows up every book, so I get that > and can't fault JKR for it. Still, I'd rather spend some time with > McGonnegal or Flitwick than Slughorn who couldn't be bothered to > show his face until book 6. Jen: I thought after GOF that all the major characters were introduced except for DADA teachers, and JKR would spend the rest of her time developing them. LOL, uh, no. She was introducing, or at least developing new ones, right up until the final bell. OOTP was particularly disappointing for that reason, with new characters like Luna and Umbridge receiving so much page time while characters who'd come alive for me earlier languished in the background or appeared in a few pivotal moments. I felt a grudge for Luna in particular, so important as to get a whole chapter named after her! Meanwhile most of the Marauders & Lily had a couple of mentions. *grumble, grumble* Even by the end of the series I still can't say that James and Lily ever felt like more than characters necessary for the plot. I expected in DH that Harry would come to know his parents in a very intimate way, and instead he got to know Dumbledore really well. ;) I know that scenes like Harry reading Lily's letter or visiting Godric's Hollow were meant to provide some of that connection, but maybe it was too little to late for me by that point? I agree that new characters mentioned after GOF were not ones I felt particularly attached to or interested in knowing more about. Luna & Aberforth were perhaps the only ones who piqued my interest and emotional investment (yes, got over the Luna grudge). In retrospect I think I placed too much importance on the past - Godric's Hollow & the first war - while JKR was placing her importance on the kids coming to know each other and working together. All arcs leading to the final battle and defeat of Voldemort in this generation, not exploring Harry's past beyond what was necessary to get Harry where he needed to be. One day a few years from now, with all my expectations adjusted and emotional investment in the outcome long since forgotten, I hope to read the series again and enjoy the story for what it is instead of noticing all that I thought would happen and didn't. Or I might end up thinking it wasn't that great after all, who knows?!? But I'd like to read it again without theories, speculation and my own hopes ringing in my ears. Jen, wondering if such a reading is possible after years of discussing HP. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Nov 18 16:34:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:34:31 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179177 > > Alla: > > I am sorry, Pippin, but I am incredibly confused. I just spend > several paragraphs in this VERY post saying that Sirius has flaws, > so I really really wonder where in my post you found the idea that I > want to read about perfect people or that I think that Sirius does > not have flaws? Pippin: Oh, sorry, I was referring to an idea expressed earlier in the thread, not to your post specifically. I was trying to back you up there, sorry if it came off sounding otherwise! I think Rowling's original quote is being distorted a bit. Here is is: -- I wanted to express in the epilogue, that he gets an even better godfather than Harry had, because Sirius had ihs faults, I think we must admit. He was a risky guy to have a s a godfather. Because Teddy gets someone who really has been there, and Harry becomes a really great father figure for Teddy as well as his own children. -- She said "even better" which is a much milder comparison. But Sirius made risky choices which had consequences for Harry, and we don't have any moments in canon where he accepts responsibility for his recklessness. We do have that for Harry. Sirius blames himself for not seeing through Pettigrew, but not for having such a cockamamie idea in the first place -- he's still proud of it. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Nov 18 16:52:46 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:52:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's protection (was Re: Another thing (was JKR, the female and facism) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179178 > Potioncat: > We know that terrible things happened under the Carrows' influence. > But we also know that Luna wasn't taken from Hogwarts, she was > snatched off the train. And Ginny wasn't allowed to leave Hogwarts to > go to Hogsmeade. We know it was full of DEs. So, Snape seems to have > been able to protect those under his roof to some extent. Although, > if LV had asked for Trelawney, I think Snape would have given her up. Jen: HAHA, oh yes, in a heartbeat. Although nah, he wouldn't because he knew Dumbledore wouldn't want that and it turns out Snape was Dumbledore's man through and through, yes? As thoroughly or more than Harry because Snape had no one else to depend on like Harry did. Poor Snape, he ended up with nothing except a Potter brat named after him. At least Albus Severus wasn't the child who acted like James. From sherriola at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 17:02:03 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:02:03 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4740700f.29578c0a.7100.ffffb2f4@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179179 Pippin Sirius blames himself for not seeing through Pettigrew, but not for having such a cockamamie idea in the first place -- he's still proud of it. Sherry now: I think where Sirius erred was in not seeing through Pettigrew. If Peter had been loyal, it would have been a brilliant plan, actually, because nobody would have suspected it. But of course, how old were they all when this was going on? of age, but surely not really mature yet. They were young and inexperienced enough to be naturally and normally reckless. Unfortunately, that natural, normal aspect of life, had disastrous consequences. I've just always thought that though foolhardy, brash and not using wisdom to make the plan, Sirius' heart was in the right place, trying to defend and protect his pack. Sherry From sherriola at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 17:05:41 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:05:41 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's protection (was Re: Another thing (was JKR, the female and facism) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <474070e9.1c528c0a.20e9.62bb@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179180 Jen: HAHA, oh yes, in a heartbeat. Although nah, he wouldn't because he knew Dumbledore wouldn't want that and it turns out Snape was Dumbledore's man through and through, yes? As thoroughly or more than Harry because Snape had no one else to depend on like Harry did. Sherry: Actually, I think Snape was Lily's man through and through, not Dumbledore's. I'm not saying that to demean his devotion to lily after all those years, or to ignore the things we saw, in DH, like the one that was the most moving for me, telling Phineas not to call Hermione a "mudblood". I'm just saying that Snape's true heart loyalties were not to DD; they were to Lily, so he wasn't really DDM in my opinion. Sherry From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Nov 18 17:57:58 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 18 Nov 2007 17:57:58 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/18/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1195408678.11.3768.m46@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179181 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday November 18, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 18:31:54 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:31:54 -0000 Subject: Lucius, Lucius, Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179182 > Mike: > The only thing that makes sense to me was if Voldemort had started > his reign by intimidating or eliminating any dark wizards that > didn't join him. If Lucius was convinced that any extra- Voldemortian > activity would get him killed while LV was around, and if he knew he > couldn't or wouldn't stop himself from getting involved, then I > understand his decision to join Voldemort. a_svirn: There is that. On the other hand he could easily get killed while serving Voldemort. The Aurors under Crouch cursed to kill. I suppose the mortality rate among the death eaters was about as high as it was among the phoenixes. At least without Voldemort he could look forward for a greater reward, than leaking his master boots and torturing an occasional Muggle. > > > > a_svirn: > > > Granted, there would still be Voldemort to deal with, but > > without powerful wizards to back him he would be less > > formidable. According to this scenario Lucius could afford > > to negotiate with Voldemort instead of grovelling > > at his feet. And he would be a player instead of a pawn. > > Mike: > Except Voldemort was there with his power base before Lucius was out > of school. It would have been Lucius that was doing the catching up. > (Unless you mean to do it between the wars. Then I agree, a much more > viable option. Alas, Lucius didn't see it that way.) Besides, I > didn't get the impression that Voldemort did a lot of "negotiating". a_svirn: Of course he didn't ? why should he? He got a lot of influential families to back him. If they hadn't recognised him as their Lord and Master he would have had to be more flexible. But they did, and he didn't have to. That's what I find incomprehensible. I know we are supposed to see the similarities with Hitler. I see them of course ? they are emphasised in canon. But the differences are still more pronounced. Hitler came to power legitimately and had the overwhelming popular support. The elite made an obvious opportunistic choice in backing him ? it was either that, or loosing their position altogether (not to mention risking revolutions and nationalisations). Voldemort, on the other hand, was anything but popular. He ran a sort of exclusive and secret club, mostly for those listed in the wizarding Debrett's. And for the privilege to become a member of this exalted society they had to renounce their freedom and dignity. Where is the point? It is as though they caught this predilection to slavery from their elves (makes one wonder about elves' nature all over again). > Mike: > This is certainly a more dignified plan, more befitting of one such > as Lucius. I would have loved for Lucius to have tried and failed a > Ministry takeover during GoF. Then he somehow convinces Fudge (or > Umbridge who convinces Fudge) that Dumbledore was behind the failed > attempt. Probably too much to cram into that book, what with all the > Hermione, Ron, Krum love triangle to explore - blech! > > Mike, wondering if the Lucius takeover was the "getting off track" > thing that JKR admitted happened in GoF that required a major > overhaul in the middle of writing the book? > a_svirn: Yes, I also wondered. I mean there is something odd about that busyness at the World Cup. Harry asked (for once) a very pertinent question ? What was the point? Because having fun is all very well, but the choice of the time and place indicates that the World Cup debacle was clearly a demonstration. But the demonstration of what? And to whom? To Voldemort (they all had felt their marks by the time) that they are still of the same mind? To the Ministry ? a sort of an alarm bell message: "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" is at large again, do something for Merlin's sake? Maybe both? In any of the above he certainly failed: the Ministry didn't take the hint, and Voldemort remained unimpressed. But perhaps he had something more subtle in mind (though that too must have failed). From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 18:34:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:34:10 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179183 > > Alla: > > > > I am sorry, Pippin, but I am incredibly confused. I just spend > > several paragraphs in this VERY post saying that Sirius has flaws, > > so I really really wonder where in my post you found the idea that I > > want to read about perfect people or that I think that Sirius does > > not have flaws? > > Pippin: > Oh, sorry, I was referring to an idea expressed earlier in the > thread, not to your post specifically. I was trying to back you > up there, sorry if it came off sounding otherwise! Alla: Oh. Oh. I see. No problem. I do that sometimes too - replying to the thread in general and it comes out strange as reply to particular list member. Pippin: > I think Rowling's original quote is being distorted a bit. Here is is: > -- > > She said "even better" which is a much milder comparison. But > Sirius made risky choices which had consequences for Harry, > and we don't have any moments in canon where he accepts > responsibility for his recklessness. We do have that for Harry. Alla: Right okay, it is a much milder comparison then I agree. I still find it bizarre but to a lesser degree then. Look, it is as if she would say that Ginny was better mother than Lily or Harry is better father than James. Or or this one is a rather loose comparison since you know how I feel about Snape as teacher, but even if she said that Neville was much better teacher than Snape, I would probably felt that it was not a fair comparison. Not in a sense that I do not think that Neville would be much better teacher than Snape ever was, but in a sense that circumstances that lead them to take a teaching post are so incomparable IMO. I still think that Snape owed his students not to treat them like garbage (IMO of course), but I think that had been given a choice Snape would have been anywhere but teaching, while I am pretty sure that Neville chose what he loves to do. What I am trying to say that I think the circumstances of Sirius and Harry as godfather are so drastically different that in my mind it is not fair to compare at all. Not that I think that Sirius did a perfect job, but with the stack of cards he was given, I thought it was a wonder that he rose to the occasion as much as he could. JMO, Alla. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 18:38:59 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:38:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's protection (was Re: Another thing (was JKR, the female and facism) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40711181038j357a758bm76df29eb3c78373c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179184 > Potioncat: > We know that terrible things happened under the Carrows' influence. > But we also know that Luna wasn't taken from Hogwarts, she was > snatched off the train. And Ginny wasn't allowed to leave Hogwarts to > go to Hogsmeade. We know it was full of DEs. So, Snape seems to have > been able to protect those under his roof to some extent. Although, > if LV had asked for Trelawney, I think Snape would have given her up. Kemper now: Instead of giving her up, maybe he would have had her killed gently with a brew of some delicious concoction with a spring of mint or fresh ground nutmeg. Kemper From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Nov 18 21:59:07 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:59:07 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179185 > Alla: > > Right okay, it is a much milder comparison then I agree. I still > find it bizarre but to a lesser degree then. > > Look, it is as if she would say that Ginny was better mother than > Lily or Harry is better father than James. Potioncat: JKR was writing a story. She didn't have the luxury of loving the characters. She dished all sorts of bad things onto their heads for the purpose of telling the story. So Harry had to lose James and Lily. AK, AK. They left behind a god-father who would have loved him very much. Sirius needed a set of virtues and flaws to go with circumstances that would lead him to his heroic, but untimely death. Let's see 12 years of Azkaban; some isolated time in 12 GP then an impulsive dash to rescue Harry. AK. DD needed him to grow up to be the Chosen One. DD had cartloads of baggage: secrets on top of secrets; a thirst to wield power that he had to resist; an inability to trust others; a need to defeat LV. He didn't so much care for Harry as he developed him. Teddy is a different story. Teddy loses his parents and one grandparent, but has a loving, young grandmother. He also gets Harry as a god-father. Harry who knows how to love, knows what it's like to be an orphan and brings along his Weasley clan to be family for Teddy. Actually, Teddy is no story at all. Potioncat, wonders if anyone knows how to find a post about Sirius and Jo having a conversation in Azkaban just as PoA (or maybe OoP) is about to come out. (or would have been written after either of those came out) From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk Sun Nov 18 20:15:20 2007 From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (lesley) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:15:20 -0000 Subject: First war with VD - did James trust Remus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vivida89" wrote: > In PoA we get to know that it was like everyone suspected > everyone. Remus suspected Sirius and Sirius suspected Remus. > This is also why Sirius asked James to switch the figure of > the secret keeper to Peter. > That James initially agreed with that shows me he saw the need > why to do this. Meaning he must have distrusted Remus as well - > which I can not think of, not after DH. > If James trusted everyone, he must have trusted Remus as well. > Did he only agree to make Peter the secret keeper because > Sirius was his best friend and he didn't want to reject him? > I can see James clearly as a person who would have trusted > his friends still if it was utterly obvious WHO was the spy. > I suppose he didn't want to believe that any of his friends > could have been capable of betraying him. Lesley According to POA, Sirius was always James best friend and although DD had offered to be secret keeper for the Potters as there was obviously a spy amongst them, James wanted Sirius. I think Remus and Sirius suspected each other because although they were friend's, Sirius, (and most of the magical world) was brought up to believe that werewolves were not to be trusted and although Sirius didn't have the same beliefs as his family Remus knew he was brought up in a family where LV was loved and he had a DE for a brother. I'm not suprised they suspected each other rather than the real spy, it just didn't occur to either that LV would ever go to Peter for information. Sirius told James to change to Peter as secret keeper as he was the weak link and Sirius assumed LV would go after himself or Remus as the strongest of the Potter's friend's. I think James would have trusted any of his friend's with his life as was proven in POA, he was faithful till the end and despite it being obvious there was a spy I don't think James ever believed it was any of them. It would be the same as Harry suspecting Ron or Hermione, it just wouldn't happen. Lesley From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Nov 18 23:21:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:21:00 -0000 Subject: Lucius, Lucius, Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179187 . > > a_svirn: > Of course he didn't ? why should he? He got a lot of influential > families to back him. If they hadn't recognised him as their Lord and > Master he would have had to be more flexible. But they did, and he > didn't have to. That's what I find incomprehensible. Pippin: Lucius didn't have to bow and scrape to Voldemort in public. Nor was Voldemort's halfblood status an issue -- Lucius didn't know the nature of the connection between the diary and Voldemort. A young Lucius, chafing under the restrictions imposed by the Ministry, and perhaps by older members of his family such as Abraxian, might have thought that playacting subservience to Voldemort was a small price to pay for getting to live out his anti-Muggle fantasies. Anyway, Lucius may have considered Voldemort's title and the robe kissing just superstition, meant to scare weaker souls than he. The marchers at the QWC probably didn't include any marked DE's beyond Lucius and the senior Crabbe and Goyle. I suspect the rest were wannabees and weaker wizards under the Imperius curse. Lucius was showing off as usual. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 23:25:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:25:31 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179188 Alla wrote: > > I was talking about JKR comparison in the interview, which I thought > referred to Harry being a godfather after war. And I still do not > remember Harry spending twelve years in Azkaban. > What I DO find disagreeable is JKR comparing Harry and Sirius as > godfathers, because I think that for Harry to be godfather to little > Teddy, was how to put it was much easier affair. > > By the way, while little Teddy was hunted by evil Bella, Teddy still > had his parents, so yeah I do not remember Harry needing to do > anything for him at that time like Sirius coming to Harry in GoF. > > Let me say it again, I love JKR's opinions and hope she will share > as much as she has in her imagination with us, but I find this > comparison to be bizarre, very very bizarre. Carol responds: Maybe the comparison is not so much regarding the situation of the baby boys (though I agree with Pippin that both Teddy and his parents were in danger and had been specifically targeted by Bellatrix) as regarding the situation of the godfathers, neither of whom was in a position to be much help in rearing a child or setting an example for him. Harry's thought in DH (last line of "Shell Cottage" and specifically attributed to too much wine) relates to recklessness, and Harry is about to embark on an action (the robbery of Gringotts) that compares favorably in terms of recklessness with, say, going after Peter Pettigrew rather than informing the authorities that he's the real Secret Keeper (or, to use a later incident, breaking out of Azkaban to commit the murder he was arrested for). Recklessness (as, surely, even his most devoted fans agree), is Sirius Black's defining characteristic. Not only did his arrest after his reckless decision to go after Pettigrew himself cost the child Harry a relationship with his godfather from infancy to age thirteen, his recklessness caused Harry to lose him altogether after knowing him (not particularly intimately) only two years. I'm not talking about the decision to go to the MoM to help protect Harry and the others, which I can't blame him for making. As a member of the Order, he was at no greater risk than anyone else in that battle. I'm talking about the recklessness of fighting Bellatrix on the dais of the Veil, standing with his back to it and taunting her. That she died in much the same way (minus the Veil), underestimating and taunting her opponent, is surely no coincidence (as Pippin has already noted). I think it's important that Harry's fear of being as reckless a godfather to Teddy (assuming that Teddy survives and regardless of whether his parents also live) as Sirius Black was to him comes just after he has made a bargain with a Goblin to help him rob Gringotts, a plan that involves having Hermione pose as the notorious and easily recognizable Bellatrix Lestrange. Hagrid had told him back in SS/PS that "yeh'd have to be mad to try an' rob Gringotts" (quoted from memory)--and the plan itself, as Harry knows, is more Siriusly reckless than anything the Marauders did at seventeen. (The plan is, in fact, so seriously flawed that it nearly gets HRH killed and loses them the weapon they think they need to destroy the Horcruxes.) And setting aside the Gringotts plan, Harry and his friends are on the run from Voldemort and the DEs, looking for Horcruxes (one of which they still know nothing about), all of which they then have to destroy, all so that Harry can face Voldemort, whom he expects to fight to the death using Draco's wand. (He doesn't yet know that he has to sacrifice himself.) All together, I doubt that he expects to see his godson's first birthday, much less help to rear him if it parents (at that point protected by a Fidelius Charm) should happen to be murdered by Bellatrix. James and Lily's choice of Sirius as godfather (made more from affection than wisdom, IMO) looks sensible by comparison. Perhaps Lupin and Tonks are merely granting Harry an honor rather than anticipating a future need in the event that their son is orphaned (*and* loses his grandmother). The odds of Harry's surviving to fulfill such an obligation must surely appear slim to both of Teddy's parents. As for the interview, which I don't recall verbatim, I don't think that JKR was talking about Harry's inadequacy as a godfather after the war. I think she's thinking of seventeen-year-old Harry, still caught up in the pursuit of Horcruxes and a Dark Lord. The adult Harry didn't actually need to raise Teddy, who had an apparently loving grandmother to take care of him, only to provide a kind of role model or mentor or father figure in the absence of Lupin. Teddy does seem to have spent plenty of time with Harry, however. According to the epilogue, Teddy has dinner at the Potter house several times a week, and the Potter children apparently consider "our Teddy" almost as much a member of the family as their Weasley cousins (Lily wants him to marry Victoire so he'll actually be part of the family). So I see nothing to criticize here, certainly no "recklessness" on the part of the adult Harry (beyond whatever risks he would face as an Auror, assuming that he chose that career, and we can take JKR at her word here or not as we choose since it's not in the book). Carol, hoping that Alla will quote the passage that she thinks refers to the adult Harry as a "reckless" godfather so that we can either deconstruct it or ignore it together From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 01:40:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:40:41 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179189 > Carol responds: > > Maybe the comparison is not so much regarding the situation of the > baby boys (though I agree with Pippin that both Teddy and his parents > were in danger and had been specifically targeted by Bellatrix) as > regarding the situation of the godfathers, neither of whom was in a > position to be much help in rearing a child or setting an example for > him. Alla: Well, yeah, I thought comparison was pretty much about both and I found both comparisons to be incomparible. In that short period of time when Harry was made Teddy's godfather till the end of the war, I have not noticed Harry having any responcibilities towards little Teddy. I do think though that Harry's job as godfather was mailnly done after the war, when he contrary to Sirius IMO was in perfect position to help Teddy with whatever he needs and set example for him. Carol > Recklessness (as, surely, even his most devoted fans agree), is Sirius > Black's defining characteristic. Alla: Um, not this fan for sure. I am not intending to really argue it, I must say, just wanted to put it on record. I will surely agree that recklessness is one of the **important** characteristics of Sirius' character, but there is absolutely no way I will agree that when I think of this character the first thing that comes to my mind is that he is reckless. The first thing I think of Sirius is his loyalty, recklessness comes after that and his love for Harry. But of course this is the fan of the character speaking and I tend to put his positive characteristics first - not because I do not see negative, but because I sincerely feel that those are defining, so again I am not going to argue this at all, argued too often by now. I mean, just as I put Snape's despicable cruelty towards Harry as his defining characteristic, I am sure you will put it one of the very last ones and you will characterise it as sarcasm or something. Again, I just wanted to stress that NO not every fan of Sirius agrees that recklessness is his defining characteristics. Carol: According to the epilogue, Teddy > has dinner at the Potter house several times a week, and the Potter > children apparently consider "our Teddy" almost as much a member of > the family as their Weasley cousins (Lily wants him to marry Victoire > so he'll actually be part of the family). So I see nothing to > criticize here, certainly no "recklessness" on the part of the adult > Harry (beyond whatever risks he would face as an Auror, assuming that > he chose that career, and we can take JKR at her word here or not as > we choose since it's not in the book). Alla: I think there is a some sort of confusion here. I see nothing to criticise in Harry as godfather either. I am sure he took his responsibilities VERY seriously. What I am disagreeing with is the fact that JKR calls him much better godfather while the **circumstances** during which he got to really do godfather's duties are drastically different and IMO much easier than Sirius got, that's all. > Carol, hoping that Alla will quote the passage that she thinks refers > to the adult Harry as a "reckless" godfather so that we can either > deconstruct it or ignore it together > Alla: Pippin quoted it upthread. From kspilman at hotmail.com Mon Nov 19 02:37:46 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (adayania) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:37:46 -0000 Subject: Lucius, Lucius, Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179190 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > . > > > > a_svirn: > > Of course he didn't ? why should he? He got a lot of influential > > families to back him. If they hadn't recognised him as their Lord and > > Master he would have had to be more flexible. But they did, and he > > didn't have to. That's what I find incomprehensible. > > Pippin: > Lucius didn't have to bow and scrape to Voldemort in public. Nor > was Voldemort's halfblood status an issue -- Lucius didn't know > the nature of the connection between the diary and Voldemort. > > A young Lucius, chafing under the restrictions imposed by the > Ministry, and perhaps by older members of his family such as > Abraxian, might have thought that playacting subservience to > Voldemort was a small price to pay for getting to live out his > anti-Muggle fantasies. > > Anyway, Lucius may have considered Voldemort's title and > the robe kissing just superstition, meant to scare > weaker souls than he. > > The marchers at the QWC probably didn't include any > marked DE's beyond Lucius and the senior Crabbe and Goyle. > I suspect the rest were wannabees and weaker wizards under > the Imperius curse. Lucius was showing off as usual. > > Pippin > I don't believe Lucius had any interest in the responsibilities of being a "public servant." Throughout the series we see him sucking up to anyone who has power and influence (much like Slughorn) in order to get what he wants. Lucius does not want to truly work for his goals, he wants to coax other into doing what he wants for him so he can lay around the house and goof around with his family, what I think every family member would like. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 06:12:43 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:12:43 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Character Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711182212l223d1b4an1bf9aa2b443c360b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179191 Jen: Jen, wondering if such a reading is possible after years of discussing HP. Lynda: A reading without the reader's own hopes, theories and speculations and the readers personal hopes for the series clouding what the author is doing with the series? Sure. Why not? Its the way I normally approach any book I read. Its also the way I approached the HP books from the beginning and I'm not at all disappointed with what JKR gave us. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Nov 19 13:46:23 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:46:23 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179192 Carol responds: > Recklessness (as, surely, even his most devoted fans agree), is > Sirius Black's defining characteristic. Not only did his arrest > after his reckless decision to go after Pettigrew himself cost the > child Harry a relationship with his godfather from infancy to age > thirteen. Dana: There is only one problem I see with this interpretation and that is that Sirius chose to go after Peter AFTER he was denied access to Harry. Sirius went after Peter when he lost Harry too and therefore he lost everything within a single moment. Going to DD instead of going after Peter would not have changed matters all that much, because DD had decided that Harry would go to his aunt because of the blood protection his mother had given him. Not a single person from the WW ever interfered with Harry during the time he was at the Dursely's and not of them where bound by the confinements of Azkaban. Lupin was a free as a bird but he never went to see Harry, DD never went to see Harry and neither did Snape in the years Harry was with the Dursley's. And Molly, big to condemn everyone, was not in the picture during the time Harry was with the Dursley's and only got to know Harry slightly more intimate a year before either Lupin and Sirius did. It wasn't Sirius decision to go after Peter that coast Harry his connection to the WW or to Sirius himself but it was DD decision even before Sirius would have had the chance to take Harry under his wing. Sirius only decided to go after Peter after he knew perfectly well that he would be denied access to Harry and that there was nothing for him to do then make the one who caused it all, pay for what he had done. JMHO Dana From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Nov 19 15:41:31 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:41:31 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179193 > Carol > > > Recklessness (as, surely, even his most devoted fans agree), is > > Sirius Black's defining characteristic. > Alla: > Um, not this fan for sure. I am not intending to really argue it, I > must say, just wanted to put it on record. > > I will surely agree that recklessness is one of the **important** > characteristics of Sirius' character, but there is absolutely no > way I will agree that when I think of this character the first > thing that comes to my mind is that he is reckless. The first thing > I think of Sirius is his loyalty, recklessness comes after that > and his love for Harry. Jen: Oh yes, loyalty. Dog animagus. Loyalty to James was his underlying motivation the moment it became clear the Potters were in danger, a loyalty that extended to Harry when Sirius considered him in danger from Pettigrew. Sirius could be reckless in his execution but recklessness wasn't his motive or greatest defining characteristic as an adult imo. Teen Sirius was defined by an arrogant recklessness I'd say, wishing for a full moon despite Lupin's distress or egging Snape to follow Lupin. Life was a joke, not a series of real consequences for actions. I don't believe the Sirius in the Shrieking Shack was depicted as that same person though, especially when he took responsibility for his part in the deaths of the Potters, "Harry...I as good as killed them." (chap. 19) My...speculation I suppose, filling in of blanks, is that teen Sirius might have been less reckless had he experienced any of the serious consequences that *could* have happened from the Marauder's antics. But I can't say that for sure; I'm not sure that if Werewolf! Lupin had killed someone or if Snape had died that Sirius would have considered himself as responsible as he did for James's death. Or that as a teen he would have realized he and his friends were berks as Sirius described them when looking back from his adult perspective. Sirius read to me as a character who matured in some respects due to age and life experience even if he never got past his resentment for Snape or the reckless/arrogant parts of his personality. Alla: > But of course this is the fan of the character speaking and I tend > to put his positive characteristics first - not because I do not > see negative, but because I sincerely feel that those are defining, > so again I am not going to argue this at all, argued too often by > now. I mean, just as I put Snape's despicable cruelty towards Harry > as his defining characteristic, I am sure you will put it one of > the very last ones and you will characterise it as sarcasm or > something. Jen: As someone who saw Snape with new eyes after DH, I'm not sure what his defining characteristic is now. I suppose when comparing him to the Sirius character, I'd have to say his love for Lily motivated his actions just as thoroughly as Sirius's loyalty to James and Harry. Snape's trajectory read the opposite of Sirius's to me, with his young self much more sympathetic than his older one and vice versa for Sirius. Although even if love is meant to be his primary motivation, neither that quality nor Snape's petty cruelty (as I call it) are what define Snape for me so much as...I'm not sure how to say it, but his dogged determination to set right what he could after Lily's death when he himself wished to die. There were many paths he could have chosen, and he chose the hardest one of all in helping Harry because he was then required to hoodwink Voldemort. It was more than loving Lily because Snape had no hope of ever being loved in return. I guess that's the meaning of unconditional love but - help me out someone, what would this quality be called, Snape's determination to pay for his sins IOW? His penitence? It's what defines Snape for me at any rate, whatever you'd call it. Jen, who wishes for the hundreth time that JKR hadn't named the characters James, Sirius and Remus because you have to think about writing names ending in 'S' as a possessive, a rule which still eludes her even after brushing up on it online. Sirius's traits or Sirius' traits - anyone have the definitive answer?! From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 16:31:23 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:31:23 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179194 > > Alla: > > The first thing > > I think of Sirius is his loyalty, recklessness comes after that > > and his love for Harry. > > Jen: Oh yes, loyalty. Dog animagus. Loyalty to James was his > underlying motivation the moment it became clear the Potters were in > danger, a loyalty that extended to Harry when Sirius considered him > in danger from Pettigrew. Sirius could be reckless in his execution > but recklessness wasn't his motive or greatest defining > characteristic as an adult imo. Teen Sirius was defined by an > arrogant recklessness I'd say, wishing for a full moon despite > Lupin's distress or egging Snape to follow Lupin. Life was a joke, > not a series of real consequences for actions. I don't believe the > Sirius in the Shrieking Shack was depicted as that same person > though, especially when he took responsibility for his part in the > deaths of the Potters, "Harry...I as good as killed them." (chap. > 19) Montavilla47: You're reminding me about how much I do like adult Sirius. What hit me so hard about his death was how unfulfilled he seemed. I was so longing for him to be the adult Harry needed! > Alla: > > I put Snape's despicable cruelty towards Harry > > as his defining characteristic, I am sure you will put it one of > > the very last ones and you will characterise it as sarcasm or > > something. > > Jen: > It > was more than loving Lily because Snape had no hope of ever being > loved in return. I guess that's the meaning of unconditional love > but - help me out someone, what would this quality be called, Snape's > determination to pay for his sins IOW? His penitence? It's what > defines Snape for me at any rate, whatever you'd call it. Montavilla47: I think penitence is a good word for it. Before DH came out, someone asked me to imagine what Snape's private rooms at Hogwarts looked like and I said I thought there'd be a cruxifix on the wall, although I didn't know why--since no one seems to have any religion in the books. She agreed and said he probably wore a hair shirt as well. I guess it was the mention in GoF of Snape having once been a Death Eater and now no longer being one that fixed the image of the penitent in my mind. > Jen, who wishes for the hundreth time that JKR hadn't named the > characters James, Sirius and Remus because you have to think about > writing names ending in 'S' as a possessive, a rule which still > eludes her even after brushing up on it online. Sirius's traits or > Sirius' traits - anyone have the definitive answer?! Montavilla47: It's one of those bizarre things. It goes by sound. If you think it sounds better to say "Siriuses food dish" then you use apostrophe-S. If it sounds better to say "Sirius food dish" then you use just S-apostrophe. For example, if you are talking about Tom Jones having a new record out, you wouldn't say "Tom Jones's record." You would say "Tom Jones' Record." But with Sirius, because you'd be inclined to add the extra S, you'd say "Sirius's food dish." There's an exception to the rule when you use the name of Jesus (but only when referring to Jesus Christ). Don't ask me what the exception is, though. I can't remember. Montavilla47 Who tends to sound out everything From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 16:53:18 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:53:18 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179195 > Dana: > There is only one problem I see with this interpretation and that is > that Sirius chose to go after Peter AFTER he was denied access to > Harry. Sirius went after Peter when he lost Harry too and therefore > he lost everything within a single moment. zgirnius: I can't agree on this one. If Sirius had any legal leg to stand on (and the books do not make it clear whether he did, Petunia was Harry's next of kin), his decision to go after Peter meant he lost any chance to fight for Harry. Heck, he should have *expected* Dumbledore not to want Harry in his power. By his own brilliant plan, Sirius was believed to be the Potters' Secret Keeper. Which meant that their deaths pointed the finger at him as a traitor and Death Eater. The implications of this seemed to have escaped Hagrid, simple, kind soul that he is, or maybe he did not even know who the SK was. Could anyone reasonably suppose Dumbledore had missed this? Sirius did not know about the blood protection when he made his choice, he knew only that Hagrid would not turn Harry over to him, because Dumbledore had other plans. He should have gone to Dumbledore and explained the Secret Keeper fiasco. Quite possibly, Dumbledore would still have wanted to do the blood protection thing instead of letting Sirius care for Harry. If Sirius is half the dedicated, salf-sacrificing godfather his fans suppose, he might even have agreed to the plan as safer for Harry. Visitation, presents, and correspondence by him with his godson would still have been an option, I would think. Or, if he had a legal leg to stand on and chose to in spite of the blood protection, once his name was cleared, he could exercise his legal rights. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 17:09:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:09:01 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179196 > > Dana: > > There is only one problem I see with this interpretation and that > is > > that Sirius chose to go after Peter AFTER he was denied access to > > Harry. Sirius went after Peter when he lost Harry too and therefore > > he lost everything within a single moment. > > zgirnius: > I can't agree on this one. If Sirius had any legal leg to stand on > (and the books do not make it clear whether he did, Petunia was > Harry's next of kin), his decision to go after Peter meant he lost > any chance to fight for Harry. Alla: I think they do make it clear though - Sirius was named a guardian, NOT Petunia. Unless you do not believe Sirius of course. And of course while I disagree with you, I only half agree with Dana. Sirius tried to fight for Harry with Hagrid, I applaud him for that, but I certainly think he should have fought harder. I sympathise with his decision to go after Peter, but I definitely think he should have not hesitated to use any force on Hagrid, take Harry and leave with him. Zara: > Heck, he should have *expected* Dumbledore not to want Harry in his > power. By his own brilliant plan, Sirius was believed to be the > Potters' Secret Keeper. Which meant that their deaths pointed the > finger at him as a traitor and Death Eater. The implications of this > seemed to have escaped Hagrid, simple, kind soul that he is, or maybe > he did not even know who the SK was. Could anyone reasonably suppose > Dumbledore had missed this? Alla: Could anybody reasonably assume that Dumbledore wanted Harry to be controlled by himself? Could anybody reasonably assume that Dumbledore would just believe that one of the order members guilty without talking to this order member **once**? Could anybody think that Dumbledore may be bitter that Potters refused his offer to be a secret keeper and just make an assumption that Sirius is guilty, which turned out to be wrong? I remember Pippin saying that she realised that Dumbledore's hat may not be as white as his beard when he kicked Barty. I realised it, when I realised that Dumbledore did not hesitate to go against young Potters' wills and take their son away from his guardian. No, I never imagined that Dumbledore would be revealed as manipulative to the degree he is revealed in DH, but I sure thought his behaviour towards Sirius and Harry was despicable. Zgirnius: > Sirius did not know about the blood protection when he made his > choice, he knew only that Hagrid would not turn Harry over to him, > because Dumbledore had other plans. He should have gone to Dumbledore > and explained the Secret Keeper fiasco. Alla: Sure, he should have. Just as Dumbledore should have been more willing to check out the facts before playing with people's lifes, IMO. Zgirnius: > Quite possibly, Dumbledore would still have wanted to do the blood > protection thing instead of letting Sirius care for Harry. Alla: Precisely. Zgirnius: If Sirius > is half the dedicated, salf-sacrificing godfather his fans suppose, > he might even have agreed to the plan as safer for Harry. Visitation, > presents, and correspondence by him with his godson would still have > been an option, I would think. Alla: Um, yes, sure. Only for some reason I really doubt Sirius would have agreed to his godson being in Petunia's care, knowing how Lily felt about her sister dear. Zgirnius: > Or, if he had a legal leg to stand on > and chose to in spite of the blood protection, once his name was > cleared, he could exercise his legal rights. Alla: He **had** a legal leg to stand on, only for some reason I really doubt that had it come to legal proceedings Wisengamot would have ruled for him. Regardless, you have no argument from he that Sirius should have fought harder for Harry that night. But I have no doubt that Dumbledore would not have stopped of anything to make sure Harry goes to Petunia. Am I in doubt that he may even frame Sirius to make sure he is out of the way? I would have laughed if somebody told me that before DH, but now I think that he may have, Dumbledore I mean. Speculation obviously. JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 19:29:26 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:29:26 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179197 > > zgirnius: > > I can't agree on this one. If Sirius had any legal leg to stand on > > (and the books do not make it clear whether he did, Petunia was > > Harry's next of kin), his decision to go after Peter meant he lost > > any chance to fight for Harry. > > Alla: > > I think they do make it clear though - Sirius was named a guardian, > NOT Petunia. Unless you do not believe Sirius of course. zgirnius: This is why I employed the adjective 'legal'. James and Lily, who did not manage to even have wands handy when Voldemort came calling, strike me as the sorts of characters who may not have bothered to put their wishes regarding the custody of their son in the event of theor deaths in writing. I don't doubt the sincerity Sirius's belief that James and Lily would have wanted him to get custody of Harry, but even Sirius does not claim, that I can recall, that this wish was definitely formalized in whatever manner is usual in the Potterverse. I doubt they had written a will either, but Harry would get everything as a matter of course. They were young, they thought they were invincible, and then they were dead. > Alla: > I sympathise with his decision to go after Peter, but I definitely > think he should have not hesitated to use any force on Hagrid, take > Harry and leave with him. zgirnius: Given Hagrid's immunities, and Harry's lack thereof, this may well take the prize as Sirius's most sensible decision ever. > Alla: > Could anybody reasonably assume that > Dumbledore would just believe that one of the order members guilty > without talking to this order member **once**? zgirnius: Umm, yes. I would be an example. At least, I flatter myself that I am a reasonable person. I would expect Dumbledore to act, initially, as though Sirius was guilty as sin. There would be time enough to apologize after the fact, if he acted wrongly, once Harry was safe. Failure to act, could mean the death of Harry despite his miraculous survival of Voldemort's attack. Hagrid and Petunia are both trustworthy in the sense that neither had any chance of being the 'spy close to the Potters' and the traitor. Sirius became Suspect Number One for that role, thanks to his (supposed) SKing. Protect Harry first, figure out what happened second. > Zgirnius: > > Sirius did not know about the blood protection when he made his > > choice, he knew only that Hagrid would not turn Harry over to him, > > because Dumbledore had other plans. He should have gone to > Dumbledore > > and explained the Secret Keeper fiasco. > Alla: > Sure, he should have. Just as Dumbledore should have been more > willing to check out the facts before playing with people's lifes, > IMO. zgirnius: Dumbledore faced exigent circumstances. He needed Harry out of the hands of a potential traitor before that traitor could finish the job Voldemort had botched. Checking the facts could wait for later. Placing Harry with the Dursleys was not an irrevocable decision, though I think he would have fought hard to keep Harry there. > Alla: > Um, yes, sure. Only for some reason I really doubt Sirius would have > agreed to his godson being in Petunia's care, knowing how Lily felt > about her sister dear. zgirnius: That depends how convincing Dumbledore could be about the danger Harry would face, and the efficacy of the blood protection, I imagine. James and Lily did not have this variable (the blood protection) to consider in choosing a guardian for Harry when they selected Sirius. What Lily and Voldemort did at GH, and what resulted, was unexpected and unprecedented. I'm giving Sirius the benefit of the doubt, here, that he would consider what was best for Harry and not just what he himself might want. I don't know what Sirius would decide under those circumstances. I don't even know what I think he should decide, since my opinion would depend on the argument presented to him. > Alla: > I would have laughed if somebody told me that before DH, but now I > think that he may have, Dumbledore I mean. Speculation obviously. zgirnius: I could not disagree more, but it is also irrelevant to my argument. Without knowing about the prophecy, blood protection, etc., Sirius was not basing his decision on these supposed facts about Dumbledore. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 19:29:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:29:29 -0000 Subject: Of atonement and apostrophes (Was: Harry as godfather) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179198 Montavilla47: > I think penitence is a good word for it. Before DH came out, someone asked me to imagine what Snape's private rooms at Hogwarts looked like and I said I thought there'd be a cruxifix on the wall, although I didn't know why--since no one seems to have any religion in the books. She agreed and said he probably wore a hair shirt as well. Carol: I already answered Jen offlist, but I'll post here as well since you also responded. The word that occurred to me was "atonement." Same concept except that he's moved beyond remorse and self-punishment and is actually working to make up for (atone for) his sin. Contrast a medieval Catholic who goes to a priest to confess his sins and wears a hair shirt or flogs himself or goes on pilgrimage but does nothing to *atone* for his sin. Snape, IMO, goes beyond penitence by attempting attempt to undo the damage so far as that's possible. He can't bring Lily back, but he can protect her son so that she won't have died in vain. I think he's punishing himself, too, since he won't let DD tell anyone what he's doing and he's constantly putting his own life at risk, but IMO, his primary motivation is to make amends to Lily by protecting her son. ("I thought we were doing this for her.") It's as if he doesn't think of her as dead. He seems to think that she's watching over him. And in a way he's right; his Patronus or guardian spirit is a symbol of Lily as she lives in his heart: good and beautiful and powerful and pure. He wants, IMO, to be worthy of her. Anyway, "penitence" implies remorse and contrition. "Repentance" can imply an additional step, depending on which definition you're using: Repent: 1: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life2 a: to feel regret or contrition b: to change one's mindtransitive verb1: to cause to feel regret or contrition2: to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for But "atonement" goes even further since the sinner is trying to expiate the sin (extinguish the guilt) by making amends for it. (In Christianity, "atonemente" is "at one ment," that is, the truly repentant sinner who atones for his sins becomes "at one" with God. Maybe Snape is trying to become "at one," in a spiritual sense, with Lily, who, for him, symbolizes beauty and purity and goodness. Or maybe he just wants her forgiveness. I think Snape knows that death is not the end of everything; otherwise, he wouldn't be concerned about splitting his soul. And maybe he hoped that he had at last earned her forgiveness when he gave Harry that crucial memory seconds before his own death.) Jen: > > Jen, who wishes for the hundreth time that JKR hadn't named the characters James, Sirius and Remus because you have to think about writing names ending in 'S' as a possessive, a rule which still eludes her even after brushing up on it online. Sirius's traits or Sirius' traits - anyone have the definitive answer?! > > Montavilla47: > It's one of those bizarre things. It goes by sound. If you think it sounds better to say "Siriuses food dish" then you use apostrophe-S. > If it sounds better to say "Sirius food dish" then you use just S-apostrophe. > > For example, if you are talking about Tom Jones having a new record out, you wouldn't say "Tom Jones's record." You would say "Tom Jones' Record." > > But with Sirius, because you'd be inclined to add the extra S, you'd say "Sirius's food dish." Carol responds: Actually, no. The editor/English teacher in me has to step in here and set the record straight. With the exception of a few ancient names (e.g., Jesus, Xerxes, Hippocrates), names ending in "s" form the possessive exactly the same way that all other singular nouns in English do, by adding "apostrophe s." So it's "James's," "Remus's," "Sirius's," "Severus's." (We can get around the awkwardness by using last names except in the case of James because "Potter" could be Harry, and even for him, we can say "James Potter's.") As for Jones, the singular possessive is "Jones's; the plural is "Joneses"; and the plural possessive is "Joneses'." > Montavilla: > There's an exception to the rule when you use the name of Jesus (but only when referring to Jesus Christ). Don't ask me what the exception is, though. I can't remember. Carol: I can. It's correct to write "Jesus'" rather than "Jesus's." But that's the exception rather than the rule. It applies to other ancient names, as well, but only names with more than one syllable and ending in "es." "Sirius," "Remus," and "Severus" end in -us; "James" has only one syllable. None of them fits the rule. ("James," BTW, means "the supplanter. How appropriate.) "CMS (The Chicago Manual of Style) 6.24 Proper Nouns "The general rule for the possessive of nouns covers most proper nouns, including most names ending in sibilants [s or z]." Examples listed in CMS 6.24 include "Kansas's," "Burns's", "Dickens's," and "Jones's." (No first names are listed, but the rule still applies.) Exceptions listed include "Jesus'," "Moses'," "Euripedes'," "Demosthenes'," "Xerxes'," and a pair of modern, two-syllable last names ending in -es, "Surtees'" and "Yerkes'" (CMS 6.26). However, except for "Jesus" and Moses" (CMS 6.25), the rule applies only when the last syllable is pronounced "eez" (CMS 6.26). Carol, who has to know this stuff because she edits for a living From vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Nov 19 19:12:14 2007 From: vivida89 at yahoo.co.uk (vivida89) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:12:14 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why? SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179199 > zgirnius: > There is of course, a crucial difference. Sirius was in the MoM to > rescue children from their would-be murderers; Bella was engaged by > Molly in a duel after she attacked Molly's underage daughter. But at > the level of personality and style, I think those two characters are > similar and it makes sense that they died for the same reason - for > not taking their opponents seriously enough. The mistake was in > character for both. Vivida89: I never thought about it that way before. Now that you mention it, I see the similarities between them. But do you think Sirius was ever aware of what he "was"? Do you think he ever got the fact that he was, in the end, much more like his family than he wanted to be? It seems to me like the more he wanted to outrun his family, the much more similar he was to them... > zgirnius: > Actually, Harry knows Snape for seven years, compared to two for > Sirius. In six of those seven years, he sees Snape on a daily basis, > which is only true of Sirius that one summer at the start of OotP. He > also has the rather odd but strongly felt friendship with young Snape > that he develops in HBP (until he learns who his 'friend' really is.) > So Harry actually did have a lot to do with Snape. Vivida89: This may be right (well it is) but you have to see the difference in which way they had to do something with each other. Would you prefer to name a child for a man who you hated for wrong reasons whole seven years or rather a man that was your father's best friend and that tries to help you whenever it works? And I think, the friendship you mentioned -- it might have been there and he surely lost respect for his father. You just have to look at how upworked he was when he even had to speak to Sirius and Lupin about that. But his hatred swelled up again when Snape killed DD... anyway, this hatred was just "stupid" because he didn't know about the background. This strikes me as weird again; don't you think that Dumbledore took far too much risks? It seems that he doesn't care whether Harry hates Snape or not, whether Harry knows about the real circumstances or not. For all that Snape did, DD certainly asked a great deal of him. And what's the gratitude? Correcting Harry to call him not Snape, but "Professor Snape"; oh wow,... But in the end it's all the same -- we don't know whether James jr was called James Sirius and it also doesn't matter. That's the great thing about books, you can make up your own imagination. The way I maybe prefer a funny couple in HP, the way I just believe that James jr is called James Sirius. > > zgirnius: > But Sirius got his final farewell in the Forest; I don't think > Rowling intended his omission in the Epliogue as a slight, she simply > wanted that scene to be the last work on Sirius. (And as you say, it > is a very *nice* last word.) Telling us Al's middle name was Severus > told us something new in a way telling us James's was Sirius, would > not have. We know that Harry loves Sirius with all of his flaws - why > else was Sirius in the Forest? On the other hand, a choice to name a > son after Snape tells us Harry's view of the man has changed. > Vivida89: I agree with you. Harry's opinion of Snape has indeed changed through all that he got to know - how could it not have? I think Harry still had to work it through, had to rethink a hundred times because it wasn t all that easy for him. If you think about it, you just need time to understand WHAT actually happened, especially when you spent whole seven years believing this man was a spy for the Dark Lord. But I think that Sirius had taught Harry something here -- or maybe that Harry learned from Sirius' mistakes. Thus would be that you can forgive people, and ease your hatred and not be guided completely by it. Sirius always had this issue with imulsive reactions -- he completely hated one person, so this person had to be treat way xyz. Harry doing this with Snape in the epilogue shows us that he's grown up... something the others, Sirius, James and Lily never had. Which is quite a pity, because how different would they have become... and Sirius first of all. I believe that if he had grown up in a very different surrounding (e.g. not his parent's house) and if he had been taught values and beliefs, he might have become so very different. Vivida89 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 20:04:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:04:52 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179200 > zgirnius: > This is why I employed the adjective 'legal'. James and Lily, who did > not manage to even have wands handy when Voldemort came calling, > strike me as the sorts of characters who may not have bothered to put > their wishes regarding the custody of their son in the event of theor > deaths in writing. I don't doubt the sincerity Sirius's belief that > James and Lily would have wanted him to get custody of Harry, but > even Sirius does not claim, that I can recall, that this wish was > definitely formalized in whatever manner is usual in the Potterverse. > I doubt they had written a will either, but Harry would get > everything as a matter of course. They were young, they thought they > were invincible, and then they were dead. Alla: And legal does not necessarily means **in writing**. I mean, it is always better to have it in writing obviously for the court to have a stronger evidence. But truly, testimony could suffice if convincing, depending on circumstances, and if Lily and James **communicated** their wishes to other people, then especially for the purposes of the story I consider it to be perfectly legal. I have no doubt believing that they may not have a written will,as you said, young and invicible, but at the same time, they indeed put thought into designating Sirius' as guardian, so I can just as easily believe that they put it into will ( since they already spent SOME time thinking of who will be Harry's guardian, why not put it in writing too). > > Alla: > > I sympathise with his decision to go after Peter, but I definitely > > think he should have not hesitated to use any force on Hagrid, take > > Harry and leave with him. > > zgirnius: > Given Hagrid's immunities, and Harry's lack thereof, this may well > take the prize as Sirius's most sensible decision ever. Alla: As I said, we differ. I love that Sirius wanting to get revenge as he did, still fought for Harry, but I would love for him to take Harry away from Dumbledore. I know, we would not have a story and sure, Hagrid may have overpowered him, but if he did knock him out, then I would have no problems with him whatsoever. He tried his hardest then in my mind. > > Alla: > > Could anybody reasonably assume that > > Dumbledore would just believe that one of the order members guilty > > without talking to this order member **once**? > > zgirnius: > Umm, yes. I would be an example. At least, I flatter myself that I am > a reasonable person. I would expect Dumbledore to act, initially, as > though Sirius was guilty as sin. There would be time enough to > apologize after the fact, if he acted wrongly, once Harry was safe. Alla: Except he did not apologise after the fact and did not check his facts, didn't he? No, condemn first apologise later is not the style I respect. Zgirnius: > Failure to act, could mean the death of Harry despite his miraculous > survival of Voldemort's attack. Hagrid and Petunia are both > trustworthy in the sense that neither had any chance of being > the 'spy close to the Potters' and the traitor. Sirius became Suspect > Number One for that role, thanks to his (supposed) SKing. Protect > Harry first, figure out what happened second. Alla: Where is the part where he figures out what happened? I remember how disagreeable I found the argument that Sirius after Azkaban should have come to Dumbledore. I mean, here is the man under whose command he was serving as part of the very few trusted soldiers and who when push comes to shove did not even come to check the facts himself. He sent Hagrid. Why Sirius would have think that Dumbledore would help him in any way after Azkaban, beats me. > zgirnius: > Dumbledore faced exigent circumstances. He needed Harry out of the > hands of a potential traitor before that traitor could finish the job > Voldemort had botched. Checking the facts could wait for later. > Placing Harry with the Dursleys was not an irrevocable decision, > though I think he would have fought hard to keep Harry there. Alla: Yes, checking the facts part. And in the meanwhile checking how Harry is doing part would also be nice. It is funny, really. Altogether I am not as down on Dumbledore as some people are after DH. Mostly because I buy his remorse, but OMG when I think about it I find him playing god to Sirius in Harry's lives to be so very disgusting. I mean, before DH I already hated those actions of his, but alltogether I still thought he was a good man trying to do his best. I mean, I thought those were manipulative actions, but Nooooo, I thought those were indeed such bad circumstances. Now I am doubly convinced that it was not such bad circumstances, it was needs of the plot and Dumbledore thinking He knows best IMO. Could you ( or anybody) come up with ONE convincing reason for example why Dumbledore did not go himself to Godric Hollow? Besides the needs of the plot. > > Alla: > > I would have laughed if somebody told me that before DH, but now I > > think that he may have, Dumbledore I mean. Speculation obviously. > > zgirnius: > I could not disagree more, but it is also irrelevant to my argument. > Without knowing about the prophecy, blood protection, etc., Sirius > was not basing his decision on these supposed facts about Dumbledore. Alla: Well, sure, it is irrelevant except that I place enough blame for that night on Dumbledore as well. And yes, I cannot exclude that anymore. As I said before I remember laughing at the theories that Dumbledore kept Sirius in Azkaban and I still do, but I am absolutely not hesitant to believe that Dumbledore would have done anything to keep any person that would harm his plans. Funnily what convinced me was Dumbledore telling Snape to aim at person to be convincing in DH. That for me stood for as metaphor that Dumbledore would not hesitate to hurt any of his comrades if it is for the greater good. And oh dear, Snape did differently. Snape of all people. And yes, I know that Harry has a greater good idea in his mind too, but I think he indeed realised that he may turn into Dumbledore and decided not to, when he told people about Diadem. I am not calling Dumbledore evil, I am sure he wanted the best for WW world in general. I even believe that he loved Harry, to his surprise. But do I believe that he considered most people as pawns in his plans and inferior to him? Oh yes. I think when he admits that he always knew that Harry is the better man it is truly a first one for him. JMO, Alla From juli17 at aol.com Mon Nov 19 20:26:07 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:26:07 -0500 Subject: His own man (was Re: Snape's protection (was Re: Another thing... In-Reply-To: <1195474430.2789.72057.m46@yahoogroups.com> References: <1195474430.2789.72057.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9F9018CAC365D-C84-2E4B@FWM-D15.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179201 Jen: HAHA, oh yes, in a heartbeat. Although nah, he wouldn't because he knew Dumbledore wouldn't want that and it turns out Snape was Dumbledore's man through and through, yes? As thoroughly or more than Harry because Snape had no one else to depend on like Harry did. Sherry: Actually, I think Snape was Lily's man through and through, not Dumbledore's. I'm not saying that to demean his devotion to lily after all those years, or to ignore the things we saw, in DH, like the one that was the most moving for me, telling Phineas not to call Hermione a "mudblood". I'm just saying that Snape's true heart loyalties were not to DD; they were to Lily, so he wasn't really DDM in my opinion. Julie: I mostly agree with you, Sherry. Snape was Lily's man through and through in the beginning. Later he adopted some of Dumbledore's values (only abandoning to death those he could not save). But he also defied Dumbledore when he felt Dumbledore was wrong (saving Remus Lupin, IMO, when Dumbledore told him not to do anything that would compromise his position with Voldemort, for instance). And in the end, I believe Snape was his own man through and through, even if his own goals eventually mirrored Dumbledore's. I believe this primarily because of Snape's choice when?Dumbledore said Snape?must be the one to kill him (even at the?possible cost of Snape's own soul) and that Harry would die in the process of killing Voldemort.?A?fully Lily'sMan!Snape might well have?quit the plan at that point, given that he had promised to protect Lily's son (who was now going to die) and?in the process of getting there Snape would be potentially damaging his own soul. One could argue that Snape's agreement to go along with the plan proved he was Dumbledore's Man more than Lily's Man. But... There is that "Severus, please" plea from Dumbledore. Twice. Dumbledore wasn't sure Snape was in his pocket. Because he never really was. Snape did do it eventually, but I don't think it was for Dumbledore so much as for the cause. Snape, who saved those he could at this point, understood that destroying Voldemort was the only way to secure the survival of the WW, at least one worth living in, and that Dumbledore's death was inevitable, as was the necessity of Snape remaining close to Voldemort. And as was Harry confronting Voldemort and presumably dying. There was no way to save Harry as long as Voldemort was alive and determined to kill the boy, so in the end it would be either Harry at Voldemort's hand--with Voldemort taking over the WW--or the two of them at each other's hands--with the WW preserved from Voldemort's tyranny. (And if it was only about saving Harry, who couldn't really be saved as far as Snape knew, a Snape with no goal beyond his promise to Lily would just abandon the undoable task.) That's why I think Snape did all he did in the end, including things that didn't directly serve his promise to protect Lily's son, or any unswervingly loyalty to anything or everything Dumbledore asked or demanded of him. Snape wasn't DDM or Lily'sMan, but his own man, IMO, following what eventually became his own goals. As always, I know others' mileage may vary, Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Nov 19 20:27:30 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:27:30 -0000 Subject: Character Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179202 Jen wrote: > One day a few > years from now, with all my expectations adjusted and emotional > investment in the outcome long since forgotten, I hope to read the > series again and enjoy the story for what it is instead of noticing > all that I thought would happen and didn't. Or I might end up > thinking it wasn't that great after all, who knows?!? But I'd like > to read it again without theories, speculation and my own hopes > ringing in my ears. > > Jen, wondering if such a reading is possible after years of > discussing HP. Potioncat: Me too. I'd like to re-read it with "what I know now" but witout any of the "What I wanted before" or even "What I don't like now." I think it will be possible, even with all our discussion. In some ways, what we've learned about the characters is similar to real life. It's like being at a wedding with your Aunty Muriel--erm Aunty Jo--and she suddenly spouts on about some event in the family history that you never heard before. And now you see certain relatives differently. I'm looking forward to it---just wonder how long I should wait before I start, and whether I can meet here with others to discuss the experience afterwards. ;-) Potioncat, who in RL, just learned that our 90 year old, timid-as-a- mouse, spinster aunt was once engaged, but the young man was killed in WWII. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 21:03:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:03:52 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179203 Alla: > > And legal does not necessarily means **in writing**. I mean, it is > always better to have it in writing obviously for the court to have a > stronger evidence. But truly, testimony could suffice if convincing, > depending on circumstances, and if Lily and James **communicated** > their wishes to other people, then especially for the purposes of the > story I consider it to be perfectly legal. > > I have no doubt believing that they may not have a written will,as > you said, young and invicible, but at the same time, they indeed put > thought into designating Sirius' as guardian, so I can just as easily > believe that they put it into will ( since they already spent SOME > time thinking of who will be Harry's guardian, why not put it in > writing too). > Carol responds: If appointing Sirius Black as Harry's godfather was the simple matter that naming Harry as Teddy Lupin's godfather is, with no ceremony and no certificates involved, I don't see how it could have any legal significance at all. As for being named Harry's "guardian," we have only one reference to that, from Black himself. It could be a slip on JKR's part (she's been known to do that). At any rate, in RL, there's no connection between being selected as a godparent, which is entirely a religious matter and essentially an honorary position (a really good godparent might be a role model and spiritual guide, as well as giving the child presents on birthdays or Christmas), whereas being a guardian is a legal and moral responsibility, in loco parentis. And in the absence of a will stating that the Potters wanted sirius black as their child's guardian, I doubt that even the MoM would take the child away from his nearest relatives (especially if DD had explained the protections he was putting on the Dursley home, and Fudge seems to know about them in PoA.) Moreover, once Sirius Black was "known" to be the Secret Keeper who betrayed the Potters to their deaths, no one was going to support his claim to Harry even if it were in the Potters' will, any more than the U.S. courts would grant custody of a child to the parents' chosen guardian if that person had a criminal record and might be a danger to the child. When Hagrid tells DD that he got the motorcycle from "young sirius Black," DD asks: "No trouble, was there?" He hasn't told Hagrid about Black's supposedly being SK, but he knows it himself, and took measures to prevent Harry's being turned over to anyone by telling Hagrid that Harry was to go to the Dursleys no matter what. I don't think that Black knew anything about Petunia beyond her bad taste in vases (mentioned in the letter in DH). He certainly could not have known how differently the Dursleys would treat Harry and his cousin Dudley. He may have realized that DD knew best, or he may simply have taken out his frustration by going after Peter Pettigrew (an action he must have known would land him in Azkaban--"I won't be needing it [the motorcycle] anymore"). Rather than fighting Hagrid for his own right to take the child, maybe he actually considered that Harry might be better off in a Muggle household, away from renegade DEs, rather than with him, a single wizard on the run from both DEs and the MoM. (Of course, he could have gone to DD and explained the situation or pleaded his case, but, being Sirius Black, he seems not to have thought of that.) At any rate, I agree with zgirnius that leaving Harry with Hagrid was sensible, much more sensible and much less selfish than taking Harry with him into danger. Going after Peter Pettigrew, however, was just plain reckless. I suppose in his remorse and despair, his only comfort was revenge. "I'll go down, but I'll take Wormtail with me." > > > > Alla: > > > I sympathise with his decision to go after Peter, but I definitely think he should have not hesitated to use any force on Hagrid, take Harry and leave with him. Carol: Used force on Hagrid, who was trying to act in Harry's best interests? that would be assault, and, if he took Harry, kidnapping. Just what a wizard on the run needs to do, add to the list of crimes he's being sought for. (Of course, he did just that by going after Peter Pettigrew, whom I believe he intended to kill, but at least he wasn't attacking a well-intentioned innocent person who wasn't supposed to use magic. Much better to give Hagrid, who probably couldn't Apparate, a form of transportation. (How either of them was supposed to hold onto Harry while flying is anyone's guess. Stick him in the sidecar? And we still don't know how Hagrid got to GH in the first place. Oh, dear. Plotholes.) I don't like sirius very much, but I think in this instance, he was acting in Harry's best interest. I don't see how he could possibly have kept Harry safe being on the run himself. His big disguise would be useless if he were carrying a baby. A Grimlike dog carrying a fifteen-month-old toddler in its mouth or on its back would have been rather conspicuous, as would the flying motorcycle once the WW was warned about it. > Alla: > > Except he did not apologise after the fact and did not check his > facts, didn't he? > Where is the part where he figures out what happened? Carol: In PoA, offpage, when DD goes to talk to Sirius Black, who is locked in Flitwick's office. Soon after that, DD reminds Hermione of the time-turner, which they can use to save "more than one innocent life": that is, Black's and Buckbeak's. He is, at that time, as convinced of Black's innocence as the children are, and he makes sure that Black is not turned over to the Dementors. Alla: > I remember how disagreeable I found the argument that Sirius after Azkaban should have come to Dumbledore. I mean, here is the man under whose command he was serving as part of the very few trusted soldiers and who when push comes to shove did not even come to check the facts himself. He sent Hagrid. Why Sirius would have think that Dumbledore would help him in any way after Azkaban, beats me. Carol responds: At the point we're talking about, DD has every reason to suspect Black, whom he believes to be the Secret Keeper (because James has said he wants SB for that job), the betrayer of the Potters and the spy who gave Voldemort information on the Order members for a year. It would be highly irresponsible of DD to give Harry into that man's hands, especially when he had devised an extension of Lily's blood protection that would work only with Lily's sister, Petunia. As For Black, he had no reason to distrust DD, whom he must have known was acting in Harry's best interests. All he needed to do was to confess his blunder in suggesting that the Potters make Pettigrew Secret Keeper instead of himself. If DD had gone after Pettigrew, knowing that he was a rat animagus, I don't think we'd have had twelve dead Muggles and a "rat" escaping into the sewers. And, as for Black thinking that DD would help him in any way after Azkaban, if it weren't for DD's Time Turner idea, Black would have been soul-sucked. He had every reason to be grateful to DD, not only for saving him but for believing his story. Alla: > I am not calling Dumbledore evil, I am sure he wanted the best for WW world in general. I even believe that he loved Harry, to his surprise. > > But do I believe that he considered most people as pawns in his plans and inferior to him? Oh yes. > > I think when he admits that he always knew that Harry is the better man it is truly a first one for him. Carol: Here we agree. I do think, however, that DD's behavior in keeping Harry out of Black's custody was not only understandable but necessary to keep Harry safe. It would have been nice if he had gone to Azkaban to hear the facts and try to get a fair trial for Black as he tried to do for Hokey and Morfin (both of whom died before he could exonerate them), but he thought that he had all the facts in the case (confirmed by the eyewitness testimony that Black had murdered twelve Muggles and Peter Pettigrew, whom DD didn't know to be a rat Animagus). Lupin, after all, thought the same thing--and he knew about Pettigrew's Animagus form. Carol, not at all happy that DD turned out to be such a manipulator but believing that he was right to keep Harry away from Black and place him with the Dursleys, where he might be unloved but would survive to attend Hogwarts From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 21:17:17 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:17:17 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179204 > Carol responds: > If appointing Sirius Black as Harry's godfather was the simple matter > that naming Harry as Teddy Lupin's godfather is, with no ceremony and > no certificates involved, I don't see how it could have any legal > significance at all. As for being named Harry's "guardian," we have > only one reference to that, from Black himself. It could be a slip on > JKR's part (she's been known to do that). Alla: It could have a legal significance, absolutely, yes. Meaning if the RL court of law would have something loosely similar to determine who was indeed Harry's guardian IF no writings on the matter would be present. Then if credible witness would have testified that it was child's parents wish to have Sirius as guardian, yes, it would have been legally significant all right. It would have been nice exception from hearsay rules, etc. And sure, that's your right to believe that it was JKR's slip of tongue. Myself I think it was too important for JKR to be a simple slip of tongue. I think it could be fun for example to believe that when Harry tells Al that he named after two bravest headmasters of Hogwarts, it was JKR's slip of tongue and what Harry really meant was the singular and he only meant Dumbledore. Do I really believe it? Of course not. > Carol: I don't see how he > could possibly have kept Harry safe being on the run himself. His big > disguise would be useless if he were carrying a baby. A Grimlike dog > carrying a fifteen-month-old toddler in its mouth or on its back would > have been rather conspicuous, as would the flying motorcycle once the > WW was warned about it. Alla: I am sure JKR could have find a way if she wanted to write a different story. But to be sure when I say to take Harry and leave, I did not mean that he should go after Peter with Harry. I meant just that - leave. > > Alla: > > > > Except he did not apologise after the fact and did not check his > > facts, didn't he? > > > Where is the part where he figures out what happened? > > Carol: > In PoA, offpage, when DD goes to talk to Sirius Black, who is locked > in Flitwick's office. Soon after that, DD reminds Hermione of the > time-turner, which they can use to save "more than one innocent life": > that is, Black's and Buckbeak's. He is, at that time, as convinced of > Black's innocence as the children are, and he makes sure that Black is > not turned over to the Dementors. Alla: Yeah, well, I know that part. I meant where is him figuring the truth earlier than thirteen years after the fact. And all it took for so brilliant Dumbledore is one conversation with Sirius, ONE. > Carol: > Carol, not at all happy that DD turned out to be such a manipulator > but believing that he was right to keep Harry away from Black and > place him with the Dursleys, where he might be unloved but would > survive to attend Hogwarts Alla: Yes, well, as always this is the point of irreconcilable difference between our opinions. I think that had Sirius been given a chance to raise Harry, he would have turned out pretty all right ? and yes, single guys do raise kids well often enough. To me the love factor is the most important. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 21:28:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:28:17 -0000 Subject: His own man (was Re: Snape's protection (was Re: Another thing... In-Reply-To: <8C9F9018CAC365D-C84-2E4B@FWM-D15.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179205 Julie wrote: > I mostly agree with you, Sherry. Snape was Lily's man through and through in the beginning. Later he adopted some of Dumbledore's values (only abandoning to death those he could not save). But he also defied Dumbledore when he felt Dumbledore was wrong (saving Remus Lupin, IMO, when Dumbledore told him not to do anything that would compromise his position with Voldemort, for instance). And in the end, I believe Snape was his own man through and through, even if his own goals eventually mirrored Dumbledore's. > > > There is that "Severus, please" plea from Dumbledore. Twice. Dumbledore wasn't sure Snape was in his pocket. Because he never really was. Snape did do it eventually, but I don't think it was for Dumbledore so much as for the cause. Snape, who saved those he could at this point, understood that destroying Voldemort was the only way to secure the survival of the WW, at least one worth living in, and that Dumbledore's death was inevitable, as was the necessity of Snape remaining close to Voldemort. And as was Harry confronting Voldemort and presumably dying. There was no way to save Harry as long as Voldemort was alive and determined to kill the boy, so in the end it would be either Harry at Voldemort's hand--with Voldemort taking over the WW--or the two of them at each other's hands--with the WW preserved from Voldemort's tyranny. (And if it was only about saving Harry, who couldn't really be saved as far as Snape knew, a Snape with no goal beyond his promise to Lily would just abandon the undoable task.) > > That's why I think Snape did all he did in the end, including things that didn't directly serve his promise to protect Lily's son, or any unswervingly loyalty to anything or everything Dumbledore asked or demanded of him. Snape wasn't DDM or Lily'sMan, but his own man, IMO, following what eventually became his own goals. Carol responds: I agree. Clearly, Snape didn't *want* to kill DD. He didn't even raise his wand until DD had spoken his name twice. He had to choose whether to die accomplishing nothing beyond saving his own soul (which might not even be at risk, anyway) and doing what was necessary to accomplish the objectives that he and DD shared, keeping Harry alive for the moment so that he could ultimately confront voldemort, going under deep cover himself so that he could return to protect Hogwarts, and saving Draco. To do all of those things, he could not fight the DEs or let the vow kill him. He had to keep his promises to DD and to Narcissa. But it was his own choice to do so, and I think he did it for his own reasons (those I just listed) as much as for the reasons DD had given him (protecting Draco's soul and saving DD from a horrible and degrading death). We don't know how much of what he did (mostly offpage) in DH was his own doing and how much was on DD's instructions, but the detention with Hagrid seems to have been his own idea, and saving Lupin at the risk of blowing his cover certainly was. Nor did DD apparently know about those unnamed people whose lives Snape had saved when he could. the last scene in which he appears shows him leaving, not to carry out DD's plan to get the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry, but to carry out his own ideas on the subject: "Don't worry, Dumbledore. I have a plan." Using the doe Patronus to lure Harry to a deep pool into which he has to dive to retrieve the sword is Snape's own idea. And so, it seems, is drawing Ron back by having him, too, follow the Patronus. And Snape's last act, giving Harry *all* those memories rather than just the one containing the message that Harry has to sacrifice himself, is Snape's own doing. (Surely, he had intended to deliver that message in some way that did not involve his own death.) It was a brilliant and highly effective last action, followed by a last request which I take to be simultaneously a moment of seeing Lily rather than James in Harry and his reward for his labors and perils in protecting Harry and fighting Voldemort. Carol, agreeing that Snape was ultimately his own man, who *chose* to continue working with and for DD as the only way of bring LV down, but who also acted on his own initiative to save whatever lives he could, even those with no connection to Harry, Lily, or DD > From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Nov 19 21:41:29 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:41:29 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179206 zgirnius: > I can't agree on this one. If Sirius had any legal leg to stand on > (and the books do not make it clear whether he did, Petunia was > Harry's next of kin), his decision to go after Peter meant he lost > any chance to fight for Harry. Dana: The discussion about legality has nothing to do with it. DD himself specifically states his reasons in OotP for placing Harry with his aunt and maybe I missed it but an explanation that he had no other choice to place him there because the law required Harry to be placed with his next of kin wasn't one of them. He specifically states that he placed Harry with Petunia because he put his trust in his mother's blood and he didn't want to place him in a wizard family of fear Harry would become a pampered prince. Wizards do not live by muggle law so I really doubt that guardianship would follow the laws as you know them in RL. zgirnius: > Heck, he should have *expected* Dumbledore not to want Harry in his > power. By his own brilliant plan, Sirius was believed to be the > Potters' Secret Keeper. Which meant that their deaths pointed the > finger at him as a traitor and Death Eater. The implications of > this seemed to have escaped Hagrid, simple, kind soul that he is, > or maybe he did not even know who the SK was. Could anyone > reasonably suppose Dumbledore had missed this? Dana: Really? And how much time did Sirius actually have to think about any such strategy? He found out about the Potters death the moment he arrived and Hagrid was already there with strict orders to take Harry. Also that is assuming that DD would not believe him if he talked to Sirius but by this time DD had already made his decision even without making any inquiry about the truth. You might think it is okay to make such decisions based on the assumption on what James had told DD about who was going to be the SK, but everybody is innocent until proven guilty in my perception, still DD did not even bother to confirm Sirius' guilt. He says time was of the essence but why? LV was gone and he knew that perfectly well, so why could he not talk to someone that was formally one of his own resistance group and Harry's suppossed guardian? It was only when Sirius went after Peter and it was assumed that Sirius not only killed Peter but 12 muggles that people considered him to be guilty of betraying the Potters as well but Harry was already with the Dursley's by then. The only reason I can think of why DD did not question Sirius is because he himself was once betrayed by someone he thought to have a close relationship with, but nevertheless he still owed it to Harry to find out if his Godfather was really guilty of betraying his father. DD simply didn't care, it was just one obstacle less to overcome. DD tells us so himself that he had a plan and that only when he started to care for Harry (and that was only after Harry came to Hogwarts 10 years later) did he seem to falter on his plans. He would have made sure Sirius was out of the picture if Sirius had not done so himself. Personally I do not find it reasonable for DD to have missed this, for the simple reason that DD claims to be such a great judge of character but he misjudged Sirius, not only once but several times. If he (DD) really was that close to James, as he later claimed to Harry, then he should have known the improbability of Sirius's betrayal. He didn't miss the improbability of Hagrid really having anything to do with Myrtle's death, he noticed the behavioral perversity of young Tom Riddle and yet he totally missed Sirius loyalty to his friend(s)? And no I do not care about what Sirius did at age 16, DD himself was disloyal to his own family once without really whishing them harm but still with far worse consequences than what Sirius did at age 16, to a Snape already in the know what he could find behind an off limit murderous tree. I do not blame DD, I blame his creator for the need of getting Sirius out of the way and putting him on ice so he can enter the story at a later date. Many of the things that surround this part of the story have massive plotholes and improbabilities to begin with. For instance why was an external SK even needed, while in DH we see two instances of people being their own SK? It was needed because JKR wanted Harry to be an orphan and without his parents' death that was not likely to be. Lupin being absent from Harry's life by choice while she now at the same time claims Lupin was financially supported by his parents; how believable is that? JKR wanted so much for Harry to not know anything about his wizard heritage that every logical reasoning of the probability of specific events happening as they did, went straight out of the window to serve the plot she envisioned. It was all nice and dandy when we still did not know all the particulars of it but now it is actually downright ridiculous and unbelievable. It is funny to see that she actually portrayed DD as a malicious puppet master but at the same time wants us to love him so dearly in the end because all his meticulous planning went so well for Harry. (according to her latest Dutch interview) and all those that died are so happy in the afterlife so why should anyone care about all those DD sacrificed to further his plans? There are a lot of things about this part of the story that do not sit well with me concerning DD's actions after DH. DD the most powerful wizard the WW has ever known, isn't able to protect the house the Potters were living in but a bunch of Order Members together with the MoM are able to keep LV not only out of one house but actually out of two. Riiight. I can only say that many of the things that are suggested happened in relation to the Potters and Sirius in particular are not story driven but exclusively to serve the plot and I already didn't like much of it but still hoped after OotP JKR would convert me back into a believer by making things more probable. Well I missed the boat on that one. zgirnius: > Sirius did not know about the blood protection when he made his > choice, he knew only that Hagrid would not turn Harry over to him, > because Dumbledore had other plans. He should have gone to > Dumbledore and explained the Secret Keeper fiasco. > Quite possibly, Dumbledore would still have wanted to do the blood > protection thing instead of letting Sirius care for Harry. If > Sirius is half the dedicated, salf-sacrificing godfather his fans > suppose, he might even have agreed to the plan as safer for Harry. > Visitation, presents, and correspondence by him with his godson > would still have been an option, I would think. Or, if he had a > legal leg to stand on and chose to in spite of the blood > protection, once his name was cleared, he could exercise his legal > rights. Dana: Sirius knew enough to make his conclusions after he pleaded with Hagrid multiple times to give Harry to him and Hagrid refusing, stating he was under orders to deliver Harry to his aunt and uncle. DD had no business of interfering with Harry whatsoever, the Potters even rejected his offer to be their SK. DD can sit on his high horse and make easy claims about what they should or shouldn't have done but the Potters never asked him to intervene in Harry's life, they asked Sirius to do so. Sirius tried to act out their wishes but Hagrid and thus DD prevented him from doing so and only after he knew that all was lost did he go after Peter. Essentially Sirius did not have to proof to anyone that he wasn't guilty of betraying the Potters to be allowed to take care of Harry. DD made his decision to intervene and therefore it was up to him to be sure Sirius was actually guilty before making such a profound decision to cut Sirius out of Harry's life. He did not take it upon himself to provide extra safety pre-cautions while he felt there to be a traitor and we see it is possible to keep LV out of the premises by magical intervention besides the need of an SK. In my opinion you should not have to proof your innocence, if you are suspected of a crime then there should be enough evidence to proof you are guilty, not the other way around. DD found the suggestion of Sirius's guilt enough to give testimony but he never made an effort to talk to the guy himself; even while he was one of those people who actually had means enough to discover the truth even if hidden deeply behind memory charms as we saw in HBP. I do not buy the Sirius should have gone to DD idea to explain the cause of events. Hagrid already had specifically told what was to become of Harry and thus it would seriously have no effect at all on the execution of DD's plan. Even if Sirius had explained it all to DD, DD would still have been convinced that it would have been the best thing for Harry to be under the protection of his mother's blood and not in custody of Sirius Black. He therefore already went ahead before anything could have been done about it. When Hagrid delivered Harry to DD at Privet Drive, Sirius had not encountered Peter and thus was not an assumed mass murderer yet. It was DD who owed Sirius an explanation for his actions not the other way around, no matter how much DD thought he knew. The issue is not that Sirius would not have agreed on what was to be the best for Harry, the issue is that Carol stated that Sirius actions is what coast him his connection with Harry (and visa versa) and it wasn't. Sirius would not have been allowed to contact Harry during the time he was with the Dursley's as we see no one else, not accused of betraying the Potters, did either, not even DD himself. His arrest or even his supposed guilt had nothing to do with it whatsoever and neither did his did his decision to go after Peter. The SK switch plan was not a plan based on reckless arrogance but was a very sound plan in hindsight to what happens to the secret if the SK dies. Everybody knew that Sirius would be the Potter SK and if he died then all in the know would have become SK themselves which would increase a security breach. The plan also allowed the Potters to not exclude anyone from their inner circle, - and thus alert the traitor of something being amiss - because even if Sirius would have died none of them would turn into a SK themselves. It was a solid plan that would not even have put Peter into any danger because no one would know they switched to him and so he would not be on anyone's radar. If someone is to blame for the plan to go wrong it was Peter and no one else's. Personally and sorry to rant on and on. I do not like the mixed messages JKR sends out about trust. It is never known when you can trust a person until that person betrays that trust and so I can't blame the Potters or Sirius for not seeing Peter's untrustworthiness and thus not knowing they put their trust in the wrong man. I was very offended by DD's comparison of the Potters trust in Peter to Snape's trust in LV. Not because of an improbability of putting your trust into someone unworthy of such trust but because DD himself betrays people left and right while no one actually knows they are betrayed by the one person they are expected to trust blindly. And if that isn't bad enough it is even worse that the author wants me to accept that betraying your own is right in the light of the greater good. It gives me the creeps it really does. I am no longer convinced that DD would not have betrayed the Potters himself if he thought it the only way to defeat LV, hence he sealed Sirius faith with his testimony without ever finding out the particulars of what really happened. That is what the picture JKR sketched, has come down too. Before DH I said JKR would do anything to make the entire story a lie and although I do not think she really had any intention of doing so, it became just that for me. JMHO Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 22:00:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:00:05 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179207 Alla wrote: > > And sure, that's your right to believe that it was JKR's slip of > tongue. Myself I think it was too important for JKR to be a simple > slip of tongue. > > I think it could be fun for example to believe that when Harry tells Al that he named after two bravest headmasters of Hogwarts, it was JKR's slip of tongue and what Harry really meant was the singular and he only meant Dumbledore. > > Do I really believe it? Of course not. Carol responds: I didn't say that the one reference to black as "guardian" rather than "godfather" was a slip of the tongue (or keyboard). I said that it might have been a slip on JKR's part since she's been known to forget details or to be inconsistent before. (To name just one example, in SS/PS Hagrid borrows the flying motorcycle; in PoA, Black gives it to him. I don't think I need to name additional examples since I'm sure you can come up with plenty of them yourself.) The epilogue incident with Albus Severus is a completely different matter and can't be a slip because it's so clearly explained *"You were named after two headmasters," etc.). And, FWIW, it's only Snape who's referred to as brave, not DD. My point is that, while we have numerous references to Black as Harry's godfather, we have only one reference to him as Harry's guardian. And McGonagall's acceptance of his permission to allow Harry to go to Hogsmeade says as much about her as it does about him. IMO, she regrets her belief that he was a murderer (just as she earlier regretted her harsh words to PP when she thought he was a murder victim) and is making amends in the only way she can. But we still have no evidence that he had any sort of legal claim to Harry, whereas the Dursleys' claim as his nearest relatives is indisputable. And I won't repeat DD's excellent reasons for believing that Harry would be safer under blood protection than he would with the man DD thought responsible for Lily's and James's deaths. > Carol earlier: > > I don't see how he could possibly have kept Harry safe being on the run himself. His big disguise would be useless if he were carrying a baby. A Grimlike dog carrying a fifteen-month-old toddler in its mouth or on its back would have been rather conspicuous, as would the flying motorcycle once the WW was warned about it. > > Alla: > > I am sure JKR could have find a way if she wanted to write a different story. But to be sure when I say to take Harry and leave, I did not mean that he should go after Peter with Harry. I meant just that - leave. > > Yes, well, as always this is the point of irreconcilable difference between our opinions. I think that had Sirius been given a chance to raise Harry, he would have turned out pretty all right ? and yes, single guys do raise kids well often enough. To me the love factor is the most important. Carol responds: It has nothing to do with Sirius Black being single and inexperienced or even with his generally reckless behavior, which he could have worked to remedy for Harry's sake. It has to do with, first, the absence of the blood protection and, second, with the fact that black was a fugitive himself. Nor am I talking about taking Harry to go after Peter. Obviously, if he had Harry with him, he wouldn't have done that. I'm talking about the fact that the MoM would have thought, as DD did, that he was the Secret Keeper who had betrayed the Potters to their deaths, and they would have been after him for that crime, not to mention desperate to get Baby!Harry away from him. And the DEs would have been after him, too, because they would want to kill Harry. And neither a flying motorcycle nor the ability to turn into an Animagus could have protected Black himself, much less Harry, under those circumstances. Under normal circumstances, with neither Sirius nor Harry needing to flee danger, and with a home (other than 12 GP), I don't doubt that Sirius could have found a way to raise Harry himself. I'm not disparaging the child-rearing abilities of bachelors, however little experience they may have changing diapers (maybe there's a spell for doing that) or feeding and bathing babies or cleaning up messes (we *do* know there are spells for that) or dealing with temper tantrums. Whatever Sirius's faults, recklessness and a hot temper among them, he could have managed for love of Harry (or James, whose likeness he saw in Harry). It's only the danger that both he and Harry would have faced throughout Harry's childhood, combined with his inexperience, that would have made him, IMO, a most unsafe guardian in a world where revenge-seeking DEs still roamed free and the MoM sought Black as a criminal (even without the pursuit of Peter Pettigrew). Carol, who doubts that Harry would have survived to age two if Black had taken him from Godric's Hollow From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 22:10:17 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:10:17 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179208 > Dana: > Wizards do not live by muggle law so I really doubt that guardianship > would follow the laws as you know them in RL. Alla: Yes, but we were just playing with it, I thought - how it may apply in RL loosely if it does. Dana: He says time > was of the essence but why? LV was gone and he knew that perfectly > well, so why could he not talk to someone that was formally one of > his own resistance group and Harry's suppossed guardian? Alla: Beats me, really. Dana: > I do not blame DD, I blame his creator for the need of getting Sirius > out of the way and putting him on ice so he can enter the story at a > later date. Many of the things that surround this part of the story > have massive plotholes and improbabilities to begin with. Alla: Those things do not bother me much since I could never put a positive spin on them, and even when I did not know the extent of DD manipulativeness, I thought that DD was being a manipulative bastard here. Thus, all fits perfectly for me. If JKR wants me to think positive of them - then no can do, sorry. > Dana: > Sirius knew enough to make his conclusions after he pleaded with > Hagrid multiple times to give Harry to him and Hagrid refusing, > stating he was under orders to deliver Harry to his aunt and uncle. > DD had no business of interfering with Harry whatsoever, the Potters > even rejected his offer to be their SK. DD can sit on his high horse > and make easy claims about what they should or shouldn't have done > but the Potters never asked him to intervene in Harry's life, they > asked Sirius to do so. Alla: Bravo, well said. Dana: > I do not buy the Sirius should have gone to DD idea to explain the > cause of events. Hagrid already had specifically told what was to > become of Harry and thus it would seriously have no effect at all on > the execution of DD's plan. Even if Sirius had explained it all to > DD, DD would still have been convinced that it would have been the > best thing for Harry to be under the protection of his mother's blood > and not in custody of Sirius Black. Alla: Sure, agreed, but I still think he should have tried - not for DD, but for Harry and for himself, sort of exhausting all possibilities. Like as I said, Sirius do not going to DD after Azkaban does not bother me a bit, I would NEVER go to DD, had he treated me that way. I would be sure he would throw me back to jail without listening to me, after all he already did something like that. BUT Sirius does not know that yet and I think he should have gone to DD, even though I agree he already seemed to make a decision. Dana: Sirius would not have been allowed to contact Harry > during the time he was with the Dursley's as we see no one else, not > accused of betraying the Potters, did either, not even DD himself. Alla: DD stopped Ron and Hermione from contacting Harry with important things after GoF - nothing to help the boy heal after trauma of graveyard. No idiots from the Order till he was fifteen contacted Dursleys. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 22:33:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:33:29 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179209 Dana wrote: > > And no I do not care about what Sirius did > at age 16, DD himself was disloyal to his own family once without > really whishing them harm but still with far worse consequences than > what Sirius did at age 16, to a Snape already in the know what he > could find behind an off limit murderous tree. Carol responds: sorry to respond only to this one point, but I've already stated my position with regard to both DD and SB in this matter. But with regard to sixteen-year-old Severus, he didn't *know* that Remus was a werewolf; he only suspected it. What he *knew* was that James, Sirius, and (of all people) Peter could not only pass the "murderous tree" (that much Sirius told him how to do) but enter the tunnel without being bitten by the werewolf (or killed or injured by whatever was back there). If they, wizards of his own age and no more skilled than he, could go back there and survive, why couldn't he? He had no way of knowing that the Marauders survived the encounter because they were Animagi. Sirius, however, knew perfectly well that Severus would be in far greater danger than he and his friends were. And James knew it, too, which is why he felt it necessary to *save the life* of a boy he didn't even like. > Dana: > I do not blame DD, I blame his creator for the need of getting Sirius out of the way and putting him on ice so he can enter the story at a later date. Many of the things that surround this part of the story have massive plotholes and improbabilities to begin with. Carol: Oh, yes. Plotholes. So many of them that we thought would be filled in, and JKR doesn't even see them. Funny how it's not the full moon rising but the moon coming out from under a cloud that transforms Lupin, to name just one. And the whole Secret Keeper story is absurd. Why, if Snape had informed DD of the Potters' danger and they were already hiding at Godric's Hollow before Harry's first birthday, did they only have PP perform the spell a week before Halloween? And why did *anybody* need to know about it? (Lupin knows about the Fidelius Charm but doesn't know that they switched SKS? How is that possible? I they thought he was the traitor, why tell him at all? And if only James, Lily, Sirius, and Peter knew about the Fidelius Charm and they thought Peter was trustworthy, why would Sirius need to go into hiding? Spy!Lupin couldn't tell LV because he wouldn't know, so there would be no need to hide (unless he thought that he'd be in danger as an Order member rather than the SK). Okay, that's enough ranting from me, even though I can think of many other plotholes, some related to this discussion and some not. I think your reference to DD as a "*malicious* puppetmaster" is a bit strong, since he certainly wanted Harry to survive, if only to ultimately defeat Voldemort. And I stand by my position that Sirius Black's own recklessness deprived him of the chance to be Harry's godfather. He needed only to go to DD and acknowledge his mistake in suggesting the SK change (and admit that he and his friends were illegal Animagi, which would make it easy for PP to escape) and the problem would have been solved. He could have stayed out of Azkaban and worked with DD to fight the remaining DEs. Instead, he went after PP, got himself framed for murder, and lost twelve valuable years of his own life, three of which could have been spent knowing Harry. And, of course, he would not have had to spend the year of GoF on the run, some of it hiding in caves, or been stuck in 12 GP unable to do anything useful for the Order in OoP. Carol, not expecting to convince anyone to share her views as we seem to have some unresolveable differences of opinion, but at least agreeing with Dana about the plotholes! From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 19 23:09:10 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:09:10 -0000 Subject: Of atonement and apostrophes (Was: Harry as godfather) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179210 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > > Actually, no. The editor/English teacher in me has to step in here and > set the record straight. With the exception of a few ancient names > (e.g., Jesus, Xerxes, Hippocrates), names ending in "s" form the > possessive exactly the same way that all other singular nouns in > English do, by adding "apostrophe s." So it's "James's," "Remus's," > "Sirius's," "Severus's." (We can get around the awkwardness by using > last names except in the case of James because "Potter" could be > Harry, and even for him, we can say "James Potter's.") > > As for Jones, the singular possessive is "Jones's; the plural is > "Joneses"; and the plural possessive is "Joneses'." Geoff: I imagine that's standard US practice. UK English does not add an extra 's' if the root word ends in 's'. So I expect to see ' Sirius' hand' or 'Remus' book' but 'Lupin's hat' and also with a fmaily name such as 'the Bones' house',although you may pronounce it in speech as 'Remuses',' Jameses' and so on. With reference to the name of Jesus, there is a somewhat archaic usage which persists in Christian lyrics of using 'Jesu's'. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 00:03:06 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:03:06 -0000 Subject: Lucius, Lucius, Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179211 > Pippin: > Lucius didn't have to bow and scrape to Voldemort in public. a_svirn: I'd say a meeting where a few dozens death eaters are present is sufficiently public. Unless you take Voldemort's words about their being one big, happy family at their face value. Then of course it would be a private affair. Even so, as a part of this extended family Lucius had less political clout than he would have had on his own. > Pippin: Nor > was Voldemort's halfblood status an issue -- Lucius didn't know > the nature of the connection between the diary and Voldemort. a_svirn: What do you mean it wasn't an issue? Some of Voldemort's followers were recruited while he was still in Hogwarts. They knew very well that he was a half-blood orphan, it wasn't exactly a secret. And the graveyard scene took place at the tomb of his Muggle father. And there was all that bragging about killing him, and using his bones for the resurrection. > Pippin: > A young Lucius, chafing under the restrictions imposed by the > Ministry, and perhaps by older members of his family such as > Abraxian, might have thought that playacting subservience to > Voldemort a_svirn: Where do you get this idea of play-acting? It's like saying that Kreacher play-acted at being Sirius's slave. He may have chafed under the bondage, he may even have been subversive, but he *was* a slave. Whatever Lucius motives might have been, he *was* a servant. He might have played at being loyal, while being merely opportunistic or even subversive, but he didn't play at being a servant. He was one. > Pippin: was a small price to pay for getting to live out his > anti-Muggle fantasies. a_svirn: Surely entering into servitude was a high price? And why pay at all? They didn't need to grovel before any sham lords to torture muggles or to plot a coup d'eta. > Pippin: > Anyway, Lucius may have considered Voldemort's title and > the robe kissing just superstition, meant to scare > weaker souls than he. a_svirn: If you say so. May be this is really no big deal. Maybe it's just me. I would have thought that even in politics self-abasement and total loss of dignity is an unacceptable gambit for any sane person, let alone a proud aristocrat. Especially, when the reward is so much less than what has been forfeited. > Pippin: Lucius was showing off as usual. a_svirn: The question is what exactly did he show off, to whom, and with what objective in mind? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 00:32:53 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:32:53 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179212 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > > If appointing Sirius Black as Harry's godfather was the simple > matter > > that naming Harry as Teddy Lupin's godfather is, with no ceremony > and > > no certificates involved, I don't see how it could have any legal > > significance at all. As for being named Harry's "guardian," we have > > only one reference to that, from Black himself. It could be a slip > on > > JKR's part (she's been known to do that). > > > > Alla: > > It could have a legal significance, absolutely, yes. Meaning if the > RL court of law would have something loosely similar to determine who > was indeed Harry's guardian IF no writings on the matter would be > present. > > Then if credible witness would have testified that it was child's > parents wish to have Sirius as guardian, yes, it would have been > legally significant all right. It would have been nice exception from > hearsay rules, etc. > a_svirn: Exactly. If it is an ancient wizading ceremony, like, say, handfast marriages in real life they it is legal and binding, and no way out. Assuming that you could produce witnesses, of course. And Harry was names a godfather, not a guardian. Besides which, Black said clearly that he was "appointed", not named. Appointed has somewhat more official ring to it. "Well... your parents appointed me your guardian," said Black stiffly. "If anything happened to them..." I'd say that the Potters didn't have the luxury of being carefree where their son's welfare was concerned. After all, they did know the risks. So it's safe to assume that they took necessary legal precautions. (The alternative is that they were irresponsible fools, but that's somehow doesn't look plausible.) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 01:18:33 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:18:33 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179213 > Carol: > My point is that, while we have numerous references to Black as > Harry's godfather, we have only one reference to him as Harry's > guardian. a_svirn: Because although he was "appointed" he was denied his appointment. By Dumbledore. We have references to Vernon Dursley as Harry's guardian, even though he wasn't appointed at all. Unless you regard Dumbledore's letter as an "appointment". Sirius should have been a guardian, but de facto he wasn't. Therefore a "godfather" was a more convenient term to emphasise a bond between them. > Carol: And McGonagall's acceptance of his permission to allow Harry > to go to Hogsmeade says as much about her as it does about him. a_svirn: Actually, I don't think McGonagall had any say in this at all. Harry was going to show the form to Dumbledore: "That'll be good enough for Dumbledore!" said Harry happily. He looked back at Sirius's letter. Carol: But we still > have no evidence that he had any sort of legal claim to Harry, a_svirn: Except that it is stated in black and white by someone who never lied to Harry (unlike Dumbledore). Carol: whereas > the Dursleys' claim as his nearest relatives is indisputable. a_svirn: Then how is it they knew nothing whatsoever about their ward's financial situation? If they had been Harry's legal guardians surely they have had an access to his gold? Or at least determined the size of allowance? Or at the very least knew the terms of the Potters' will? Carol: And I > won't repeat DD's excellent reasons for believing that Harry would be > safer under blood protection than he would with the man DD thought > responsible for Lily's and James's deaths. a_svirn: The point is, however excellent Dumbledore's reasons might have been it wasn't his place to have them. It is the parents' prerogative to name a guardian for their child. Dumbledore had no right to meddle. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Nov 20 01:28:24 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:28:24 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179214 We are finishing Chapter discussions on DD's Will and soon to start the Wedding. Sorry if this was covered in earlier posts, but those two chapters hear from prime characters for the last time. So which characters did know Albus Dumbledore was gay? These ones knew for sure - Grindelwald (the only one we know for sure) These ones probably knew ... - Aberforth Dumbledore (Probably) These ones may have known, but we aren't sure ... - *Elphias Doge (who admired Albus and hid facts from his obituary) - *Rufus Scrimgeour (as head of Aurors [wizard FBI] and new Ministr of Magic, he was able to hear secrets) - Ariana Dumbledore (Possibly) - Mrs Kendra Dumbledore (Muggle born in an era when homosexuals were not gay) - Mr Percival Dumbledore (Albus didn't meet Grindelwald until after his father was in Azkaban, but Albus may have displayed gay tendancies before) - *Bathilda Bagshot (neighbour that told Lily and James some unbelieveable things about Albus) - *Rita Skeeter (after pumping Bathilda for information) - Nearly-Headless Nick or other Hogwarts ghosts How the story takes on a new light if these knew ... - The muggle boys that attacked Ariana (were they picking on the gay's little sister?) - *Did Lily and James hear? What about others? -and would that change how we view the story? ... Mad-eye Moody, McGonagall, Tom Riddle (Slughorn in HBP said Tom had a way offinding out information), Slughorn, Snape, Hagrid, Mdm Pomfrey (allowing DD to sit with unconscious Harry in PS/SS), Fudge, and also ... did the Chocolate Frog Card writers know? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Nov 20 01:36:26 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:36:26 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179215 > > Alla: > > Then if credible witness would have testified that it was child's > > parents wish to have Sirius as guardian, yes, it would have been > > legally significant all right. It would have been nice exception > from > > hearsay rules, etc. > > > > a_svirn: > Exactly. If it is an ancient wizading ceremony, like, say, handfast > marriages in real life they it is legal and binding, and no way out. > Assuming that you could produce witnesses, of course. And Harry was > names a godfather, not a guardian. > > Besides which, Black said clearly that he was "appointed", not named. > Appointed has somewhat more official ring to it. > > "Well... your parents appointed me your guardian," said Black > stiffly. "If anything happened to them..." > > I'd say that the Potters didn't have the luxury of being carefree > where their son's welfare was concerned. After all, they did know the > risks. So it's safe to assume that they took necessary legal > precautions. (The alternative is that they were irresponsible fools, > but that's somehow doesn't look plausible.) Magpie: But there is something hilarious about it *not* being binding. Lily and James, a couple who knows they're in danger, choose the one person in the world, their good friend, to look after their only son should anything happen to them, because that's who they trust would love him and raise him well. And that means nothing-the school headmaster can override that no problem. But 14 years later when a random guy writes Harry's name on a paper and enters him into a contest he's supposed to be legally barred from entering against his will... That's a magical contract that can't be broken. Dumbledore's hands are tied. Get in the ring, Harry, the dragon's waiting. -m From sherriola at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 01:53:51 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:53:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <47423e34.20588c0a.22fa.ffffbcc8@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179216 zgirnius: I would expect Dumbledore to act, initially, as though Sirius was guilty as sin. There would be time enough to apologize after the fact, if he acted wrongly, once Harry was safe. Sherry now: Just want to point out that as nice and logical as this sounds, and I agree, protect the child and ask questions later. Dumbledore never bothered to ask questions and find out the truth. He allowed Sirius to stay in the horror of Azkaban for 12 years, without once trying to find out the truth. So much for the king of Second Chances. Since reading DH, I have no problem picturing DD deciding to let Sirius stay in prison so as not to have to deal with him, if he just happened to be innocent. It would screw up his plan to have a young healthy godfather/guardian in the world and able to be involved in Harry's life. Sherry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 03:45:12 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:45:12 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: <47423e34.20588c0a.22fa.ffffbcc8@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179217 > Sherry now: > Just want to point out that as nice and logical as this sounds, and I agree, > protect the child and ask questions later. Dumbledore never bothered to ask > questions and find out the truth. zgirnius: To all who have leapt gallantly to the defense of Sirius Black against my accusations, I have two responses. First, a lukewarm defense of Albus. Save Harry, ask questions afterwards is the policy I suggest he pursued. Having duly saved Harry, Albus next went to investigate, only to discover that in the interim Sirius had, in front of numerous witnesses, killed one of his closest friends and an Order member, Peter Pettigrew, and twelve innocent Muggle bystanders. Albus may believe in second chances, but at this point he would have needed to give Sirius number 3 (or 4, if Albus considered the matter of one fellow student, Severus Snape, to be of any significance). Sirius's best (surviving) friend in the world believed him guilty. I will not blame Albus for concurring. Second, Albuys could be worse than Voldemort at his most heartless, it is irrelevant. I judge Sirius by what he knew, and what he did about it. Either he believed Albus to be the leader of the Order and someone who would protect Harry (in which case, he acted irresponsibly by haring off without letting Albus know the truth), and thereby doomed himself to Azkaban and Harry to the Dursleys. Or, he had the same opinion as some posters here, that Albus is a manipulative bastard, in which case his action was even more reckless and irresponsible. It left poor Harry defenseless and in the hands of that vile puppetmaster for over a decade. The right move in my voew would have been to publicize the truth about Peter to all who would listen, to force and investigation, and to get himself cleared, so that he could claim custody of Harry, or at least keep an eye on him and be a presence in his life. I would love it if someone could point to some canon basis for the (apparently popular) opinion that Albus would not hesitate to knowingly destroy the life of an innocent human being if it served his purposes or his vision of "the greater good". Personally, I cannot wrap my mind around this view. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 04:01:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:01:12 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179218 Carol: whereas > the Dursleys' claim as his nearest relatives is indisputable. a_svirn: Then how is it they knew nothing whatsoever about their ward's financial situation? If they had been Harry's legal guardians surely they have had an access to his gold? Or at least determined the size of allowance? Or at the very least knew the terms of the Potters' will? Alla: To me it is not even that, although I agree with you a_svirn, Dursleys are clueless about those issues. It is more that they were not GOING to claim any guardianship even if they were entitled to it. I mean, I said many times, I believe that as aunt Petunia owed Harry to help him - simply by the issue of being a relative and that is how I was taught family members should behave - help each other at the time of need, etc, etc. BUT there is no doubt in my mind that Dursleys wanted NOTHING to do with Harry till Dumbledore imposed Harry on them. To make a RL analogy again, if the guardianship was heard in court, I believe Sirius' claim would be pretty much uncontested by anybody. Well, unless Dumbledore would forcibly bring Dursleys to court and under Imperius directs them to claim it. IMO of course. a_svirn: The point is, however excellent Dumbledore's reasons might have been it wasn't his place to have them. It is the parents' prerogative to name a guardian for their child. Dumbledore had no right to meddle. Alla: Word of agreement here :) Sherry now: It would screw up his plan to have a young healthy godfather/guardian in the world and able to be involved in Harry's life. Alla: And we know that at least on miniscale ( or is it really mini?) Sirius did try to do what he felt was best for Harry ( to tell him the truth in OOP), contrary to DD's wishes. One could only wonder what he could have done had he not been through Azkaban, not half crasy, not depressed, etc. zgirnius: To all who have leapt gallantly to the defense of Sirius Black against my accusations, I have two responses. First, a lukewarm defense of Albus. Save Harry, ask questions afterwards is the policy I suggest he pursued. Having duly saved Harry, Albus next went to investigate, only to discover that in the interim Sirius had, in front of numerous witnesses, killed one of his closest friends and an Order member, Peter Pettigrew, and twelve innocent Muggle bystanders. Alla: Oh? He DID went to investigate? When and where? I am serious by the way. Before the PoA, please because I do not consider it to be the investigation. zgirnius: Or, he had the same opinion as some posters here, that Albus is a manipulative bastard, in which case his action was even more reckless and irresponsible. It left poor Harry defenseless and in the hands of that vile puppetmaster for over a decade. The right move in my voew would have been to publicize the truth about Peter to all who would listen, to force and investigation, and to get himself cleared, so that he could claim custody of Harry, or at least keep an eye on him and be a presence in his life. Alla: Oh sure, I sure wish that Sirius would have been not devastated that he did that you suggested. That is a non issue to me, really. My point is that to me to go against the will of great Albus Dumbledore ( yes, I am being sarcastic here) would have been a totally useless move, Which again does not stop me from saying that Sirius should have done it, and I believe that he would, since even being devastated, he DID try to claim Harry. Hard enough? NO, but with Fudge taking directions from DD at that time, I have no doubt that Sirius would have sero success claiming Harry or attempting to enter his life. But let me say again, he should have tried. Zgirnius: I would love it if someone could point to some canon basis for the (apparently popular) opinion that Albus would not hesitate to knowingly destroy the life of an innocent human being if it served his purposes or his vision of "the greater good". Personally, I cannot wrap my mind around this view. Alla: Well, Harry comes to mind of course. Yes, definitely does. I am not talking of course of great Albus leaving him with Dursley, that was to save his life. I am not talking of course of depriving him a chance to grow up with godfather ( I am not saying that Sirius does not bear part of the blame for that, but nobody can persuade me that Dumbledore does not bear a huge part of blame as well). I am talking of you know, telling Snape that Harry should die, just like that. Do I want to believe that Dumbledore knew that Harry would not die? Sure. Am I sure? Not at all. Yes, I say this is destroying the life of innocent for greater good. And yes, to me "guilty till proven innocent" as what I believe DD pursued towards Sirius counts as destroying a life. Oh, oh and further proof of that IMO is that Dumbledore did not even **bother** to convince Ministry of Sirius' innocence. I know, I know, needs of the plot. OR I can read it that even after PoA Dumbledore much preferred Sirius to have as fewer contact with Harry as possible. Because if he does contact with Harry, he may, I don't know, try to tell Harry that great and terrible thing called truth, that Dumbledore thinks should be treated with great caution. Oh, he actually tried to do so, while Molly forced him to stop. Fudge did not seem to need much convincing to me to clear up the dead Sirius' name in OOP. What exactly stopped Dumbledore from telling him the story and making Fudge question Sirius under veritaserum? Yes, I know they had a cooling off in their relationship in OOP. I believe in GoF DD could have still easily done it. IMO, Alla From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Tue Nov 20 04:20:21 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:20:21 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179219 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: [huge snip] > What about others? -and would that change how we view the story? ... > Mad-eye Moody, McGonagall, Tom Riddle (Slughorn in HBP said Tom had > a way offinding out information), Slughorn, Snape, Hagrid, Mdm > Pomfrey (allowing DD to sit with unconscious Harry in PS/SS), Fudge, > and also ... did the Chocolate Frog Card writers know? Shaunette now: Are you saying that a gay Dumbledore should not be left alone with an unconscious Harry, but a straight one alone with him would be fine? That Mdm Pomfrey would (or should) take this into account (if she knew)? Shaunette From sherriola at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 04:28:34 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:28:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <47426277.15528c0a.6781.ffff8330@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179220 zgirnius I would love it if someone could point to some canon basis for the (apparently popular) opinion that Albus would not hesitate to knowingly destroy the life of an innocent human being if it served his purposes or his vision of "the greater good". Personally, I cannot wrap my mind around this view. Sherry: I guess what I took out of DH about Dumbledore, and I admit, I didn't care much about DD by the time I reached DH, it seems to me, that's exactly what he did, from the moment James and lily died. Of course, then there'd be no story, no seven books. But in the beginning it seems to me, that Harry was nothing more than a tool to him. He left a child to the untender mercies of abusive people, and all for his so-called greater good. It's really despicable to me, and isn't mitigated by the fact that he ended up loving and caring for Harry later. Even the great blood protection was only to keep Harry alive long enough for him to die killing Voldemort. In the end, all that mattered for me in the series was what happened to Harry and his generation, so I'm not particularly invested in DD or most of the adult characters. But Dumbledore did end up seeming to be nearly as horrible as Voldemort, only in a different way, of course. He is not an epitome of goodness to me, not that I ever really did see him as such, but he is definitely not one to me now. Sherry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 04:59:17 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:59:17 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179221 > Alla: > I am talking of you know, telling Snape that Harry should die, just > like that. > > Do I want to believe that Dumbledore knew that Harry would not die? > Sure. Am I sure? Not at all. > > Yes, I say this is destroying the life of innocent for greater good. zgirnius: Who put the soul bit into Harry? Dumbledore is just the guy who discovered this unfortunate occurrence, and had to figure out what to do about it. The situation as of GH was as follows: -Dumbledore knows Voldemort is not dead and will be coming back. His insistence on protecting Harry, both by placing him with the Dursleys, and by getting Snape to commit to the task, suggest it in case you will not take the man at his word. -Dumbledore knows this cannot be prevented while Harry lives, becuase Harry's soul bit is anchoring Voldemort to life. -Dumbledore knows that when Voldemort comes back, he will again seek to kill Harry (OK, let's call this assumes/supposes rather than knows, but it is what I think any reasonable person familiar with Voldemort would think). -Dumbledore does not know any way short of killing Harry to remove the soul bit. So what should he have done (about the main problem, I mean, not Sirius etc.)? He did not decide then and there to kill Harry or have him killed by Voldemort or any other person or creature. Instead, he placed the boy in a living arrangement designed to do the opposite, to protect him from Voldemort. It does not make sense to suppose that the plan to have Harry sacrifice himself to be killed by Voldemort was in place before the end of GoF. Why use such an elaborate plan? The death of Nagini at the hand of Neville proves that any old killing by any old person would do to rid the world of Harry!crux. The reason it had to be *Voldemort* and no other in the plan, was because this was the one way Dumbledore saw for Harry to survive the deHorcruxing process. Not a sure thing, perhaps, but far better than the chances Dumbledore had seen for Harry before that time (again, through no fault of Dumbledore's, the combined actions of Snape, Lily, and Voldemort made this mess possible). This is also the only way Harry can survive at all in the long term. Otherwise he would be hunted by Voldemort until eventually, he would slip up and be killed. So it seems to me instead that Dumbledore arranged for Harry to grow up safely, and set about educating him, while knowing what his eventual fate must be and hoping a better solution would suggest itself. One did, in the form of the plan we saw, to exploit the blood protection by having Harry allow Voldemoert to kill him. In my opinion, Dumbledore would have kept on looking for an even better solution than that, except he ran out of time. Between the end of OotP and the start of HBP, he made the fatal mistake of exposing himself to the Ring's curse, and had to go with the best plan for Harry that he had thus far been able to devise. Alla: > And yes, to me "guilty till proven innocent" as what I believe DD > pursued towards Sirius counts as destroying a life. zgirnius: What did he pursue towards Sirius? He arranged to protect Harry, and didn't do anything for Sirius. This is not the deliberate destruction of anything. He did not know Sirius was innocent, he sincerely believed the opposite by the time the Muggles and (supposedly) Peter were lying dead in the street. > Alla: > Oh, oh and further proof of that IMO is that Dumbledore did not even > **bother** to convince Ministry of Sirius' innocence. I know, I > know, needs of the plot. zgirnius: This was explained in the books, but you can of course choose not to believe the explanation. He did arrange to help Sirius find a place to hide in GoF, and did not report him to any authorities, which is entirely consistent with a belief in his innocence and inability to prove it. Keeping him away from Harry would have just required not helping him escape in PoA. The Dementors would have solved this alleged 'problem' for him. Or if he preferred Harry less traumatized, he could have given the Aurors a tip about a certain black dog living in a cave on the outskirts of Hogsmeade. > Alla: > Fudge did not seem to need much convincing to me to clear up the > dead Sirius' name in OOP. zgirnius: Coming face to face with Voldemort seemed reason enough for a change of heart, to me. From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Tue Nov 20 05:00:16 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 05:00:16 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179222 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: [snip] > So which characters did know Albus Dumbledore was gay? > These ones knew for sure > - Grindelwald (the only one we know for sure) Shaunette again: Actually, do we know for sure? Yes, Dumbledore was in love with GW and it was tragic for him, but I can't remember JKR saying they were lovers. Granted, it's likely that they were, but because so little is said about that aspect of their relationship, I think things are left entirely to the imagination. It is possible, for example, that GW did not return the feeling beyond friendship, mutual respect/admiration and common dreams/goals (as I've said before, I' m a sucker for tragic love stories and have no problem with the idea that DD & GW were probably lovers...I just don't jump to the conclusion that if one's best friend is gay, one must also be gay). > These ones probably knew ... > - Aberforth Dumbledore (Probably) > > These ones may have known, but we aren't sure ... > - *Elphias Doge (who admired Albus and hid facts from his obituary) > - *Rufus Scrimgeour (as head of Aurors [wizard FBI] and new Ministr > of Magic, he was able to hear secrets) Shaunette: hahaha I can't picture Scrimgeour nosing around for gossip on such a petty level. Hasn't he got more important things to worry about than who a relatively young Dumbledore wants to sleep with? > - Ariana Dumbledore (Possibly) > - Mrs Kendra Dumbledore (Muggle born in an era when homosexuals were > not gay) Shaunette: Er...what? What were they, then? Straight? Seriously, I don't get it. > - Mr Percival Dumbledore (Albus didn't meet Grindelwald until after > his father was in Azkaban, but Albus may have displayed gay > tendancies before) > - *Bathilda Bagshot (neighbour that told Lily and James some > unbelieveable things about Albus) Shaunette: Do you mean "being gay" is unbelievable? And that Lily and James would care in the slightest? > - *Rita Skeeter (after pumping Bathilda for information) Shaunette: I CAN picture Rita nosing around for gossip on such a petty level, oh yes. But then, why not write about it (other than JKR not wanting to include it in her books)? > - Nearly-Headless Nick or other Hogwarts ghosts Shaunette: LOL why would the ghosts care? > How the story takes on a new light if these knew ... > - The muggle boys that attacked Ariana (were they picking on the > gay's little sister?) Shaunette: An interesting idea. Could be, or it could just be cruelty over her strange magic. Would definitely add to DD's tragedy though, wouldn't it? Could even explain some of DD's need to keep secrets, if indeed his sexual orientation was a "secret" and not simply something that didn't matter at all (I still suspect the latter). I'm not sure the WW attitudes toward homosexuality are the same as the muggle world's. Race, as in ethnicity/colour doesn't matter, whereas blood purity & species (as in magical background etc.) matter. Even gender issues are less weighty than the blood purity thing (Hermione's amazing because she's a muggleborn, not because she's "just a girl", for example). I am inclined to think the WW is less obessessed with sexual orientation than muggledom (sorry, haven't time to explain exactly why I think this, though my comparison to race above is a clue), and that DD's squib-like sister would be a bigger deal than who he thinks is hot. > - *Did Lily and James hear? Shaunette: Again, if they did hear, why would it matter to them or to the story? -Shaunette From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Nov 20 04:38:48 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:38:48 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179223 > "Hagrid" wrote: > [huge snip] > > What about others? -and would that change how we view the > > story? ... Mad-eye Moody, McGonagall, Tom Riddle (Slughorn in > > HBP said Tom had a way of finding out information), Slughorn, > > Snape, Hagrid, Mdm Pomfrey (allowing DD to sit with unconscious > > Harry in PS/SS), Fudge, and also ... did the Chocolate Frog > > Card writers know? > > Shaunette now: > > Are you saying that a gay Dumbledore should not be left alone > with an unconscious Harry, but a straight one alone with him > would be fine? That Mdm Pomfrey would (or should) take this into > account (if she knew)? Susan: Hmmmm..given that the vast majority of child rapists/child molesters are men molesting girls...if DD were STRAIGHT, then he probably shouldn't have been allowed to sit with unconscious Hermione? Hmmm? Is that the argument? First, we don't know that the WW parallels the RW...so we don't know that DD grew up in an outrageously homophobic society -- one that might assume that because he was gay he was not to be trusted with sleeping boys....it might have been an enlightened society that understood with great clarity that gay people are not child molesters..that there are child rapists/child molesters, the vast majority of whom are men...most molest girls, some molest boys, but they are child rapists/child molesters...they are not heterosexual nor gay/lesbian in their orientation....and in fact some child rapists (mostly men) target both girls and boys......(The vastly smaller number of women who are child molesters mostly seem to target boys, although of course woman/girl child rape has happened...but it is statistically insignificant). If it did parallel the RW, it is quite possible that DD's parents had no clue he was gay........ There is absolutely no canon evidence to suggest that the Muggle Boys targeted Ariana for any reason except that which Aberforth stated - that she was doing magic. However, I supposed one might speculate that they, acting out of prejudice and hatred of someone who they suspected was gay, might have terrorized and assaulted his sister. In the RW, lots of kids are terrorized and assaulted about gay issues, some of whom are perceived to be gay and aren't. Susan From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 06:28:15 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:28:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40711192228n1c4b6ae8q1f02ed1d044d35f8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179224 > > "Hagrid" wrote: > > [huge snip] > > > What about others? -and would that change how we view the > > > story? ... Mad-eye Moody, McGonagall, Tom Riddle (Slughorn in > > > HBP said Tom had a way of finding out information), Slughorn, > > > > Snape, Hagrid, Mdm Pomfrey (allowing DD to sit with unconscious > > > Harry in PS/SS), Fudge, and also ... did the Chocolate Frog > > > Card writers know? > > > > Shaunette now: > > > > Are you saying that a gay Dumbledore should not be left alone > > with an unconscious Harry, but a straight one alone with him > > would be fine? That Mdm Pomfrey would (or should) take this into > > account (if she knew)? > > Susan: > > Hmmmm..given that the vast majority of child rapists/child molesters > are men molesting girls...if DD were STRAIGHT, then he probably > shouldn't have been allowed to sit with unconscious Hermione? Hmmm? > Is that the argument? Kemper now: Perhaps what that poster (they didn't say who they were) was attempting to show --though admittedly not clearly-- that Mdm Pomfrey as a reflection of the WW feels that it is no big deal that DD was gay. Kemper, offering alternate views of reading a post From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 07:09:02 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:09:02 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179225 --- "Hagrid" wrote: > > We are finishing Chapter discussions on DD's Will and soon > to start the Wedding. Sorry if this was covered in earlier > posts, but those two chapters hear from prime characters for > the last time. > > So which characters did know Albus Dumbledore was gay? > These ones knew for sure > - Grindelwald (the only one we know for sure) > > These ones probably knew ... > - Aberforth Dumbledore (Probably) > > These ones may have known, but we aren't sure ... > - *Elphias Doge (who admired Albus and hid facts from his > obituary) > ... > > > What about others? ... bboyminn: Of all those you mentioned, I suspect only the three I have left on the list. I've suspected that it isn't necessary to announce that one is gay as it is in muggle society. I think wizards, with in a certain context, have a live and let live attitude. I further don't think adults are prone to excessive Public Displays of Affection. So, Dumbledore being out and about with a male friend would be view as a combination of 'it's none of our business' and 'their just friends'. I do feel Elphias knew and may have even been a part-time companion of Dumbledore's which is why he so worshiped him and why he would allow anything to tarnish Dumbledore's good name. But, I don't see it as a big deal in the wizard world. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 07:40:08 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:40:08 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179226 Aussie: > So which characters did know Albus Dumbledore was gay? > These ones may have known, but we aren't sure ... > - Mr Percival Dumbledore (Albus didn't meet Grindelwald until after > his father was in Azkaban, but Albus may have displayed gay > tendancies before) Montavilla47: Albus Dumbledore's father was in prison before Albus arrived at Hogwarts. I doubt that anyone would be sure about his sexuality (including Albus) by that time. > How the story takes on a new light if these knew ... > - The muggle boys that attacked Ariana (were they picking on the > gay's little sister?) Montavilla47: I doubt that they identified Albus as gay (as he wasn't yet eleven). And, if they did suspect that he was gay, they probably would have beat him up, rather than his sister. I think that the story was more or less true. They attacked Ariana because they didn't understand her magic. From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Nov 20 08:54:14 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:54:14 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179227 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaunette Reid" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > [snip] > > So which characters did know Albus Dumbledore was gay? > > These ones knew for sure > > - Grindelwald (the only one we know for sure) > > > Shaunette again: > Actually, do we know for sure? Yes, Dumbledore was in love with GW and > it was tragic for him, but I can't remember JKR saying they were > lovers. Granted, it's likely that they were, but because so little is > said about that aspect of their relationship, I think things are left > entirely to the imagination. It is possible, for example, that GW did > not return the feeling beyond friendship, mutual respect/admiration > and common dreams/goals (as I've said before, I' m a sucker for tragic > love stories and have no problem with the idea that DD & GW were > probably lovers...I just don't jump to the conclusion that if one's > best friend is gay, one must also be gay). > I think the jury is totally out on this one. It's entirely possible that DD was in love with GG, and GG thought of DD as a best friend with whom he shared passionate goals, visions, plans, and ambitions -- but nothing of the physical, or romantic, or intimate. So, I'm agreeing...PLUS, I'm suggesting that one friend can be in love with another, and it can be unrequited. It's also possible they were lovers. There's no evidence that DD ever had a lover, imho. All we know is that he's gay (his orientation), and that he was in love with GG. Says nothing about his sex life, or really about a requited relationship. Again, it's POSSIBLE that he and GG were lovers, and that he and Elphias Doge were later lovers.....I could easily make a case that Doge was in love with DD, but could not make a case that DD was in love with Doge. I could also make a case that DD befriended ED and that that's all they were -- friends. Hard to tell. Susan From horace.nihil at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 20 09:31:15 2007 From: horace.nihil at yahoo.fr (horace.nihil) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:31:15 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179228 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaunette Reid" wrote: > [snip] > hahaha I can't picture Scrimgeour nosing around for gossip on such a > petty level. Hasn't he got more important things to worry about than > who a relatively young Dumbledore wants to sleep with? > Hmm, I disagree on this point. History shows that organisations like FBI, CIA and other KGBs make a great deal of the sexual preferences of people...in the DD/GG friendship era, DD was a "high potential" as manager say, and obviously in focus of the Ministry. But was Scrimgeaour already Head of Auror office at this time ? horace.nihil From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 11:47:59 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:47:59 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179229 > Alla: > > To me it is not even that, although I agree with you a_svirn, > Dursleys are clueless about those issues. > > It is more that they were not GOING to claim any guardianship even > if they were entitled to it. I mean, I said many times, I believe > that as aunt Petunia owed Harry to help him - simply by the issue of > being a relative and that is how I was taught family members should > behave - help each other at the time of need, etc, etc. > > BUT there is no doubt in my mind that Dursleys wanted NOTHING to do > with Harry till Dumbledore imposed Harry on them. > > To make a RL analogy again, if the guardianship was heard in court, > I believe Sirius' claim would be pretty much uncontested by anybody. > > Well, unless Dumbledore would forcibly bring Dursleys to court and > under Imperius directs them to claim it. IMO of course. > a_svirn: Yes, certainly. But my point is that even if their claim were "indisputable" they don't come across as Harry's legal guardians, because they do not administer his fortune. They are more like hired governors then guardians, and not even hired properly, come to that. They were forced to assume a responsibility over a very rich child indeed, and yet expected to provide for his upbringing. That's hardly fair by any standard, let along legal. Not to mention that if Dumbledore had at least arranged some regular payments toward Harry's upkeep, they would have probably treated him much more decently. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Nov 20 11:55:50 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:55:50 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179230 Shaunette: hahaha I can't picture Scrimgeour nosing around for gossip on such a petty level. Hasn't he got more important things to worry about than who a relatively young Dumbledore wants to sleep with? Ceridwen: I can. At one time, at least in the Muggle world if it parallels our own, it was considered so bad to be gay or lesbian that it was hushed up, not spoken of, and the gay or lesbian person may even have been disowned by his or her family. It was considered "unnatural". To someone in the public eye like Dumbledore, and given Fudge's mistrust of him (fostered by Lucius Malfoy) during GoF and OotP, an order to Scrimgeour to find something ruinous to Dumbledore's reputation is completely possible if the WW mirrors our own world, and it does in a lot of ways. Previous poster: > - Mrs Kendra Dumbledore (Muggle born in an era when homosexuals were > not gay) Shaunette: Er...what? What were they, then? Straight? Seriously, I don't get it. Ceridwen: In the 1890s, "gay" meant happy. In fact, up until the 1960s at least, "gay" had connotations other than sexual orientation - the Flintstones' theme song ends with "We'll have a gay old time", for instance. So, gays were "homosexuals", not "gay" back in Kendra Dumbledore's era. Shaunette: Do you mean "being gay" is unbelievable? And that Lily and James would care in the slightest? *(snip)* LOL why would the ghosts care? *(snip)* Again, if they did hear, why would it matter to them or to the story? Ceridwen: They may care. Gryffindors tend to uphold the prevailing attitude of "good". If it was considered "bad" to be gay in the 1970s/1980s WW, then James and Lily may have cared a great deal. All a person can do is go with what is known at the time, after all. Someone living in the 1400s would believe and completely uphold that the earth is the center of the universe; someone living in the late 1700s would see slavery as the natural order and not something to do something about (and in 1970s Hogwarts, we don't hear about Lily trying to free House Elves); someone living in the mid-twentieth century would believe that being gay is an aberration, because those were the received wisdoms of those times. James and Lily Potter died in 1981. The ghosts died at various points before present, The Grey Lady about a thousand years ago give or take, Nearly Headless Nick five hundred years ago. None of them can be divorced from the context of their times. Ignoring prejudice doesn't make it go away. It only demeans the struggle people have against prejudice and discrimination. It seems that a lot of things are not being taught in school, and when they are, they are not given in context, leaving people to wonder why various historical figures were such unenlightened lunkheads about a variety of issues. Through most of Dumbledore's life, in the Muggle world at least, being gay was considered bad, evil, mentally aberrant, and even criminal. If the WW mirrors our own society, Scrimgeour may have been interested because of an actual violation of law being possible given DD's orientation. Muckrakers like Skeeter would have had a field day. Fudge and Umbridge could have used it, along with DD being in charge of a school, as a way to get DD out of the way with which very few would have taken umbrage. Skeeter's insinuation about DD and Harry would have been horrific to parents - poor orphan kid preyed on by the chickenhawk, what'll happen to your own kids when he's got them ten months of the year? These were real concerns, and real prejudices. If Rowling meant to mirror our own society realistically, these would have been issues facing Dumbledore as a gay man. On what Lily wrote to Sirius, though, I think it was unbelievable that DD was friends with GG. Given her age and prevailing attitudes in the Muggle world at least, I can't see Bathilda Bagshot outing either DD or her nephew. Ceridwen. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 12:13:07 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:13:07 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179231 > Alla: > > And yes, to me "guilty till proven innocent" as what I believe DD > > pursued towards Sirius counts as destroying a life. > > zgirnius: > What did he pursue towards Sirius? He arranged to protect Harry, and > didn't do anything for Sirius. This is not the deliberate destruction > of anything. He did not know Sirius was innocent, he sincerely > believed the opposite by the time the Muggles and (supposedly) Peter > were lying dead in the street. a_svirn: Dumbledore (and following his example Harry) dug their heels in over a Knight Bus conductor being sent to Azkaban without a trial. Dumbledore visited Morfin and Hepsibah Smith's house elf there, because he was interested in discovering the truth (though, apparently, not interested in seeing them pardoned or reinstated). Yet he did not visit Sirius and did not try to establish the truth. Conclusion? He wasn't interested. > > > Alla: > > Oh, oh and further proof of that IMO is that Dumbledore did not > even > > **bother** to convince Ministry of Sirius' innocence. I know, I > > know, needs of the plot. > > zgirnius: > This was explained in the books, but you can of course choose not to > believe the explanation. He did arrange to help Sirius find a place > to hide in GoF, and did not report him to any authorities, which is > entirely consistent with a belief in his innocence and inability to > prove it. Keeping him away from Harry would have just required not > helping him escape in PoA. The Dementors would have solved this > alleged 'problem' for him. Or if he preferred Harry less traumatized, > he could have given the Aurors a tip about a certain black dog living > in a cave on the outskirts of Hogsmeade. a_svirn: Well, granted, Dumbledore lost most his influence after GOF, so he couldn't do much then. But he still held sway in Wizengamot after POA, and yet he didn't try to order a trial and to override Fudge's decision to authorise the kiss. As to arranging Sirius to find a hiding place, surely he could have done better than the cave? Or at least sent him food parcels from time to time so that he wouldn't starve and risk being caught while scavenging. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Nov 20 12:23:35 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:23:35 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179232 Ceridwen wrote: > > On what Lily wrote to Sirius, though, I think it was unbelievable > that DD was friends with GG. Given her age and prevailing attitudes > in the Muggle world at least, I can't see Bathilda Bagshot outing > either DD or her nephew. Potioncat: I agree, that is, if she even knew. My take on JKR's statement that she always thought of DD as gay, was that it was one more secret for him to keep. It was a foundation for his reluctance to tell anyone anything. Young children who have to keep secrets tend to become closed mouthed, or good liers. So I doubt very many people would know. At this point in time, I'd say no one except maybe Doge and Bagshot. My son and I are reading DH (still for the first time) and we've just gotten to the part where LV arrives at the tower. This time I wondered what GG was thinking about DD. From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Nov 20 13:10:18 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:10:18 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179233 zgirnius: > To all who have leapt gallantly to the defense of Sirius Black > against my accusations, I have two responses. > First, a lukewarm defense of Albus. Save Harry, ask questions > afterwards is the policy I suggest he pursued. Dana: I think your are missing the point of the argument. The argument was about if Sirius' reckless decision of going after Peter was the primary cause that he lost his guardianship over Harry and it wasn't. It doesn't matter if DD came to a conclusion that Sirius must have been guilty of killing Peter and the 12 muggles because that hadn't happened yet. The decision to place Harry with the Dursleys had been made right at the moment of the Potters death and before anyone could have done anything. Not even Sirius going to DD would have made any difference to the decision DD had already made, because Sirius found out about the Potters death only when he arrived at the scene and Hagrid was already there to take Harry. That DD found no cause to find out if Sirius really was guilty of the crimes he was accused off had no influence on his decision making to place Harry with the Dursleys. Sirius already knew he could not get Harry after Hagrid repeatedly refused to give Harry up to him. It was the loss of Harry that made him decide to go after Peter. The argument, at least not from my point of view, is not about DD saving Sirius from being innocently locked up in Azkaban but about if Sirius recklessness was at fault of him losing Harry as Carol stated in the post I replied to. And I do not agree that Sirius going after Peter is what made Sirius lose Harry because he had lost Harry before he ever went after Peter. Again the argument is not if DD could have done anything to prevent Sirius going to Azkaban because I don't think Sirius really cared that much of what was going to happen to him next and he WAS going after Peter with the intention to kill him and probably already embraced the fact of either dying or being sent to Azkaban in the process. My problem with DD is that he made a decision about Harry's life before he knew about any of the particulars of what happened that night and why and later claimed that he knew James so very well but still he made a decision based on assumptions instead of facts and his decision to intervene without making it absolutely sure that Sirius was the one who had betrayed the Potters was what caused Sirius and Harry the loss of one another. What happened after that is totally irrelevant to the part of Sirius I was defending and the part of DD I was rejecting. zgirnius: > Sirius's best (surviving) friend in the world believed him guilty. > I will not blame Albus for concurring. Dana: Lupin specifically stated that after it was assumed that Sirius killed Peter and with Fudge's statements on the witness accounts of what happened when Sirius and Peter faced off, was what left him with no other possibility to believe it to be true. The problem still is that Harry was already with the Dursleys when this happened. The moment Lupin saw Peter on the map and thus make this claim unlikely to be true, he instantly changed his mind about the possibility of Sirius betraying the Potters too. Sirius behavior throughout PoA was entirely based on the notion that he could never be close to Harry anyway and therefore his only prerogative was to take out the possible treat to Harry's life. It was only when he faced Harry that the thought occurred to him that he really would like for Harry to know the truth about what had occurred, not so much to clear himself and get himself proven innocent but because he considered it important in regards to James' memory and thus to Harry. It was only when Lupin arrived on the scene and Harry's acknowledgment in believing his claim to be true that it occurred to him that he might be able to have a relationship with Harry as a free man and thus why he offered Harry a home. I do not blame DD for Sirius being locked up innocently in relation to the Pettigrew show down, but I do blame DD for giving testimony while he never so much took the time to actually find out if what he gave testimony too was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and he didn't. I do blame DD for not making absolutely sure that Sirius really was the one who betrayed the Potters before he cut Sirius out of Harry's life and hand him over to the Dursleys. If he didn't owe it to Sirius to find out the absolute truth then he surely owed it to Harry. zgirnius: > Second, Albuys could be worse than Voldemort at his most heartless, > it is irrelevant. I judge Sirius by what he knew, and what he did > about it. Either he believed Albus to be the leader of the Order > and someone who would protect Harry (in which case, he acted > irresponsibly by haring off without letting Albus know the truth), > and thereby doomed himself to Azkaban and Harry to the Dursleys. Dana: You judge Sirius unfairly for the simple fact that no matter what he knew, he could not have done anything about it in relation to what would happen to Harry because the decision was already made before he even knew himself that the Potters had died. The truth actually didn't matter after DD already had taken Harry away from him because the truth in itself would not have made a difference to what had already been decided upon after the fact. The truth only mattered before the decision was made and Sirius never was given that chance because the moment he found out the Potters were death, the decision to place Harry with his aunt already had transpired. In my view you are twisting events around to exonerate DD for making a decision about Harry's life were it was not his to make. A decision on what would be best for Harry could only have been made if all the facts would have been known and DD didn't bother to found them out and made his decision based on the assumption that because LV had gotten to the Potters it was therefore Sirius who had betrayed them as he was the known secret keeper at that time. These are not facts but assumptions about the facts. In my opinion when you make such a life altering decision you owe it to the person you alter the life from to be sure that you have based your decision on the absolute facts and truths before you disregard any other violable options in your decision making. DD did not give Sirius any chance to defend his position as Harry's guardian and just because Sirius was afterwards accused of another crime is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. It was DD who cut Sirius out of Harry's life by not even trying to find out if Sirius actually was guilty of betraying the Potters and not Sirius decision to go after Peter. Of course one could ask the question would Sirius really have gone after Peter if he had been given a fair chance to explain what had transpired before Harry was indefinitely shipped off to the Dursleys? I think he would not but still I do not hold DD responsible for Sirius' actions blowing up in his own face as it did. zgirnius: > Or, he had the same opinion as some posters here, that Albus is a > manipulative bastard, in which case his action was even more > reckless and irresponsible. It left poor Harry defenseless and in > the hands of that vile puppetmaster for over a decade. The right > move in my voew would have been to publicize the truth about Peter > to all who would listen, to force and investigation, and to get > himself cleared, so that he could claim custody of Harry, or at > least keep an eye on him and be a presence in his life. Dana: Again Sirius trying to proof his innocents after Harry had already been shipped off to the Dursleys would not have made any difference on the decision that was already made about Harry's life. It doesn't even matter if Sirius gave up on Harry because he might believe it to be the best thing for Harry and thus why he never made an effort to prove his innocence. Who would believe him anyway? He wasn't given a trial and no one stood up for him and it wasn't really likely he could make contact with the outside world to do what you propose he should have done. It is not like there are lawyers running around in the WW he could have contacted to make a case for him. Anyway what mattered is that before Harry was shipped off to the Dursleys, DD should have consulted Sirius and make absolutely sure that Sirius had in fact betrayed Harry's parents if not then DD should have stepped aside and let Sirius take care of Harry as was his parents wish. If this would have really mattered to DD he would have taken the time to find out but he didn't because it didn't matter. He says so himself that he preferred Harry to be placed with the Dursleys to prevent Harry growing up as a pampered prince. Harry during the time he was at the Dursleys (before he came to Hogwarts) was never in danger from LV because LV was a helpless vapor somewhere in the woods of Albania which DD knew perfectly well. He wanted Harry out of the WW unaware of the faith bestowed before him and thus out of Sirius hands. It don't think DD was very sorry to see Sirius being shipped off to Azkaban and out of the way because now he would be one less obstacle to overcome. Like Alla said (only in a different context) if Sirius had gotten wind of the ill treatment Harry got to endure he would not have allowed it to continue and had stepped in but Azkaban was quite an insurance to DD that he would never be able to. zgirnius: > I would love it if someone could point to some canon basis for the > (apparently popular) opinion that Albus would not hesitate to > knowingly destroy the life of an innocent human being if it served > his purposes or his vision of "the greater good". Personally, I > cannot wrap my mind around this view. Dana: That what I have argued about above was my initial reaction to DD confession to Harry at the end of OotP and I tried my hardest to see it differently that DD had made an honest mistake of thinking Sirius to be the one who betrayed Harry's Parents. The problem is that DH not only shows a DD actually knowing everything that has transpired over the course of Harry's life but actually giving Snape the assignment to betray the Order so Snape would be assigned headmaster. Moody died because of that betrayal and it was seen as justified so Snape could execute DD's plans for Hogwarts. In hindsight I can see it as perfectly true that DD sacrificed the truth in order for him to go ahead with the plans he had for Harry and so he did. But to summarize it one more time, it was not Sirius reckless decision to go after Peter that made him lose his connection to Harry for 12 years. We see that Lupin lost his connection to Harry equally and he wasn't sent to Azkaban and he wasn't accused of betraying the Potters. Sirius came to his decision to go after Peter AFTER he was perfectly made aware that he was cut out of Harry's life; at that time it wasn't even known to Sirius that LV wasn't really gone and that he might come back so the only thing he saw fit left to do is take out the man that destroyed the lives of his family, which might be considered reckless but honest to ghod understandable under the circumstances. JMHO Dana From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 13:13:09 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:13:09 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711200513o2d12befdr46b807c3b68d1aa@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179234 > > Ceridwen: > They may care. Gryffindors tend to uphold the prevailing attitude > of "good". If it was considered "bad" to be gay in the 1970s/1980s > WW, then James and Lily may have cared a great deal. All a person > can do is go with what is known at the time, after all. montims: Just as a historical point, male homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in 1967, after this was proposed in 1957 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/4/newsid_3007000/3007686.stm). Obviously, there were still homophobic attitudes, as there still seem to be today, but it wasn't illegal then... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 14:17:10 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:17:10 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179235 > Mike: > Granted, not all of the things you predicted, and I agreed with, came > true; e.g. Dumbledore didn't engineer the release of the prophesy. > But he certainly took full advantage of it, by his own admission he > was training Harry to be "the chosen one" from the moment Harry's > parents were killed. lizzyben: Oh, didn't he? :) I really still believe that DD deliberately leaked the prophecy, & IMO that's supported by the text. "The Prince's Tale" revealed a lot of DD's machinations, but it was done in a very off-hand, casual way. Snape doesn't realize the importance of DD's statements, because he doesn't have all the puzzle pieces. But when readers combine Snape's memories with Harry's own memories, DD's puppet-strings become much more apparant. For example, "Keep an eye on Quirrel, will you?" is very off-hand, causal remark. JKR doesn't have a big reveal that "OMG Dumbledore knew Quirrel/Voldemort was after the Stone & totally set the obstacle course up for Harry to fight him!" But with that one statement, plus w/Harry's own statement in SS that "(DD) wanted to give me a chance to face Voldemort." ... and yeah, it's pretty safe to conclude that he did just that. In regards to the prophecy, a lot of people noticed the discrepencies between Trelawney & DD's account of that event. DD said that Snape was thrown out before he heard the whole thing, but Trelawney said that Aberforth caught Snape outside the door & then brought him into the room. Snape had an opportunity to hear the entire prophecy, and DD had an opportunity to Legimens or oblivate Snape. So, the obvious question was, why did DD let Snape go with that information? Maybe DD, that trusting soul, didn't suspect that Snape was involved with the Death Eaters? If that were the case, DD should've been shocked when Snape came back & revealed that he was a DE who had taken the prophecy to LV. Except, in DH, we learn that DD knew Snape was a Death Eater all along. As soon as he sees Snape, he says "Well, Severus? What message does Lord Voldemort have for me?" So DD already knows that Snape is a Death Eater, and knows that Snape acts as a courier who brings messages to & from Voldemort. DD is expecting Snape to relay information from LV - just as Snape carried information about the prophecy *to* LV. It's safe to conclude that DD already knew that Snape was a DE when he was caught listening at the door - and DD allowed him to run straight to LV with what he had heard. It was a message to LV from DD, in a sense. Also, if DD deliberately leaked the prophecy, he'd want to be sure that LV only got the first half of the prophecy (about a Chosen One that can defeat LV), not the second half (that LV himself would create this Chosen One himself by marking the child). So, Prophecy!DD would want to know exactly how much of the prophecy Snape had heard & relayed to LV. "What request could a Death Eater make of me?" "The - the prophecy, the prediction.... Trelawney...." "Ah, yes," said Dumbledore. "How much did you relay to Lord Voldemort?" "Everything - everything I heard!" (DH 681) DD's first question is "how much did of the prophecy did you carry to LV?" Very important - DD only wants LV to hear the first half. Snape's answer ("everything I heard") seems to satisfy Dumbledore. Why? How could DD be sure that Snape didn't hear the second half of the prophecy? The text tells us how. Right before this exchange, DD ensures that he & Snape can't be heard by any eavesdroppers. "Dumbledore flicked his wand. Though leaves and branches stull flew through the night air around them, silence fell on the spot where he and Snape faced each other." (DH 681) DD cast a silencing spell. So if someone were eavesdropping on DD & Snape's conversation, they would only hear the first part, until Snape tells DD that he comes with a warning. Then, silence. The second part of the conversation would be totally silent & protected from any eavesdroppers. I think DD did the same thing with Trelawney. She began prophecizing, and after the first sentence, Dumbledore cast a silencing spell to ensure that an eavesdropper (Snape) couldn't hear the rest of the prophecy. This explains why Snape only heard and relayed the first half of the prophecy. I think DD would have sacrificed the Potters without a second thought to ensure that the prophecy came true; he was already planning to sacrifice an unknown family when he first leaked the prophecy to LV. So when he demanded payment from Snape for protecting the Potters, IMO he was totally serious about that. If Snape hadn't promised "anything", I think DD would've allowed the prophecy to play out as planned. And maybe he still did. Mike: > Though I don't hold Dumbledore in quite the contempt that you do, I > freely admit that he was very much the puppetmaster to Harry's Chosen > One. lizzyben: I wouldn't mind DD's manipulations so much if his plans actually worked! Mike: The main difference is I thought Dumbledore's guidance was > needed to not just defeat LV but to also keep Harry alive to do it. lizzyben: The "keeping Harry alive" thing gets a little muddled when DD's sending Harry into obstacle courses to confront Dark Wizards, disappearing w/Basiliks on the loose, making Harry enter the Tri- Wizard tournaments, etc. etc. All part of letting Harry "try his strength". Mike: > The destruction of LV's Horcruxes meant that Harry could have that > final battle that ultimately does Riddle in. Elsewise, Voldemort > would've kept coming back and would've continued to hunt Harry until > he finally found a way to kill him. That much is clear from DH, imo. lizzyben: DD's plan in DH is so nonsensical from top to bottom that I don't even know where to begin. Why did Harry have to find the Horcruxes? Wouldn't using some of the capable Order members be a better idea? And he left Harry w/no information at all, no helpers, etc. It could've taken Harry *years* to find them all, while LV's reign continues. It was only a small miracle (or plot contrivance) that allowed Harry to find them at all. And why did DD have the weird will gifts? What was the point? Even if Harry figures out the symbol (another miracle/deus ex machina), the Hallows were a useless subplot. As Dead!DD later says, Harry needed the horcruxes, not the hallows. So, not only is it a red herring, it's a red herring wrapped in a mystery that wastes everyone's time. The Elder Wand? DD knew LV would want it, yet never told Snape or Harry that he had it. The snitch? I never would've connected "open at the close" w/"the snitch will open when he's about to die", so props to Harry. Everything DD does is cloaked in mystery & secrecy that actually hurts the mission. It's like DD is more interested in showing his cleverness w/elaborate Rube Goldberg schemes rather than creating a plan that works. Harry won by sheer dumb luck - note that if things had gone according to DD's plan, Voldemort would have won. lizzyben From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 14:39:22 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:39:22 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179236 > zgirnius: > > To all who have leapt gallantly to the defense of Sirius Black > > against my accusations, I have two responses. > > First, a lukewarm defense of Albus. Save Harry, ask questions > > afterwards is the policy I suggest he pursued. > > > Dana: > I think your are missing the point of the argument. The argument was > about if Sirius' reckless decision of going after Peter was the > primary cause that he lost his guardianship over Harry and it wasn't. zgirnius: You seem to me missing the criteria I have laid out for how I judge the characters. You are free to disagree with those criteria, but you can hardly expect me to use yours instead. My objection to Sirius's action is that not it *did* lose him guardianship (results-based), but that the consequences Sirius should expect it to have it included lost guardianship, getting killed needlessly, and leaving Peter free and unsuspected. The only (arguably) desirable possible outcome was the death of Peter, which would have been a murder. I would consider making his betrayal public the more appropriate way to try and deal with him, it neutralizes him as a danger and is not a murder. Two out of three actually materialized; instead of death Sirius ended up serving twelve years in Azkaban. I don't even understand your defense. I'm criticizing Sirius based on what he should have known and expected; you seem to be saying the man is a saint because forces outside his control were conspiring against him and he couldn't win, so there was no point in trying or taking any sensible action. It's a good thing most HP characters do not follow this reasoning. > Dana: > It doesn't matter if DD came to a conclusion that Sirius must have > been guilty of killing Peter and the 12 muggles because that hadn't > happened yet. zgirnius: It happened the morning after Harry was sent to the Dursleys, right? Yiou seem not to understand another part of my argument. That Dumbledore's forst priority was to send Harry to known* safety. Sirius was not *known* to be safe. Dumbledore could have harbored hope that for some inexplicable reason Sirius was not the traitor he seemed, but this would have biin, to me, a totally unacceptable reason to let Sirius have him until Dumbledore *knew the reason Sirius was not a traitor. Only then Sirius again proved he was. > Dana: > The decision to place Harry with the Dursleys had been made right at > the moment of the Potters death and before anyone could have done > anything. Not even Sirius going to DD would have made any difference > to the decision DD had already made, because Sirius found out about > the Potters death only when he arrived at the scene and Hagrid was > already there to take Harry. zgirnius: It would have made all the difference on the issue of Peter, though. If he was known to be a Death Eater and Rat Animagus, his ability to do damage would have been greatly curtailed. And as I keep saying, the decision to send Harry to the Dursleys was not irevocable. If it was irrevocable, Sirius would not have ofered to take Harry in in PoA. Apparently, this was *still* an option for an exonerated Sirius to consider 12 years later. a day after Harry was placed, it ought to have been even easier for Sirius, assuming he was not suspected of betrayal. Dana: > The argument, at least not from my point of view, is not about DD > saving Sirius from being innocently locked up in Azkaban zgirnius: And mine is that Sirius is reckless, period, as demonstrated by the reckless action we are discussing in this post. I'm glad we've cleared this up. > Dana: > You judge Sirius unfairly for the simple fact that no matter what he > knew, he could not have done anything about it in relation to what > would happen to Harry because the decision was already made before he > even knew himself that the Potters had died. zgirnius: It would be unfair if I judged him on the actual results of his actions, since in your view it was impossible for him to succeed. I don't. Had he tried and failed, I would not be criticizing him. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 15:14:23 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:14:23 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179237 > a_svirn: > Exactly. If it is an ancient wizading ceremony, like, say, handfast > marriages in real life they it is legal and binding, and no way out. > Assuming that you could produce witnesses, of course. And Harry was > names a godfather, not a guardian. > Besides which, Black said clearly that he was "appointed", not named. > Appointed has somewhat more official ring to it. > > "Well... your parents appointed me your guardian," said Black > stiffly. "If anything happened to them..." > I'd say that the Potters didn't have the luxury of being carefree > where their son's welfare was concerned. After all, they did know the > risks. So it's safe to assume that they took necessary legal > precautions. (The alternative is that they were irresponsible fools, > but that's somehow doesn't look plausible.) lizzyben: There's apparantly a wizarding legal system, with a system of probate, criminal justice, etc. Dumbledore's will bequests were carried out by the MOM, & Hermione quotes very specific probate laws on the subject. So, if people can make wills, people can also appoint a guardian in that will. "Godfather" is a religious term, but "guardian" is a legal term, meaning someone who was appointed & chosen to raise the child until the child reaches 18. Usually, parents with minor children will appoint a guardian in their will, & it sounds like that's what happened here. Sirius says that he was appointed to be Harry's guardian, & I believe him. If the Potters did apporint Sirius as guardian in their will, they would have discussed that with him. So if guardianship legally vests in Sirius, Dumbledore was actually *kidnapping* Harry when he took the child & placed him with the Dursleys instead. He did not have the legal right to do *anything* with that child. He wasn't the guardian, godfather, or even next of kin. He was just the Potters' boss. Of course, it was very convenient for DD that Sirius was imprisoned before he could challenge DD's illegal actions. So, yeah, I think DD was quite happy that Sirius ended up in Azkaban. Maybe he even pulled some strings in the Wizengamot to ensure that Sirius wouldn't get a trial - in a trial, Sirius could offer a defense, and maybe the truth would come out. This way, it's all neatly swept under the rug, and the Plan can continue without obstacles. The proof to me is how DD reacted when Sirius got free - he promptly imprisoned him again! Whether in Azkaban or 12 Grimmauld Place, DD wants Sirius kept out of the way. He said it was to protect Sirius from the MOM, but it's funny how those MOM charges were cleared the moment Sirius died. And that's not the only person DD let languish in Azkaban. In COS, Hagrid was falsely charged & imprisoned in Azkaban for setting loose the Basilik. DD didn't lift a finger to help exonerate Hagrid, instead he.. uh... dissappeared. (I wonder where DD goes on these sabbaticals?) DD never exonerated Hagrid of the original false charge, either. Instead, he let Hagrid be expelled & later hired him as Groundskeeper. For this DD gained Hagrid's total gratitude and loyalty. DD has this way of giving people enough freedom to earn their loyalty, but not enough to gain their independence. lizzyben From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Nov 20 14:41:12 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:41:12 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? References: Message-ID: <006901c82b83$664c0f70$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179238 Montavilla47: > I doubt that they identified Albus as gay (as he wasn't yet eleven). > And, if they did suspect that he was gay, they probably would > have beat him up, rather than his sister. I think that the story was > more or less true. They attacked Ariana because they didn't > understand her magic. Shelley: When I read the attack on Ariana, I didn't think that she was attacked because she was a witch. I think kids are far more likely to find that stuff (magical abilities) as "cool", rather than to be scared of it enough to beat someone up over it. I can't see kids conducting Salem style witch hunts. Nah, instead, I think because it was BOYS attacking a GIRL that it was more akin to gang rape. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 16:59:14 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:59:14 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: <006901c82b83$664c0f70$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179239 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > Montavilla47: > > I doubt that they identified Albus as gay (as he wasn't yet eleven). > > And, if they did suspect that he was gay, they probably would > > have beat him up, rather than his sister. I think that the story was > > more or less true. They attacked Ariana because they didn't > > understand her magic. > > Shelley: > When I read the attack on Ariana, I didn't think that she was attacked > because she was a witch. I think kids are far more likely to find that stuff (magical abilities) as "cool", rather than to be scared of it enough to beat someone up over it. I can't see kids conducting Salem style witch hunts. Nah, instead, I think because it was BOYS attacking a GIRL that it was more akin to gang rape. > Montavilla47: That certainly is a pervasive view, isn't it? I can't say that it didn't cross my mind when I read the book. But I'm not sure that we can make that assumption--given the age of the participants. I just looked back on the passage where Aberforth describes the attack and he doesn't mention the age of the boys involved. So, they might have been old to know what rape is and how to do it. It's odd--I wonder if the idea of rape is unconsciously planted because the boys "forced their way through the hedge." Because, it is a leap to think that she was raped by the next bit: "when she couldn't show them the trick, they got a bit carried away trying to stop the little freak doing it." When you're trying to *stop* someone from doing something, rape isn't the first action that comes to mind. A beating seems more likely. Of course, there''s also that next passage, about her magic turning inward. Somehow that seems like it must be the result of something worse than a few kids slapping you around. I don't know, though, never having been badly beaten myself. It's odd what associations come up for me when I look at that passage. There's a parallel between Ariana with her innocent magic-making in the garden and Lily with hers in the park. But, of course, the difference is that the "boy" watching Lily is a wizard and isn't frightened or enraged by it. There's also the other veiled sexual violence events in the book-- a surprisingly large number, really, starting with Ginny's possession by Tom, the sexually-charged rebirth of Voldemort, the sexually-tinged humiliation of SWM, the possible rape of Dolores Umbridge by the centaurs, and the veiled rape threats towards Hermione by Fenrir Greyback. Am I missing any? I wonder if the number of sexually violent episodes in the books is simply a reflection of how common sexual violence is in Western culture nowadays? Or is it that we're projecting these images onto the story because we're conditioned to think that way? Montavilla47 Astounded that she's used the R-word so many times in a single post. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 17:14:26 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:14:26 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179240 > > Dana: > > I think your are missing the point of the argument. The argument > was > > about if Sirius' reckless decision of going after Peter was the > > primary cause that he lost his guardianship over Harry and it > wasn't. > > zgirnius: > You seem to me missing the criteria I have laid out for how I judge > the characters. You are free to disagree with those criteria, but you > can hardly expect me to use yours instead. My objection to Sirius's > action is that not it *did* lose him guardianship (results-based), > but that the consequences Sirius should expect it to have it > included lost guardianship, getting killed needlessly, and leaving > Peter free and unsuspected. a_svirn: I don't see what it has to do with any criteria for judging characters. All Dana said (as far as I understand)is that Sirius *had* already lost his guardianship by the time he went after Pettigrew. Because Dumbledore *had* already decided to deny him the said guardianship, and Dumbledore's word was final for the members of the Order (for some reason not at all clear for me). So the cause and effect chain in this case is quite the opposite to the one you proposed. Sirius did not lost his guardianship through his recklessness, on the contrary, he decided on this reckless course because he had already lost his friends and the guardianship of his godson and had virtually nothing else left to loose. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 19:09:24 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:09:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711201109r1ed57f0bl2d6939de2eafff88@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179241 > > Dana: snip Not a single person from the WW ever interfered with Harry during the time he was at the Dursely's and not of them where bound by the confinements of Azkaban. Lupin was a free as a bird but he never went to see Harry, DD never went to see Harry and neither did Snape in the years Harry was with the Dursley's. And Molly, big to condemn everyone, was not in the picture during the time Harry was with the Dursley's and only got to know Harry slightly more intimate a year before either Lupin and Sirius did. montims: to be fair to the WW (and please note, I'm not saying that Dana is being unfair, just following the point) - DD probably forbade all contact, to protect Harry from discovery by the DEs that remained and would no doubt have taken some kind of revenge. Also, they had no way of knowing that the Dursleys were treating Harry so badly... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 19:44:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:44:47 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179242 Alla wrote: > > My point is that to me to go against the will of great Albus > Dumbledore ( yes, I am being sarcastic here) would have been a > totally useless move, Which again does not stop me from saying that > Sirius should have done it, and I believe that he would, since even > being devastated, he DID try to claim Harry. > > Hard enough? NO, but with Fudge taking directions from DD at that > time, I have no doubt that Sirius would have sero success claiming > Harry or attempting to enter his life. > > But let me say again, he should have tried. Carol responds: And do you really think that Sirius Black, had he not gone after Peter Pettigrew but had gone to Dumbledore instead, would have argued against the blood protection that only Petunia could give Harry, or that he would not realized that Harry would be safer hidden among Muggles than on the run with him? If Black insisted on his rights as "guardian"/godfather under those circumstances, then, IMO, he cared more about himself than about Harry's safety. He might have asked for the right to peek in on Harry unobserved once in awhile, but to take him away from the only spell that could protect him if LV rose again seems supremely selfish to me. I do agree that Black could not have won against Dumbledore in any case, which makes the whole argument rather pointless, but I would hope that he would be persuaded by the child's best interests rather than his own. If not, he's an unfit guardian whatever his legal rights (which are not established in canon). Carol, opting out of the argument since Child!Harry's safety trumps Sirius's rights for me any time From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Nov 20 19:50:53 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:50:53 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179243 zgirnius: > You seem to me missing the criteria I have laid out for how I judge > the characters. You are free to disagree with those criteria, but > you can hardly expect me to use yours instead. My objection to > Sirius's action is that not it *did* lose him guardianship (results- > based), but that the consequences Sirius should expect it to have > it included lost guardianship, getting killed needlessly, and > leaving Peter free and unsuspected. The only (arguably) desirable > possible outcome was the death of Peter, which would have been a > murder. I would consider making his betrayal public the more > appropriate way to try and deal with him, it neutralizes him as a > danger and is not a murder. Two out of three actually materialized; > instead of death Sirius ended up serving twelve years in Azkaban. Dana: The problem as I see it is that you judge situations according to character instead of to what actually transpired. Sirius' character had nothing to do with what transpired as I'm trying to explain endlessly. Sirius's confrontation with Peter had nothing to do with Harry and Sirius loss of guardianship over him. It only had to do with Sirius' unjustly imprisonment. These are two separate events. Sirius proving his innocence in the betrayal of the Potters would not have reversed the guardianship to him because DD had already made a decision to intervene on that part. zgirnius: > I don't even understand your defense. I'm criticizing Sirius based > on what he should have known and expected; you seem to be saying > the man is a saint because forces outside his control were > conspiring against him and he couldn't win, so there was no point > in trying or taking any sensible action. It's a good thing most HP > characters do not follow this reasoning. Dana: I can't help but to wonder if you actually are trying to be an impartial observer here or someone who wants to prove what a disagreeable character Sirius must be because you personally dislike him. You say that you judge Sirius on basis that he should have known that his actions would lose him the guardianship over Harry but the fact is and remains that his actions to take the law into his own hands concerning Peter transpired AFTER Sirius had already LOST his guardianship over Harry and that Sirius never was given the time or the opportunity to put up any kind of defense in favor of his guardianship over Harry *before* DD decided to place Harry with the Dursleys. His guardianship over Harry came into effect the moment the Potters died and Sirius only came to know that they indeed had died when he arrived in GH. At that moment Hagrid was already there to take Harry away. In other words Sirius already knew that DD had made judgment on his alleged contribution to the Potters death and that DD didn't deem it necessary to actually confirm his guilt. That going to DD would probably only result in him (DD) delivering Sirius at Azkaban's doorstep himself. DD's actions were already premeditated on the basis of Sirius being guilty and in my opinion that is wrong if you actually never talked to the guy before you make such a judgment. Personally I do not understand the idea that it is okay to condemn someone on the basis of an assumption and then later sit back when the person does something at a later date which seemed to confirm the initial assumption. As we see the later events did not proof the initial assumptions to be correct and so to say that it was okay for DD to act as he did because Sirius did something reckless later sound ridiculous to me. DD still should have confirmed the facts about Sirius presumed guilt *before* he made any decision about Harry's life. It was not up to DD to judge if Sirius would have made a good Godfather because he did not condone of Sirius character personally and neither should you. The only issue that counted was Sirius either being guilty or innocent and not if he would make good enough father material to take care of Harry. If I read your arguments correctly then you say that Sirius had lost all rights to Harry because he did not act in the way you deemed to be appropriate actions. The problem is that you take his actions afterwards to judge the fact if he should have had the right to begin with and you never consider the idea that he probably would never have behaved the way he did if he had been given Harry to take care off. His later actions are irrelevant to make judgment about his rights as a guardian. The only point that counted was if Sirius was or wasn't guilty of betraying the Potters and seeing that DD took the law into his own hands and placed judgment before all the facts were in, I actually do see this as an unjust action on part of DD without the need for me to elevate Sirius to any kind of sainthood. zgirnius: > It happened the morning after Harry was sent to the Dursleys, > right? Yiou seem not to understand another part of my argument. > That Dumbledore's forst priority was to send Harry to known* > safety. Sirius was not *known* to be safe. Dumbledore could have > harbored hope that for some inexplicable reason Sirius was not the > traitor he seemed, but this would have biin, to me, a totally > unacceptable reason to let Sirius have him until Dumbledore *knew > the reason Sirius was not a traitor. Dana: Tell me would Harry have been less safe if DD had brought him to Hogwarts and had sorted out things with Sirius before shipping off Harry to his aunt's house? LV was gone and there was surely no risk for him to turn up any time soon, so why the rush? I never said that DD should just hand over Harry and do nothing; what I have been saying over and over again is that DD should have talked to Sirius before placing a final judgment about his supposed guilt. If DD had been so eager to know the specifics on who was giving LV inside information on the Potters movement, he should have put more effort into finding out who actually was the traitor before the Potters actually got killed and if he did not trust James's judgment in making Sirius his SK then he should have done something about it without the Potters consent just as he took Harry to the Dursley's without their consent. It is easy to place judgment after the fact and then do nothing to actually see if the facts you think you have are actually correct at all. Wash yourself from all the blame because those that died did not accept you proposal. So why should that have changed after they actually died? Because Harry was not just a kid but the one that was going to cause LV's downfall. If Harry had been just a kid DD would not have thought about his safety twice. DD wasn't concerned with Harry's safety as in personally being concerned with the kid's welfare. He just wanted the kid to be put on ice in a hostile environment so that Harry was more prone to accept DD's suggestions. A Harry brought up in a loving environment which I have no doubt Sirius could have provided him, would not have made Harry as willing to follow DD every step of the way. Therefore it wasn't in DD's best interest to seek the truth about what really had transpired between Sirius and the Potters and he acted accordingly. I can only say that I am glad I do not live in a world were the innocent need to proof their innocence instead of those on the accusing side proving their actual guilt. DD deemed Sirius not to be safe enough to take Harry. That was his decision not Sirius' and thus it was up to DD to actually proof Sirius not to be a safe option for Harry and he could only have done that if he first had investigated the matter before and not after he had already made his decision. Sirius should not have needed to proof he was a good guardian to Harry because he was given that right by Harry's parents if someone objects to those rights they should bring evidence why Sirius should not have been granted that right and not the otherway around. JHMO Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 20:00:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:00:19 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179244 "Hagrid" wrote: > [huge snip] > > What about others? -and would that change how we view the story? ... Mad-eye Moody, McGonagall, Tom Riddle (Slughorn in HBP said Tom had a way of finding out information), Slughorn, Snape, Hagrid, Mdm Pomfrey Fudge, and also ... did the Chocolate Frog Card writers know? Carol responds: As secretive as DD was, I doubt that anyone knew. All the others (his mother, Bathilda, et a.) would see was a brief but intense two-month friendship with a boy who would later become a powerful and notorious Dark Wizard. We don't even know that *Gellert* knew how Albus felt about him. And I think that if Aberforth knew, he would have said something along the lines of, "He loved that wicked boy more than he loved his own family." And I'm quite sure that once Gellert was involved in his sister's death, Albus kept his mouth shut about their relationship, just as he never talked about his father's imprisonment or his mother's and sister's deaths. The Chocolate Frog Card writers mentioned the duel with Grindelwald, but nothing about the early friendship or relationship or whatever you want to call it. It appears that DD took that secret with him to the grave. Leave it to Rita Skeeter to dredge it up. BTW, even Harry, to whom Dead!DD talks about the two-month infatuation with Grindelwald, doesn't seem to suspect anything beyond an intellectual friendship. Carol, noting that except for Rita Skeeter's insinuations, no character in the books seems remotely interested in DD's sexuality From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 20:44:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:44:06 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Hagrid and Dumbledore and Harry - three men and a baby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179245 zgirnius: It would have made all the difference on the issue of Peter, though. If he was known to be a Death Eater and Rat Animagus, his ability to do damage would have been greatly curtailed. And as I keep saying, the decision to send Harry to the Dursleys was not irrevocable. If it was irrevocable, Sirius would not have offered to take Harry in PoA. Apparently, this was *still* an option for an exonerated Sirius to consider 12 years later. a day after Harry was placed, it ought to have been even easier for Sirius, assuming he was not suspected of betrayal. Alla: Well, of course it was an option to consider for Sirius in PoA. Apparently that is what he wanted to do and what he would have tried to do. Whether it would have been POSSIBLE for him to do so, now that is the question IMO, had Dumbledore decided that no, Harry does not need to have Sirius' as constant presence in his life. And now I have another bizarre speculation to offer. Sirius offered to do so, when he was not still exonerated, was he not. During that famous conversation with Sirius, does anybody have any doubt that Dumbledore used legilimency on him, since he used that on Harry quite routinely? It is not that I mind in this situation, quite the contrary, I thought it was long overdue. But what if Dumbledore saw what Sirius wanted to do with Harry, and while maybe his conscience would not let him to feed Sirius to dementors, he would decided to send Sirius far away and keep very quiet with Fudge about the fact that man is innocent. a_svirn: I don't see what it has to do with any criteria for judging characters. All Dana said (as far as I understand)is that Sirius *had* already lost his guardianship by the time he went after Pettigrew. Because Dumbledore *had* already decided to deny him the said guardianship, and Dumbledore's word was final for the members of the Order (for some reason not at all clear for me). So the cause and effect chain in this case is quite the opposite to the one you proposed. Sirius did not lost his guardianship through his recklessness, on the contrary, he decided on this reckless course because he had already lost his friends and the guardianship of his godson and had virtually nothing else left to loose.: Alla: Right, that is how I understood Dana as well and this is how it reads to me too. I mean, Dumbledore already TOLD Hagrid not to give Harry to Sirius. I think if Dumbledore had the slightest inclination to find out the truth, he would have gone to GH himself, it is as simple as that to me. As I said, I would love for Sirius to go to Dumbledore, but I do not see how that would have made the slightest difference, IMO of course. Dumbledore's actions read to me as very set upon taking Harry from Sirius. And indeed he went after Peter afterwards not before. Surely, I would much prefer Sirius to scream on the top of his lungs to WW that he is innocent and continue to fight for Harry that way, but I indeed see no indication that he lost Harry because he went after Peter. I see that he lost Harry BEFORE he went after Peter, IMO of course. Again, do I think Sirius bears his part of the blame for not figuring out who Peter was? Absolutely, but I blame Dumbledore a lot as well. One conversation it took for him to know that Sirius innocent. ONE conversation. LOL, I still remember how shocked I was some time ago during our post HBP debates when a_svirn reminded me that Sirius was indeed appointed guardian. ( At some point in time I completely for got about it, and happily argued that Dumbledore placed Harry with Dursleys, because there was nobody else to place him with legally, HAHA)/ I do not want to subscribe to myself the prediction powers I never had. I WAS not seeing the extent of Dumbledore's manipulativeness, no way. Although the fact that he did not reach the level that some theories were giving him, helped , but still But ever since I was reminded of that remark, I viewed Dumbledore's actions towards Harry and Sirius that night in quite dark light. What saves Dumbledore for me is his love for Harry and his remorse, but there is no way I now can buy that when he placed that child with Dursleys he was thinking of anything else but his plan and saving this child for anything else, but to become his tool. Carol: I do agree that Black could not have won against Dumbledore in any case, which makes the whole argument rather pointless, but I would hope that he would be persuaded by the child's best interests rather than his own. Alla: Well, yes, rather pointless, I agree. I also think that Sirius' definition of Harry's best interests would not have included to be raised by Dursleys just to be killed by Voldemort later on. I would think that he would have indeed acted by child's best interests and did what his parents wanted to. But that is rather pointless, since we agree that Dumbledore would have won no matter what. Dana: I never said that DD should just hand over Harry and do nothing; what I have been saying over and over again is that DD should have talked to Sirius before placing a final judgment about his supposed guilt. Alla: Yes, me too, me too. GO to GH yourself Dumbledore, you idiot, you live nearby, no? If you are interested in truth, that is. Even if he sent Hagrid to **investigate** I would be happier, but he already put the opinions of who is guilty and who is not. Sigh. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 20:53:59 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:53:59 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179246 > lizzyben: > > DD's plan in DH is so nonsensical from top to bottom that I don't > even know where to begin. Why did Harry have to find the Horcruxes? > Wouldn't using some of the capable Order members be a better idea? > And he left Harry w/no information at all, no helpers, etc. It > could've taken Harry *years* to find them all, while LV's reign > continues. It was only a small miracle (or plot contrivance) that > allowed Harry to find them at all. And why did DD have the weird > will gifts? What was the point? Even if Harry figures out the symbol > (another miracle/deus ex machina), the Hallows were a useless > subplot. As Dead!DD later says, Harry needed the horcruxes, not the > hallows. So, not only is it a red herring, it's a red herring > wrapped in a mystery that wastes everyone's time. > a_svirn: I couldn't agree more, I was so frustrated with this so called "plan", when I finished DH! I know wizards aren't supposed to be logical, but that's just ridiculous. Why on earth couldn't Harry divulge the truth about the Horcruxes? To think that if he did, the battle of Hogwarts could have been avoided altogether and so many lives ? children's lives among them ? would have been spared! If McGonagall and the members of DA searched the castle for the Ravenclaw's diadem Voldemort wouldn't have been the wiser and the whole bloody business could have been averted! Not to mention that there is something supremely cynical in the assumption that the Weasleys are supposed to risk their lives and limbs for Harry, and yet, not to be trusted with any vital information. That's just downright insulting. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 21:41:21 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:41:21 -0000 Subject: Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179247 > a_svirn: > Yes, certainly. But my point is that even if their claim > were "indisputable" they don't come across as Harry's legal > guardians, because they do not administer his fortune. They are more > like hired governors then guardians, and not even hired properly, > come to that. They were forced to assume a responsibility over a very > rich child indeed, and yet expected to provide for his upbringing. > That's hardly fair by any standard, let along legal. Not to mention > that if Dumbledore had at least arranged some regular payments toward > Harry's upkeep, they would have probably treated him much more > decently. lizzyben: This brings up an interesting question: who was the guardian of the Potter estate? The Potters were rich, and they had a bank vault at Gringotts. They apparantly left everything to their son, but if he was a minor, the estate would be administered by a guardian until Harry came of age (assuming WW estate is anything like real world estate). The personal guardian is usually authorized to use money from the estate to provide for the care of the child, and is often the guardian of the estate as well. So, if Sirius was the appointed guardian, he should've had access to the Potter's bank vault, and if he was the guardian of the estate, he should've had the responsibility to manage the Potter's money for Harry's benefit. Sirius should've had the key to the Potters' vault. But then, in SS, HAGRID actually has the key to the Potters' bank vault. How'd that happen? Presumably, Hagrid got the key from Dumbledore. Now, how would Dumbledore get the key to the Potters' bank vault? He's not a blood relation, he's not their heir, he's not the guardian. I wonder if DD "inherited" the Potters' key the same way he "inherited" the Potters' invisibility cloak - just ask to borrow it shortly before the murders, and no one's there to ask for it back. But DD had access to the Potters' bank vault for eleven years. And in all those years, DD never once withdrew some money to provide for Harry's care. lizzyben From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Nov 21 00:10:42 2007 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:10:42 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: <47423e34.20588c0a.22fa.ffffbcc8@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179248 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sherry Gomes wrote: > > Sherry now: > Just want to point out that as nice and logical as this sounds, and I agree, > protect the child and ask questions later. Dumbledore never bothered to ask > questions and find out the truth. He allowed Sirius to stay in the horror > of Azkaban for 12 years, without once trying to find out the truth. So much > for the king of Second Chances. Since reading DH, I have no problem > picturing DD deciding to let Sirius stay in prison so as not to have to deal > with him, if he just happened to be innocent. It would screw up his plan to > have a young healthy godfather/guardian in the world and able to be involved > in Harry's life. Marianne: I agree completely Sherry. Didn't Dumbledore at some point in one of the earlier books say something to Harry about how after Vmort was defeated there was talk about DD becoming Minister of Magic, something which he, DD, didn't want but which still made Cornelius Fudge nervous? I bring this up because if that is indeed the case (and I'm not suffering some sort of brain cramp), and Dumbledore was held in such high regard within Wizard society, it would seem to me that he'd have little problem using some of that influence to get himself allowed into Azkaban for a little chat with Sirius. You know, just to see how he could have misjudged this young man so much as to allow him to work full time as an Order member when Sirius was really a traitor? Of course, sometimes it's easier to do nothing and let things take their course, especially when the course is something that plays into your hands. Marianne From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Nov 21 00:56:37 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:56:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius, Hagrid and Dumbledore and Harry - three men and a baby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47438245.8070609@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 179249 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > During that famous conversation with Sirius, does anybody have any > doubt that Dumbledore used legilimency on him, since he used that on > Harry quite routinely? Is that canon? I don't think we ever actually are told we're seeing Dumbledore use legilimency. (It is common, in fanfiction, to associate the 'twinkle' of his eye with it, but that's not canon) --Random832 From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 01:04:15 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:04:15 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179250 > > Mike: > > > > Dumbledore didn't engineer the release of the prophesy. > > > > lizzyben: > > Oh, didn't he? :) I really still believe that DD deliberately > leaked the prophecy, & IMO that's supported by the text. >-------- > > In regards to the prophecy, a lot of people noticed the > discrepencies between Trelawney & DD's account of that event. > DD said that Snape was thrown out before he heard the whole > thing, but Trelawney said that Aberforth caught Snape outside > the door & then brought him into the room. Mike: Yes, this was the basis for my DD does Lie posts and the ensuing arguments,... ahh, discussions with Neri. Neri said that it was the difference between two accounts and what was important for the recounters. I didn't agree. I thought DD recounted not only to protect Snape, but to also throw us off the trail as to his complicity in the release. But, do go on. > lizzyben: > Snape had an opportunity to hear the entire prophecy, and DD > had an opportunity to Legimens or oblivate Snape. So, the > obvious question was, why did DD let Snape go with that > information? Maybe DD, that trusting soul, didn't suspect that > Snape was involved with the Death Eaters? If that were the case, > DD should've been shocked when Snape came back & revealed that he > was a DE who had taken the prophecy to LV. > > Except, in DH, we learn that DD knew Snape was a Death Eater > all along. ---------- > It's safe to conclude that DD already knew that Snape was a DE > when he was caught listening at the door - and DD allowed him > to run straight to LV with what he had heard. It was a message > to LV from DD, in a sense. Mike: I'm with you so far. DD's actions immediately after Sibyll finished were suspect. Hold that thought on the last sentence, though. > lizzyben: ------ > So, Prophecy!DD would want to know exactly how much of the > prophecy Snape had heard & relayed to LV. > > "What request could a Death Eater make of me?" > "The - the prophecy, the prediction.... Trelawney...." > "Ah, yes," said Dumbledore. "How much did you relay to Lord > Voldemort?" > "Everything - everything I heard!" (DH 681) > > DD's first question is "how much did of the prophecy did you carry > to LV?" Very important - DD only wants LV to hear the first half. > Snape's answer ("everything I heard") seems to satisfy Dumbledore. Mike: Here's where we have divergence. Why ask the question if he already knows the answer? No, that's not it. He could be trying to determine whether Snape is about to be honest with him. But, "everything I heard" is no answer at all insofar as determining *what* Snape actually heard. Unless DD is Legilimensing Snape just then. > lizzyben: > Why? How could DD be sure that Snape didn't hear the second half > of the prophecy? The text tells us how. Right before this exchange, > DD ensures that he & Snape can't be heard by any eavesdroppers. > "Dumbledore flicked his wand. Though leaves and branches still > flew through the night air around them, silence fell on the spot > where he and Snape faced each other." (DH 681) DD cast a silencing > spell. > ------ > I think DD did the same thing with Trelawney. She began > prophecizing, and after the first sentence, Dumbledore cast a > silencing spell to ensure that an eavesdropper (Snape) couldn't > hear the rest of the prophecy. This explains why Snape only heard > and relayed the first half of the prophecy. Mike: Two problems with this analysis. DD's spell made the outside noise go away, there is no indication that he was keeping his conversation with Snape bound to within that bubble. True, with all the outside noise and them being able to speak in lower, more conversational volumes, that would make it difficult to hear them talking (without magic, that is ). But Snape's Muffliato was the spell that put noise in outsider's ears to protect against eavesdroppers and that spell doesn't affect ones immediate ambient noise. The second problem is that for DD to have done something to prevent an eavesdropper from hearing any more of Trelawney's prophesy, shouldn't he have suspected an eavesdropper? There was no indication DD knew Snape was there. Besides, Dumbledore doesn't put much stock in prophesies himself. Why would he immediately think to quash any further release after the first two lines? He doesn't know what's coming next, and he doesn't much care. It's not until Snape is revealed, after the full prophesy, that DD would or should have taken stock of what was said and what that could mean. > lizzyben: > I think DD would have sacrificed the Potters without a second > thought to ensure that the prophecy came true; he was already > planning to sacrifice an unknown family when he first leaked the > prophecy to LV. So when he demanded payment from Snape for > protecting the Potters, IMO he was totally serious about that. If > Snape hadn't promised "anything", I think DD would've allowed the > prophecy to play out as planned. And maybe he still did. Mike: We've now leaped into the formative stage of what to do once the prophesy has gotten to LV. Before that, when DD had the chance to Obliviate or Legilimens Snape, is where my big questions come in. This is when DD shows his contempt for prophesies, imo. He really doesn't care if Snape heard it, nor if Snape is going to take it to LV. He doesn't believe in the damn things. I think the prophesy occurs at Harry's conception, Holloween 1979. The meeting on the windswept hill occurs at least after Harry's birth, and probably much later than that. By that time, DD has received some indication that Voldemort is going to act on the prophesy. Now, finally, DD cares how much of the prophesy Snape heard. The conversation wasn't over when the memory faded out. I'm sure that DD either Legilimensed Snape to learn how much was "everything I heard" or got Snape to tell him exactly how much that was. Now, as to your assertion that DD would sacrifice the Potters; I don't think so, for one simple reason and it was a basic premise of the entire series. What happened in GH had *never* happened before. For DD to have predicted that would happen takes us out of the realm of believability, imo. So DD would have earnestly tried to protect Harry and, by extension, Harry's parents. He couldn't predict the backfiring AK, the split off soul piece, nor what constituted "mark him as his equal". For all DD knew, targeting Harry constituted the marking. In HBP, DD explains to Harry that "Voldemort...was on the lookout for the one who would challenge him" and that "he not only handpicked the man most likely to finish him, handed him uniquely deadly weapons!" (p.510, US Ed.) Well, the "handpicking" part was already done by the time Snape met DD on that hill. The "uniquely deadly weapons" turns out to be the soul piece that gave Harry those powers, not something that DD could have predicted nor counted on. So DD's obvious course of action would have been to do everything to keep Harry alive, not to put him in harms way on the chance that several unknown and never before seen things would occur if Voldemort got the chance to personally attack Harry. > lizzyben: > > The "keeping Harry alive" thing gets a little muddled when DD's > sending Harry into obstacle courses to confront Dark Wizards, > disappearing w/Basiliks on the loose, making Harry enter the Tri- > Wizard tournaments, etc. etc. All part of letting Harry "try his > strength". Mike: It was training, combat training at that. I don't see why it would be hard to believe a manipulative DD wouldn't do these things. You, yourself said: > lizzyben > For example, "Keep an eye on Quirrel, will you?" is very off-hand, > causal remark. JKR doesn't have a big reveal that "OMG Dumbledore > knew Quirrel/Voldemort was after the Stone & totally set the > obstacle course up for Harry to fight him!" But with that one > statement, plus w/Harry's own statement in SS that "(DD) wanted to > give me a chance to face Voldemort." ... and yeah, it's pretty safe > to conclude that he did just that. Mike again: Same for the Basilisk in CoS. Notice that DD was already back at the school and in conversation with the Weasleys when the CoS adventurers turn up, led by Fawkes. Had Fawkes detected that Harry wasn't going to survive, don't you think he would have apperated to DD immediately, and DD would have put everything to rights? And what was the one thing that could stop Basilisk venom? The very thing that DD arrainged to help Harry, a Phoenix. The TWT was a perfect training ground, what with all the new safety precautions. I don't think the trip to the graveyard was in DD's plan, but luck saved Harry on that one. > lizzyben: > > DD's plan in DH is so nonsensical from top to bottom that I don't > even know where to begin. Why did Harry have to find the Horcruxes? > Wouldn't using some of the capable Order members be a better idea? Mike: I think DD's penchant for secrecy was well established within the series. It was a flaw in his personality. He even told Snape that he didn't want to "keep all his secrets in one basket" (quoted from memory). It's a fault that even his brother decries. > lizzyben: > ------ And why did DD have the weird will gifts? What > was the point? Even if Harry figures out the symbol > (another miracle/deus ex machina), the Hallows were a useless > subplot. As Dead!DD later says, Harry needed the horcruxes, not > the hallows. So, not only is it a red herring, it's a red herring > wrapped in a mystery that wastes everyone's time. Mike: DD explained that he wanted Harry to know about them, while at the same time he wanted Harry to be slowed down enough to understand them and make the right decision. As to the plot contrivance - I agree, and I'll not waste time defending JKR's choice in this. > lizzyben: > ------ Everything DD does is cloaked in mystery & secrecy > that actually hurts the mission. It's like DD is more interested > in showing his cleverness w/elaborate Rube Goldberg schemes rather > than creating a plan that works. Harry won by sheer dumb luck - > note that if things had gone according to DD's plan, Voldemort > would have won. Mike: It was DD's **it's all my fault but here's why I did it** speech in OotP that clued me into where DD was coming from. That's when it became clear that DD had a plan for Harry that was too clever by half. It was if he knew his problem with secrecy and instead of correcting it, came up with his clever plans to to make his secrecy problem integral to the plan. Don't tell Harry about the prophesy, do everything you can to keep him in the dark. Lock up Sirius and forbid him to tell. Don't teach Harry yourself, make Snape teach Harry Occlumency, maybe it will forge a bond between them (fat chance!). Don't tell Harry about the Voldiepiece in him, that way he'll meet Voldemort with the intention of sacrificing himself without knowing he could survive it. Don't tell Harry about the Hallows and that he owns one himself, make him waste time discovering that so he has time to mature into the right decision. If I was Harry, I'd have been too pissed at DD by the time I got to "King's Cross" to have listened to a word he said. But, that's the character that JKR wrote. And within the story, I think DD's characterization works just fine. Not that I like him. ;) Mike From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 01:55:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:55:50 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179251 Dana wrote: > > The argument, at least not from my point of view, is not about DD saving Sirius from being innocently locked up in Azkaban but about if Sirius recklessness was at fault of him losing Harry as Carol stated in the post I replied to. Carol responds: That's twice you've stated that I made this claim. However, as you didn't actually quote me, I had to go back to see what I actually said. To quote my own post: "If appointing Sirius Black as Harry's godfather was the simple matter that naming Harry as Teddy Lupin's godfather is, with no ceremony and no certificates involved, I don't see how it could have any legal significance at all. As for being named Harry's "guardian," we have only one reference to that, from Black himself. It could be a slip on JKR's part (she's been known to do that). At any rate, in RL, there's no connection between being selected as a godparent, which is entirely a religious matter and essentially an honorary position (a really good godparent might be a role model and spiritual guide, as well as giving the child presents on birthdays or Christmas), whereas being a guardian is a legal and moral responsibility, in loco parentis. And in the absence of a will stating that the Potters wanted Sirius Black as their child's guardian, I doubt that even the MoM would take the child away from his nearest relatives (especially if DD had explained the protections he was putting on the Dursley home, and Fudge seems to know about them in PoA.) Moreover, once Sirius Black was "known" to be the Secret Keeper who betrayed the Potters to their deaths, no one was going to support his claim to Harry even if it were in the Potters' will, any more than the U.S. courts would grant custody of a child to the parents' chosen guardian if that person had a criminal record and might be a danger to the child. "When Hagrid tells DD that he got the motorcycle from "young Sirius Black," DD asks: "No trouble, was there?" He hasn't told Hagrid about Black's supposedly being SK, but he knows it himself, and took measures to prevent Harry's being turned over to anyone by telling Hagrid that Harry was to go to the Dursleys no matter what. I don't think that Black knew anything about Petunia beyond her bad taste in vases (mentioned in the letter in DH). He certainly could not have known how differently the Dursleys would treat Harry and his cousin Dudley. He may have realized that DD knew best, or he may simply have taken out his frustration by going after Peter Pettigrew (an action he must have known would land him in Azkaban--"I won't be needing it [the motorcycle] anymore"). Rather than fighting Hagrid for his own right to take the child, maybe he actually considered that Harry might be better off in a Muggle household, away from renegade DEs, rather than with him, a single wizard on the run from both DEs and the MoM. (Of course, he could have gone to DD and explained the situation or pleaded his case, but, being Sirius Black, he seems not to have thought of that.) At any rate, I agree with zgirnius that leaving Harry with Hagrid was sensible, much more sensible and much less selfish than taking Harry with him into danger. Going after Peter Pettigrew, however, was just plain reckless. I suppose in his remorse and despair, his only comfort was revenge. "I'll go down, but I'll take Wormtail with me." " IOW, I do not think nor am I claiming that Black lost guardianship by going after Peter Pettigrew. His *legal* guardianship has never been established. It may be a mistake for "godfather," for all we know, and being made a godfather evidently involves only being named by the parents without even any knid of ceremony. Obviously, he could not have lost his godfathership, so to speak. What he did, however, was forfeit any right to claim Harry by foolishly going after PP. To reiterate my original argument, Dumbledore believed that Black had betrayed the Potters to their deaths. The last thing he was about to do, or should have done, was to turn over a baby to the man responsible for his parents' murders. I didn't say this originally, but I'll say it now. It would be like handing Harry over to Peter Pettigrew, who would, of course, be a most unsafe guardian even if he, rather than Black, had been named godfather. Instead, DD took what precautions he could to insure Harry's safety. Black *could* have maintained his rights as godfather, not the hypothetical rights as guardian, by going to Dumbledore and telling him the truth. Instead, he forfeited all chance to see Harry for the entire time he was in Azkaban by going after Peter Pettigrew. He could have been returned to Azkaban or been soul-sucked had he succeeded in killing Pettigrew in PoA. As it is, all he had were two years as Harry's acknowledged godfather, most of that time spent either in exile far away, living in a cave, or living most unhappily in 12 GP. Had he not gone after Pettigrew, none of that would have happened. Again, I'm not talking about forfeiting the right of guardianship, which we don't even know he had. He would have forfeited *that* right, if it existed, in the eyes of the MoM and DD by betraying the Potters. So it was incumbent on him, not to attack Hagrid and seize his godson, as Alla suggested, nor to go after Peter Pettigrew, presumably to kill him, as he actually did, but to reveal the truth about the SK switch, PP's treachery, and PP's Animagus abilities (which would enable him to escape). Instead, he took the worst possible action in terms of his relationship with Harry. Had he not escaped to commit the murder he was arrested for, he'd have had no relationship with Harry at all. Carol, hoping that you understand my argument more clearly now and trying once again to bow out of this thread From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 02:05:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:05:41 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179252 Carol: To reiterate my original argument, Dumbledore believed that Black had betrayed the Potters to their deaths. The last thing he was about to do, or should have done, was to turn over a baby to the man responsible for his parents' murders. Alla: To the man **responsible** for his parents' murders indeed. Alla, who thinks that the last thing Dumbledore should have done was to condemn somebody without checking the facts first. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 03:00:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:00:22 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179253 Carol earlier: > > To reiterate my original argument, Dumbledore believed that Black had betrayed the Potters to their deaths. The last thing he was about to do, or should have done, was to turn over a baby to the man > responsible for his parents' murders. > > > Alla: > > To the man **responsible** for his parents' murders indeed. > > Alla, > > who thinks that the last thing Dumbledore should have done was to > condemn somebody without checking the facts first. > Carol: So you just think he should just hand a baby over to the person he thinks was an accomplice in the child's parents' murders and in the attempted murder of the child himself. Sorry. I can't agree that that's a reasonable proposition or in the child's best interests. The adult Black's right to claim his innocence can wait. The fifteen-month-old Harry's right to life and safety can't. Carol, apologizing for the short post and hoping that she really is through with this thread From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 03:06:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:06:21 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179254 > > Alla, > > > > who thinks that the last thing Dumbledore should have done was to > > condemn somebody without checking the facts first. > > > Carol: > So you just think he should just hand a baby over to the person he > thinks was an accomplice in the child's parents' murders and in the > attempted murder of the child himself. Alla: NO, I think that he should really be sure that this person indeed an accomplice in child's parents murders before taking this child away from him. That matter of him having no right to this baby whatsoever in the first place. IMO. From sherriola at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 03:11:49 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:11:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4743a1fc.27b38c0a.7d14.ffff96a1@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179255 Carol: So you just think he should just hand a baby over to the person he thinks was an accomplice in the child's parents' murders and in the attempted murder of the child himself. Sorry. I can't agree that that's a reasonable proposition or in the child's best interests. The adult Black's right to claim his innocence can wait. The fifteen-month-old Harry's right to life and safety can't. Sherry: I can't speak for Alla, though I think I know her well enough to be confident that isn't at all what she was saying. But with the later advent of a little thing called legilimency, something we know DD was good at, perhaps DD could have managed to bother to talk to Sirius for a few minutes to find out the truth. If he had, he'd have known Sirius was innocent and there could maybe have been a better option than the hateful abusive Dursleys for Harry. But of course, that wouldn't fit with what DD wanted for his sacrificial lamb. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 03:37:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:37:43 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: <4743a1fc.27b38c0a.7d14.ffff96a1@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179256 Sherry: > > I can't speak for Alla, though I think I know her well enough to be > confident that isn't at all what she was saying. But with the later advent > of a little thing called legilimency, something we know DD was good at, > perhaps DD could have managed to bother to talk to Sirius for a few minutes > to find out the truth. Alla: Right, obviously I would not advocate giving Harry to actual murderer. But I certainly do not agree with someone who has no relations to Potters whatsoever just deciding to decide Harry and Sirius fate because he **thinks** Sirius is guilty. I will be even fine with Dumbledore putting Harry to Dursleys **temporarily** but then making double and triple sure that he finds out ALL the facts for himself and helping Sirius'. One of his soldiers and all that. Oh, and Marianne your brain is fine :) Dumbledore was asked to be Minister and refused, I just cannot find a quote now. So, yeah he WAS that influential and I am pretty sure he would be able to get himself to Azkaban to have one conversation with Sirius, if he wanted to IMO of course. I am really truly cannot find any other explanations for decent Dumbledore doing it besides the needs of the plot. And of course the peak of hypocrisy to me was Dumbledore giving **evidence** of Sirius' guilt. What evidence? The ones that disappeared after one conversation? Sigh. Mike: If I was Harry, I'd have been too pissed at DD by the time I got to "King's Cross" to have listened to a word he said. But, that's the character that JKR wrote. And within the story, I think DD's characterization works just fine. Not that I like him. ; Alla: Oh Mike, I left in the few sentences just to be able to say ? brilliant analysis and the one with every word of which I am pretty much forced to agree. > > Alla: > > During that famous conversation with Sirius, does anybody have any > > doubt that Dumbledore used legilimency on him, since he used that on > > Harry quite routinely? Random: > Is that canon? I don't think we ever actually are told we're seeing > Dumbledore use legilimency. (It is common, in fanfiction, to associate > the 'twinkle' of his eye with it, but that's not canon) Alla: What is canon? That Dumbledore used legilimency on Sirius? No, just my speculation. That Dumbledore used legilimency on Harry many times? I believe it is, even though to my knowledge he only admits it once. I think it is in HBP, when Harry comes to him pissed that Snape is an eavesdropper and Dumbledore kept it quiet. Dumbledore wants to figure out why Harry is so upset and tells him that he never was a good occlumenc ( I think) I think that when Dumbledore for example looking in Harry's eyes in CoS and PoA, yes, on reread I think JKR wants us to be sure that it is legilimency. IMO obviously. From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Nov 21 05:45:03 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:45:03 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179257 Carol: > That's twice you've stated that I made this claim. However, as you > didn't actually quote me, I had to go back to see what I actually > said. To quote my own post: > > Carol, hoping that you understand my argument more clearly now and > trying once again to bow out of this thread Dana: This was not the post I initially applied to and secondly I did quote you in my initial reply, which let to the responses of several people who thus should also have been aware of the part I quoted. Your post I responded to is this one. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179188 And the piece I specifically responded to is this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179192 Carol responds: > > Recklessness (as, surely, even his most devoted fans agree), is Sirius Black's defining characteristic. Not only did his arrest after his reckless decision to go after Pettigrew himself cost the child Harry a relationship with his godfather from infancy to age thirteen. Dana: You specifically said here that it was due to Sirius' reckless decision to go after Peter that it cost Harry his connection to his Godfather and that wasn't the case as I have mentioned now several times. I was not debating the legality of his guardianship as a Godfather, nor was I debating the idea that DD should hand over Harry to a suspected traitor without checking things out first. What I have been debating is that his decision to go after Peter had nothing to do with the loss of the connection between Harry and himself because DD had already made his decision before Sirius made his. If DD really was that concerned with Harry's welfare as many on this list seem to want to bring forward, then he owed it to Harry to make absolutely sure beyond any doubt that in fact yes, Sirius had betrayed his parents but DD never bothered to do so. Personally I do not think that when Sirius and Harry's Parents decided to change secret keeper, they ever envisioned that as a consequence of Peter's betrayal, Sirius would be dubbed traitor and thus risk losing custody over Harry. It is easy to state in hindsight that they should have known this or should have known that but if they had known then they wouldn't have put their trust in Peter now would they? DD on the other hand should have made absolutely sure that Sirius was in fact guilty as charged before he placed his final judgment on the kid's appointed guardian. But enough said just wanted to point out the post and the part I really responded to. JMHO Dana From penhaligon at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 06:21:30 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:21:30 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <749114CED89F4606AA275723495A5FA8@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 179258 > Ceridwen: > They may care. Gryffindors tend to uphold the prevailing attitude > of "good". If it was considered "bad" to be gay in the 1970s/1980s > WW, then James and Lily may have cared a great deal. All a person > can do is go with what is known at the time, after all. Panhandle: I'm not sure if I can agree with "all a person can do is go with what is known at the time ..." My mother, who passed away 2 weeks ago at the age of 88, was raised in the rural Southern United States to family which, while rather genteel, was definitely racist. Yet, at the early age 18, in the mid 1930s, turned against everything she had ever been taught by her school, church, and family and became an early civil rights activist. Good people know right from wrong and if they are brave, like many Gryffindors and my mother, will do the right thing, no matter what their peers may believe. Otherwise, how can any of us ever progress this status quo? Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 08:01:19 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:01:19 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: References: <006901c82b83$664c0f70$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: <700201d40711210001s4d85d7f7qcd746077a6e86d71@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179259 > Montavilla47: > There's also the other veiled sexual violence events in the book-- > a surprisingly large number, really, starting with Ginny's > possession by Tom, the sexually-charged rebirth of Voldemort, > the sexually-tinged humiliation of SWM, the possible rape of > Dolores Umbridge by the centaurs, and the veiled rape > threats towards Hermione by Fenrir Greyback. > > Am I missing any? Kemper now: Cormac McLaggen Romilda Vane Merope Gaunt The Bloody Baron > Montavilla47: > I wonder if the number of sexually violent episodes in the > books is simply a reflection of how common sexual violence > is in Western culture nowadays? Or is it that we're projecting > these images onto the story because we're conditioned to > think that way? Kemper now: Western culture is aware of sexual violence and shines a light on it. That light might be a match or a brief candle, but it's still a light. For me, the first time I saw sexual violence depicted by the culture was General Hospital's Luke and Laura (which is pretty effed up cause I was nine or ten). After that, I was afraid of Luke. I also saw the episode where Luke and Laura were about ready to do it (consensually) when Luke says something like "Tell your boyfriend/husband that it was me that raped you". wtgdf. I didn't get what was going on, but it felt wrong. ... But I digress.Back to the light of the match. It flickered on sexual violence, but it didn't show the true detail of it. Now the light is a supernova with shows like Law and Order: SVU, to name one of many. The images (impressions?) that we infer from the story comes because we have been taught, made more aware which allows us to perceive more in the subtext. Kemper From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Nov 21 08:11:19 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:11:19 +1000 Subject: transfiguring food etc in DH Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09987@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 179260 Hi All, It always bothered me that the trio found it so hard to find food when they were first running/camping in DH. They were apparating from rural place to rural place. Where were all the rabbits and other wild animals. Surely there would have been more than wild mushrooms? It was hardly winter when they set out -- it was reallt late summer. there should have been loads of edible plants around, not to mention fish in the streams. That part about them living on nothing for days just never sat well with me. What do others think? Not having lived in Britain I am unsure about what they could have caught or picked, but it seems to me that England is hardly a barren place with no wildlife? Sharon From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 11:16:47 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:16:47 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179261 > > lizzyben: > > ------ And why did DD have the weird will gifts? What > > was the point? Even if Harry figures out the symbol > > (another miracle/deus ex machina), the Hallows were a useless > > subplot. As Dead!DD later says, Harry needed the horcruxes, not > > the hallows. So, not only is it a red herring, it's a red herring > > wrapped in a mystery that wastes everyone's time. > > Mike: > DD explained that he wanted Harry to know about them, while at the > same time he wanted Harry to be slowed down enough to understand them > and make the right decision. As to the plot contrivance - I agree, > and I'll not waste time defending JKR's choice in this. > a_svirn: It's not just contrivance, it's an abomination. What is it, a personality test? There are God knows how many lives at stake, and what Dumbledore does? Jerks his puppet strings, to prove points that are of no interest to anybody but himself. He had been a head of the Resistance and everyone knew that he had been grooming Harry to replace him. Then through to his own weakness he died, and Harry following his instructions vanished without a trace leaving all the rest in the lurch. They were 1) completely unprepared and had no plan of their own ? because they looked up first to Dumbledore and then to Harry to provide instructions and leadership (am I the only one who find it hilarious that they followed MUNDUNGUS FLETCHER's suggestion as to how get Harry out of his uncle's house? It is if though they are constitutionally unable to think for themselves), b) fractured, because Dumbledore had done his not inconsiderable best to alienate the current minister. As a result, it was child's play for Voldemort to stage his coup. Srimgeour died the most painful death ? without giving Harry away ? and probably cursing Dumbledore with his dying breath. He certainly had every reason to do so. Muggles were killed by hundreds, muggleborn prosecuted, the Resistance demoralised. But what did it matter? Let Harry take his tame to figure out what sort of test Dumbledore set up for him, and make the right decision. As for not telling anybody about the Horcruxes, it's just ridiculous. McGonagall and the DA were in a very good position to hunt down the Rowenclaw heirloom. They could talk to the ghost at the beginning of a school year ? it was an obvious move, much used in preDH fanfics. It is somewhat incredulous that neither Dumbledore, nor Harry or Hermione had thought of that earlier. But maybe SOMEONE in the Resistance group would have put two and two together. Instead of breaking into Snape's office the DA activists would have investigated the Ravenclaw Horcrux. Voldemort wouldn't even know about it and the Battle of Hogwarts would have been unnecessary. Just to give one example. Really I thought GOF's pointless Tournament was bad enough, but that's just such a height of absurdity, not to mention cynicism (considering the death-toll), I couldn't believe the evidence of my eyes when I first read it. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Nov 21 11:56:15 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:56:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] transfiguring food etc in DH References: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09987@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <002001c82c35$8573b260$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179262 Sharon: It always bothered me that the trio found it so hard to find food when they were first running/camping in DH. They were apparating from rural place to rural place. Where were all the rabbits and other wild animals. Surely there would have been more than wild mushrooms? It was hardly winter when they set out -- it was really late summer. there should have been loads of edible plants around, not to mention fish in the streams. That part about them living on nothing for days just never sat well with me. What do others think? Not having lived in Britain I am unsure about what they could have caught or picked, but it seems to me that England is hardly a barren place with no wildlife? Shelley: I think this is more a matter that the author hasn't the experience of hunting or fishing, and thus Rowling herself would have been out there starving, not knowing what is immediately available to eat. Or, she was trying to show that these kids were "city" kids, you know the kind who have always seen turkey frozen and sealed in a package, and chicken already cut up, so that they have never seen food in it's raw and alive state and the process to get it to the table? The wizarding equivalent might be "conjured" food, or whatever wizards do to normally get food. It's never really said where Molly gets the ingredients for her soups and gravies that come out of her wand. You would think they would know some spells for cooking, or Hermione have researched that part before leaving. At the stream, couldn't they have "Accio fish"ed? Yes, that bothered me too, because for all the research Hermione did, I could see her taking along a book called "surviving in the wild", and referencing it during the trip to show Harry which mushroom and plants would make a meal, and how you would make a trap to catch a wild animal, and then following the directions to skin a squirrel. It would have been more realistic to have her make a not-so-nice looking soup of squirrel and mushrooms, only to have Ron complain that it wasn't mammaMolly's cooking, and then to have Hermione tell him off about it. Or to have Ron complain about having to skin the squirrel. Then it would only have been partly a matter of starving, but yes, as they moved around, but some areas would have been abundant in wild berries which can be eaten straight off the vine, but even in the darkest of forests there should be deer and squirrel, and near fields would have mice and other rodents. Even Sirius in the cave showed he was resourceful enough to catch rodents. You are right- that stream they stopped by one time should have had fish. An accurate picture would have been times of lean and times of plenty, depending on where they were, or complaints of eating the same things without the variety. But no, starving really doesn't make sense at all, based on the normal availability of wild things to eat, and the fact that they are wizards with spells to help them. Even if Rowling has never had experience herself with camping or hunting or fishing, surely she could have researched this a bit? I think a more accurate complaint should have been no toilet to take a proper crap on, or lack of toilet paper (although wizard spells for cleaning might take care of that end?), or missing a nice hot shower or long soak in the tub. I could see Ron whining about missing all of the normal creature comforts that a warm home provides, such as fresh laundry and such, so that he was running Hermione ragged trying to make a nice place for them in the tent, but failing to match the comforts of a stable house. My husband pointed out that they are only kids, after all, and their experiences have been academics with adults taking care of most of those other chores. There is a learning curve with surviving on your own, such as suddenly picking up all the work yourself, and realizing that if you don't clean your own clothes, for example, that they stay dirty. I could see Ron whining about suddendly having to do all this work- again stuff that mommaMolly always did for him, and Hermione telling him off about it because he was being such a baby about missing all the stuff that he took for granted before. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 13:46:43 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:46:43 -0000 Subject: transfiguring food etc in DH In-Reply-To: <002001c82c35$8573b260$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > Sharon: > It always bothered me that the trio found it so hard to find food when they > were first running/camping in DH. They were apparating from rural place to > rural place. Where were all the rabbits and other wild animals. Surely there > would have been more than wild mushrooms? It was hardly winter when they set > out -- it was really late summer. there should have been loads of edible > plants around, not to mention fish in the streams. That part about them > living on nothing for days just never sat well with me. What do others > think? Not having lived in Britain I am unsure about what they could have > caught or picked, but it seems to me that England is hardly a barren place > with no wildlife? > > > Shelley: > I think this is more a matter that the author hasn't the experience of > hunting or fishing, and thus Rowling herself would have been out there > starving, not knowing what is immediately available to eat. Or, she was > trying to show that these kids were "city" kids, you know the kind who have > always seen turkey frozen and sealed in a package, and chicken already cut > up, so that they have never seen food in it's raw and alive state and the > process to get it to the table? The wizarding equivalent might be "conjured" > food, or whatever wizards do to normally get food. It's never really said > where Molly gets the ingredients for her soups and gravies that come out of > her wand. You would think they would know some spells for cooking, or > Hermione have researched that part before leaving. At the stream, couldn't > they have "Accio fish"ed? > a_svirn: Especially since others in their place did exactly that. Was it Ted Tonks who Accio'ed salmons? And after successfully Acciing Hagrid, you'd think rabbits and hens would be child's play for Harry. In fact, what was stopping them from summoning groceries from the nearest Tesco? With a powerful enough spell they wouldn't even have to come close to the premises. And considering that Hermione could successfully banish objects to their proper places while still in her fourth year, she could dispatch money to the cashier without a problem. And couldn't they take a leaf out of Slughorn's book, at least occasionally, and live in muggle places? They wouldn't even have to bother with a piano. From ejblack at rogers.com Wed Nov 21 15:37:15 2007 From: ejblack at rogers.com (Jeanette) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:37:15 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179264 It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems to be a very negative feel to a lot of the posts. People are trashing JKR as a writer, people are trashing the various once-loved characters. It feels like if a newbie wandered onto this site he/she would conclude that the books aren't worth reading and we all have joined the list just because we hate the books/characters and want to warn people not to waste their time. Is it because we invested a lot of time and emotion on the story and feel cheated either that it is over or that it didn't end in the way we wanted? Either way, it's not pleasant reading these days. Before there was always some interesting theory or insight being played with between posts; surely we have not run out of ideas spawned by the incredibly rich world JKR created. Jeanette From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 16:01:02 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:01:02 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179265 > a_svirn: > As for not telling anybody about the Horcruxes, it's just ridiculous. > McGonagall and the DA were in a very good position to hunt down the > Rowenclaw heirloom. They could talk to the ghost at the beginning of a > school year ? it was an obvious move, much used in preDH fanfics. It > is somewhat incredulous that neither Dumbledore, nor Harry or Hermione > had thought of that earlier. But maybe SOMEONE in the Resistance group > would have put two and two together. Instead of breaking into Snape's > office the DA activists would have investigated the Ravenclaw Horcrux. > Voldemort wouldn't even know about it and the Battle of Hogwarts would > have been unnecessary. Just to give one example. Montavilla47: It gets even worse when you consider that Dumbledore was hunting those Horcuxes for years. He told Harry that he thought one of them would be either a Ravenclaw or a Gryffindor object (and then ruled out the sword himself, leaving only the Ravenclaw object.) So.... Dumbledore never thought to ask Flitwick about the diadem? Never thought to ask the Grey Lady, who has been floating around Hogwarts for a thousand years? Or to ask the ghosts or the portraits what they remembered about Tom Riddle? Then again, had he done so, we'd have spent the whole of DH yelling at Harry to remember that tiara in HBP. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 16:12:07 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:12:07 -0000 Subject: transfiguring food etc in DH In-Reply-To: <002001c82c35$8573b260$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > Sharon: > It always bothered me that the trio found it so hard to find food when they > were first running/camping in DH. They were apparating from rural place to > rural place. Where were all the rabbits and other wild animals. Surely there > would have been more than wild mushrooms? It was hardly winter when they set > out -- it was really late summer. there should have been loads of edible > plants around, not to mention fish in the streams. That part about them > living on nothing for days just never sat well with me. What do others > think? Not having lived in Britain I am unsure about what they could have > caught or picked, but it seems to me that England is hardly a barren place > with no wildlife? > > > Shelley: > I think this is more a matter that the author hasn't the experience of > hunting or fishing, and thus Rowling herself would have been out there > starving, not knowing what is immediately available to eat. Or, she was > trying to show that these kids were "city" kids, you know the kind who have > always seen turkey frozen and sealed in a package, and chicken already cut > up, so that they have never seen food in it's raw and alive state and the > process to get it to the table? The wizarding equivalent might be "conjured" > food, or whatever wizards do to normally get food. It's never really said > where Molly gets the ingredients for her soups and gravies that come out of > her wand. You would think they would know some spells for cooking, or > Hermione have researched that part before leaving. At the stream, couldn't > they have "Accio fish"ed? Montavilla47: But... isn't *Ron* the country boy, what with the burrow and the chickens and the six older brothers? How do you spend eleven years living in a rural house without knowing how to pick berries? We have a vacation house in the country and every kid I know there spent time fishing the streams. We aren't into hunting, but that's because we are "city folk." Our neighbors hunt. As a kid, I knew where to get mint, licorice root, and three or four kinds of berries. All wild. The teenagers did a little mushroom hunting--or "shroom" hunting. Not exactly for eating. Actually, I wouldn't go near a wild mushroom unless I had a guide. There are too many poisonous ones and if you don't know what you're doing, you could be in real trouble. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Nov 21 16:13:56 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:13:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why down on all the characters? Message-ID: <255920.26705.qm@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179267 Jeanette wrote: Is it because we invested a lot of time and emotion on the story and feel cheated either that it is over or that it didn't end in the way we wanted? Either way, it's not pleasant reading these days. Before there was always some interesting theory or insight being played with between posts; surely we have not run out of ideas spawned by the incredibly rich world JKR created. Irene: For me it's not because it didn't end in the way I wanted. I was pretty sure it was not going to, it didn't stop me from enjoying the first six books. I didn't expect it to end my way, but I (reasonably?) expected it to end in a way consistent with the story and the world which appeared to be incredibly rich. I'm so bitter and disappointed because it did not. Contrived plot devices, stupid hallows that jumped at us out of nowhere, plot holes, aborted or reversed character development, the world itself is not consistent and does not appear to be that well thought-out as it seemed. All that on a purely technical level. The morality of the story is another bag of disappointment altogether. If you ask me how is that possible that one disliked book devalues for me the previous six, which I've enjoyed so much and defended from friends who called it "pulp", here is the explanation. Imagine a painter who says that he is revealing his big picture to us pixel by pixel. It does not make sense at first, and you can't see where it's going, but some fragments look very pretty and intriguing, and it's great fun to imagine possible connections between them. So, in the end everything is revealed (with lots of ado, I must say) and the picture does not look that great! You liked what seemed to be some random doodles in the hope that when all the pixels are there, it will make sense and look coherent. But if it did not, then it's OK to critisize the random doodles. They had no value on their own, the value was based on future expectations which did not materialise. Remember little Mark Evans fiasco? >From a clever clue it turned to a blooper? Lots of clever clues and possible connections in the first six books evaporated, and nothing much is left. Irene From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 16:58:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:58:31 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179268 Carol earlier: > > That's twice you've stated that I made this claim. However, as you > > didn't actually quote me, I had to go back to see what I actually > > said. To quote my own post: > > > > Carol, hoping that you understand my argument more clearly now and > > trying once again to bow out of this thread > > > Dana: > This was not the post I initially applied to and secondly I did quote you in my initial reply, which let to the responses of several people who thus should also have been aware of the part I quoted. > > And the piece I specifically responded to is this: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179192 > > Carol responds: > > > Recklessness (as, surely, even his most devoted fans agree), is Sirius Black's defining characteristic. Not only did his arrest after his reckless decision to go after Pettigrew himself cost the child Harry a relationship with his godfather from infancy to age thirteen. > > > Dana: > You specifically said here that it was due to Sirius' reckless > decision to go after Peter that it cost Harry his connection to his > Godfather and that wasn't the case as I have mentioned now several > times. > I was not debating the legality of his guardianship as a Godfather, > nor was I debating the idea that DD should hand over Harry to a > suspected traitor without checking things out first. > Carol responds: My apologies. With Yahoo's current set-up, it's hard to follow a thread back to a particular post and I seem to have traced it to the wrong one. However, my point is that I never said that Sirius Black's reckless behavior in going after Pettigrew cost him Harry's *guardianship.* That hypothetical guardianship has never been established and the term "guardian" is used in relation to Black only once, IIRC. A godfather is not a guardian and has no legal rights. What I said is that his reckless behavior in going after PP cost him *a relationship with Harry.* And I still firmly believe that. Carol, whose arguments can be found upthread by anyone so inclined From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 17:59:53 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:59:53 -0000 Subject: Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179269 > Carol: That hypothetical guardianship has never been > established and the term "guardian" is used in relation to Black only > once, IIRC. a_svirn: I honestly don't understand this argument. It is stated in canon in the most unambiguous way imaginable that Sirius Black was appointed Harry's guardian by his parents. You may not believe Sirius (though I don't see why ? he never once lied to Harry or anybody else for that matter), but not a single character in the books has ever said anything to the contrary. If some fact or another is stated in canon and has never been challenged by the end of the last book, then we must regard it as "established", mustn't we? Otherwise I don't see how we can possibly establish anything at all. > Carol: > What I said is that his reckless behavior in going after PP cost him > *a relationship with Harry.* And I still firmly believe that. a_svirn: Ultimately it didn't, though. I don't think Harry could have loved Sirius better if he had known him as a small child. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Nov 21 16:58:06 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:58:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why down on all the characters? References: <255920.26705.qm@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002b01c82c5f$b14e67c0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179270 > Irene: > I didn't expect it to end my way, but I (reasonably?) expected it to end > in a way consistent with the story and the world which appeared to be > incredibly rich. > I'm so bitter and disappointed because it did not. Contrived plot devices, > stupid hallows that jumped at us out of nowhere, plot holes, aborted or > reversed character development, the world itself is not consistent and > does not appear to be that well thought-out as it seemed. Shelley: That's exactly it for me. This book did not have the same feel as the last 6. The last 6 are totally consistent with one another, except for a change in floor of a room, or some other odd detail, but they had a the same feel and level of writing. This book stands out and alone as different, where she's trying to tie things all together, but didn't quite succeed to a level of believability that the first 6 had. Her ending wasn't as thought out as the other story arcs, and that is disappointing because this book should have been the crown jewel of the series- the one that completed and complemented them all. Instead, she put a lot of work into building up the crown, adorned it with 6 shining jewels of great value, and then topped the 7th one with a dud of lesser value, and it stands out in contrast to the others. I still think she should have written it, taken a break for a month, reviewed all her previous plot lines and characters AS SHE WROTE THEM (not from memory, but actually rereading what we had read in books 1-6), and then read her 7th book to see if it consistently matched in theme, style and all story arcs she wanted to include were finished in completion. Only then would we have gotten a more polished book that more people would have been happy with. It feels like it needs editing, that she had rushed this one. From davegl69 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 19:29:04 2007 From: davegl69 at yahoo.com (davegl69) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:29:04 -0000 Subject: The Fidelius Charm for the Potters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179271 What I haven't ever been able to figure out is why wasn't James the Secret Keeper? Before OOP I thought it had to be someone else then the person casting the spell than Dumbledore casts it over 12gp but I chalk that up to him being the most powerful wizard. then in Deathly Hallows the Weasleys cast it at aunt Muriel's and Shell cottage and Mr. Weasley and Bill are the secret keepers. So is it me or is there a major plot hole there? davegl69 From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Nov 21 19:48:03 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:48:03 -0000 Subject: violence in the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179272 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > There's also the other veiled sexual violence events in the book-- > a surprisingly large number, really, starting with Ginny's > possession by Tom, the sexually-charged rebirth of Voldemort, > the sexually-tinged humiliation of SWM, the possible rape of > Dolores Umbridge by the centaurs, and the veiled rape > threats towards Hermione by Fenrir Greyback. > > Am I missing any? Allie: Can you please elaborate on what you mean by Ginny's possession by Tom. I never read anything sexual in that. He used her closeness with the diary to possess her, but I did not get the impression that there was anything sexual about or that it even mattered that Ginny was a girl. The same thing could have happened if say, Colin Creevey were writing in the diary. (And yes sexual violence can be same sex I get that.) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 20:10:10 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:10:10 -0000 Subject: transfiguring food etc in DH In-Reply-To: <002001c82c35$8573b260$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > Sharon: > It always bothered me that the trio found it so hard to find > food when they were first running/camping in DH. ... Where > were all the rabbits and other wild animals. Surely there > would have been more than wild mushrooms? ... > > > Shelley: > ... At the stream, couldn't they have "Accio fish"ed? > > ... But no, starving really doesn't make sense at all, based > on the normal availability of wild things to eat, and the > fact that they are wizards with spells to help them. > > ... > > My husband pointed out that they are only kids, after all, > and their experiences have been academics with adults taking > care of most of those other chores. There is a learning curve > with surviving on your own, ... bboyminn: Given that they managed to survive for roughly nine month in the wild, I would say they picked up their survival skill rather quickly. Keep in mind that Britain is pretty far north, roughly on par with central Canada. So, I suspect winter comes quickly. Doubt full there were many berries around that late in the season. But, THE DID SURVIVE, so they were obviously finding food. Note on the very night we see the Goblin Party Accio Salmon from the stream, the Trio were eating fish that they had caught. Though, if they had not been distracted by other things, I'm sure they would have collectively slapped themselves on the foreheads for not thinking of 'Accio Salmon' themselves. Further, I'm sure after the incident, they did exactly that. Someone wondered why they didn't just go to Tesco's grocery, well they did, on occasion we see them going into the grocery store under the cloak, take what they want, and leaving money behind. Still, it would be unwise to linger in highly populated areas. Again, NINE MONTHS in the wild living rough and hard, and they absolutely don't seem to have been starving. True what food they had probably wasn't as pleasant and well prepared as home-cooked food, but it sustained them. So, I reject the idea that they didn't know what they were doing, they survived, so they absolutely DID know what they were doing. Though I admit, they could have probably done much better with some survival training. I also suspect that JKR want to spare young readers images of the Trio killing and cleaning rabbits, pheasant, and chickens. So, those thing are assumed but not stated. JKR does give us several examples of how the Trio managed to find food. As to bathrooms and water, the tent had everything, though JKR is not incline to mention bathroom function unless it is necessary for the story. But note the first thing Hermione did when they started camping, is go to the kitchen to make tea. She fetched her tea kettle, but no mention of fetching water, so I assume the tent had running water. If it had running water, then likely it had a bathroom. So, that problem is solved. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 20:18:50 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:18:50 -0000 Subject: transfiguring food etc in DH In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09987@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179274 --- Sharon Hayes wrote: > > > Hi All, > > It always bothered me that the trio found it so hard to find > food when they were first running/camping in DH. ... > > Sharon > bboyminn: As you can see from my post farther down in this thread, the Trio had no problem finding food over the course of several months of camping. What puzzles me more is how they suddenly had so much food at Grimmauld Place for Kreacher to cook. He was cooking up a storm; soups, stews, savory pies, puddings/deserts, etc.... They must have raided a Tesco's and brought back hundreds of Pounds (?BPS) of food. That seems a bit dangerous doesn't it? Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 20:35:54 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:35:54 -0000 Subject: The Fidelius Charm for the Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179275 --- "davegl69" wrote: > > What I haven't ever been able to figure out is why wasn't > James the Secret Keeper? Before OOP I thought it had to be > someone else then the person casting the spell than > Dumbledore casts it over 12gp but I chalk that up to him > being the most powerful wizard. then in Deathly Hallows the > Weasleys cast it at aunt Muriel's and Shell cottage and Mr. > Weasley and Bill are the secret keepers. > > So is it me or is there a major plot hole there? > > davegl69 > bboyminn: Part of the problem here is simply not knowing enough about the nature and creation of the Fidelius Charm. It seems clear that the Spell on Grimmauld Place, Aunt Murial's, and Shell Cottage is on the location, so that any one who comes to that place is protected. But it appears that the spell on the Potter's was literally on the Potters. They were what needed protecting. When James and Lily died, the Fidelius Charm broke, or so we are told. But when Dumbledore died, the Charm on Grimmauld Place did not die. Also, it might have been because Peter betrayed the trust or fidelity that was placed in him in the charms creation. When the trust or fidelity was so egregiously broken, the corresponding charm was also broken. Perhaps, the caster of the Fidelius can not also be the subject of the Fidelius. In other words you can cast it on object or other people, but you can't cast it on yourself. Again, I'm not saying these things did happen, I am only illustrating that we don't really know enough about the nature of the Fidelius Charm to know for sure how it should or will work in various circumstance. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 20:40:57 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:40:57 -0000 Subject: OT: *Official* HPforGrownUP ....Official??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179276 I just noticed that we are no longer merely HP for Grownups, but we are now the OFFICIAL HP for Grownups. Did something happen that I don't know about? Have we been 'officially' sanctioned by some body?? Just curious. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 20:42:24 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:42:24 -0000 Subject: The Fidelius Charm for the Potters & Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179277 > davegl69 > > What I haven't ever been able to figure out is why wasn't James > the Secret Keeper? -- Then in Deathly Hallows the Weasleys > cast it at aunt Muriel's and Shell cottage and Mr. Weasley and > Bill are the secret keepers. > > So is it me or is there a major plot hole there? Mike: I think part of what we were supposed to get from the whole Godric's Hollow fiasco, was that the Potters (or maybe specifically, James) and Sirius were both inexperienced and too clever for their own good. They think up this great plan, whereby they put the unlikely Peter in as the SK, when everyone expects and they have actually told some that Sirius would be the SK. This way, if someone goes looking for them, supposedly it will take time to figure out that the Potters are hidden by a Fidelius. Then they would have to go look for the most likely SK for the Potters and Sirius was in hiding himself. Nobody would ever think that the Potters installed little Peter Pettigrew as their SK, so nobody would go looking for him. It all sounds so clever when I lay it out like that, doesn't it? In fact, it sounds sort of like something that Dumbledore would come up with, which may be what they were going for. You want a Fidelius plot hole? How about asking why Voldemort didn't hide at least one of his Horcruxes with a Fidelius? Surely he knew the charm. If he makes himself the SK, someone trying to find it is caught in a catch 22. Voldemort isn't going to tell, so the only way to find it is to kill him and hope to get the secret out of someone else who knew it. Except you can't kill Voldemort while he has the Horcrux, so you have to eliminate the Horcrux first. For a guy that operates in secrecy, I'd have thought this would have been a no-brainer. But then, I guess that was exactly what Voldemort turned out to be, a no-brainer. Mike From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 22:02:12 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:02:12 -0000 Subject: The Fidelius Charm for the Potters & Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179278 > Mike: > I think part of what we were supposed to get from the whole Godric's > Hollow fiasco, was that the Potters (or maybe specifically, James) > and Sirius were both inexperienced and too clever for their own good. > > They think up this great plan, whereby they put the unlikely Peter > in as the SK, when everyone expects and they have actually told some > that Sirius would be the SK. a_svirn: Not *some*. James told *Dumbledore* that Sirius was going to be their secret keeper. "Naturally," said Professor McGonagall. "James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself... and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters' Secret-Keeper himself." So not only the Potters declined Dumbledore's services, but they deliberately misled him about their plans. The most likely conclusion is that they didn't trust the Venerable Headmaster. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 22:16:01 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:16:01 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179279 > Jeanette wrote: > > It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems to be > a very negative feel to a lot of the posts. Mike: I'm not! Oh sure, there were plenty of plot holes, but they didn't ruin the story for me. We've been pointing out the plot holes for a long time on this list. In fact, I rather have fun discovering them. Pointing them out doesn't mean the story sucks, imo. > Jeanette > People are trashing JKR as a writer, people are trashing > the various once-loved characters. Mike: Kind of depends on who's "once-loved" characters we're talking about, doesn't it? I loved Sirius, and I'll defend him until the cows come home, warts and all. I never particularly liked Dumbledore, found him too self-centered for my taste. I think DH exposed us to what I thought about DD all along. I still don't hate him, like I hated Snape, but he never was in my top 10 characters. I like Ron, thought his humor was one of the best things about the books. I was rewarded with a lot of it in DH. I also got to watch him grow up and transform in a way that I didn't think Harry and Hermione did. As to trashing JKR; I don't agree with that position, but I'll defend ones right to say it. If I don't think a position is valid, I can ignore it or argue against it. But this is a 'for Grown-ups' site, so we don't have rules that tell someone they can't say it. > Jeanette > It feels like if a newbie wandered onto this site he/she would > conclude that the books aren't worth reading and we all have > joined the list just because we hate the books/characters and > want to warn people not to waste their time. Mike: I've no doubt that some do feel that way. But I also think the vast majority of the posts are critical analysis of the plot lines, the characters, and the messages being conveyed. There may seem like a lot of negativity when one poster is defending their character against another post defending their character. Take the on-going Sirius vs. Dumbledore thread. One says that Dumbledore cost Sirius his chance to be a good godfather/guardian to Harry. Another says that Sirius's recklessness was at fault. Both of those are spoken (written) negatives, but there is the unspoken (unwritten) implication of the positive for the character one is not blaming. > Jeanette > Is it because we invested a lot of time and emotion on the story > and feel cheated either that it is over or that it didn't end in > the way we wanted? Mike: I'll turn this question back to you, is either the way you felt? For me, I had guesses on what had happened and wanted to find out whether I was right or wrong (obviously hoped I was right). My only disappointments were when I didn't get a satisfactory resolution to things that I thought needed it, especially things JKR *promised* we would get more of. I wanted to learn more on the werewolf prank, we got some but not enough, imo. I guess JKR didn't think we needed more than we got. I accept that even if I didn't like that. For some, I imagine that the story not ending with, say, a better resolution for the Slytherin situation meant that JKR failed in her authorial duties. I don't hold that opinion, but that doesn't make that opinion invalid, and I appreciate that we have a place to discuss that position. I wouldn't participate in a board that said that only some opinions are acceptable. I'd much rather have the chance to say that I disagree with such and such opinion, than say "Oh, that's too negative, we don't want to put up with that kind of talk here." > Jeanette > Either way, it's not pleasant reading these days. Before there > was always some interesting theory or insight being played with > between posts; surely we have not run out of ideas spawned by the > incredibly rich world JKR created. Mike: I'm sorry you feel that way. I thought there was much more negativity right after DH's release than there is now. And I think that's natural, it's much easier to find things wrong with a book than it is to convey what one thought was right. That seems to take longer to put into words. Also, there are no more "Is Snape evil?" kind of story lines left after the last book. I certainly don't think we are out of topics, and I think there are plenty of unresolved plot lines that are still available to speculate upon. Of course there aren't as many as before, the series is over, a lot of those theories have been sent to the bottom of Theory Bay. Mike, who still enjoyed the entire series, including DH, plot holes, failed plot lines and all. ;) From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Nov 21 22:46:13 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:46:13 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: transfiguring food etc in DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5043FA@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 179280 a_svirn: Especially since others in their place did exactly that. Was it Ted Tonks who Accio'ed salmons? And after successfully Acciing Hagrid, you'd think rabbits and hens would be child's play for Harry. In fact, what was stopping them from summoning groceries from the nearest Tesco? With a powerful enough spell they wouldn't even have to come close to the premises. And considering that Hermione could successfully banish objects to their proper places while still in her fourth year, she could dispatch money to the cashier without a problem. And couldn't they take a leaf out of Slughorn's book, at least occasionally, and live in muggle places? They wouldn't even have to bother with a piano. Sharon: And for that matter, why couldn't they transfigure stuff into food? I don't understand how the law that says you have to have food to transfigure it can work (sorry can't remember the name of the law). if they could learn to transfigure a rat into a goblet, why not vice versa -- ie. transfigure a goblet into something live they could eat, such as a chicken, or fish? That law seems rather arbitrary to me. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Nov 21 22:54:55 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:54:55 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: transfiguring food etc in DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC504409@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 179281 bboyminn: As you can see from my post farther down in this thread, the Trio had no problem finding food over the course of several months of camping. What puzzles me more is how they suddenly had so much food at Grimmauld Place for Kreacher to cook. He was cooking up a storm; soups, stews, savory pies, puddings/deserts, etc.... They must have raided a Tesco's and brought back hundreds of Pounds (?BPS) of food. That seems a bit dangerous doesn't it? Sharon: I had wondered about that too, but then assumed that Kreacher had obtained the food from somewhere, as he probably did when the Black family lived at Grimmauld Place. Perhaps they have an account at the grocery store that's linked to the Black vaults, which would now be Harry's vaults - -although I am not sure whether any mention of Black vaults is made in canon (I don't think so actually). But Harry was Sirius' sole heir, so surely he would have inherited the Black vaults as well as the house. ________________________________ From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2007 6:19 AM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: transfiguring food etc in DH --- Sharon Hayes wrote: > > > Hi All, > > It always bothered me that the trio found it so hard to find > food when they were first running/camping in DH. ... > > Sharon > Steve/bboyminn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 00:18:26 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:18:26 -0000 Subject: OT: *Official* HPforGrownUP ....Official??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179282 > Steve/bboyminn wrote: > > I just noticed that we are no longer merely HP for Grownups, > but we are now the OFFICIAL HP for Grownups. > > Did something happen that I don't know about? Have we been > 'officially' sanctioned by some body?? > > Just curious. Mike: I don't remember exactly when we got the *OFFICIAL* seal of approval (Yahoo Groups benighted us so) but it was before DH release. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 00:20:44 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:20:44 -0000 Subject: violence in the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" > wrote: > > > There's also the other veiled sexual violence events in the book-- > > a surprisingly large number, really, starting with Ginny's > > possession by Tom, the sexually-charged rebirth of Voldemort, > > the sexually-tinged humiliation of SWM, the possible rape of > > Dolores Umbridge by the centaurs, and the veiled rape > > threats towards Hermione by Fenrir Greyback. > > > > Am I missing any? > > Allie: > > Can you please elaborate on what you mean by Ginny's possession by > Tom. I never read anything sexual in that. He used her closeness > with the diary to possess her, but I did not get the impression that > there was anything sexual about or that it even mattered that Ginny > was a girl. The same thing could have happened if say, Colin > Creevey were writing in the diary. (And yes sexual violence can be > same sex I get that.) Montavilla47: I've heard of that possession described as mind-rape, and also as... not exactly a metaphor, but going to edge of acceptable in terms of what's allowable in a children's book in terms of violation of a child by a... well, a memory of an older teenager. That's what I was referring to. But if you don't see it, you don't. It seems to me that a lot of these images... impressions... are written in a way that you aren't necessarily going to pick it up. Or, if you do, you end wondering if it's just your own imagination. From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Nov 21 22:47:34 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:47:34 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: <749114CED89F4606AA275723495A5FA8@Home> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179284 > > Ceridwen: > > They may care. Gryffindors tend to uphold the prevailing attitude > > of "good". If it was considered "bad" to be gay in the > > 1970s/1980s WW, then James and Lily may have cared a great deal. > > All a person can do is go with what is known at the time, after > > all. > > > Panhandle: > I'm not sure if I can agree with "all a person can do is go with > what is known at the time ..." > > > > Good people know right from wrong and if they are brave, like many > Gryffindors and my mother, will do the right thing, no matter what > their peers may believe. Otherwise, how can any of us ever progress > this status quo? Susan: I totally agree Jane. There are always people who are compassionate and caring and "before their time" on issues of prejudice and oppression....When there started to be serious challenges to holding African-Americans as slaves in the United States, it was just a few people. Many people believed that the Bible justified slavery, and quoted it to support it. Women campaigning for the vote were laughed at, ridiculed, ostractized, beaten and arrested. During those times there WERE caring, compassionate European-Americans who were doing their best to oppose slavery, and there were sympathetic MEN (after all, eventually the MEN had to vote to allow women to vote).. Sirius talks about how Regulus and his parents were all for Voldemort and the pure blood line, and how lots of people supported his prejudices against Muggles and non-pure bloods before they realized how evil he was. Look at the treatment of house elves, goblins, giants, and merpeople. DD was unusual as a headmaster because he gave a lot of non-traditional students (werewolves/half-giants) a chance or second chance. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Nov 21 23:08:54 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:08:54 -0000 Subject: sexualized violence Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179285 > > Shelley: > > When I read the attack on Ariana, I didn't think that she was > > attacked because she was a witch. ---- > > Nah, instead, I think because it was BOYS attacking a > > GIRL that it was more akin to gang rape. > > > Montavilla47: > That certainly is a pervasive view, isn't it? I can't say that it > didn't cross my mind when I read the book. But I'm not sure that > we can make that assumption--given the age of the participants. > > > I wonder if the number of sexually violent episodes in the > books is simply a reflection of how common sexual violence > is in Western culture nowadays? Or is it that we're projecting > these images onto the story because we're conditioned to > think that way? > > > Montavilla47 > Astounded that she's used the R-word so many times in a > single post. Susan: Goodness, sexualized violence is incredibly common in the RW, and in literature in Western culture. Re: boys age.... Rape isn't just forced intercourse (sorry, but this is HP for Grownups). Many perpetrators of sexualized violence have themselves been sexually abused. If even one of the boys had himself been sexually abused he would have known enough to show the others how to perpetratrate sexual violence. We're unfortunately seeing younger and younger children perpetrating sexual violence on children younger and less powerful than themselves. I did not jump to that conclusion -- that Ariana was raped -- probably because I didn't want to...I think it's a possible interpretation...I assumed she had a traumatic experience (which could have been a vicious physical beating)..and let it go. In support of the rape theory is Dad's reaction.....it's what everyone thinks they would do if their child were sexually assaulted (I say thinks because although parents' violent or physical revenge does occur it's not that common. Lots of parents don't want to compound the trauma inflicted by having a parent go to prison...the child is dealing with enough junk and needs all the adult help they can get.) I didn't want to think about Umbridge being raped by the centaurs...because I totally believe that no one deserves to be raped (like DD who went to rescue her)...and didn't want to think of that happening EVEN to someone like Umbridge...but again, it's a valid interpretation. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Nov 21 23:30:47 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:30:47 -0000 Subject: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: <700201d40711210001s4d85d7f7qcd746077a6e86d71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179286 > > Montavilla47: > > There's also the other veiled sexual violence events in the book- > > a surprisingly large number, really, starting with Ginny's > > possession by Tom, the sexually-charged rebirth of Voldemort, > > the sexually-tinged humiliation of SWM, the possible rape of > > Dolores Umbridge by the centaurs, and the veiled rape > > threats towards Hermione by Fenrir Greyback. > > > > Am I missing any? > > Kemper now: > Cormac McLaggen > Romilda Vane > Merope Gaunt > The Bloody Baron Susan: Yes, the Bloody Baron is classic.....although it's interesting...about half the men who kill their partners kill themselves, and the other half do not....seems to be correlated to whether they think they will be caught...... Cormac McLaggen....maybe I'm desensitized to adolescent boys being pushy about "snogging" because of my experiences as an adolescent girl...I wouldn't call that sexualized violence... It's interesting, because in the RW, date rape drugs are usually used so that a boy can rape a girl, and she won't remember it. We don't really have a "love potion" equivalent....something that forces someone to think they are in love with someone else....that would be, of course, even more pernicious because it would coerce the victim into really believing that they WANTED sex...it would wear off..to the victim's total horror.. how totally disgusting.... So with Romilda....did she really want sex with Harry? Or just attention/infatuation/snogging and a date to Slughorn's party? Of course, some people might have been assuming that Harry and Ginny had sex in their long, lovely walks and times on the grounds....I didn't.....so..... I think we do have to remind ourselves that this is the WW, and not the RW...... and who's SWM? Susan From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 01:26:03 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:26:03 -0000 Subject: transfiguring food etc in DH In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC504409@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179287 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > I am not sure whether any mention of Black vaults > is made in canon zanooda: Well, Sirius did mention his own Gringotts vault in PoA (p.315 Br.ed.), but it's not clear to me if it was the Blacks vault that he inherited, or maybe just his personal vault, not connected to the family vault in any way. I used to think that the fact that Sirius's vault (711)was so close to the one where the Philosopher's Stone was kept (713) was important, but it turned out it wasn't significant at all :-). From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 01:56:00 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:56:00 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711211756k63c532ccl56040bdfbba2cfea@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179288 Irene: For me it's not because it didn't end in the way I wanted. I was pretty sure it was not going to, it didn't stop me from enjoying the first six books. I didn't expect it to end my way, but I (reasonably?) expected it to end in a way consistent with the story and the world which appeared to be incredibly rich. I'm so bitter and disappointed because it did not. Contrived plot devices, stupid hallows that jumped at us out of nowhere, plot holes, aborted or reversed character development, the world itself is not consistent and does not appear to be that well thought-out as it seemed. Lynda: See, this is where I lose the connection to fans who are so disappointed in the last book. I don't see all the supposed inconsistencies. I didn't want to hear all about the minor characters and how they developed. They are MINOR characters. There were hints that other storylines might develop. We spent a couple of years talking about the various possibilities. The series is seven books long and that's a lot of possibilites/probabilities to choose from. Unless every book is over 1000 pages long or more, not all of them are going to be dealt with, nor would I expect them to be. I'm glad she shared the story she did. And I'm not going to be upset because she didn't write what I thought she would. Its a good story! Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 01:56:47 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:56:47 -0000 Subject: The Fidelius Charm for the Potters & Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179289 > > Mike previously: > > -- > > > > They think up this great plan, whereby they put the unlikely > > Peter in as the SK, when everyone expects and they have actually > > told some that Sirius would be the SK. > > a_svirn: > Not *some*. James told *Dumbledore* that Sirius was going to be > their secret keeper. > > -- > > So the Potters not only declined Dumbledore's services, but they > deliberately misled him about their plans. The most likely > conclusion is that they didn't trust the Venerable Headmaster. Mike: Was it your impression that all those rumors about Sirius being a DE, LV's number 2 in fact, got started just from Dumbledore's "giving testimony"? I also wondered why the Ministry officials that responded to the exploded street and dead Muggles think that Sirius was the guilty party, even though he hung around after the explosion (not the actions of a guilty man, imo). I guess I got the feeling that the word got out to more than just DD. For instance, if they were suspicious of Remus but didn't want to let him know they suspected him, wouldn't they have let him know that Sirius was going to be the SK? Just throwing that idea out there. Trusting Dumbledore; Someone (may have been Steve) wrote a post that demonstrated how the Marauders were not like the other Order members. Whereas the others acted like subordinates, the Marauders were more like allies in the fight against Voldemort. They cooperated with Dumbledore but didn't take their marching orders from him. I can't say this is definitely supported by canon, but I think there is enough canon to say their relationship with DD was different. The SK rejection combined with the information they got from Bathilda (even if they didn't believe all of it) bespeak of a less than trusting relationship. Anyway, I liked this characterization. Of course, I like the Marauders, so I may be biased. ;) Mike From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 02:14:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:14:20 -0000 Subject: Plotholes and Dumbledore/ some Dark is rising WAS: Why down on all the characte In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179290 > > Jeanette wrote: > > > > It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems to be > > a very negative feel to a lot of the posts. > > Mike: > I'm not! Oh sure, there were plenty of plot holes, but they didn't > ruin the story for me. We've been pointing out the plot holes for a > long time on this list. In fact, I rather have fun discovering them. > Pointing them out doesn't mean the story sucks, imo. > > Alla: Oh such a lovely post Mike with which I agree all over again, but I wanted to expand a bit on the subject of plot holes, which I agree are a plenty. There are some which I would consider unexplainable no matter how hard I try (that still does not make the story suck for me either) BUT some plot holes to me work perfectly well and even seem to be quite in character. Like for example the fact that Dumbledore insisted Harry did not tell anybody about Horcruxes, even though as a_svirn so eloquently argued Mcgonagall, DA were in such a good position to investigate. I totally agree, they were AND I totally think that Dumbledore should have insisted Harry do the opposite thing - **shared** the information with ALL people he trusts, not just Ron and Hermione. Having said that, Dumbledore did learn secrets on his mother's knee indeed, didn't he? I found it perfectly, perfectly consistent with his character as established within the books IMO. Need to know basis and that's all. Is it too clever for his own good or better said quite idiotic? SURE, I do think so, but do I think that is Dumbledore indeed? Oh yes, in fact I would have been scratching my head had he told Harry to share information. I mean, I would have been happy that he did learn something, but looks to me that he never did. Harry did learn something though when he at least shared that he needs to find something IMO. Too late? Maybe, but to me better late than never. So, this secrecy of Dumbledore works perfectly for me as the prominent quality of Dumbledore's character - I KNOW better, even if I really do not IMO. When it stops working for me is when it is viewed in some sort of positive light - that Dumbledore had some sort of good reason to do so. THEN it can only be a plot hole for me. Otherwise - Dumbledore as super secretive, whether it makes sense to be or not, that works just fine IMO. As an aside on the subject of plot holes that I cannot explain and as I said I can certainly see some of them there ( secret keeper cough for example), I think of them as I think of one of the plot holes in Dark is rising series. Or what counts for me as a plot hole anyways. The character in the book had to recover a musical instrument (harp? keep forgetting the word) that was a major part for their quest and his mentor and boss sent him on this quest that was oh ever so important for the light. So, he does in that beautifully described competition, answers the riddles, gets the harp, etc. Where is the plot hole you ask? Well, you see three lords of High magic are the guardians of this harp. Cough, one of them IS the mentor of the kid who has to get the harp and another one is also the Lord of light, and only one is Lord of the dark I did not think that makes a slightest sense for the kids to go through all that to get there, context and all that, because why could not his mentor and other lord just, you know, overpower the dark lord and get the harp? Sort of seemed to me they were in the better position, no? But the thing is (And I will get it back to Potterverse, I promise and soon :) this is not what author is concerned with. She wrote the quest for the kids and described it beautifully, so I just do not think much that my scenario makes better sense to me. Same thing in Potterverse happens often. Did Harry participation in Tournament could have been avoided by any sense? Sure, of course. And could Barty dear just send him as a present to Voldy at any time? ABSOLUTELY. The thing is JKR decided it should happen that way, so I just followed along the ride. She wanted Harry to suffer and fight at Graveyard, no? I figured, since I enjoyed the end result tremendously, I do not care that it happened in rather contrived way. JMO, Alla From sherriola at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 02:29:48 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:29:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4744e9a4.0c1e640a.28f5.ffffae21@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179291 Jeanette It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems to be a very negative feel to a lot of the posts. People are trashing JKR as a writer, people are trashing the various once-loved characters. Sherry now: Actually, I still love most of the characters, including almost all the ones I loved from the beginning. The list is long, but the highlights are: Harry, Ron, Hermione, every Weasley including Percy, Hagrid, Neville, Luna, LavLav, Seamus, Dean, Parvatti, Fleur, James, Lily and Sirius. I came away from the last book disliking DD quite a bit, still not liking Snape though understanding him a little, liking Kreacher, which I never expected to do. I came away feeling sorry for the Malfoys, and most sadly for me, not respecting Lupin very much at all. But overall, though there were things I'd have like more or less of, I was happy with DH and particularly with my most beloved characters. Sherry From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 03:05:55 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:05:55 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40711210001s4d85d7f7qcd746077a6e86d71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40711211905lbe90235w3105d27c5bedeb1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179292 > > Kemper now: > > Cormac McLaggen > > Romilda Vane > > Merope Gaunt > > The Bloody Baron > > Susan: > Cormac McLaggen....maybe I'm desensitized to adolescent boys being > pushy about "snogging" because of my experiences as an adolescent > girl...I wouldn't call that sexualized violence... Kemper now: McLaggen wasn't picking up on Hermione vibe/words. He may be socially retarded, but as he obviously has anger issues it leads me to believe that Cormac /could/ be date rapey. > Susan: > It's interesting, because in the RW, date rape drugs are usually used > so that a boy can rape a girl, and she won't remember it. We don't > really have a "love potion" equivalent....something that forces > someone to think they are in love with someone else....that would be, > of course, even more pernicious because it would coerce the victim > into really believing that they WANTED sex...it would wear off..to > the victim's total horror.. how totally disgusting.... Kemper now: So you are agreeing with Merope? > Susan: > So with Romilda....did she really want sex with Harry? Or just > attention/infatuation/snogging and a date to Slughorn's party? Kemper now: Does it matter? It's a love potion. Not a talkmyearoffaboutthingsimnotinterestedin potion. Romantic love leads to sex. It's not an agape love potion. Earlier, you refer to ruffies. But slipping someone true E may have the effect on the victim of being more inclined to have sex. Sounds more like the love potion. > Susan: > I think we do have to remind ourselves that this is the WW, and not > the RW...... Kemper now: Then why do we discuss RW issues? > Susan: > and who's SWM? Kemper now: Snape's Worst Memory From bgrugin at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 05:25:00 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 05:25:00 -0000 Subject: Plotholes and Dumbledore/ some Dark is rising WAS: Why down on all the characte In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179293 > Alla: > > As an aside on the subject of plot holes that I cannot explain and > as I said I can certainly see some of them there ( secret keeper > cough for example), I think of them as I think of one of the plot > holes in Dark is rising series. Or what counts for me as a plot hole > anyways. The character in the book had to recover a musical > instrument (harp? keep forgetting the word) that was a major part > for their quest and his mentor and boss sent him on this quest that > was oh ever so important for the light. > > So, he does in that beautifully described competition, answers the > riddles, gets the harp, etc. Where is the plot hole you ask? Well, > you see three lords of High magic are the guardians of this harp. > > Cough, one of them IS the mentor of the kid who has to get the harp > and another one is also the Lord of light, and only one is Lord of > the dark > > I did not think that makes a slightest sense for the kids to go > through all that to get there, context and all that, because why > could not his mentor and other lord just, you know, overpower the > dark lord and get the harp? MusicalBetsy here: Ah, Alla, you must have read my mind. I actually just finished the Dark is Rising series (again - I've read it many times), and I too thought about that when I read the harp scenes! And yet, like you, I thought, "But, oh, it's so interesting and fun to see how the boys get to the place where the meet the lords of High Magic and the hoops they have to go through...it's such beautiful reading, so who cares?" And then I realized that when I first read the series as a child, I would NEVER have even thought about that...or cared. I caught many plot holes as I reread the series, but none of them affected my enjoyment; Susan Cooper's writing is just too beautiful. It's the same with HP - I'm quite sure that my daughter, who's almost thirteen, has never noticed any of the plot holes that we've noticed. And the plot holes that we dissect on this site over and over again just really don't matter to me, because I still enjoyed the story and how we got there. The whole Gringotts scene was rather contrived, but it was fun to read. > > Same thing in Potterverse happens often. Did Harry participation in > Tournament could have been avoided by any sense? Sure, of course. > > And could Barty dear just send him as a present to Voldy at any time? > > ABSOLUTELY. The thing is JKR decided it should happen that way, so I > just followed along the ride. She wanted Harry to suffer and fight > at Graveyard, no? > > I figured, since I enjoyed the end result tremendously, I do not > care that it happened in rather contrived way. > > JMO, > > Alla > MusicalBetsy: GOF was one of my favorite books - yes, it occurred to me at the time that it was not needed at all for Harry to win the tournament in order to be portkeyed to the graveyard, but would anyone really have wanted it any differently? Weren't the three tasks just total fun to read? I really don't see DH any differently. There were many things that probably weren't needed, but they were fun or emotional to read. Yes, I had some disappointments (as I did in the DiR series), but overall, it was still a great read for me. Thanks, Alla, for putting it so well. MusicalBetsy, who could probably start a whole site just on the Dark is Rising series From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Nov 22 05:44:16 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 05:44:16 -0000 Subject: NOW: sexualized violence WAS Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: <700201d40711211905lbe90235w3105d27c5bedeb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179294 > > Susan: > > It's interesting, because in the RW, date rape drugs are usually used > > so that a boy can rape a girl, and she won't remember it. We don't > > really have a "love potion" equivalent....something that forces > > someone to think they are in love with someone else....that would be, > > of course, even more pernicious because it would coerce the victim > > into really believing that they WANTED sex...it would wear off..to > > the victim's total horror.. how totally disgusting.... > > Kemper now: > So you are agreeing with Merope? No...I'm confused how you would have interpreted that from my comments....I was saying that even WORSE than a date rape drug would be a "drug" or magic spell that would make someone think they were in love with someone else...coercing not just the body, but the mind, spirit, and imagination..... Therefore, what Merope did was absolutely, totally, morally wrong... As JKR said, Voldemort was conceived by force...... > > > Susan: > > So with Romilda....did she really want sex with Harry? Or just > > attention/infatuation/snogging and a date to Slughorn's party? > > Kemper now: > Does it matter? It's a love potion. Not a > talkmyearoffaboutthingsimnotinterestedin potion. Romantic love leads > to sex. It's not an agape love potion. > Earlier, you refer to ruffies. But slipping someone true E may have > the effect on the victim of being more inclined to have sex. Sounds > more like the love potion. > Susan now: I guess this is an area of disagreement. Romantic love does not always lead to sex. Someone might be in love, and not want to have sex for many, many reasons....What is true E? Ecstasy? That lowers in the inhibitions and makes someone sexually aroused....but again, that means that someone is more inclined to have sex...but that doesn't mean the person WILL have sex..... Susan > > Susan: > > I think we do have to remind ourselves that this is the WW, and not > > the RW...... > > Kemper now: > Then why do we discuss RW issues? Because there are obvious analogies......so I make connections, and then remind myself that the two worlds are not the same.... Susan From cottell at dublin.ie Thu Nov 22 08:47:35 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:47:35 -0000 Subject: NOW: sexualized violence WAS Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" wrote: > > No...I'm confused how you would have interpreted that from my > comments....I was saying that even WORSE than a date rape drug would > be a "drug" or magic spell that would make someone think they were > in love with someone else...coercing not just the body, but the > mind, spirit, and imagination..... > > Therefore, what Merope did was absolutely, totally, morally wrong... > > As JKR said, Voldemort was conceived by force...... Mus responds: But canon is a mite confused on the issue of love potions. Molly quite happily relates how she made one when young to Hermione and Ginny (and they all "giggle") [PoA, UKpb: 56], and the twins, the scamps, sell them to the discerning desperate in their shop *and* smuggle them into Hogwarts disguised as more innocuous things [HBP, UKhb: 287]. Of course, they're all Gryffindors, so they're not to be tarred with the same brush as Merope. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:50:45 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:50:45 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] NOW: sexualized violence WAS Re: Which characters knew DD was Gay? In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40711211905lbe90235w3105d27c5bedeb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40711220150i6f666ef0x33dca7e9123ce768@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179296 > > Kemper earlier: > > So you are agreeing with Merope? > Susan: > No...I'm confused how you would have interpreted that from my > comments.... Kemper now: Misreading :) > > Kemper earlier: > > Does it matter? It's a love potion. > > ... Romantic love leads > > to sex. It's not an agape love potion. > > Earlier, you refer to ruffies. But slipping someone true E may have > > the effect on the victim of being more inclined to have sex. > Susan: I guess this is an area of disagreement. Romantic love > does not always lead to sex. Someone might be in love, and not want > to have sex for many, many reasons.... Kemper now: Let me clarify. The love potion seems to elicit passion from the victim. The physical act of love is the result of emotional romantic love. This is more true for youth and probably less so for those getting on in life. > Susan: What is true E? Ecstasy? That > lowers in the inhibitions and makes someone sexually aroused....but > again, that means that someone is more inclined to have sex...but > that doesn't mean the person WILL have sex..... Kemper now: Yes, Ecstasy. I said true because E is now rarely made with MDMA which lowers inhibitions and increases emotional euphoria and physical pleasure from tactile responses. It was used as a therapy drug in the mid-late 70s. If slipped to someone, it can lead to sex. Much like, imao, love potion. I feel Romilda was wrong. Like Merope but without success. But as you say, its not the RW. I guess the WW tolerates that sort of thing. But then, why would the school ban it? Kemper From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Thu Nov 22 15:49:11 2007 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:49:11 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: <255920.26705.qm@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179297 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > Jeanette wrote: > > > Is it because we invested a lot of time and emotion on the story and > feel cheated either that it is over or that it didn't end in the way we > wanted? > Irene: > > For me it's not because it didn't end in the way I wanted. I was pretty sure it was not going to, it didn't stop me from enjoying the first six books. > I didn't expect it to end my way, but I (reasonably?) expected it to end in a way consistent with the story and the world which appeared to be incredibly rich. > I'm so bitter and disappointed because it did not. Contrived plot devices, stupid hallows that jumped at us out of nowhere, plot holes, aborted or reversed character development, the world itself is not consistent and does not appear to be that well thought-out as it seemed. > All that on a purely technical level. The morality of the story is another bag of disappointment altogether. Marianne: I knew after SIrius's death in OoP that the series wouldn't end the way I wanted ;-). But, I certainly wanted to find out how the story would play out. And, reading the whole series without thinking too deeply about inconsistencies doesn't lessen my enjoyment of them. It's when I do think about some aspects of the story, or read what other people have thought about things, that some of the inconsistencies become, well, irritating. Minor things like JKR's maths issues or Lupin not turning into a werewolf until the moon comes out from behind a cloud I can gloss over. But some plot holes stretch belief and are jarring for me, the reader. And I agree with Irene, that the moral messages that I found in the DH to tie everything up were a big let-down. Marianne From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 16:36:19 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:36:19 -0000 Subject: Plotholes and Dumbledore/ some Dark is rising WAS: Why down on all the characte In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179298 Alla: Dumbledore did learn secrets on his mother's knee indeed, didn't he? I found it perfectly, perfectly consistent with his character as established within the books IMO. Need to know basis and that's all. Is it too clever for his own good or better said quite idiotic? SURE, I do think so, but do I think that is Dumbledore indeed? Oh yes, in fact I would have been scratching my head had he told Harry to share information. I mean, I would have been happy that he did learn something, but looks to me that he never did. a_svirn: Well, I scratched my head when he said Harry to tell his two friends and nobody else. And proceeded to scratch it throughout DH. It's not just that he wanted Harry to be secretive. It's the idea that he should have only two teen-agers to help him for starters. Granted, Harry was a teen-ager himself, but that couldn't be helped. Dumbledore knew how difficult, time-consuming and dangerous the hunt would likely to be. He was already *dying* when he told Harry about the Horcruxes, precisely because he had tried to destroy one of them and got mortally cursed in the process. So not only he had raised Harry as a pig to the slaughter, as Snape elegantly phrased it, he also sent two other kids to almost certain death simply because he thought they would be congenial company for Harry. Moreover, unless he had gone completely senile in HPB he knew what sort of reprecautions for the WW his demise and Harry's disappearance would likely to have. He had had the whole year at his disposal, and had he bothered to prepare the Resistance? Nope, he hadn't. In fact, he ensured it ? by alienating the minister and by throwing the Trio the Hallows Red Herring ? that they are going to be slowed down, and ? consequently ? that Voldemort control over the WW would be prolonged. So you see it's not jut that he is secretive and manipulative. I don't mind that, exactly. What I mind is that his manipulations are completely and utterly pointless, not to say counter-productive. It makes the reading of DH an exercise in frustration. Alla: When it stops working for me is when it is viewed in some sort of positive light - that Dumbledore had some sort of good reason to do so. THEN it can only be a plot hole for me. a_svirn: You mean he played with other peoples' lives for no better reason that he enjoyed it? That spells something more sinister than just "secretive". And even "manipulative". Alla: Same thing in Potterverse happens often. Did Harry participation in Tournament could have been avoided by any sense? Sure, of course. The thing is JKR decided it should happen that way, so I just followed along the ride. She wanted Harry to suffer and fight at Graveyard, no? a_svirn: Oh, yes. But I found the whole Tournament thing so exasperating, not because it was a contrivance, but because it was a contrivance that wasn't even properly explained! I mean the blood protection thing sure strains credulity, but it has at least the explanatory value. To use Carol's favorite quote we can "suspend our disbelief" and yes, enjoy the ride. But the tournament is an abomination? it's way too dangerous, it's supremely unfair in its every aspect, and the last two tasks had zero entertaining value for the spectators. It also increased the security risks and the times when no additional risks could be afforded. So WHY did Dumbledore resurrect it? We are not given even a contrived explanation. It certainly spoiled my enjoyment of GOF. But GOF at least ended with the brilliant cliff-hanger, so that we waited the next book with bated breath for three years, whereas DH ended in a rather less satisfactory way (well for me, that is). MusicalBetsy: GOF was one of my favorite books - yes, it occurred to me at the time that it was not needed at all for Harry to win the tournament in order to be portkeyed to the graveyard, but would anyone really have wanted it any differently? Weren't the three tasks just total fun to read? a_svirn: Certainly the last two of them weren't total fun to watch. Can you imaging anything sillier than a thousand spectators gaping at the serene lake's surface for more than an hour? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 16:54:50 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:54:50 -0000 Subject: The Fidelius Charm for the Potters & Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179299 > Mike: > Was it your impression that all those rumors about Sirius being a DE, > LV's number 2 in fact, got started just from Dumbledore's "giving > testimony"? a_svirn: That testimony certainly sealed his fate. As Dumbledore had undoubtedly realized. As for the rumors, I think it was also the fact that he was a Black. His family had a certain reputation; his brother, cousins and cousins by marriage were death eaters ? so he was tainted by association anyway. And since he was perceived as someone who had engineered the Potters tragedy why, that made him almost as bad as Voldemort himself. > Mike: > Trusting Dumbledore; Someone (may have been Steve) wrote a post that > demonstrated how the Marauders were not like the other Order members. > Whereas the others acted like subordinates, the Marauders were more > like allies in the fight against Voldemort. They cooperated with > Dumbledore but didn't take their marching orders from him. > a_svirn: Sirius and James ? maybe. At least, Sirius during the first War. After POA he certainly was dependant on Dumbledore (which probably suited the latter's purpose). Lupin certainly doesn't give the impression of an independent ally. His motto was "ours not to reason why" in HBP and he expressed his eagerness to be used blindly by Harry in DH. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 17:20:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:20:55 -0000 Subject: Plotholes and Dumbledore/ some Dark is rising WAS: Why down on all the characte In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179300 > a_svirn: > So you see it's not jut that he is secretive and manipulative. I > don't mind that, exactly. What I mind is that his manipulations are > completely and utterly pointless, not to say counter-productive. It > makes the reading of DH an exercise in frustration. Alla: Right, well I understand all that and agree with you to the point. To me the reason why it works is NOT because I find Dumbledore's manipulations to be productive, quite the contrary. I mean, it achieved the goal of Harry's survival for sure, but it did all those bad things that you named. The reason why it works for me is because IMO in **Dumbledore's head** all those plans sounded as perfectly reasonable and logical, no? And then he started to make them to come true, in secrecy? Does that make sense? He told Harry to let only Ron and Hermione know? Well, despise as I am his actions post DH, if I give him benefit of the doubt, maybe he was also traumatised by Peter's betrayal and that he was hoodwinked, etc. Maybe he felt that nobody BUT Harry's closest friends can be trusted, just in case there is another Peter in the order? I am NOT defending Dumbledore on this, far from it, just saying that if all those plans made sense in his head, it makes sense to me that he went forward with them and makes even more sense that he went forward with them in total secrecy as he always did. He did not prepare Order? Oh YES he did not, but kids have to take the first seat and that is the only explanation I am going with, since none other works for me here. In kids' stories adults have to be either incapable to take charge at the end or dissappear completely, are they not? Well, here we have Order who knows nothing, hears nothing, sees nothing, right? Go, teens, have fun on your lovely Quest. > Alla: > When it stops working for me is when it is viewed in some sort of > positive light - that Dumbledore had some sort of good reason to do > so. THEN it can only be a plot hole for me. > > a_svirn: > You mean he played with other peoples' lives for no better reason > that he enjoyed it? That spells something more sinister than > just "secretive". And even "manipulative". Alla: Well, yeah, played with other people's lives. I am not sure that we know that he enjoyed it much. So, I think I will stick with secretive and manipulative for now :) > a_svirn: > Certainly the last two of them weren't total fun to watch. Can you > imaging anything sillier than a thousand spectators gaping at the > serene lake's surface for more than an hour? > Alla: LOLOLOL. I think she meant fun to watch for the reader. I certainly do not think it was much fun for spectators, but for me as a reader it was indeed. JMO, Alla From felicityhayward at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 22 17:50:09 2007 From: felicityhayward at yahoo.co.uk (felicityhayward) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:50:09 -0000 Subject: The Fidelius Charm - plot holes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179301 bboyminn: Part of the problem here is simply not knowing enough about the nature and creation of the Fidelius Charm. Perhaps, the caster of the Fidelius can not also be the subject of the Fidelius. In other words you can cast it on object or other people, but you can't cast it on yourself. Then Mike: You want a Fidelius plot hole? How about asking why Voldemort didn't hide at least one of his Horcruxes with a Fidelius? Surely he knew the charm. If he makes himself the SK, someone trying to find it is caught in a catch 22. Voldemort isn't going to tell, so the only way to find it is to kill him and hope to get the secret out of someone else who knew it. Except you can't kill Voldemort while he has the Horcrux, so you have to eliminate the Horcrux first. For a guy that operates in secrecy, I'd have thought this would have been a no-brainer. But then, I guess that was exactly what Voldemort turned out to be, a no-brainer. Fliss responds: I like the idea that Bboymminn suggested, which is that you can't cast a Fidelius charm on yourself. The heart of the charm seems to be that one casts it in order to protect something or someone from harm *other than yourself*. This suggests to me that although the horcruxes are objects, physically separate from Voldemort, Voldemort can't cast a Fidelius on them because he would essentially be casting it upon himself. A hidden soul-piece inside a ring is still a part of him, even if it is not attached to the body from whence it came. This means that in order to successfully Fidelius a horcrux, he would have to ask someone else to be the secret keeper, and can you see Voldemort doing that? I certainly can't! There is another reason why I don't think Voldemort would use the Fidelius Charm - I suspect it is another of those branches of "Old Magic" that DD assumes he will despise and underestimate. Voldemort, who knows nothing of "love, loyalty and house elves" has no understanding and appreciation of magic like this, which has a key purpose only to protect but not harm. Even the nature of the name has loyalty and protection at its heart, values of which his comprehension is limited. He prefers to use outwardly violent means to protect his horcruxes - Fiendfyre, Inferi and curses, not to mention Nagini! I accept that he is good at keeping secrets, and if he could cast the Fidelius charm on himself, he probably would, and it would be an utterly ingenious protection, but I think, in his quest to make great statements, he would overlook its value. Fliss. (Hello. 1st post, but hopefully it won't stick out a mile in what I've written and any rules I've accidentally broken..) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 18:02:48 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:02:48 -0000 Subject: Plotholes and Dumbledore/ some Dark is rising WAS: Why down on all the characte In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179302 > Alla: > The reason why it works for me is because IMO in **Dumbledore's > head** all those plans sounded as perfectly reasonable and logical, > no? And then he started to make them to come true, in secrecy? > a_svirn: It's not like we have a privileged access to his head, you know. At least, *I* couldn't find one, even unprivileged. Which is precisely why I felt so irritated when I finished DH. Even during the King's Cross chat, Dumbledore didn't really explain anything. Oh, he did elucidate Harry as to why it was so important for him to understand the nature of the Death's Gifts (and even that was somewhat lame), but he did not clarify why on earth he tried to distract Harry from the Horcrux Hunt just to name one issue. So I can only take your word for it that it all made sense inside that extraordinary brain. I, however, am not any wiser. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Nov 22 19:21:14 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:21:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] NOW: sexualized violence References: <700201d40711211905lbe90235w3105d27c5bedeb1@mail.gmail.com> <700201d40711220150i6f666ef0x33dca7e9123ce768@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001601c82d3c$db43cb00$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179303 >> Susan: I guess this is an area of disagreement. Romantic love >> does not always lead to sex. Someone might be in love, and not want >> to have sex for many, many reasons.... > > Kemper now: > Let me clarify. The love potion seems to elicit passion from the > victim. The physical act of love is the result of emotional romantic > love. This is more true for youth and probably less so for those > getting on in life. Shelley: One thing we have to remember is the potion could be of various strengths- age and dosage. Remember Ron? He got one that had been aged (strengthened), plus he kept stuffing his face with the items that were tainted, meaning he probably got 4 times the normal dosage at one shot. It's like with any other drug- a little Tylenol, and your headache is removed. A lot of Tylenol, and your internal organs are damaged for life. A little Love Potion in a weak state- a romantic night where you can't say anything wrong in the eyes of the person afflicted with the potion, because they are starstruck. A lot of Love Potion, or an aged one and the person might even be obsessive to the point of wanting to kill themselves if they couldn't even be near the person that was the object of the potion. Ron punched his best friend, Harry, because he thought he had said something bad about Romalda. He was totally beyond his own control. Harry feared for him, because he couldn't think for himself. Add to the that the response and intent of the person whom the Love Potion was made to be the object- Romalda wanted a date with Harry. She probably wasn't looking for more than a nice snog. She probably would not have suggested to Harry the idea of having sex. Merope wanted much more. She wanted a marriage, she wanted sex, she wanted children. She wanted a life where she was loved and appreciated by someone on a daily basis, even if was falsely induced. I believe Molly might have already been dating Arthur, and maybe he was a bit prudish about sex, and Molly wanted him to go further. I could see the love potion being used on him on that night they stayed out really late in order to get him to go further, on a date already previously planned without the love potion. In a mild state with a person whom you already had a relationship with, and the person might not have even realized that the suggestions of sex weren't theirs in hindsight. But, you take someone in a Ron-state of being heavily dosed, and the suggestion of sex would have gone over with an immediate ripping off of clothes without any thought of consequence of place, time, appropriateness of the situation, self harm or any rational thought. He would have known in hindsight that those thoughts weren't his. A person under a mild influence still might have their wits about them, to want to do it when it's suggested, but still have some self control as to the where/when planning stage, to keep themselves hidden or from self harm. I see the degree of Love Potion as affecting the degree of suggestibility the person is under from the person who did it to them, and from others. Harry was able to lead Ron around based on suggestions relating to Romalda ("come here, I will take you to her"), and that's the real danger of the Love Potion. If someone had said to Ron "there's Romalda, down there on the grounds, and she wants you to jump off this tower and fly down to her", Ron would have easily done it, without any rational thought as to self harm or the immediate death that would follow, because his mind was totally shot. FWIW, I don't think that a repeated dose of strong Love Potions would leave the victim unharmed. I think Merope saw the damage she was doing to Tom Riddle Senior, that day by day his brain showed a little more the affects of such drugging, and that the only way he was to go on living was if he stopped being drugged the way she was doing to him. Sure, she had the wild sex that made her feel appreciated and loved, but that she was coming to the realization that it just wasn't real, and that she was killing this man whom was the father of her child. Thus, she had to let him go, let him get back to the state of being able to make his own choices in his own right mind. I think in the end she ended up with extreme emptiness of it all, and that is what killed her. She had committed a terrible crime, and she knew it. Contrast that with Molly, who probably doesn't have that same regret. She was dating Arthur (under my proposed scenario), and he already loved her, and they ended up married with kids anyway, so in hindsight she probably doesn't hold it in the same view of "violation". She just got her "perfect night" a bit earlier than it would have happened anyway. She might have been able to do the same thing with a Luck Potion. Shelley From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 23:39:13 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:39:13 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jeanette" wrote: > > It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems to be a > very negative feel to a lot of the posts. People are trashing JKR > as a writer, people are trashing the various once-loved characters. > Is it because we invested a lot of time and emotion on the story > and feel cheated either that it is over or that it didn't end in > the way we wanted? Leslie41: I'll put on my litcrit hat and speculate-- One serious problem with the book is that the ending is crap. Not merely the "crapilogue" that people cite--I'm not as upset with that as I am the way that Rowling ends the series so abruptly after Voldie's death. These seven books have taken up--what? About three thousand pages, more or less? And after Voldemort's death we just get a little pat on the behind and off we go. Tolkien understood that after such an epic undertaking, the audience needs to be eased out. Maybe he overdid it--but after reading DH I got the feeling the host was standing at the door with my coat, just as I had started the dessert. Not right. Just not right. All the questions she's now having to answer she should have answered in the book, and taken several more chapters to do so. Another problem was the overwhelming number of seemingly unnecessary deaths, most of them rushed through and not dealt with at all. Fred? WTF? Why kill Fred? And why then pretty much pretend it never happened? Why kill Tonks and Lupin off camera and then, again, pretend it pretty much never happened? Colin Creevy? Give me a break! It's as if she wanted to "prove" what a terrible threat Voldemort was by just knocking off beloved characters willy-nilly. But it felt extremely forced, and just plain wrong. Bad writing. Bad writing to kill Lupin offstage and not devote the attention to that event that was deserved. Maybe not as much as Snape's demise received, but for god's sake give us something! It just seemed cruel and bad and wrong. You can say "life is like that", but life doesn't have an author orchestrating it, upon whom it is incumbent to provide some sort of texture and understanding. There have been many deaths in the series that she's handled well. Sirius'. Dumbledore's. Snape's. But Remus Lupin should be alive, as should Fred. There's no point to them being dead, within the context of the story. A third reason might have to do with Snape. There were a lot of Snape haters out there--more, probably, than there were Snape lovers/admirers (of which I count myself in number). It's got to be hard to reconcile Snape as a hero for people that hate him so, and within the context of the book he's in many ways as much a hero as Harry. This is supported by JKR herself (not that this matters, necessarily), who has in interviews underscored his bravery and his ability to love, and said that Harry himself will place Snape's portrait in the Headmaster's office. She agrees he's mean and vindictive, but one cannot exit DH without getting the distinct feeling that Snape went above and beyond the call of duty, beyond what was required of him because of his love for Lily. To my mind, he's her greatest character, but I've admired him for awhile. I can only say that if I had been wrong, and he'd been on the side of evil all along, I'd now be feeling terribly ill-served, and angry, and I imagine that's how some people that have always hated him must feel. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 23:47:12 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:47:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] transfiguring food etc in DH In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09987@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> References: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09987@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <2795713f0711221547p40aeaba5raa59bc8a86664fe7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179305 Sharon Hughes: t always bothered me that the trio found it so hard to find food when they were first running/camping in DH. They were apparating from rural place to rural place. Where were all the rabbits and other wild animals. Surely there would have been more than wild mushrooms? It was hardly winter when they set out -- it was reallt late summer. there should have been loads of edible plants around, not to mention fish in the streams. Lynda: It didn't bother me. Lessons in hunting and outdoor living didn't seem to be a part of their magical education. Ron's family weren't much for camping apparently--too many kids with too little money--Hermione's family seems to have taken a number of trips, even a couple of camping trips, but not much in the way of teaching her to survive in the outdoors, and the Dursleys...well, they didn't take Harry much of anywhere did they? Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Nov 23 01:48:54 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:48:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711221748l9cb3fa1uc1aa85618d492064@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179306 Leslie41: It just seemed cruel and bad and wrong. You can say "life is like that", but life doesn't have an author orchestrating it, upon whom it is incumbent to provide some sort of texture and understanding. Lynda: No. It doesn't. But I'm not going to claim that to acurately depict the way life is, with people dying needlessly and then not explaining it is bad writing either. That's an accurate depiction of how things happen sometimes. And as for not spending time explaining why, as far as I'm concerned there was no need there either. Fred's death I understand. Tonks and Lupin, not so much--I'm not convinced there is such a thing as a truly happy, well-adjusted orphan, but I still think that she's a genius of a writer. No one else out there right now is doing what she did... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 23 02:14:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:14:21 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179307 > Leslie41: > > I'll put on my litcrit hat and speculate-- > > One serious problem with the book is that the ending is crap. Not > merely the "crapilogue" that people cite--I'm not as upset with that > as I am the way that Rowling ends the series so abruptly after > Voldie's death. >> But Remus Lupin should be alive, as should Fred. There's no point to > them being dead, within the context of the story. > > A third reason might have to do with Snape. There were a lot of > Snape haters out there--more, probably, than there were Snape > lovers/admirers (of which I count myself in number). > > It's got to be hard to reconcile Snape as a hero for people that hate > him so, and within the context of the book he's in many ways as much > a hero as Harry. I can only say that if I had been wrong, and he'd been on the side of > evil all along, I'd now be feeling terribly ill-served, and angry, > and I imagine that's how some people that have always hated him must > feel. > Alla: But this Snape hater is so very happy with the book. I am quite satisfied with the deaths of Fred and Lupin and how she handled them ( I mean not that I would not love for them to be alive, but she totally sold me on their deaths) and no, despite the fact that I did not get the evil Snape, I am more than happy with the ending I got for Snape. In my wildest dreams I could not imagine that she could do Dumbledore's man Snape and leave me so very happy. In my wildest dreams I could not imagine that I will read Dumbledore asking Snape to kill him ( something that I soooo did not want to happen) and be not bothered by it at all. But the thing is she did. It is your right to believe me or not, but it is the truth. I went into book 7 in a very separate mode as a reader from the mode of discussion here. I left all my expectations for the characters completely behind me and was just ready to enjoy the story. And you know, I did. Of course, I won't lie - there was ONE and ONLY one expectation which I was not able to leave behind me and that was I so wanted Harry to live. I truly and honestly do not know if she killed Harry whether I would say that I would be able to enjoy the book over and over again. But I am pretty sure that if she would wrote Harry's death well, I would NOT call her a bad writer, I would not just reread the book probably. Everything else? It is like it was in another part of my brain - all that I wanted for the characters, etc. I was ready to enjoy what JKR delivers and as I said, believe it or not, I did. Dumbledore's Snape, manipulative Dumbledore, plot holes, etc, etc. Oh, and epilogue? LOVED. It is sugary, absolutely, but through the seven books which I went on this journey with Harry, I felt very much that he wants a family first and foremost and that he would not be happy without it. I would have feel cheated had she not showed it to me - that Harry indeed got what he wanted as I felt. I loved that all dearly and OMG, books are on my list of the books I will be rereading with so many books I love in my life. JMO, Alla From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 23 04:30:53 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:30:53 -0000 Subject: FILK: Wham! Went the Pan on His Head Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179308 Wham! Went the Pan on His Head (DH, Chap. 11) To the tune of Zing! Went the Strings of My Heart (popularized by Judy Garland) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZasR5PMsPU This filk was inspired by Marta's hilarious "Clang!" at Art Dungeon. http://www.artdungeon.net/dh/clang.html THE SCENE: 12 Grimmauld Place. KREACHER cracks the case of Mundungus Fletcher wide open. KREACHER: My master said to me, "Find him ASAP, Mundungus Fletcher has fled!" I say his name is Dung ? let then his skull be rung Wham! went the pan on his head. He proved a slipp'ry bloke, harder to catch than smoke And had enormous street cred. But dared to pit himself `gainst a determined elf Wham! went the pan on his head. The locket from Reg Black he stole Now it's time for Whack-a-mole I'm going back on the attack To smack that sad sack. My master told me, "Wait! I shall interrogate, Let Dung say what should be said - But if he should resist, you're our percussionist!" Wham! went the pan on his head. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 23 07:28:19 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:28:19 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179309 > Alla: SNIP, SNIP, SNIP > Oh, and epilogue? LOVED. It is sugary, absolutely, but through > the seven books which I went on this journey with Harry, I felt > very much that he wants a family first and foremost and that he > would not be happy without it. I would have feel cheated had > she not showed it to me - that Harry indeed got what he wanted > as I felt. > I loved that all dearly and OMG, books are on my list of the > books I will be rereading with so many books I love in my life. Alla, reading some of these posts makes me feel really sorry for the people who were so disappointed. I could probably name a bunch of things I was disappointed about.... let's see, I wanted Mrs. Figg to be the person who did some magic in later life. I wanted there to be a huge FINAL scene in which Dumbledore was killed (not in the 6th book! I was depressed for a couple of weeks!). I wanted Snape to save Harry from Voldemort at the last minute, and THEN die himself (okay pretty close). I did NOT want Snape to be in love with Lily.... that seemed to pat an answer for me.. I thought Harry was WAY too hard on Lupin..... but of course, he was young and it was understandable. The camping scenes were enervating, but I thought JKR was trying to involve us in how the trio felt (tired, cold, lost, irritable, fighting, unhappy). And yes, I've already been told by the literary experts on the list that it's not supposed to be what authors do.. and I do understand that authorial intent is passe in literary circles these days..... (so much for the debate about Edith Wharton).. I guess it's only in Greek tragedy that the authors were trying to invoke pity and fear so that their audience could purge themselves of emotion... What else? JKR loves Ron Weasley, and I can't stand him. I don't understand how Hermione could ever have been interested in such an immature, insecure person... but to each her own (and no, I am not, nor ever have been an H/H shipper). I absolutely don't agree with the house elves psychology of slavery stuff at all on a RW political level... I understand internalized oppression, but think JKR vastly underestimates how many slaves want to be free..... so I have to suspend judgment on that to still enjoy the story... maybe it was all those years of practice switching genders in the books where only the men were heroes, and all the women were fainting and squealing..that allows me to ignore some things that I don't like. I could have done without the Hallows. The whole morality thing -- what I don't understand is that some people seem to think that J.K. Rowling should have been absolutely consistent and clear about morality in the book -- but who amongst us is always clear about morality? Who amongst us always acts in moral ways? Whatever happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt? (You know the old, he or she who is without sin should cast the first stone.... yes, I know I'm misquoting the Bible, and I'm not a Christian, but I think it's an admirable sentiment.) I love happy endings..... so I saw the epilogue as "the hero triumphed and they all lived happily ever after." What did I really like about the book? Her portrayal of Dolores Umbridge and the way in which evil people take over was so right on it was terrifying... I loved: the wedding.... the Potterwatch resistance broadcast.... Aberforth and the passage from the Hogs Head into Hogwarts.. Neville's tremendous development as a person, his grandmother dealing with poor Dawlish and arriving to join the fight, his pulling the sword of Gryffindor "out of the hat".. how SO MANY people were integrally involved in Voldemort's demise..... Horace Slughorn still in his silk pajamas arriving with reinforcements at the critical moment.... Kreacher's transformation... and how I actually felt SORRY for the Malfoys... whoa!..... for a while, although I didn't summon up any sympathy for Crabbe "what's a die-dum?".. Minerva McGonagall calling up the castle guardians, and sending the desks charging down the hall, Percy skidding into the castle at the last minute (although I am not so instantly forgiving as his family was).... Dumbledore and Harry's final talk... I could go on and on.. don't have the book with me, so this is from memory... Susan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 23 15:42:25 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:42:25 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179310 > >>leslie41: > > > > A third reason might have to do with Snape. There were a lot of > > Snape haters out there--more, probably, than there were Snape > > lovers/admirers (of which I count myself in number). > > It's got to be hard to reconcile Snape as a hero for people that > > hate him so, and within the context of the book he's in many ways > > as much a hero as Harry. > > > > I can only say that if I had > > been wrong, and he'd been on the > > side of evil all along, I'd now be feeling terribly ill-served, > > and angry, and I imagine that's how some people that have always > > hated him must feel. > >>Alla: > But this Snape hater is so very happy with the book. > Betsy Hp: Hee! And meanwhile, this Snape-lover was so very, very disappointed. It's odd isn't it? And while I agree that "within in the context of the book" Snape is a hero, JKR has such a low bar for heroism (apparently) that in *my* book Snape ended the story rather pathetic and lame. A victim, certainly, and I have a great deal of pity for him. But I think of him as someone within in an abusive relationship that kept going back to his abuser and was finally killed for it. It's exhausting trying to care for such a person, especially when they pull children into the cycle (as Snape did with his Slytherin charges, IMO). > >>Susan: > Alla, reading some of these posts makes me feel really sorry for > the people who were so disappointed. > Betsy Hp: I feel sorry for myself the same way I do when confronted with a dessert table made up solely of white chocolate. It sucks for myself that I won't be eating any dessert (the horror!), but I have no pity for myself in my preference for dark chocolate. It's my personal taste and I'm happy with it. For me to have enjoyed DH, it would have had to be an entirely different book with an entirely different thrust and an entirely different cast. It's part of the reason I've stuck around the list, trying to figure out why (to stretch a metaphor to the breaking point ) I thought JKR was working with dark chocolate when it was white chocolate all along. Was there dark chocolate there in the beginning and then she overwhelmed it with the white? Did she *think* it was dark chocolate for some reason and so described things badly? Was there a willful misuse of food-dye at work? I spent too long anticipating the dessert table to just shrug and walk away. > >>Susan: > > The whole morality thing -- what I don't understand is that some > people seem to think that J.K. Rowling should have been absolutely > consistent and clear about morality in the book -- but who amongst > us is always clear about morality? > Betsy Hp: I wasn't necessarily looking for consistency and clarity, just something a little less... evil. Betsy Hp (who has finally changed her computer's wallpaper from a Slytherin motif to a Stargate Atlantis one -- baby steps, baby steps) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 23 16:32:37 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:32:37 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179311 Jeanette: > It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems to be a > very negative feel to a lot of the posts. People are trashing JKR as a > writer, people are trashing the various once-loved characters. > > Is it because we invested a lot of time and emotion on the story and > feel cheated either that it is over or that it didn't end in the way we > wanted? Montavilla47: I think that's part of it. I also think that JKR did so many thing right that it's really disappointing when she (IMO) went off the rails. I wasn't so much disappointed in what happened in the story--I got the big things I wanted. Snape was good--something I spent two years arguing about--and I actually prefer his death scene to the one many predicted (in which Snape throws himself in front of an AK to save Harry). I was reconciled to the idea of Snape being in love with Lily, so that didn't bug me (although Lily did). I was shocked to find James and Sirius coming off worse after DH than before it, but I'm not heavily invested in either character, so that didn't bother me. I was happy to see Dumbledore have a troubled past--it made sense to me that he would. I was shocked at how contemptuous he was towards Snape--since he pretends to Harry to feel the opposite way--or perhaps by HBP he had softened towards Snape. And I loved what happened with Neville. So, what didn't I like? I didn't like how inconsequential the Malfoys were, given the build-up we'd had. I didn't like how absurdly inconsequential the life debt from Peter Pettigrew was, given how much Harry's mercy towards him cost. I didn't like how everyone in the Wizarding World (with the exception of Neville) sat on their butts for nine months and allowed Voldemort to take over without any effective resistance. I didn't like that Harry basically sat on his butt for months without even sending a word of encouragement to the people who believed in him. I didn't like the way every climax to every story arc got pushed back into the last five chapters--so that, instead of Percy's return to his family being touching, it was simply annoying. Likewise, the "kiss" between Hermione and Ron. I'd rather that it had not happened at all. I didn't like Harry's quip about Crucio and Molly's callout to Bellatrix, because they sounded like bad lines from action movies. I didn't like that--despite having assured us that not *all* Slytherins were Death Eaters or the children of Death Eaters-- *all*the Slytherins deserted the school, thus proving themselves *all* cowards and traitors. I didn't like the absence of Snape's portrait in the Headmaster's office. That struck me as petty. Montavilla47 From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Fri Nov 23 17:30:30 2007 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:30:30 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179312 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" ? > It's as if she wanted to "prove" what a terrible threat Voldemort was > by just knocking off beloved characters willy-nilly. But it felt > extremely forced, and just plain wrong. Bad writing. Bad writing to > kill Lupin offstage and not devote the attention to that event that > was deserved. Maybe not as much as Snape's demise received, but for > god's sake give us something! Marianne: I agree with your sentiments regarding Lupin, but I'd put it down to the decision to have another orphan in order to come full circle. One of my big disappointments were the arcs of Tonks and Lupin, who were mashed into that lovely, touching romance that nearly had Remus running screaming into the night. She needed a couple to fulfill parental duties and then she had to get rid of them. They probably were reduced to the second-tier level of dying because there were too many other things to take care of to devote pages to their demise. Leslie: > It's got to be hard to reconcile Snape as a hero for people that hate > him so, and within the context of the book he's in many ways as much > a hero as Harry. This is supported by JKR herself (not that this > matters, necessarily), who has in interviews underscored his bravery > and his ability to love, and said that Harry himself will place > Snape's portrait in the Headmaster's office. She agrees he's mean > and vindictive, but one cannot exit DH without getting the distinct > feeling that Snape went above and beyond the call of duty, beyond > what was required of him because of his love for Lily. To my mind, > he's her greatest character, but I've admired him for awhile. > > I can only say that if I had been wrong, and he'd been on the side of > evil all along, I'd now be feeling terribly ill-served, and angry, > and I imagine that's how some people that have always hated him must > feel. Marianne: I can't stand Snape. Never have. Never will, but I was not disappointed in JKR revealing the brave things he did. I'd agree that he's her best-constructed character. I ended up finding him a pathetic figure in many ways. Brave, yes, but also another one of those characters who was stuck in the past. I understood how his love for Lily drove him, but I saw it as an obsessive love, which ,while it made Snape ultimately do the right things, never seemed to enable him to understand that Lily loved other people. The idea of Snape rummaging through Grimmauld Place through the possessions of a man he hated, looking for whatever bits of Lily he could find was just creepy in my book. But, count yourself among the lucky ones who can leave the series with feeling your favorite character was well served. My favorite characters are Sirius and Lupin, so I leave with a certain level of dissatisfaction in how they ended up, aside from other issues I've had with various themes of the books. Marianne From juli17 at aol.com Fri Nov 23 18:47:38 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:47:38 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179313 Susan wrote: I wanted Snape to save > Harry from Voldemort at the last minute, and THEN die himself > (okay pretty close). Julie: Oooh, yes! I also wanted to see some reconciliation between Harry and Snape in real time. I wanted *both* of them to recognize their misjudgment of each other, rather than just Harry (though, admittedly, this was much more important for Harry's character as the heroic character than it was for Snape's antiheroic character). Susan: I did NOT want Snape to be in love with Lily.... Julie: This wasn't my favorite development, but it would have been worse if Snape had harbored some faraway love for her, rather than this love having grown from them being actual childhood friends. The latter fact saved Snape's love from being truly pathetic, IMO. Susan: I thought Harry was WAY too hard on Lupin..... Julie: Given that I'd had it with Lupin's self-pity and at this point wanted to slap him good myself, I can't say I was too bothered by Harry's censure ;-) Susan: The camping scenes were enervating, > but I thought JKR was trying to involve us in how the trio > felt (tired, cold, lost, irritable, fighting, unhappy). Julie: This was a valid plot choice by JKR, but to me it did hurt the story in some ways. For instance, why couldn't the Trio have hidden in the Room of Requirement, had the House Elves bringing them food and maybe the DADA members sneaking in and out, all right under Voldemort, the DEs, and Snape's noses (though the latter might have eventually figured it out and allowed it to continue)? Admittedly this idea is off the top of my head, and I haven't thought out any ramifications, but as a reader I really wanted to know what was going on with other characters, especially at Hogwarts, rather than to be forced into the same months-long ignorance and hiding as the Trio was. Basically it seemed like JKR wrote much of the middle of DH in sort of a passive voice (subverting the actual literary meaning of "passive voice" intentionally here) rather than in an active voice, plot-wise. It just wasn't as riveting nor as action-oriented a read as I was expecting in the end... Julie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 23 21:23:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:23:52 -0000 Subject: Camping WAS Re: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179314 > Susan: > The camping scenes were enervating, > > but I thought JKR was trying to involve us in how the trio > > felt (tired, cold, lost, irritable, fighting, unhappy). > > Julie: > This was a valid plot choice by JKR, but to me it did hurt > the story in some ways. For instance, why couldn't the Trio > have hidden in the Room of Requirement, had the House Elves > bringing them food and maybe the DADA members sneaking in > and out, all right under Voldemort, the DEs, and Snape's noses > (though the latter might have eventually figured it out and > allowed it to continue)? Admittedly this idea is off the top > of my head, and I haven't thought out any ramifications, but > as a reader I really wanted to know what was going on with > other characters, especially at Hogwarts, rather than to be > forced into the same months-long ignorance and hiding as the > Trio was. > > Basically it seemed like JKR wrote much of the middle of DH > in sort of a passive voice (subverting the actual literary > meaning of "passive voice" intentionally here) rather than in > an active voice, plot-wise. It just wasn't as riveting nor as > action-oriented a read as I was expecting in the end... Alla: Right, I know that you said that it is a valid plot choice by JKR, but at the same I do not quite get how it hurt the story. I mean, I totally understand a valid frustration if you wanted to know more about other characters, about what was happening in Hogwarts, etc. But, I mean, it did not seem to me that it was the story JKR chose to tell, no? I mean, she was telling us about what was happening in Hogwarts in brief glimpses, right? But seems like she was concentrated on Trio and their thoughts and frustrations first and foremost. I mean, to me it is easy enough, because I was always very interested in Trio and was happy with story concentrating on its main characters. Again, not that I MIND learning more about secondary characters, but I much preferred to stay with main ones. I mean, sure there was not much action during camping, but again the frustration and helplesness and attempts of figuring out what to do next to me made perfect sense within the story, within the story JKR chose to tell. So, I guess my question is whether you could clarify ( if you wish obviously) how did this plot choice hurt the story that JKR was telling NOT the story you ( hypothetical you) wished to see? As an aside of the sort I finished rereading DH quite recently ( it was actually only my third time, with the first one being the fast read during first day, so I still feel that I do not quite remember all the little details of the story) and I was keeping in mind the camping and couple other things. List members were saying that camping scenes went forever and I was not quite sure myself. I am only talking about the relative time period of them within the larger timeline of DH. You know, to me, camping passed quickly enough. It is not like I wanted more of it, but to me it did not seem to drag on and on and on. Seemed to start and end fast enough. IMO of course. Alla From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 01:41:32 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:41:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fidelius Charm for Voldemort? Message-ID: <575054.23884.qm@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179315 Mike said>>> You want a Fidelius plot hole? How about asking why Voldemort didn't hide at least one of his Horcruxes with a Fidelius? Surely he knew the charm. If he makes himself the SK, someone trying to find it is caught in a catch 22. Voldemort isn't going to tell, so the only way to find it is to kill him and hope to get the secret out of someone else who knew it. Except you can't kill Voldemort while he has the Horcrux, so you have to eliminate the Horcrux first. For a guy that operates in secrecy, I'd have thought this would have been a no-brainer. But then, I guess that was exactly what Voldemort turned out to be, a no-brainer.>>> Mike, Voldemort could never have cast a Fidelius charm because he was not capable I think of trusting anyone. (Which is also a problem Dumbledore and Harry share to a lesser degree). To cast a Fidelius you need to trust that the person will protect your secret. That is why family is best, but James and Lily did not really have any family, so they had to trust friends, and they picked the wrong one. Were they afraid that Lupin would betray them if someone discovered his secret and used it against him? Peter's betrayal is a betrayal of trust. Now if Voldemort had been capable of love and thus capable of trust, the Fidelius idea would have worked. >> DA Jones (Sandy) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 03:17:16 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:17:16 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm for Voldemort? In-Reply-To: <575054.23884.qm@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179316 > > Mike said: > > You want a Fidelius plot hole? How about asking why Voldemort > > didn't hide at least one of his Horcruxes with a Fidelius? > > > Fliss responds: > I like the idea that Bboymminn suggested, which is that you can't > cast a Fidelius charm on yourself. The heart of the charm seems to > be that one casts it in order to protect something or someone from > harm *other than yourself*. This suggests to me that although the > horcruxes are objects, physically separate from Voldemort, > Voldemort can't cast a Fidelius on them because he would > essentially be casting it upon himself. Mike: >> Editorial comment: This was a wonderful first post, Fliss! And, >> yes, you did everything right. :D << How about casting the Fidelius over the Gaunt hovel? In previous posts, I speculated that one must have propriety over the object being hidden to cast the Fidelius Charm on it. Well, Tom Riddle was the last of the Gaunts. Doesn't that make him the owner of the shack, even if Marvolo and/or Morfin died intestate? So what would stop Riddle from hiding the ring in the hovel and putting the same type of Fidelius on the hovel that Dumbledore put on 12 GP? After all, Harry became the owner of 12 GP *after* the Fidelius and the charm still held. In fact, it still held even though it was no longer the Order HQ, the thing that the Fidelius was supposedly hiding. > Fliss: > There is another reason why I don't think Voldemort would use the Fidelius Charm - I suspect it is another of those branches of "Old Magic" that DD assumes he will despise and underestimate. Mike: I can't quite agree with this. It may have been "Old Magic", we don't know. But I see no reason why magic that kept a secret would be a branch that LV would ignore or despise. On the contrary, I would have thought this type of magic would have tremendous appeal to someone like Voldemort. > Fliss: > Voldemort, who knows nothing of "love, loyalty and house elves" has no understanding and appreciation of magic like this, which has a key purpose only to protect but not harm. Even the nature of the name has loyalty and protection at its heart, values of which his comprehension is limited. Mike: I can see this one. The loyalty aspect would seem antithetical to Voldemort's value system. However, if Voldemort is casting a spell that requires only loyalty to himself? This one could go either way. I could definitely see this reason as a plot hole filler. ;) > DA Jones (Sandy) > Voldemort could never have cast a Fidelius charm because he was not capable I think of trusting anyone. -- > To cast a Fidelius you need to trust that the person will protect your secret. Mike: Except I was proposing that Voldemort cast the Fidelius over an object and make himself the Secret Keeper. This would not involve another person to trust. ***** Just to add to the confusion, here's another property that I think came with the Fidelius. I don't think anyone not in on the secret knew that a Fidelius was cast. That is, Voldemort could stick his nose up to the window of the GH cottage and not only not see the Potters, but not realize that they are in there and hidden by a Fidelius. (This is before Peter betrayed the secret, of course) Now someone asks, 'What about Bella's question at Spinner's End?' Did Bella know there was a Fidelius? I don't think so. She asked Snape: "And, while we are on the subject of the Order, you still claim you cannot reveal the whereabouts of their headquarters, don't you?" (HBP p. 29, US Ed.) Whereupon Snape tells her he is not the SK. If Bella knew there was a Fidelius on the HQ and understood how the enchantment worked (Snape thinks she does), this becomes a ridiculous charge to make against Snape. Not that this is beneath Bella, but would she really make herself look (more) stupid if she knew there was a Fidelius and that it would naturally preclude Snape from revealing the secret location? Mike From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 06:42:01 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:42:01 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Speaks Out Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179317 >From the Desk of Ragnok, Chairgoblin, Gringotts ______________________________________________________________ An Open Letter to the Ministry of Magic and All Wand-Carriers The Goblin Guild would like to formally thank those wizards responsible for the downfall of Lord Voldemort and his minions. We would welcome any oppurtunity to aid in the prosecution and incarceration of the perpetrators of the usurption of goblin control of the Gringotts Bank for Magical Creatures. Now, Gringotts' Board has decided to make some changes in it's procedures and this letter is your official notification. Some background. In the past, wizards have demanded access to their Gringotts vaults through various services. For instance, we recently received this letter: ***** Sharon: Perhaps they have an account at the grocery store that's linked to the Black vaults ^1 ***** Well, sure we've provided this and other services. Through simple access charms we've allowed you wand-wielders to link your accounts to many different merchants. I seem to recall that this Mr. Black even bought a Firebolt Racing Broom through his link to Quidditch Quality Supplies. Then, we get other letters, like this one: ***** lizzyben: But then, in SS, HAGRID actually has the key to the Potters' bank vault. How'd that happen? Presumably, Hagrid got the key from Dumbledore. Now, how would Dumbledore get the key to the Potters' bank vault? ***** Now wait just a minute. How exactly is it Gringotts fault that you stick-swingers can't keep track of your own damn keys? What do we have to do, duct tape them to your arms? It seems we can't win. First you demand easy access to your accounts, then you bitch about our security procedures when it's your poor security at fault. Well, NO MORE. >From this day forward, since you are so proud of those wooden wonders that you won't allow to us goblins, Gringotts will require all wizards and witches to present those same wands to gain access to your treasures that we guard. Each vault will be re-charmed to open only at the command of a Gringotts Goblin who is touching the wand of the tree-toter that owns the treasure within that vault. Gringotts will begin re-registration immediately. Bring in your lumber, people. << Of course, if the wizarding community would like to "share the secrets of wand-lore with other magical beings" (^3), we may consider re-evaluating these new requirements. >> By the way, you owe us one dragon! Sincerely, Ragnok, who is through playing around with these kindling keepers _________________________________________________________________ Mike, who only translates from the original goblin. So don't blame the messenger. ;) &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ^1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179281 ^2 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179247 ^3 Deathly Hallows, "The Wandmaker", CH 24, p. 488, US Ed. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sat Nov 24 07:06:31 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:06:31 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gringotts Speaks Out In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED20C@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 179318 Mike: >From this day forward, since you are so proud of those wooden wonders that you won't allow to us goblins, Gringotts will require all wizards and witches to present those same wands to gain access to your treasures that we guard. Each vault will be re-charmed to open only at the command of a Gringotts Goblin who is touching the wand of the tree-toter that owns the treasure within that vault. Gringotts will begin re-registration immediately. Bring in your lumber, people. Sharon: hehehehe.....Excellent reminder that it is pretty damn strange that in DH all of a sudden people (AKA Bellatrix) are asked for their wands instead of their keys. Nifty plot device, but totally a plot-hole of you ask me. From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 12:52:00 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:52:00 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179319 Jeanette: "It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems to be a very negative feel to a lot of the posts. People are trashing JKR as a writer, people are trashing the various once-loved characters... Either way, it's not pleasant reading these days. Before there was always some interesting theory or insight being played with between posts; surely we have not run out of ideas spawned by the incredibly rich world JKR created." I believe it's at least partly the times we live in. A reflection of this is `gotcha' journalism, where the flaws everyone has are picked like scabs. It's a kind of nihilism. The essential fact of the story is that Harry, Dumbledore, Hermione, Ron, Neville and all the rest got the mission done. It wasn't always pretty and never perfect but that's how great things are. People who get things done understand that. I was always mindful of Harry's and Dumbledore's imperfections, for example, but it never lowered my respect and fondness for either. Jim Ferer From horace.nihil at yahoo.fr Sat Nov 24 15:00:07 2007 From: horace.nihil at yahoo.fr (Horace Nihil) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:00:07 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Speaks Out In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED20C@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179320 >Sharon: >hehehehe.....Excellent reminder that it is pretty damn strange that >in >DH all of a sudden people (AKA Bellatrix) are asked for their wands >instead of their keys. Nifty plot device, but totally a plot-hole of >you ask me. > If I don't mess, The vault in PS/SS (Vault 713 if I remind well) has no keyhole, and can be opened only by a Goblin. I guessed that the Lestranges' vault has yet another kind of lock (related to the wand). Or maybe the Goblins raised the security level in those troubled times (whoever boarded a plane lately can guess what I mean...?) Horace. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 15:31:51 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:31:51 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Speaks Out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179321 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > From the Desk of Ragnok, > Chairgoblin, Gringotts > ______________________________________________________________ >> Then, we get other letters, like this one: > > ***** > lizzyben: But then, in SS, HAGRID actually has the key to the > Potters' bank vault. How'd that happen? Presumably, Hagrid got the > key from Dumbledore. Now, how would Dumbledore get the key to the > Potters' bank vault? > ***** > > Now wait just a minute. How exactly is it Gringotts fault that you > stick-swingers can't keep track of your own damn keys? What do we > have to do, duct tape them to your arms? > > It seems we can't win. First you demand easy access to your accounts, > then you bitch about our security procedures when it's your poor > security at fault. Well, NO MORE. > a_svirn: Come to think of it, didn't Bill Weasley withdraw a hefty moneybag of galleons from Harry Potter's account? How's that possible, eh, Mr Ragnok? He certainly didn't have *Harry's* authorisation to do that. Does it mean that Gringott's employees can draw on their clients' funds? Perhaps it would be prudent for British wizards to transfer their gold to the Swiss Zwerge for safekeeping. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 17:46:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:46:08 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179322 > Montavilla47: > It gets even worse when you consider that Dumbledore was hunting > those Horcuxes for years. He told Harry that he thought one of them > would be either a Ravenclaw or a Gryffindor object (and then ruled > out the sword himself, leaving only the Ravenclaw object.) > > So.... Dumbledore never thought to ask Flitwick about the diadem? > Never thought to ask the Grey Lady, who has been floating around > Hogwarts for a thousand years? Or to ask the ghosts or the portraits > what they remembered about Tom Riddle? > > Then again, had he done so, we'd have spent the whole of DH > yelling at Harry to remember that tiara in HBP. > Carol responds: Harry asks Flitwick about the tiara, remember, and Flitwick says that he doesn't know what happened to it. He thinks it's an academic question, interesting to speculate about but not appropriate in a moment of danger. The Ravenclaw students don't know, either. All they know is that the statue of Rowena Ravenclaw is wearing the legendary lost tiara. It seems likely that both Flitwick and Dumbledore asked the Grey Lady about it (assuming that they know she's Helena Ravenclaw) and that she told them nothing--especially after Tom Riddle had charmed the secret out of her and she became even more ashamed of her behavior. The Grey Lady makes it clear that she's been asked many times, and only the information that the tiara can be used against Voldemort persuades her to tell Harry the truth, not only about stealing it in the first place and hiding it but about revealing the secret to Tom Riddle. I think she'd feel the same way that Slughorn feels about his memory of telling Tom about Horcruxes--she wouldn't want anyone to know. Even though she's a ghost, she still has her pride and still feels shame. It also seems that neither Flitwick nor Dumbledore knows that the RoR sometimes functions as a hiding place for forbidden objects. (I still don't understand how Riddlemort could think he was the only person who had ever found a room full of objects, but I do understand why neither Flitwick nor DD knew that the tiara was in the RoR.) Carol, conceding that DD should have known (and informed Harry) that the powerful magical object most closely associated with Rowena Ravenclaw was a tiara From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 18:13:26 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:13:26 -0000 Subject: Camping - with Harry ...(was Why down on all the characters?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179323 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Susan: > > The camping scenes were enervating, > > > but I thought JKR was trying to involve us in how the > > > trio felt (tired, cold, lost, irritable, fighting, > > > unhappy). > > > > Julie: > > This was a valid plot choice by JKR, but to me it did > > hurt the story in some ways. For instance,.... > > > > Basically it seemed like JKR wrote much of the middle of > > DH in sort of a passive voice ... rather than in an active > > voice, plot-wise. It just wasn't as riveting nor as > > action-oriented a read as I was expecting in the end... > > > Alla: > > Right, I know that you said that it is a valid plot choice > by JKR, but at the same I do not quite get how it hurt the > story. > > I mean, I totally understand a valid frustration if you > wanted to know more about other characters, about what was > happening in Hogwarts, etc. > > But, I mean, it did not seem to me that it was the story > JKR chose to tell, no? > >... > > I mean, sure there was not much action during camping, but > again the frustration and helplesness and attempts of > figuring out what to do next to me made perfect sense within > the story, within the story JKR chose to tell. > > ... > > ... > > List members were saying that camping scenes went forever > and I was not quite sure myself. I am only talking about the > relative time period of them within the larger timeline of DH. > > You know, to me, camping passed quickly enough. It is not like > I wanted more of it, but to me it did not seem to drag on and > on and on. > > Seemed to start and end fast enough. IMO of course. > > Alla > bboyminn: I'm completely baffled by people complaining about the Camping Trip. Apparently they don't recognize it for what it is. It is a mechanism by which the author moves her characters through the story, and allows them to go to several places and learn various things that are necessary to resolving the overall plot. True the camping itself wasn't that interesting, but it was the transition between important plot points. It is not all that interesting to see the Trio wandering the hall of Hogwarts or stomping across the ground, but again when that happens it is usually transitioning from one important scene to another. Let's look at the camping trip. It takes us from Grimmauld Place, to Ron leaving and returning, to the recovery of the Griffindor Sword, to Godrics Hollow, to the encounter with the Goblins, to Lovegoods, to Malfoy Manor, to Shell Cottage, to Gringotts, to Hogwarts. I'd hardly consider that /dull/. And that only covers the major aspects, there are minor aspects where they are analyzing the clues they have, which eventually does lead to relevant conclusions. At each of those steps along the way, more and more pieces of Harry's puzzle fall into place, which is what needs to happen for Harry to choose his ultimate course of action. Again, that hardly sounds like a dull time to me. If fact, other than the climax, those seem to be the most exciting aspects of the story. Again, baffled. Steven/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Nov 24 18:37:23 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:37:23 -0500 Subject: Harry Potter The Conveyor Belt of Plot Necessity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47486F63.6000102@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179324 MusicalBetsy here: > Ah, Alla, you must have read my mind. I actually just finished the > Dark is Rising series (again - I've read it many times), and I too > thought about that when I read the harp scenes! And yet, like you, I > thought, "But, oh, it's so interesting and fun to see how the boys > get to the place where the meet the lords of High Magic and the hoops > they have to go through...it's such beautiful reading, so who > cares?" Based on what I read in this list (and I happened to have the omnibus collection on my shelf anyway), I just read that series for the first time. In the design of role-playing game modules, there is a feature called a "Conveyor Belt", which is to be avoided when possible, and hidden from the players when not. As one might figure out from the name, it is when the characters must choose a specific set of actions, or else the story ends, especially if those actions place the characters into a temporarily disadvantageous situation. More simply, it's when the plot is conveying the characters, rather than the characters conveying the plot. Often, it requires the characters to do something that does not make sense. My major problem with the Dark is Rising series is that it's just too easy to see the conveyor belt. "If you don't do this exactly right, all is lost, but we're not even going to give you a hint as to the right thing to do. Yay! You did the right thing!" JKR does a better job at hiding the conveyor belt, but she does not always succeed; particularly in DH, and I would guess because she was in too much of a hurry to finish the story, it pops up here and there. Snape's timing has to be perfectly bad in POA for the plot to come out the way JKR wanted it to come out. Morty's plan in GOF is also dependent on far too many things going right, and specific actions on Harry's part (however, JKR countered this a bit by Harry doing his best to jump off the conveyor belt, albeit without knowing that he's on one). In OOP, JKR does a much better job, with Morty taking advantage of circumstances rather than depending on them (it takes the whole book to get Harry to the Hall of Prophecy not because the plan takes that long, but because of all the failed attempts). However, in DH, JKR makes the conveyor belt WAY too obvious, with her unnecessary puzzles, the largely unnecessary Deathly Hallows, and notably by the "Voldemort" trap, because if the trio need to get captured and escape in order to find the rest of the Horcurxes (knowing that the Goblet is in Trixie's vault, getting the aid of a goblin who happened to have worked at the bank, etc.). And, as I have mentioned before, the characters illogically start calling Morty "You-know-who", instead of a name that would come much more easily to Hermoine and Harry, like "Tommy", "Riddle", the fan favorite, "Voldy", or my favorite, "Morty". Or that nobody even thinks of using the "Voldemort" trap as a way of luring DE's into booby traps, rendering it useless. Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 24 18:42:48 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:42:48 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179325 Jim: > Either way, it's not pleasant reading these days. Before there was > always some interesting theory or insight being played with between > posts; surely we have not run out of ideas spawned by the incredibly > rich world JKR created." > > I believe it's at least partly the times we live in. A reflection of > this is `gotcha' journalism, where the flaws everyone has are picked > like scabs. It's a kind of nihilism. The essential fact of the story > is that Harry, Dumbledore, Hermione, Ron, Neville and all the rest got > the mission done. It wasn't always pretty and never perfect but that's > how great things are. People who get things done understand that. Magpie: That sounds like a bit of a stretch, connecting people not liking a book about wizards to gotcha journalism or looking for flaws. I think it's a lot more simple. When people read fiction they like or dislike the characters. This isn't real life, so you don't have to really respect the person for saving the world or whatever--of course they saved the world. It's fiction. They were created to be the ones to be able to do that. (DH especially shows this imo.) But if people don't like the characters as characters, they say so. Were the characters that much more well-loved pre-DH? Because I've always heard people saying they dislike aspects of the characters. It seems like the difference now, if anything, is maybe that now people know this is how they characters are going to stay and what they ultimately mean. They might have been expecting more of a turnaround. One thing I would say for me is that while there were a few characters in DH I thought less of after the book, and many that I felt basically the same about, there weren't any I liked better, particularly, post- DH. Maybe Ginny didn't annoy me as much because she was dialed down, and I found Dumbledore's backstory fairly interesting. But in the end this isn't a book full of "beloved characters" for me. Though it never was, so it wasn't a big fall for me. I maybe thought I'd like people better. But I would never say that as a rule I seek out flaws in characters. I don't. These books just are more full of flaws for me than things to admire. -m From stephab67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 17:37:37 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:37:37 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179326 Jeanette: "It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems to be a very negative feel to a lot of the posts. People are trashing JKR as a writer, people are trashing the various once-loved characters... Stephanie: I'm with you. I'm all for debate, but I wonder why people who hate DH, call the story evil, whatever, are stil bothering to post on this list. I'm not saying that those opinions aren't valid - everyone has a right to their opinions. I just wonder why they're wasting their time in such a manner. One thing I always kept in my mind as I was reading is that JKR's primary audience was not adults, but children. Kids don't analyze books as adults do, and look at things from a different perspective than adults. Some of the things that might bother adults might make perfect sense to kids. It doesn't mean that the standards should be lowered just because the books are written for kids, it's just that we have to keep in mind that they were written for kids. BTW, I'm not saying that the story was perfect. I could have lived without the Hallows, and the Elder Wand thing was just confusing. The Horcrux hunt was enough of a story. I also never really bought the Ginny/Harry romance because it seemed to come out of nowhere in HBP. It was sort of, "Cho's gone, oh, hey, isn't Ginny grown up now!." I do understand why Ron and Hermione liked each other - each had qualities the other lacked, and JKR was building their relationship since CoS, which made it much more believable. She wrote Ron in such a way as to make Hermione a bit out of his league, which is I suppose the way Ron saw her, but I always thought it was a bit much to write Ron as still being upset over something that had happened two years earlier in GOF. JKR did have Ron redeem himself in a big way in DH, though. I do think that there could have been more of an ending to the book prior to the Epilogue, something like "The Scouring of the Shire" in LOTR. As someone else wrote, DH was already more than 700 pages, would another 20 have been such a big deal? As for the death of Lupin, it fits with the fate of the other Marauders. She killed all of them off, plus Snape, leaving no one of Harry's parents' generation left alive, at least in terms of characters we've heard about. I don't know what her motivation was, perhaps she decided that the past was gone and Harry's generation was a new start. I do think she could have left Tonks, though. Don't know why Tonks couldn't have been a single mom. I always thought a Weasley would die, but thought it would be Percy after he realized he was on the wrong side. I suppose that would be a bit cliched, though, having a character redeem himself only to be killed off. As always, all of this is just IMHO. Feel free to disagree. Stephanie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 24 20:41:47 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:41:47 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179327 > Jeanette: "It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems > to be a very negative feel to a lot of the posts. People are trashing > JKR as a writer, people are trashing the various once-loved > characters... > > > Stephanie: > > I'm with you. I'm all for debate, but I wonder why people who hate > DH, call the story evil, whatever, are stil bothering to post on this > list. I'm not saying that those opinions aren't valid - everyone has > a right to their opinions. I just wonder why they're wasting their > time in such a manner. Magpie: Err...because they feel like it? I mean, why is that more wasting of time than posting about how you think the books are awesome? None of us are curing cancer here. We like talking about the books. Personally, I've never considered it important that I like a book to want to talk about it. My question is whether I feel like talking about the book or not--sometimes I enjoy talking about things I liked, sometimes I enjoy talking about things I didn't like. That can be just as satisfying to me. A number of people who've felt negatively about the book have even said why they remain on the list trying to puzzle out their feelings for it. What I'm least interested in is just listing of things or emotional reactions--if somebody listed their favorite moments of DH, or the funniest, even if I agreed with them I probably wouldn't care. I really do think, now that the series is over, that it's got a lot of disturbing stuff in it, and that's basically what I'm interested in talking about it. Especially DH, which worked for me as little as it did. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 22:10:13 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:10:13 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Responds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179328 >From the Desk of Ragnok, Chairgoblin, Gringotts ______________________________________________________________ Dear Account Holders, As Chairgoblin, I am obliged to answer all correspondence from you witches and wizards, no matter how ridiculous. As if I don't have better things to do with my time. So be it. ***** Sharon: Excellent reminder that it is pretty damn strange that in DH all of a sudden people (AKA Bellatrix) are asked for their wands instead of their keys. ^1 ***** Excuse me, miss nosey-pants, do you have authorization to speak for Madam Lestrange? I thought not. We had reason to believe that the person that presented herself as Madam Lestrange was not who she said she was. She did not have her vault key with her, as Master Travers did, or did you fail to notice that? We were going out of our way to accomodate the lady by offering an alternative way of establishing identity. Wait a minute, weren't you the witch that expected us to provide all those addition account services, like tying your account to various merchants? So here we try to be accomodating in a different way and now you want to criticize us? Hmmph. Better things to do! ***** a_svirn: Come to think of it, didn't Bill Weasley withdraw a hefty moneybag of galleons from Harry Potter's account? How's that possible, eh, Mr Ragnok? He certainly didn't have *Harry's* authorisation to do that. ^2 ***** Oh, you know that Mr. Weasley didn't have Mr. Potter's key or his authorization? Once again, you lumber-luggers can't keep track of your own keys, and that's our fault? And I'll thank you not to use the human title of Mr with me. I am not one of your race. Goblins only have one name since we do not feel it necessary to give our offspring one of our names like you humans evidently feel it necessary to do. I haven't made fun of your name, "a_svirn", though it is a most curious name for a witch. Did you have more to address? ***** a_svirn: Does it mean that Gringott's employees can draw on their clients' funds? Perhaps it would be prudent for British wizards to transfer their gold to the Swiss Zwerge for safekeeping. ^2 ***** Arrggh! Have you not read your vault owners magical contract? You authorize any Gringotts employee access to your vault for, aahh, let us call it accounting purposes. You should be thankful we even employ one of your race, let alone criticize our banking principles. If you think the Swiss Zwerge will give you an exchange rate anywhere near *our* Pounds-to-Galleons rate, go ahead and switch your account to them. I have it on good authority that they will exchange your gold for that ridiculous Muggle paper money. Good luck trying to ever get your gold back out of them. I have no time for these mundane criticisms. If you have any more inane timber-twirler questions, please address them to my recently promoted assistant, Bagrod. Thank you, and Good Day! Ragnok, Gringotts Chairgoblin ________________________________________________________________ Mike, who's thinking this Ragnok is going to get him in trouble ;) &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ^1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179318 ^2 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179321 From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Sat Nov 24 12:46:59 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:46:59 -0000 Subject: A classic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179329 Many of us have expressed disappointment at the HP series, mostly because DH left so much unanswered. I was wondering whether because of this that HP will endure or not? Will the current crop of readers refer the next generation to it? Barry From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Nov 24 23:52:13 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:52:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4748B92D.4000801@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179330 julie wrote: > This wasn't my favorite development, but it would have > been worse if Snape had harbored some faraway love for > her, rather than this love having grown from them being > actual childhood friends. The latter fact saved Snape's > love from being truly pathetic, IMO. I don't think that Snape was IN love with Lily; to me that was key. Snape's love was deeper than a romantic love; there may or may not have been a sexual component, but if there was, it was irrelevant. Morty, unable to understand love, assumed that there was ONLY a sexual component, which is why he didn't question Snape's continued loyalty, at least not too much (I'm pretty sure that Morty could even envision an occlumens good enough to fool him). Bart From gbadams_77 at charter.net Sun Nov 25 00:28:55 2007 From: gbadams_77 at charter.net (bzbbaba) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:28:55 -0000 Subject: A classic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179331 Barry wrote: > > Many of us have expressed disappointment at the HP series, mostly > because DH left so much unanswered. I was wondering whether because of this that HP will endure or not? Will the current crop of readers refer the next generation to it? bzbbaba replies: I feel it will endure for quite some time. I know that I will certainly refer young readers to the series and HP has entered our culture to a great extent with attempts to ban the books, popular movies, video games and all the other books adjacent to the series (those written by other authors trying to explain the books). True, the wtiting and plot aren't the most scintillating at times but I believe these instances are in the minority and mostly JKR is spot- on with her writing and characterization. A young man I was talking to last night said the Harry Potter series was a "stepping stone" to other fantasy books. I would have to say I agree with him; Harry Potter will serve as a "gateway book" to others. Bev. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 00:31:03 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:31:03 -0000 Subject: Camping - with Harry ...(was Why down on all the characters?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179332 > > Alla > > You know, to me, camping passed quickly enough. It is not like > > I wanted more of it, but to me it did not seem to drag on and > > on and on. > > > > Seemed to start and end fast enough. IMO of course. > > > > bboyminn: > > I'm completely baffled by people complaining about the Camping > Trip. Apparently they don't recognize it for what it is. It is > a mechanism by which the author moves her characters through > the story, and allows them to go to several places and learn > various things that are necessary to resolving the overall > plot. Mike: I think part of the frustration came from knowing the inevitable and feeling it was taking too long to get there. For instance, who didn't think that Harry would return to Godroc's Hollow? It was brought up more than once. I know I started to think to myself, 'will you get there already'. > bboyminn: > -- > > Let's look at the camping trip. It takes us from Grimmauld > Place, to Ron leaving and returning, to the recovery of the > Griffindor Sword, to Godrics Hollow, to the encounter with > the Goblins, to Lovegoods, to Malfoy Manor, to Shell Cottage, > to Gringotts, to Hogwarts. I'd hardly consider that /dull/. > And that only covers the major aspects, there are minor aspects > where they are analyzing the clues they have, which eventually > does lead to relevant conclusions. At each of those steps > along the way, more and more pieces of Harry's puzzle fall > into place, which is what needs to happen for Harry to choose > his ultimate course of action. Mike: Don't forget that it was during this time that they got their hands on Rita's book and had the big bomb of DD and GG dropped on them. They also got Godric's sword, finally destroyed the locket Horcrux, learned that the Hallows were real and where the "death stick" was. Plus, we the reader got the replay through Voldievision of what happened 16 years before at Godric's Hollow. I agree with you, Steve, there was not only a lot going on, there were a lot of revelations occurring during the camping trip. Besides, I consider the camping trip over once they get captured and dragged off to Malfoy Manor. That meant nine chapters, with most of that time spent at GH/with Bathilda or at the Lovegoods. > bboyminn: > Again, that hardly sounds like a dull time to me. If fact, > other than the climax, those seem to be the most exciting > aspects of the story. Mike: It was certainly the most angst ridden time for the Trio. I wonder if JKR was trying to make us frustrated with their lack of progress to give us empathy for the frustration the Trio was experiencing. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 00:42:50 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:42:50 -0000 Subject: A classic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179333 > Barry wrote: > > > > > Many of us have expressed disappointment at the HP series, mostly > > because DH left so much unanswered. I was wondering whether because > of this that HP will endure or not? Will the current crop of readers > refer the next generation to it? > Alla: I am absolutely recommending the books to the kiddos in my family ( well only one so far) when she is old enough to listen to them or be read to. How can I not recommend the books that have one of the most touching friendships I had ever read about in literature? How can I not recommend the books that brought me to the world full of magic? Of course I will recommend them. I will recommend them first and foremost for the kids to follow the journey of the orphaned boy. To see his pains, to cheer his triumpths, to be angry when he is being an idiot. I want my niece to experience Harry grew and mature and to become a person we see at the end, I want her to sympathise with the struggles of very flawed adults as well. In short I want her to love the books as much as I do. But since she is not even three yet, it will have to wait. Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 02:03:17 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:03:17 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179334 Jim Ferer: Either way, it's not pleasant reading these days. Before there was always some interesting theory or insight being played with between posts; surely we have not run out of ideas spawned by the incredibly rich world JKR created." I believe it's at least partly the times we live in. A reflection of this is `gotcha' journalism, where the flaws everyone has are picked like scabs. It's a kind of nihilism. a_svirn: Goodness, you are severe! I don't mind "gotcha journalism" so much, but do let me assure you that your second accusation is far off the mark. Far from asserting Bazarov-like the impossibility of objective ethics, lots of people who criticise the books and especially DH are actually disturbed by the relativistic approach to morality in the Potterverse. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 02:04:53 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:04:53 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179335 Magpie: Were the characters that much more well-loved pre-DH? Because I've always heard people saying they dislike aspects of the characters. It seems like the difference now, if anything, is maybe that now people know this is how they characters are going to stay and what they ultimately mean. They might have been expecting more of a turnaround. a_svirn: Personally, I think it is a false problem. I, for one, do not crack down on the *characters*. It is the *books* I feel dissatisfied with, or, rather, the book ? DH. Some of my favourite books are full of characters I detest, or dislike, or feel indifferent towards, and I still enjoy them none the less. What I find objectionable in DH is a) a crudely cobbled up plot and b) highly questionable morality which we are supposed to accept as "the epitome of goodness" almost Good Tidings, in fact. I wouldn't mind Dumbledore being Machiavellian in a book about a Machiavellian Dumbledore, but I find it most incongruous in a book where he is supposed to be the best of the good. And just as I have accepted that he is Machiavellian after all, and not even successfully Machiavellian at that, I am supposed to conclude that he has all along been Machiavellian for the Greater Good, and is in fact the best of the good (albeit not as good as Harry). Well, this is a kind of thing I am unable to accept, and to judge by the ongoing debate, I am definitely not the only one. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Nov 25 03:02:43 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:02:43 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179336 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > Magpie: > Were the characters that much more well-loved pre-DH? Because I've > always heard people saying they dislike aspects of the characters. It > seems like the difference now, if anything, is maybe that now people > know this is how they characters are going to stay and what they > ultimately mean. They might have been expecting more of a turnaround. > > a_svirn: > Personally, I think it is a false problem. I, for one, do not crack > down on the *characters*. It is the *books* I feel dissatisfied with, > or, rather, the book ? DH. Some of my favourite books are full of > characters I detest, or dislike, or feel indifferent towards, and I > still enjoy them none the less. What I find objectionable in DH is a) > a crudely cobbled up plot and b) highly questionable morality which > we are supposed to accept as "the epitome of goodness" almost Good > Tidings, in fact. Magpie: That's a much better description of what I think is going on--I think you're right in calling it a false problem. Liking or disliking characters isn't even the same thing as having a problem with them. Like you describe with Dumbledore, a person can think he's problematic given what he's supposed to be without feeling strongly about him one way or another. To me it just so happens that there's a lot of things I had problems with in DH that I actually want to discuss--the same things you mention here. There have always been people who hated one character or another, sometimes while they really loved other characters. That's really a different issue than having a problem with DH or the series as a whole. One of the changes I have post-DH is I think of the characters less as characters and more as fictional constructs. I no longer like or dislike them with much intensity, because they don't seem as real to me now for whatever reason. -m From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Sun Nov 25 04:50:27 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:50:27 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179337 > Jeanette It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems to be a > very negative feel to a lot of the posts. People are trashing JKR as a > writer, people are trashing the various once-loved characters. Celoneth: I just think a lot of people were disappointed by the last book, which is a letdown after investing so much time and emotions into the series to have it end in a disappointing manner. I actually liked the first 2/3 of DH, liked the camping, didn't mind the unrealistic bits b/c we've seen that from JKR before. I didn't mind the Hallows, didn't like them much, but there have been plenty of red herrings/stuff that hasn't been developed. What really killed it for me was the last half, its not that it didn't end the way I wanted, it was just so different from what we've been reading in terms of how it was written, in terms of content, etc. It felt really rushed - we have 4 horcruxes destroyed, a bunch of deaths, an epic battle, Voldemort's demise, Harry being dead/undead, and happily ever after - all in a few chapters, as opposed to 3,000 pages of build-up. Having everything crammed into a few chapters like this I think diluted everything that went on. Also a lot of the resolutions felt very contrived. The entire wand ownership thing came out of nowhere and ended up being some weird technicality that ended up saving the entire WW. The idea that Harry has to voluntarily sacrifice himself also didn't make sense to me and seemed like a very cruel thing to do to the character. Nor did a lot of the characters' actions/dialogue make sense at the end - it seemed forced/OOC/movie dialogue type. Then, of course, everything ends with a syrupy sweet epilogue, 19 years later with no context whatsoever. I don't think that it changes characters we like or don't like, just people being disappointed with how JKR chose to end the series & the manner in which she wrote it. Celoneth From lfreeman at mbc.edu Sun Nov 25 05:24:06 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:24:06 -0500 Subject: Filk: I want a hippogriffy beast for Christmas Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179338 A third-year Hagrid, facing the holidays alone in Hogwarts, ponders his Christmas wish. To the tune of "I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas" HAGRID: I want a hippogriffy beast for Christmas Only a hippogriffy beast will do. No more werewolf cubs, or Blast-Ended Skrewts But raisin up a hippogriff'll help me pass me NEWTS I want a hippogriffy beast for Christmas I don' think Dumbledore'll mind, dyou? I won' try ter take him through the portrait hole He c'n live out in the forest, out where I go wrestle trolls! I can see him now on Christmas morn by my four poster bed I know how ter be polite so I'll bow an' he won' bite an' then I'll pet him an' not wind up dead! I want a hippogriffy beast for Christmas. Only a hippogriffy beast will do. Cant hatch a dragon, b'cause they are illegal, So I'll settle fer a critter who's half horse and who's half eagle! An' my hippogriff is gonna like me too! {musical interlude, played on carved flute} The prefects think the half-giant is a great big hairy joke, But Ill teach my pet ter take a bite o' that Tom Riddle bloke! {musical interlude} He can go out at night an' hunt ferrets in the fog, Then come back ter me cupboard and take tea wif Aragog! I can see him now on Christmas morn by my four poster bed I know how ter be polite so I'll bow an' he won' bite an' then I'll pet him and not wind up dead! I want a hippogriffy beast for Christmas. Only a hippogriffy beast will do. Cant hatch a dragon, b'cause they are illegal, So Ill settle fer a critter who's half horse an' who's half eagle! An' my hippogriff is gonna like me too! Louise Freeman Davis From catlady at wicca.net Sun Nov 25 07:17:36 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:17:36 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water / Wand Lore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179339 Lizzyben wrote in : << DD had access to the Potters' bank vault for eleven years. And in all those years, DD never once withdrew some money to provide for Harry's care. >> Do we actually *know* that? If there was a large deposit into Vernon and Petunia's Muggle checking account each month, quarter, or year, and it had been announced in the letter that was left tucked in with baby Harry on the doorstep, would the Dursleys ever have said anything about it to Harry, our viewpoint character? Bboyminn wrote in : << But note the first thing Hermione did when they started camping, is go to the kitchen to make tea. She fetched her tea kettle, but no mention of fetching water, so I assume the tent had running water. If it had running water, then likely it had a bathroom. So, that problem is solved. >> If that tent had running water when they used that same tent at the Quidditch World Cup, why did our three take the tea kettle to fill it at an outdoor tap, thus overhearing old Archie proclaim that he likes a nice breeze around his privates? Mike Crudele wrote in : << << Of course, if the wizarding community would like to "share the secrets of wand-lore with other magical beings" (^3), we may consider re-evaluating these new requirements. >> >> Why haven't goblins tried to re-invent the wand? They're clever with metal and magic; does anyone remember if they're clever with wood as well? From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Nov 25 07:08:30 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:08:30 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > >snip > > So, what didn't I like? I didn't like how inconsequential the Malfoys > were, given the build-up we'd had. I didn't like how absurdly > inconsequential the life debt from Peter Pettigrew was, given how > much Harry's mercy towards him cost. I didn't like how everyone > in the Wizarding World (with the exception of Neville) sat on their > butts for nine months and allowed Voldemort to take over without > any effective resistance. I didn't like that Harry basically sat on > his butt for months without even sending a word of encouragement > to the people who believed in him. Susan responding: Thought the Malfoys were quite central to the whole book -- showing what happens to even the most faithful DEs UNLESS THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL...demonstrating that even the most evil people can have a shred of good in them....in HBP, Draco cannot kill DD and his mother is willing to do whatever to save Draco, and in the DH both parents are actually more concerned about their son than about the triumph of Lord Voldemort..... Here's where JKR's skill as an author becomes apparent; I would never have thought I had anything good to say about the Malfoys....WW sitting on their butts? Except for Neville? What about Ginny, Luna, Xenophilius, was it Michael Corner who was tortured for setting loose a first year?, all of the Potterwatch, all of the Order of the Phoenix....all the people who were trying to save Muggles?....and perhaps Harry had a few things on his mind, struggling to survive, figure out the incomprehensible, find the horcruxes, etc. etc. etc....? I didn't like Harry's quip about Crucio > and Molly's callout to Bellatrix, because they sounded like bad > lines from action movies. Well, here we agree, in part..I hated Molly calling Bellatrix a bitch, it's straight from Aliens! (the first movie)..I don't like anyone using that word, it's the reflex derogatory word about women, and it's even more distasteful coming from another woman (imho) re: Crucio.... Actually one of MY pet peeves is that here LV is trying to take over the WW, and the Muggle World, and your friends and family are dying, and you keep using stunning spells? Full body bind curses? So that the Death Eaters can recover 15 minutes later and kill another member of your family? I think I may be in a minority here, but when attacked with deadly force, I use deadly force in return.. > > I didn't like that--despite having assured us that not *all* > Slytherins were Death Eaters or the children of Death Eaters-- > *all*the Slytherins deserted the school, thus proving themselves > *all* cowards and traitors. What about Professors Snape and Slughorn? > I didn't like the absence of Snape's portrait in the Headmaster's > office. That struck me as petty. > But doesn't JKR say that Harry will be instrumental in ensuring that his portrait will be in the Headmaster's office? I thought it was one of those automatic things, if the Headmaster abandons his post, then his portrait isn't there? Susan From lei_smarties at yahoo.com.ph Sun Nov 25 11:08:03 2007 From: lei_smarties at yahoo.com.ph (lei_smarties) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:08:03 -0000 Subject: A classic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179341 > > Barry wrote: > > > > > > > > Many of us have expressed disappointment at the HP series, mostly > > > because DH left so much unanswered. I was wondering whether > because > > of this that HP will endure or not? Will the current crop of readers > > refer the next generation to it? Lei: Well,I would definitely recommend it to the next generation I don't think it would be hard for them to love the book that once introduced us to the world full of magic, a world that will lived up to our imaginations for the rest of our lives, and wished that this world exists, though for some the last installment it is a disappointment. I still think that, that doesn't count because admit it! Almost all of the characters affected you in so many ways. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 16:04:09 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:04:09 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water / Wand Lore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179342 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Lizzyben wrote in > : > > << DD had access to the Potters' bank vault for eleven years. And in > all those years, DD never once withdrew some money to provide for > Harry's care. >> > > Do we actually *know* that? If there was a large deposit into Vernon > and Petunia's Muggle checking account each month, quarter, or year, > and it had been announced in the letter that was left tucked in with > baby Harry on the doorstep, would the Dursleys ever have said anything > about it to Harry, our viewpoint character? lizzyben: Well, yeah, maybe he e-transferred Gringotts gold directly to the Durseleys' bank account, or maybe he embezzeled funds for ten years to buy wizarding robes & Caribbean cruises. But when Harry first discovers his Gringotts bank vault, he realizes that the Dursleys had no idea that he had inherited money: "All Harry's -- it was incredible. The Dursleys couldn't have known about this or they'd have had it from him faster than blinking. How often had they complained how much Harry cost them to keep? And all the time there had been a small fortune belonging to him, buried deep under London." (SS) Petunia complains about the expense of keeping Harry, but never mentions getting any financial support. When DD goes to chastise the Dursleys in HBP, he never mentions giving the Dursleys any monetary payments, or complains that the Dursleys misused the money they were given. Because they weren't given any money. Vernon Dursley first realizes that Harry might have money in HBP, & his attitude changes at that time. lizzyben From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 17:01:14 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:01:14 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water / Wand Lore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179343 > lizzyben: Petunia complains about the expense of keeping Harry, but never > mentions getting any financial support. When DD goes to chastise the > Dursleys in HBP, he never mentions giving the Dursleys any monetary > payments, or complains that the Dursleys misused the money they were > given. Because they weren't given any money. Vernon Dursley first > realizes that Harry might have money in HBP, & his attitude changes at > that time. > a_svirn: Precisely. I suppose, from Dumbledore's unorthodox point of view, in order to raise Harry "as their own" they should have provided for him out of their own pockets. "Convenient, eh?" By the way, even after DH we are still in the dark about the terms of the bargain between Dumbledore and Petunia. I'd say he simply threatened to turn her into a newt if she refused, except that Dumbledore was never one for simple solutions. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 19:50:18 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:50:18 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water / Wand Lore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179344 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > If that tent had running water when they used that same tent at the > Quidditch World Cup, why did our three take the tea kettle to fill it > at an outdoor tap Maybe it's only because Arthur was determined to do everything as if they were Muggles camping. He insisted on putting the tent up by hand, and on making fire even though there was an oven in the tent. Besides, it was mentioned in GoF that the tent had a bathroom, and what's the point of having a bathroom without running water :-)? zanooda From stephab67 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 20:08:03 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:08:03 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: "Personally, I think it is a false problem. I, for one, do not crack down on the *characters*. It is the *books* I feel dissatisfied with, or, rather, the book ? DH. Some of my favourite books are full of characters I detest, or dislike, or feel indifferent towards, and I still enjoy them none the less. What I find objectionable in DH is a) a crudely cobbled up plot and b) highly questionable morality which we are supposed to accept as "the epitome of goodness" almost Good Tidings, in fact." > Then Magpie wrote: "That's a much better description of what I think is going on--I think you're right in calling it a false problem. Liking or disliking characters isn't even the same thing as having a problem with them. Like you describe with Dumbledore, a person can think he's problematic given what he's supposed to be without feeling strongly about him one way or another. To me it just so happens that there's a lot of things I had problems with in DH that I actually want to discuss--the same things you mention here. There have always been people who hated one character or another, sometimes while they really loved other characters. That's really a different issue than having a problem with DH or the series as a whole." Steph: Were we really supposed to accept Dumbledore (who I assume you're talking about, a_sivrn) as the epitome of goodness? My interpretation is that JKR set up Dumbledore that way in the previous six books deliberately so that we, along with Harry, would be shocked at the reality of DD, rather than the facade he was showing to everyone for most of his life. Up through HBP the reader only got Harry's impression of Dumbledore, which was that of a kindly, wise, powerful, and totally good wizard. I took this as a message that even the people who are on the side of good have ulterior motives that might not be completely honorable, which is of course how life really works unless one is a saint, which of course few people are. The scene when Harry takes Snape's memories and puts them into the Pensieve asked the question, "does the end justify the means?" That chapter also shows that people aren't always who we think they are. Snape obviously is the other character who fits this scenario. I actually read DD and Snape as two sides of the same coin, or maybe more accurately, the same type of character but who behave oppositely but to the same end. Snape allows people to think him a bad person while secretly working for good (with ulterior motive regarding Lily), while DD maintains a benevolent exterior while hiding Machiavellian machinations to achieve Voldie's destruction. Magpie wrote: "One of the changes I have post-DH is I think of the characters less as characters and more as fictional constructs. I no longer like or dislike them with much intensity, because they don't seem as real to me now for whatever reason." Steph: I take this to mean that you look at the characters as archetypes meant to send a message/propel the story rather than as real people. I don't disagree with you regarding some of the characters. I thought of DD that way until DH, where the revelations about him made him more believable, rather than less (I always thought something wasn't right about him because a: he seemed too good to be true, and b: he allowed Draco to attempt to kill him all school year long in HBP despite the fact that this nearly caused the deaths of two students - a decision which, at best, was irresponsible, and at worst morally wrong). Voldie always seemed to be a fictional construct, because his errors went beyond arrogance, they were just stupid. Harry became more of a fictional construct in DH in the last part of the book. He went from ordinary kid put in extraordinary circumstances to The Hero. By the way, I really hated the Kings Cross chapter. Not because Harry thought he was dead, nor because he "went back," but because DD was fawning over Harry like some fangirl. Ewww. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 20:52:53 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:52:53 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water /... Bath, Stove, and More In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179346 --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" > wrote: > > > If that tent had running water when they used that same > > tent at the> Quidditch World Cup, why did our three take > > the tea kettle to fill it at an outdoor tap > > > Maybe it's only because Arthur was determined to do everything > as if they were Muggles camping. He insisted on putting the > tent up by hand, and on making fire even though there was an > oven in the tent. Besides, it was mentioned in GoF that the > tent had a bathroom, and what's the point of having a > bathroom without running water :-)? > > > zanooda > bboyminn: That was going to be my answer; Arthur want to do everything 'Muggle Style'. But on the issue of the Bathroom, or more correctly the 'toilet', do you suppose the 'disposal' (he said euphemistically) aspect of the room actually used water? If it did use water that water aspect was probably more of an illusion since there would be no plumbing underneath. Likely it used some kind of vanishing spell. But was it a permanent device oriented vanishing spell similar to a vanishing cabinet, or did it require the 'wave of a wand' to make it work? Now Tap-water would be a different matter, there is really nothing to dispose of, just water-in/water-out. And as long as we are on the subject of utilitarian appliances, I wonder about cook stoves and refrigerators. Are these magical object with cooking and heating spells on them. Do they use fuel of some type (gas, electricity, etc...)? Or, for a refrigerator and freezer, did Molly simply place cooling and freeze charms on parts of her existing kitchen cabinets. Or, maybe she simply placed the various cooling charms on the food items themselves and placed them in the normal cupboard. Or, maybe she has a refrigerator-looking object that needed or had cooling spells on it. We do know Molly and the tent had a cook stove, or object that look like cook stoves, but is it one of those illusions like the Hogwarts Express or the Wizards Wireless that merely mimics real world objects, or are are they wizardly real? By that I mean, does Molly merely have a cook stove-looking object in and upon which she casts her own flame charms, or are the flame charms actually built into the stove; turn a knob and magical flames appear? And as long as we are on the subject of cooking, which ties to the subject of food, where do wizards get their food? I don't recall hearing about or seeing or even the implication of a wizards grocer in any of the books. Yet, they do manage to get food. Think of all the food related items needed to keep Fortescue's Ice Cream Parlor in business, or the many coffee shops, Inns, Pubs, and cafes we see. At Grimmauld Place, once Kreacher became 'nice', he seemed to have magically discovered an endless supply of food. It all had to come from somewhere. Once we have a source of the food (and other items) then comes the complication of paying for them. In my own private Potter fantasy world, I imagine, many years in the future, Harry and Ron being quite rich, and not wanting to bother with such mundane things as money. So they made an arrangement with Gringotts to accept their signatures as authorization for payment. When ever Harry or Ron buy anything in the wizard world, they merely sign their name to the back of the sales receipt, and the merchant sends that to the bank. The bank then takes the signed receipt as the equivalent of a check, and pays to the merchants account the amount indicated. Nice, clean, and easy. Now a variation of that, that might have allows Sirius to purchase Harry's broom, is that instead of the signature of the account holder, the bank vault is named. Sirius's note said to remove the money to pay for the broom from bank vault #711. Perhaps, like a Swiss Numbered Account, that was enough to authorize payment, especially when the payment is going to a reputable business. Just a few rambling thoughts. Steve/bboymiin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 21:22:24 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:22:24 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Responds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179347 >From the Desk of Ragnok, Chairgoblin, Gringotts ______________________________________________________________ Dear Catlady, This is Bagrod, undergoblin to Ragnok of Gringotts. Ragnok said I could use his stationary to answer your letter. He's a great goblin, Ragnok is. OK, to your question. ***** Catlady: Why haven't goblins tried to re-invent the wand? They're clever with metal and magic; does anyone remember if they're clever with wood as well? ^1 ***** First off, thank you for that praise on our talents in metallurgy. I would also point out that we have excellent gemologists, too. We goblins do take pride in those craftsmanships. Unfortunately, our skills do not extend to working with once live materials, the category that wands made from tree wood, fall under. You may also have noticed that we have little expertise in potions, since the vast majority of potion ingredients are former living material. We just don't have a knack in those fields. Back in the fifteenth century, Ugrid the great goblin scientist, was tasked with trying to reverse engineer a captured wand. (Things were going bad for our revolution attempt). He was not only hurt badly in a backfiring mishap, it was determined that goblin magic as practised down through the ages was incompatible with wand usage. It would have required a new way of channeling magic than the way we currently employ. But, without the right to carry wands, and without the knowledge you wizards have in making wands, it was pointless to re-learn how to channel magic. At the same time, we know using wands is a much more powerful way of employing magic. Therefore, we won't stop our efforts to change the laws you wizards have imposed on us goblins. By the way, Catlady, that isn't a condition like the Doglady of St. Mungos, I hope. We have heard of those kind of things happening to your race when misusing potions or magic. That is why we stay away from potion-making. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Bagrod Chairgoblin (someday) ________________________________________________________________ Mike, who appreciates Bagrod's more reasoned way of responding ;) &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ^1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179339 From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 22:33:42 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:33:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A classic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711251433r47da2814k7ee95cf3476cacf5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179348 Of course I will. No series of books is perfect. Of course, I love the series from beginning to end, but I've been known to recommend books to others that I did not personally enjoy as much as the HP books, if I know that they will fit the imagination of the reader. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 23:29:15 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:29:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711251529l3d5c24e0nb06bf0fecae640b2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179349 Celoneth: It felt really rushed - we have 4 horcruxes destroyed, a bunch of deaths, an epic battle, Voldemort's demise, Harry being dead/undead, and happily ever after - all in a few chapters, as opposed to 3,000 pages of build-up Lynda: Well, we knew that this was the last book. We knew that (at least I expected) the horcruxes would be destroyed, there was bound to be an epic battle; its simply the way evil overlords are usually destroyed, in an epic battle. We also knew (again at least I expected) Voldemort to be vanquisshed, more than likely by death. Harry's death/undeath was not really unexpected either. And as for the happily ever after part, I choose to imagine that as people do, he, in is fictional life continues to face the many problems of adulthood, marriage, parenthood and career expectations. But that's just me. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Nov 26 00:07:53 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:07:53 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179350 lLizzyben wrote in : << When DD goes to chastise the Dursleys in HBP, he never mentions giving the Dursleys any monetary payments, or complains that the Dursleys misused the money they were given. >> That one is a pretty good point. << "How often had they complained how much Harry cost them to keep?">> << Petunia complains about the expense of keeping Harry, but never mentions getting any financial support. >> Well, she wouldn't, would she? Even if the entire Dursley family was living on Harry's hypothetical generous allowance, she would complain about the expense of keeping him. It's her personality. << Well, yeah, maybe he e-transferred Gringotts gold directly to the Dursleys' bank account >> We know Gringotts converts between Muggle money and wizarding money. They wouldn't need to do electronic funds transfer to hand the Muggle cash to someone to deposit either straight to Vernon and Petunia's Muggle account, or into a Muggle account that DD had set up to make the EFT. Or DD might have funded his Muggle account with one lump withdrawal of cash and instructions for paying it out, perhaps during the 24 hours between Hagrid taking Harry from Godric's Hollow and DD putting Harry on the doorstep. Or he might have used the lump sum to buy Harry a Muggle annuity. DD reads Muggle newspapers; the newspapers contain Muggle bank and insurance ads, and personal finance columns; he's clever despite being evil; he could figure it out. DD's mother was Muggle-born. Had she entirely cast off her Muggle family, or did her sons grow up knowing their Muggle grandparents and cousins? If she had cast off her Muggle family, had she cast off the rest of the Muggle world with it? Maybe she was a big-time investor in the Muggle stock market, and her sons learned finance as well as lies and secrecy at her knee. << But when Harry first discovers his Gringotts bank vault, he realizes that the Dursleys had no idea that he had inherited money: "All Harry's -- it was incredible. The Dursleys couldn't have known about this or they'd have had it from him faster than blinking. (snip) And all the time there had been a small fortune belonging to him, buried deep under London." >> << Vernon Dursley first realizes that Harry might have money in HBP, & his attitude changes at that time. >> Thinking that James and Lily had somehow had enough sense to buy life insurance to buy an annuity for their kid if 'something happened' to them is not the same as thinking that Harry has access to a large bank account for when he comes of age. I'm sure Vernon thinks in terms of insurance and annuities. If it were the US, if he weren't *sure* both James and Lily were layabouts, he'd think that they hadn't had enough sense to buy life insurance, but got it as an employee benefit. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 00:48:18 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:48:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore - Good as Written? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179351 > a_svirn wrote: > > It is the books I feel dissatisfied with, or rather, the book ? DH. > -- > What I find objectionable in DH is (a) a crudely cobbled up plot Mike: There is really no response to ones feelings regarding plot. Either you liked it or you didn't, and you obviously didn't. I agree with you insofar as the Hallows go. I didn't like their addition to the plot (you mean that was the whole reason for the power behind the spell DD cast against LV in the MoM atrium? Because he cast it with the Elder Wand, though LV was able to counter it, still.) I suppose JKR had always intended to use the Hallows, but I'd much rather she had gone in a different direction. That said, I didn't find the plot short-comings enough to ruin my enjoyment of the book. To each his/her own, I guess. > a_svirn: > and b) highly questionable morality which we are supposed to accept > as "the epitome of goodness" almost Good Tidings, in fact." Mike: I agree with Steph's response to this part, I'll just add a few points. In PS/SS, Harry thought that DD let him go after the stone (and taught him enough to make it a legimate attempt) because he deserved his shot at Voldemort. It seems that is partly true. In hindsight, it seems this was a training exercise for Harry. In PoA, Harry was devestated when DD said he couldn't do anything about the situation at hand. Then he sends Harry and Hermione back in time to right the situation themselves. (Of course, he already knew the outcome, he knew Buckbeak was saved and that the Dementors were repelled.) Another training exercise. Would DD have chanced loosing Harry to the Dementors if he didn't already know they were going to survive it? The DD back breaker for me was the speech at the end of OotP. DD admits he has a plan for Harry, and admits that plan didn't include any room for affection for Harry. It became a problem he had to overcome, which he seemed to do in HBP. He got everything back on track. And though Harry seemed to accept his training, he was none too happy with DD during the OotP speech, and was downright argumentative with DD in many places during HBP. By DH, Harry seriously questions DD's "goodness" status. My point is the same one Steph was making. The pedestal Dumbledore was standing on was steadily eroded from the first book on. It wasn't as obvious in the first 3 or 4 books, but by book 5 I thought JKR had given enough clues, then hit us over the head with the speech. So, was he really suppose to be the "Epitome of Goodness" or was that a big, fat slight of hand? One more thing about DD: He is not a strategist, nor a tactician; he's a tech guy. He should never been the 'leader' of the anti-LV movement. Mad-Eye would have been much better in that role. After Mad-Eye decides on a strategy, DD would have been perfect at figuring out the particulars, what spells and who casts them, where to set up their trap/defence/attack, personel and where to use them. But I don't think JKR knows anything about military strategy/tactics. So she has both DD and LV making stupid choices while they are at the same time supposed to be the most brilliant men of their time. > Then Magpie wrote: > -- > Like you describe with Dumbledore, a person can think he's > problematic given what he's supposed to be without feeling > strongly about him one way or another. Mike: And like I said above and Steph said in her post, might you consider that the problematic reading is not in what JKR wrote but in the way you have interpreted it? I could be missing something in your use of the term "problematic". > Magpie: > To me it just so happens that there's a lot of things I had > problems with in DH that I actually want to discuss -- Mike: What else you got? :D ---- > Steph: > -- > Voldie always seemed to be a fictional construct, because his > errors went beyond arrogance, they were just stupid. Harry became > more of a fictional construct in DH in the last part of the book. > He went from ordinary kid put in extraordinary circumstances to > The Hero. Mike: I agree with you on Stupid!Voldemort. But Harry, I thought Harry was destined for great things from the time he cast his Patronus in PoA. If anything, I thought Harry was going to be a more magically powerful than he turned out to be. He was groomed to be the Hero by DD and he finally accepted the mantle in DH. > Steph: > By the way, I really hated the Kings Cross chapter. Not because > Harry thought he was dead, nor because he "went back," but because > DD was fawning over Harry like some fangirl. Ewww. Mike: Me too, to this and the rest of your post. :) From catlady at wicca.net Mon Nov 26 01:04:59 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:04:59 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179352 Which I think is a very pretty name, but I wonder when it was first used by Muggles. I suspect it was not used by Muggles until after Albus's Muggle-born mother was born and named Kendra. During my search, I found sites that told me that the origin of this name is Welsh, Gaelic, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon. I suspect they don't actually know. I found this site that says, according to Social Security records, the first year that Kendra was one of the 1000 most common girl name given in USA was in 1946. However, it says there have been 78,126 American girls named Kendra in the last 125 years ("The last 125 years refers to 1880 through 2004; last year refers to 2004") and 77,347 in the last 50 years, which I calculate is 779 American girls were named Kendra between 1880 and 1954. My arithmetic of their numbers indicates that there were 779 American girls named Kendra between 1946 and 1954, which suggests that the name was never used in USA before 1946. (My name, Rita, was vastly more popular, given to 279,993 babies between 1880 and 2004, and to 6,016 girls the year I was born.) 1946 - 77 1947 - 95 1948 - 79 1949 - not in the top 1000 1950 - 92 1951 - 105 1952 - 96 1953 - 122 1954 - 113 ------ 779 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Nov 26 02:10:16 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:10:16 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179353 Catlady: > Which I think is a very pretty name, but I wonder when it was first > used by Muggles. I suspect it was not used by Muggles until after > Albus's Muggle-born mother was born and named Kendra. Ceridwen: I wondered the same thing. The name "Kendra" falls almost in the same category as "Tiffany" for me, a recent name that has taken off in popularity since the 1970s. In that light, I went to my bookshelf and dragged out my beat-up copy of "What to Name Your Baby" by Nurnberg and Rosenbloom, sixteenth edition, 1977. The name "Kendra" doesn't appear in the regular listings. It doesn't appear under the Germanic languages, the Slavic languages, the Finno- Urgic languages, the Romance languages, or the Israeli listings. It is not listed in A Galaxy of the Unusual. To this book, the name doesn't exist. I checked Catholic Online for any saints named Kendra - just because it isn't listed in a thirty year old baby book doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the Real World - but found no saints by this name. I checked the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. (SCA) and found a list of old Anglo-Saxon names that lists Kynedri? and Kynedrithe, along with the more common Cy... spellings, which may be forerunners of the name. I'm glad you brought this up. That name for the proposed time, dragged me right out of the story. I never knew anyone named Kendra while I was growing up. I never knew anyone whose mother, aunt, cousin or grandmother was named Kendra. The name doesn't fit. I notice things like that. My name comes from the Welsh legendary cycle, but it wasn't used as a first name until the mid-1800s, then there was only one instance. I've been asked if I'm part of a Welsh nationalist movement, or if my parents were, because of my name (the answer is no). To this point, the names seemed to match the eras and the WW. A lot of the pre-Harry generation names come from Latin. The kids in Harry's years have more common British names. The Black family is off in a cosmos all their own. ;) I could probably have bought the name Kendra in the WW in the 1800s, since they do have a slightly different culture and references than the Muggle world. To have Kendra Dumbledore be Muggle-born and have that name was a huge disconnect for me. If people want to talk about names outside of the context of the books, Off-List Chatter would be the best place to do it. Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Nov 26 02:50:29 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:50:29 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179354 > Steph: > That chapter also shows that people aren't always who we think they > are. Snape obviously is the other character who fits this > scenario. I actually read DD and Snape as two sides of the same > coin, or maybe more accurately, the same type of character but who > behave oppositely but to the same end. Snape allows people to > think him a bad person while secretly working for good (with > ulterior motive regarding Lily), while DD maintains a benevolent > exterior while hiding Machiavellian machinations to achieve > Voldie's destruction. Jen: I like your description about them behaving oppositely. I'd say they aren't the same type of character though, mainly because I credit Dumbledore with real benevolence as the reason behind his Machiavellian plan involving Harry, and read Snape's actions as more about personal redemption. I do think the Dumbledore/Snape storylines in DH were meant to be flip sides, JKR's biggest secrets she wanted to hide by characterizing DD as the epitome of goodness, while saying negatives like 'why do people like Snape, what is there to like about Slytherins?' It seems like she expected readers to completely side with DD/Gryffindors, then her big 'aha' moment was to trot out the Slytherins who ended up helping Harry - with Snape as the biggest wow - coupled with the surprise outing of Dumbledore as the puppetmaster rather than a 'benign' figure of goodness (paraphrasing from MTV interview Oct. 15, 2007). Or at least speaking as someone who read the story siding with Harry/DD/Gryffindors, I found those particular elements of DH to be surprising plot twists. (I read the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws to be mostly filler myself, extras around to add weight to one side or the other at pivotal moments.) Jen From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 02:55:07 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:55:07 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179355 > Catlady: > > Which I think is a very pretty name, but I wonder when it was > > first used by Muggles. I suspect it was not used by Muggles until > > after Albus's Muggle-born mother was born and named Kendra. > > Ceridwen: > -- > > I'm glad you brought this up. That name for the proposed time, > dragged me right out of the story. I never knew anyone named > Kendra while I was growing up. Mike: Curious. A good friend of mine, from my AF days, had an older sister who was married to and had a daughter with Ken Stabler, the Oakland Raiders quarterback. They named her Kendra. So, I was pulled out of the story momentarily because I knew of someone named Kendra, and you were pulled out because you didn't know anyone named Kendra. Seems JKR couldn't win using that name for Mrs Dumbledore. > Ceridwen: > I notice things like that. My name comes from the Welsh legendary > cycle, but it wasn't used as a first name until the mid-1800s, then > there was only one instance. I've been asked if I'm part of a > Welsh nationalist movement, or if my parents were, because of my > name (the answer is no). Mike: No, but I know you're part of a secret witches coven that's trying to overturn the 1692 statute of secrecy, Ceridwen. By the way, how's that new wand working out? Sassafras with Thestral core, isn't it? ^-~ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 02:58:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:58:10 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm for Voldemort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179356 Mike wrote: > How about casting the Fidelius over the Gaunt hovel? In previous > posts, I speculated that one must have propriety over the object > being hidden to cast the Fidelius Charm on it. Well, Tom Riddle was > the last of the Gaunts. Doesn't that make him the owner of the shack, even if Marvolo and/or Morfin died intestate? So what would stop Riddle from hiding the ring in the hovel and putting the same type of Fidelius on the hovel that Dumbledore put on 12 GP? After all, Harry became the owner of 12 GP *after* the Fidelius and the charm still held. In fact, it still held even though it was no longer the Order > HQ, the thing that the Fidelius was supposedly hiding. > Carol responds: Setting aside your propriety idea, which (sorry, Mike) doesn't have any canon basis that I can see, I don't think that Voldemort saw any need to cast a Fidelius charm, which involves *enclosing a secret within a person*, the Secret Keeper, who is entrusted with the Secret and is the only one who can reveal it. Obviously, as Fliss pointed out, Voldemort doesn't trust anyone else enough to tell them the secret and give them the ability to tell it, which he himself would *not* be able to do. Voldie would want to be his own Secret Keeper if that is possible. But since he alone already knew the secret and he was not about to tell anyone (no one, he thought, could possibly be clever enough to find his hiding places or get past the protections if they did), he didn't think he needed to make himself his own Secret Keeper through a spell since he was already his own secret keeper by default as the only one who knew the secret. Does that make sense? His hubris in thinking that no one could penetrate his secrets was his downfall. IOW, the Fidelius Charm is not cast over a location or a Horcrux or a person in hiding or whatever is being kept secret. It's cast over the person who is *keeping* the secret to place the secret inside them, perhaps analogous to *encasing* a soul bit in a Horcrux. BTW, bboyminn said upthread that the Fidelius Charm on the Potters broke when they died, which is also what Harry guesses, but that idea is disproved in the Voldie flashback when Voldie watches the Potters, who think they're still protected by the Fidelius Charm, which, the narrator (seeing from Voldemort's pov) tells us is already broken. We're back, IMO, to the idea of Fidelius meaning "faithful." ("Fidelis" = faithful, loyal, true.) Pettigrew has not been faithful. He has broken faith with the Potters by revealing their secret to the enemy who wants to kill them, and in doing so, has broken the spell itself, making the Potters and their bodies and Baby!Harry visible to Hagrid and everyone else. (BTW, I don't think that anyone except the Potters, Black, Pettigrew, DD, and Lupin even knew there was or would be a Fidelius charm until Pettigrew told Voldemort and broke the charm. The whole idea would be to keep that information quiet, and they only had a week between the casting and the breaking.) To return to Voldemort, he isn't going to put his faith or trust in anyone else, and he needs no spell to trust himself. Carol, finding the very idea of a Fidelius Charm OoC for Voldemort From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 03:11:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:11:30 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Speaks Out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179357 Sharon: > >hehehehe.....Excellent reminder that it is pretty damn strange that in DH all of a sudden people (AKA Bellatrix) are asked for their wands instead of their keys. Nifty plot device, but totally a plot-hole of you ask me. > > Horace: > If I don't mess, The vault in PS/SS (Vault 713 if I remind well) has no keyhole, and can be opened only by a Goblin. I guessed that the Lestranges' vault has yet another kind of lock (related to the wand). > Or maybe the Goblins raised the security level in those troubled times (whoever boarded a plane lately can guess what I mean...?) > Carol responds: Bellatrix Lestrange has had her wand stolen and is anticipating a break-in by HRH, and she has apparently asked or ordered the Gringotts goblins to take precautions, which is why they specifically ask to examine her wand and why they have set up the waterfall thingie to detect imposters. (Travers is also suspicious that Bellatrix has her old wand and has to be Confunded, as does the goblin examining the wand.) Carol, who nevertheless does see plotholes involving vaults and keys (e.g., Mrs. Weasley taking money from Harry's vault to buy his books) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Nov 26 03:25:06 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:25:06 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Catlady: > > > Which I think is a very pretty name, but I wonder when it was > > > first used by Muggles. I suspect it was not used by Muggles until > > > after Albus's Muggle-born mother was born and named Kendra. > > > > Ceridwen: > > -- > > > > I'm glad you brought this up. That name for the proposed time, > > dragged me right out of the story. I never knew anyone named > > Kendra while I was growing up. > > Mike: > Curious. A good friend of mine, from my AF days, had an older sister > who was married to and had a daughter with Ken Stabler, the Oakland > Raiders quarterback. They named her Kendra. Ceridwen: So, your air force days - the 1980s, perhaps? I did consider that the name Kendra might be an attempt at a female version of Kenneth. Not the standard practice in the 1800s, though I did know of a poor girl christened "Fredine" for her father in the mid-20th Century. Mike: > So, I was pulled out of the story momentarily because I knew of > someone named Kendra, and you were pulled out because you didn't know > anyone named Kendra. Seems JKR couldn't win using that name for Mrs > Dumbledore. Ceridwen: Probably not. It just didn't ring true to the times, for me. Myrtle, sure, though she had already used it. Hazel, yes. Edith. Clara. Lillian. Miriam. I had a laugh at Hepsibah Smith, but then, I had a cat named Hepsibah. It's an old name, with some Biblical backing. Something I expected in the HP series, and suitable to Ms. Smith's age and time. It didn't pull me out of the story, it just put me in mind of my cat in the same way that meeting someone in Real Life who was named Hepsibah might. Mike: > No, but I know you're part of a secret witches coven that's trying to > overturn the 1692 statute of secrecy, Ceridwen. By the way, how's > that new wand working out? Sassafras with Thestral core, isn't it? > ^-~ Ceridwen: The new wand is working out fine, thanks, but you got the wood wrong. Sassafras is a weak and brittle wood. My wand is made of nice, aromatic Red Cedar with a Thestral core. I'm going to have to sew in a wand pocket, though, it keeps getting lost in my school bag. Tried to drag it out in Anthropology the other night, but couldn't find it until Philosophy. Why not overturn the Statutes? What good have they done? We're a society living in constant fear of detection and of doing something inadvertently in front of Muggles. If you ask me, the Ministry uses that for leverage to keep us all under their thumbs. They'll never get rid of Muggle prejudice this way, and that prejudice is just leverage for various and sundry Dark Lords to motivate potential followers. Come on, join, Mike. You know you want to! Ceridwen. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 03:47:40 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:47:40 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711251947s7770809buac36a07ae6201d15@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179359 Lizzyben: << When DD goes to chastise the Dursleys in HBP, he never mentions giving the Dursleys any monetary payments, or complains that the Dursleys misused the money they were given. >> Lynda: What money? I never got the idea that the Dursleys got any money for keeping Harry. Harry was their family, like it or not and therefore, with his godfather presumably a mass murderer, their responsibility whether or not they received money for taking him in. And that's not so strange, either. Think of all the single parents and grandparents who are raising kids on their own without help from anyone. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 03:49:22 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:49:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <474a424a.02b38c0a.11ac.40b6@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179360 Ceridwen: Probably not. It just didn't ring true to the times, for me. Myrtle, sure, though she had already used it. Hazel, yes. Edith. Clara. Lillian. Miriam. I had a laugh at Hepsibah Smith, but then, I had a cat named Hepsibah. It's an old name, with some Biblical backing. Something I expected in the HP series, and suitable to Ms. Smith's age and time. It didn't pull me out of the story, it just put me in mind of my cat in the same way that meeting someone in Real Life who was named Hepsibah might. Sherry: I read a book that was written in the 1940's or 1950's, and the story took place in the 1850's. The main character's name was Kendra. So, Dumbledore's mother's name didn't really register with me at all. I think I've also known of someone named Kendra. Actually, the name that I had the hardest time getting used to, in the sense that it didn't seem to fit the time in which the books took place, well, that name was Harry. I remember thinking when I first read SS/PS, that nobody today would name a boy Harry. But once I first met him arriving in Hagrid's arms, I forgot all about the name not seeming natural for that time. Sherry From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 04:01:25 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:01:25 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore - Good as Written? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711252001y41697a5s138d28acb08ba630@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179361 Mike: I agree with you on Stupid!Voldemort. But Harry, I thought Harry was destined for great things from the time he cast his Patronus in PoA. If anything, I thought Harry was going to be a more magically powerful than he turned out to be. He was groomed to be the Hero by DD and he finally accepted the mantle in DH. Lynda: Not Me! I thought Harry was destined for great things from the first time I opened SS. And then, reading the books I came to realize he wanted a quiet life, as he puts it. That he got somewhat of that quiet life in the end, seems to me a good thing. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 26 04:40:41 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 04:40:41 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179362 > Ceridwen: > I wondered the same thing. The name "Kendra" falls almost in the > same category as "Tiffany" for me, a recent name that has taken off > in popularity since the 1970s. In that light, I went to my bookshelf > and dragged out my beat-up copy of "What to Name Your Baby" by > Nurnberg and Rosenbloom, sixteenth edition, 1977. Magpie: Tiffany isn't actually a recent name. It's been around for hundreds of years and was originally given to girls born on the Epiphany. It's Greek. I thought Kendra could easily exist at the time mentioned. Sometimes you find surprising names in the past, even ones that don't sound like standards. According to my dictionary Kendra appeared in the 40s in the US and the 60s in Great Britain, but I can easily believe that were people who had the name before it became popular. In my dictionary it says it's probably a combination of Kenneth and Alexandra. -m From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 04:51:29 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 04:51:29 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179363 Catlady: > Well, she wouldn't, would she? Even if the entire Dursley family was > living on Harry's hypothetical generous allowance, she would complain > about the expense of keeping him. It's her personality. lizzyben: But we're looking for any indication that the Durselys got money, and there isn't. Petunia specifically complains about the expense of keeping Harry, Harry realizes that they never knew he had money, DD never mentions that he paid money to the Dursleys, etc. So, there's a ton of evidence that the Dursleys didn't get a dime. What's the evidence that they were paid? None. Why assume that Petunia is lying about the hypothetical monetary payment that no one ever mentions, when it's much simpler & more logical to conclude that the Dursleys weren't paid? Occam's Razor, here. Catlady: Or DD might have funded his Muggle account with one lump > withdrawal of cash and instructions for paying it out, perhaps during > the 24 hours between Hagrid taking Harry from Godric's Hollow and DD > putting Harry on the doorstep. Maybe she was a big-time investor in > the Muggle stock market, and her sons learned finance as well as lies > and secrecy at her knee. lizzyben: This is total wild speculation here, though it's somewhat interesting to imagine the knut/pound conversion rate, or DD's mother's hypothetical talent for finance. And I haven't found an answer for my original question - how did DD end up w/the Potter's key in the first place? He wasn't the heir, or the guardian. So, I'm not sure DD had any right to get money out of the bank vault in the first place. Catlady: > Thinking that James and Lily had somehow had enough sense to buy life > insurance to buy an annuity for their kid if 'something happened' to > them is not the same as thinking that Harry has access to a large bank > account for when he comes of age. lizzyben: The Dursleys treat Harry like he's worthless because they consider him worthless, and a drain on the family finances. Once the Dursleys realize that he's got access to money, they change their ways, because it's now in their interests to be nicer to Harry. They also insisted that Harry's parents were layabouts, which is more evidence that Harry's parents didn't provide Muggle life insurance, etc. There's absolutely no evidence that the Dursleys got money for raising Harry, & considerable evidence that they did not. Finally, IMO the last reason that DD didn't provide money to the Dursleys is because it would not be in DD's character or interests to do so. For the Chosen One plan to work, DD needed Harry to be absolutely loyal to DD only & willing to sacrifice his life for Hogwarts & the wizarding world. An involved Muggle family would muddle this plan, because the family might object, & Harry might not be willing to die for DD's cause. So DD would want the Dursleys to resent Harry, and ensure that Harry's experience with the Muggle world was a miserable one. Then, by the time Hagrid comes back to fetch Harry to Hogwarts, Harry is so insanely grateful that he's willing to do anything for DD & to protect his new home in the wizarding world. Lynda: What money? I never got the idea that the Dursleys got any money for keeping Harry. lizzyben: Exactly. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 06:38:30 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:38:30 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm for Voldemort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179364 --- "Carol" wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > > How about casting the Fidelius over the Gaunt hovel? ..., > > Tom Riddle was the last of the Gaunts. Doesn't that make > > him the owner of the shack, ...? So what would stop Riddle > > from hiding the ring in the hovel and putting the same > > type of Fidelius ... > > > Carol responds: > Setting aside your propriety idea, which (sorry, Mike) > doesn't have any canon basis that I can see, I don't think > that Voldemort saw any need to cast a Fidelius charm,... > Obviously, as Fliss pointed out, Voldemort doesn't trust > anyone else enough to tell them ... he didn't think he needed > to make himself his own Secret Keeper through a spell since > he was already his own secret keeper by default as the only > one who knew the secret. ... > bboyminn: One minor point on the Gaunt shack, it has been in muggle knowledge for many many years. I would be a bit odd if it just disappeared one day. Perhaps magic could overcome that complication, but I'm not so sure. Take for example 12 Grimmauld Place, according to Sirius that place has always had every conceivable protection known to wizard-kind placed on it. It has always been completely unknown to muggles. Though, I doubt that it was equally completely unknown to wizards, and it was very unlikely that the Black's needed a Fidelius Charm. The point is that the Black House has always been invisible to muggles, whereas the Gaunt house as always been known to muggles and might have raise questions if it suddenly vanished. Again, it's a very small point. Still I agree with Carol's central point, I don't think Voldemort thought he needed the Secret Keeper Charm. For one thing, I think was are seeing a bit of Wizardly Psychology. In SS/PS we see all the traps set but they are not absolute traps. They are designed for a clever wizard to get through. In a sense, its a game of who can outsmart who. And Voldemort certainly thinks he can outsmart and out-wizard anybody and everybody. Also note the Tri-Wizards task, the most prominent and historical is the Sphinx trap. This is typical Sphinx; a wizard guards a treasure with a Sphinx because he is sure no wizard is clever enough to outwit a Sphinx riddle. Look at the enchantments around the Locket/Cave. Again, it is a game of one wizard outsmarting another, and one wizard believing he is just too clever to be outsmarted. This is classic stuff here. I think Voldemort was just carrying on that bit of wizard psychology. > Carol Continues: > > BTW, bboyminn said upthread that the Fidelius Charm on the > Potters broke when they died, which is also what Harry > guesses, but that idea s disproved ... > We're back, IMO, to the idea of Fidelius meaning "faithful." > ("Fidelis" = faithful, loyal, true.) Pettigrew has not been > faithful. He has broken faith with the Potters ... bboyminn: Yes, I did mention the charm breaking when the Potter's died, but I'm pretty sure I also mentioned 'Breach of Fidelity' as a possibility, and historically, I have been strongly arguing for the 'Breach of Fidelity' case for years. I do think the Breach of Faith ended the Charm, but consider that when Peter told Voldemort, Voldemort was then in on the secret and that secret would therefore NOT be hidden from him. He could see the Potter because he had been given the Secret. None the less, I am more strongly in favor of 'Breach of Faith' killing the charm. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From kat7555 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 06:28:58 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:28:58 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: <2795713f0711251947s7770809buac36a07ae6201d15@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179365 > Lizzyben: > > When DD goes to chastise the Dursleys in HBP, he never mentions > giving the Dursleys any monetary payments, or complains that the > Dursleys misused the money they were given. > > > Lynda: > What money? I never got the idea that the Dursleys got any money > for keeping Harry. Harry was their family, like it or not and > therefore, with his godfather presumably a mass murderer, their > responsibility whether or not they received money for taking him > in. And that's not so strange, either. Think of all the single > parents and grandparents who are raising kids on their own without > help from anyone. I think if Dumbledore had given the Dursleys money for Harry's care they would have spent it on Dudley anyway. In Sorcerer's Stone Harry is forced to eat cold soup and wear Dudley's hand me downs while Dudley gets whatever he wants. I think Vernon made enough money to support the family they made a deliberate choice to neglect Harry. Kathy Kulesza From lothtm01 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 26 06:44:16 2007 From: lothtm01 at hotmail.com (Tiffany Lothamer) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:44:16 -0500 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water / Wand Lore In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179366 catlady wrote: If that tent had running water when they used that same tent at the Quidditch World Cup, why did our three take the tea kettle to fill it at an outdoor tap, thus overhearing old Archie proclaim that he likes a nice breeze around his privates? Tiffany now: I do believe that the tent they used in DH was a different tent than what they used at the world cup. I don't remember who they borrowed the GoF one from. ~~Tiffany Marie*Twice I have lived forever in a smile* From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Mon Nov 26 07:01:36 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:01:36 -0000 Subject: A classic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179367 > Lei: > Well,I would definitely recommend it to the next generation I don't > think it would be hard for them to love the book that once introduced > us to the world full of magic, a world that will lived up to our > imaginations for the rest of our lives, and wished that this world > exists, though for some the last installment it is a disappointment. > > I still think that, that doesn't count because admit it! Almost all > of the characters affected you in so many ways. Terry Pratchett & the Discworld series introduced me to the world of magic. CS Lewis & Aslan at about the same time. Some time, I'll probably try HP 1-7 again but currently, DH has turned me off from the lot. Barry From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Nov 26 07:15:45 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:15:45 +0100 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water / Wand Lore References: Message-ID: <001101c82ffc$477652e0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 179368 Tiffany Lothamer wrote: > catlady wrote: > If that tent had running water when they used that same tent at the > Quidditch World Cup, why did our three take the tea kettle to fill it > at an outdoor tap, thus overhearing old Archie proclaim that he likes > a nice breeze around his privates? Miles: Maybe for the same reason Arthur Weasley ordered them to light a fire in front of the tent, although the kitchen inside was full functional - because Muggles do it that way. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Mon Nov 26 07:50:05 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:50:05 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Polyjuice, Gringotts, and Doppelgangers [WAS Gringotts Speaks Out] Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED210@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 179369 Sharon: > >hehehehe.....Excellent reminder that it is pretty damn strange that in DH all of a sudden people (AKA Bellatrix) are asked for their wands instead of their keys. Nifty plot device, but totally a plot-hole of you ask me. > > Horace: > If I don't mess, The vault in PS/SS (Vault 713 if I remind well) has no keyhole, and can be opened only by a Goblin. I guessed that the Lestranges' vault has yet another kind of lock (related to the wand). > Or maybe the Goblins raised the security level in those troubled times (whoever boarded a plane lately can guess what I mean...?) > Carol responds: Bellatrix Lestrange has had her wand stolen and is anticipating a break-in by HRH, and she has apparently asked or ordered the Gringotts goblins to take precautions, which is why they specifically ask to examine her wand and why they have set up the waterfall thingie to detect imposters. (Travers is also suspicious that Bellatrix has her old wand and has to be Confunded, as does the goblin examining the wand.) Sharon A very reasonable explanation there Carol. I do wonder about security and polyjuice though. If someone takes polyjuice and transforms into another person, they retain their own mind. That is, they are in another body but their personality is still *theirs*. Is that all they retain? if so, how does that work? To me that means they must also retain their own brain, since mind comes from brain. Now if they keep at least their brain, surely the goblins would find a way of detecting this -- a much more secure way of identification if you ask me. Surely there is some magical lie detector test to reveal imposters? On the subject of polyjuice, do the internal organs transform as well? So, for example, when the 7 friends transform into Harry's doppelgangers, do they retain their own internal organs and characteristics? Is it just the external appearance that is changed? We know that Hermione compains about Harry's eyesight, which means she definitely has Harry's eyes, but that could be construed as part of the external appearance. Short-sightedness and myopia have something to do with the shape of the cornea or something, which would change to reflect Harry's when the polyjuice comes into effect. Moreover, If all the internal organs change as well, then how does the person retain their own mind/personality? That leads me to think that it IS just outward appearance that's changed. Also on the subject of the doppelgangers, Hermione and Fleur are the only girls to transform into Harry. JKR makes no mention of how weird that must have been. Sorry if this seems trivial but to go from having female "bits" to suddenly having male "bits" must feel awfully odd. Neither Hermione nor Fleur bat an eyelid at the change, although Fleur thinks she looks hideous, it's all about outward appearance, not about genitals -- I know if it were me, I would totally freak out, and at LEAST be curious to have a look! LOL. Hermione and Fleur would also have been much smaller than Harry (one assumes?) and no mention is made about them busting out of their bras or clothes. Is Hermione sans bra already and does she have jocks or boxers on already -- I can't imagine Fred and George watching them stripping off and seeing Hermione/Harry or Fleur/Harry in pink lacey knickers and not making some comment! Seriously. OK I know they are "children's books"-- only NOT because I wouldn't allow an 8 year old to read the last couple of books --but I just can't believe Fred and/or George let that slip by, especially since JKR notes that they are stripping off in front of each other and revealing embarrassingly huge amounts of Harry's body. Just my totally over-obsessed mind working here. Sharon, wondering if "over-obsessed" is a redundant term? From lothtm01 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 26 08:37:34 2007 From: lothtm01 at hotmail.com (Tiffany Lothamer) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:37:34 -0500 Subject: DD and Harry Potter as "Classic" was "Why down on all the characters?" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179370 >Celoneth:I just think a lot of people were disappointed by the last book, whichis a letdown after investing so much time and emotions into the seriesto have it end in a disappointing manner. Tiffany now: I loved DH. I read all the books from SS/PS through HBP within about two months. DH came out about two weeks after I finished HBP. I didn't go into DH with a lot of expectations. All I wanted was for Harry to live, and for Snape to end up on the good side. I got both of those so I am happy with what JKR wrote. >Magpie: One thing I would say for me is that while there were a few characters in DH I thought less of after the book, and many that I felt basically the same about, there weren't any I liked better, particularly, post-DH. Maybe Ginny didn't annoy me as much because she was dialed down, and I found Dumbledore's backstory fairly interesting. Tiffany Now: I thought DD story was interesting, but I felt disappointed that he was so flawed as a character. I spent the first six books admiring DD, feeling that he was going to be a huge part in DH, until he died at the end of HBP. I actually cried when he died, and was very angry with Snape, though I knew that somehow he was still going to end up on the correct side. >Barry wrote: Many of us have expressed disappointment at the HP series, mostly because DH left so much unanswered. I was wondering whether because of this that HP will endure or not? Will the current crop of readers refer the next generation to it? I definitely think that the series will continue to thrive for generations. JKR has affected so many people with the books and movies, clothes and costumes and merchandise. Someone told me that she is the richest woman in England (even richer than the queen). I don't know if it is true or not but I wouldn't doubt it. I know that the Harry Potter series has touched my life and ignited my imagination and I intend to tell everyone I meet to read it.. >Mike: But Harry, I thought Harry wasdestined for great things from the time he cast his Patronus in PoA.If anything, I thought Harry was going to be a more magicallypowerful than he turned out to be. I thought that too, and was even more convinced of his powerful magic when he resisted the Imperius Curse. So I was pretty disappointed that he couldnt (or wouldnt?) learn Occlumency. >Steph:By the way, I really hated the Kings Cross chapter. Not because Harry thought he was dead, nor because he "went back," but because DD was fawning over Harry like some fangirl. Ewww. Tiffany Now: Did anyone else ever figure out what that weird baby was in King's Cross? Btw, at the end of GoF, in the graveyard, Voldy mentions to the DEs that they know he has gone beyond any other person to achieve immortality. Do you think they knew about the horcruxes? Is that why Bella was so upset about Voldy knowing her vault was broken into? ~~Tiffany Marie *Twice I have lived forever in a smile* From salilouisa at googlemail.com Mon Nov 26 11:15:52 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (salilouisa) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:15:52 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179371 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" Magpie: I thought Kendra could easily exist at the time mentioned. Sometimes you find surprising names in the past, even ones that don't sound like standards. According to my dictionary Kendra appeared in the 40s in the US and the 60s in Great Britain, but I can easily believe that were people who had the name before it became popular. In my dictionary it says it's probably a combination of Kenneth and Alexandra. Sali: I found Kendra to be quite jarring when I read the book and so I thought I'd do a bit of quick research on the UK census. Well, specifically on the England census, thanks to Ancestry. It was a very quick search but the results were: 1901 ? 3 (1 male, first name; 1 male, middle name; 1 female middle name) 1891 ? 2 (Both male middle names) 1881 ? 0 1871 ? 2 (Both female, 1 first name and 1 middle name) 1861 ? 3 (All first names, 1 male and 2 females) But even with the proof that although rare it was around, I still find the name strikes me as modern and doesn't seem right for Dumbledore's mother. Sali, who probably now spend a very unprofitable day looking for evidence of some of the more unusual names from the books in the UK census collection. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Nov 26 17:26:41 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:26:41 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179372 > lizzyben: > > This is total wild speculation here, though it's somewhat > interesting to imagine the knut/pound conversion rate, or DD's > mother's hypothetical talent for finance. And I haven't found an > answer for my original question - how did DD end up w/the Potter's > key in the first place? He wasn't the heir, or the guardian. So, I'm > not sure DD had any right to get money out of the bank vault in the > first place. Pippin: There's no reason that the financial guardian and the custodial guardian have to be the same person, especially when great sums or esoteric assets that need special management skills (a pile of wizard gold would certainly qualify!) are involved. The irony in this case is that the Dursleys would probably have been much better custodians of gold than they were of Harry! The Potters trusted DD with the Invisibility Cloak, which is doubtless worth more than everything in their vault, so why not trust him with the key? They could have made DD the trustee of their estate and the executor of their will, and given him discretion to appont another guardian if Sirius was unable to serve. If it takes thirty days for a wizarding will to go into effect, then possibly Sirius never became legally Harry's guardian, and Vernon and Petunia were appointed quite legitimately. I see no reason not to take Dumbledore at his word that the blood protection was the main reason for choosing the Dursleys as guardians. The blood protection would keep working even if Dumbledore was killed or the ministry fell, and those were quite reasonable concerns. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 17:47:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:47:30 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179373 lizzyben wrote: > And I haven't found an answer for my original question - how did DD end up w/the Potter's key in the first place? He wasn't the heir, or the guardian. So, I'm not sure DD had any right to get money out of the bank vault in the first place. Carol responds: We don't know that he had no right to take money out of the vault. After all, both Bill Weasley and Molly Weasley took money from Harry's vault to pay for his books, and that's what Dumbledore was doing: taking money to pay for Harry's books, robes, cauldron and other school supplies. Possibly the Potters authorized DD to take money from the vault to take care of Harry in the event of their deaths. It's not as if he was taking it to spend on himself or the school. Evidently, all that's required is the key and a note authorizing the withdrawal. [Hagrid presented such a note from DD along with the key to Harry's vault, so possibly Molly and Bill also had such a note. *Crookshanks* delivered a note authorizing a withdrawal from Sirius Black's vault, IIRC. Based on the location (two vaults down from the vault that had the Philosopher's Stone), it was probably a high-security vault that didn't require a key.] At any rate, *someone* needed to get into Harry's vault to allow him access to his own money. If DD hadn't had the key (either given/lent to him, perhaps at the time he was lent the Invisibility Cloak, or found in the partially ruined house at Godric's Hollow), Harry would have been dependent like Tom Riddle on charity money--absurd since all that money was his by right. Essentially, DD did whatever was required to give *Harry* or those acting in his interest access to Harry's money. It was never used for any purpose except school supplies and pocket money for Harry. DD didn't buy brooms for the Gryffindor team or pay teachers' salaries with it, after all. Nor, as you say, did he pay the Dursleys to take care of Harry using Harry's money or any other source of funding. He must have been counting on Petunia's suppressed love for her sister combined with self-interest (keep Harry safe and the protective charm will protect your family, too). Carol, who thinks that without Dumbledore's "interference," Harry would not have reached his second birthday, with or without Sirius Black, who was also in danger from the DEs From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 18:17:31 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:17:31 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179374 Steph: Were we really supposed to accept Dumbledore (who I assume you're talking about, a_sivrn) as the epitome of goodness? My interpretation is that JKR set up Dumbledore that way in the previous six books deliberately so that we, along with Harry, would be shocked at the reality of DD, rather than the facade he was showing to everyone for most of his life. Up through HBP the reader only got Harry's impression of Dumbledore, which was that of a kindly, wise, powerful, and totally good wizard. I took this as a message that even the people who are on the side of good have ulterior motives that might not be completely honorable, which is of course how life really works unless one is a saint, which of course few people are. The scene when Harry takes Snape's memories and puts them into the Pensieve asked the question, "does the end justify the means?" a_svirn: Yes, I think we were supposed to accept Dumbledore if not as the epitome of goodness, then at least as full of goodness. Personally, I had my doubts about Dumbledore even before DH, especially after HBP, but that was my problem ? as per canon he certainly was good then. Yes, throughout DH his image has been thoroughly unraveled, and I must say I enjoyed that very much ? Rita Skeeter's biography, and Harry's quest for Dumbledore's past is what I like best about DH. But. In the end Dumbledore has got another chance to justify himself. In the Kings Cross chapter he rewrites the whole story once again, and we are left with the impression that ends do justify means after all (even if the ends themselves aren't clearly discernable). And obviously Harry accepted this philosophy ? otherwise why call his son Albus? As for the message about not entirely honorable people with ulterior motives on the side of good, exactly what it has to do with Dumbledore? Ok for Snape, his "ulterior" motive was atonement, but what was Dumbledore's? You can't count "The Greater Good" as ulterior motive. In fact, I'd have liked him better if he *had* one ? I have an allergy to the Greater Good. Steph: By the way, I really hated the Kings Cross chapter. Not because Harry thought he was dead, nor because he "went back," but because DD was fawning over Harry like some fangirl. Ewww. a_svirn: I hated it too. Mike: My point is the same one Steph was making. The pedestal Dumbledore was standing on was steadily eroded from the first book on. It wasn't as obvious in the first 3 or 4 books, but by book 5 I thought JKR had given enough clues, then hit us over the head with the speech. So, was he really suppose to be the "Epitome of Goodness" or was that a big, fat slight of hand? a_svirn: No, it wasn't. On the contrary, the determined iconoclasm of DH proved to be a sleight of hand in the end. Dumbledore got his last word in the Kings Cross chapter and explained everything to Harry's satisfaction. And if Harry is satisfied ? to the point of naming his son after Dumbledore ? by the end of the last book, then, apparently, so should we. Only I wasn't. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 18:30:35 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:30:35 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179375 --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Which I think is a very pretty name, but I wonder when it was first > used by Muggles. I suspect it was not used by Muggles until after > Albus's Muggle-born mother was born and named Kendra. > > During my search, I found sites that told me that the origin of this > name is Welsh, Gaelic, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon. I suspect they don't > actually know. > > ... bboyminn: Kendra is also a Scottish Clan name. As a first name it is the female version of Kendrick. Here is a note on the Scottish Clan aspect - From: http://www.houseofnames.com/fc.asp?sId=&s=Kendra In the Middle ages, spelling and translation were not yet regulated by any general rules. spelling variations in names were common even among members of one family unit. Kendra has appeared Hendry, Hendrie, MacHendry, MacHendrick, MacKendrick and many more. First found in Fifeshire where they were seated from very ancient times, some say well before the Norman Conquest and the arrival of Duke William at Hastings in 1066 A.D. So, the basic name is certainly well over 1,000 years old. I don't know about the Scottish, but the Nordics has a system of interchanging first, last, and middle names. So, roughly the son of John Arthur Nelson became Arthur Nels Johnson. My point is that at some point Kendra and Kendrick went from being surnames to being first names. As far has the Harry Potter books, while we do see a lot of common names (Fred, Harry, Arther, Ron), we also see a lot of unusual names (Luna, Mundungus, Albus, Aberforth, Rubeus). In that light, Kendra is not such an unusual name; not especially common, but no all that odd either. According to the USA Social Security record of new Baby names, Kendra currently enjoys moderate popularity ranking at 243 most common name on a falling trend. In the 40's and 50's the name ranked between 500 and 1000. In the last 100 years, the name peaked in 1988 being the 80th most common name. I tried to go back 500 years (and 150 yrs), but the SS site wouldn't give me statistics prior to 1946. For what it's worth. steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 18:32:40 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:32:40 -0000 Subject: Hallows (was: Re: Dumbledore - Good as Written?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179376 > Mike: > There is really no response to ones feelings regarding plot. Either > you liked it or you didn't, and you obviously didn't. I agree with > you insofar as the Hallows go. I didn't like their addition to the > plot (you mean that was the whole reason for the power behind the > spell DD cast against LV in the MoM atrium? Because he cast it with > the Elder Wand, though LV was able to counter it, still.) I suppose > JKR had always intended to use the Hallows, but I'd much rather she > had gone in a different direction. a_svirn: Well, actually I don't remember saying anything about that duel in the Atrium. But as for the Hallows, I am sure it was a relatively late inspiration on Rowling's part. I mean, honestly, in PS Ron, who had never seen an Invisible Cloak before had no difficulty in recognizing it and said that they are "rare". Which means, that there were a few of them in circulation, and the one Harry got answered the description. In GOF and OOTP we learn that others had Invisible Cloaks too, and not a word had been said about Moody's and Barty's cloak being inferior to the Potter's heirloom. And surely there is something more than a little absurd in the idea that Death Himself cannot see through the Cloak, but a death eater with magical eye prosthesis can? And the wand-lore thing is obviously recent too, or she would have dropped a hint or two earlier. Take the whole Shrieking Shack sequence in POA ? first Sirius disarmed the Trio, then Trio disarmed Sirius, then Remus disarmed Trio, then Snape disarmed Remus, then the Trio disarmed Snape. What does it all mean in terms of the wand-lore? And I don't even start on the training sessions in the Room of Requirement. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 18:33:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:33:15 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water / Wand Lore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179377 catlady wrote: > If that tent had running water when they used that same tent at the Quidditch World Cup, why did our three take the tea kettle to fill it at an outdoor tap, thus overhearing old Archie proclaim that he likes a nice breeze around his privates? > Tiffany replied: > I do believe that the tent they used in DH was a different tent than what they used at the world cup. I don't remember who they borrowed the GoF one from. > Carol responds: They used two tents at the QWC, one for the boys and one for the girls, both of which belonged to Mr. Weasley's old colleague, Perkins. As someone else has pointed out, HRH fetched water at the QWC in order to pass as Muggles (the same reason that they put up the tent by hand and lit the fire using matches). They could, had Mr. Weasley not been so eager to pose as a Muggle, have used running water and cooked their food in the tent: "He [Harry] had walked into what looked like an old-fashioned, three-room flat, complete with bathroom and kitchen" (GoF am. ed. 80)--possibly, the Bloomsbury version says "complete with toilet and kitchen," I don't know. A few lines later, Ron says, "But we've got an oven. why can't we just--" and Mr. Weasley says, "Ron, anti-Muggle security!" (80). They draw water from the pump for the same reason. Muggle tents, alas, don't have plumbing. The tent that HRH used in DH, which Harry summons from Hermione's beaded bag, is the larger one used by the boys: "The tent emerged in a lumpy mass of canvas, rope, and poles. Harry recognized it, partly because of the smell of cats, as the same tent in which they had slept on the night of the Quidditch World Cup . . . The interior was exactly as Harry remembered it: a small flat, complete with bathroom and tiny kitchen" (DH Am. ed. 273). Hermione, unlike Mr. Weasley, has no reservations about drawing water from the tap to make tea or heating the kettle on the stove rather than a campfire, or so I assume since she heads for the kitchen to make the tea rather than striking the kettle with her wand (274). HRH lose this tent when the Snatchers come, but Bill lends them another one (presumabaly, the second, smaller tent) for future use when they're at Shell Cottage (521). Unfortunately, just as they're getting ready to camp after escaping from Gringotts, Voldemort realizes that the cup Horcrux has been stolen, so the second tent never gets used. Carol, wondering why Harry apparently never uses the magical razor he receives for his birthday since the tent's bathroom surely includes a mirror From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 18:41:29 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:41:29 -0000 Subject: A classic / Down on the Characters or the times we live in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179378 > >>Barry: > Many of us have expressed disappointment at the HP series, mostly > because DH left so much unanswered. I was wondering whether because of > this that HP will endure or not? Will the current crop of readers > refer the next generation to it? Betsy Hp: I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb and say that I don't think the Potter series is going to last. It will be interesting to see, because there is a *huge* marketing machine behind it at this point, especially with the movies still being made, but I don't think the machine will be able to keep the books afloat forever. And I don't think there's enough substance to the series itself to keep the books popular on their own merits. Which segues nicely into... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179319 > >>Jeanette: > > It just might be me but since the release of DH there seems > > to be a very negative feel to a lot of the posts. > > > >>Jim Ferer: > I believe it's at least partly the times we live in. A reflection of > this is `gotcha' journalism, where the flaws everyone has are picked > like scabs. It's a kind of nihilism. The essential fact of the story > is that Harry, Dumbledore, Hermione, Ron, Neville and all the rest got > the mission done. It wasn't always pretty and never perfect but that's > how great things are. People who get things done understand that. > Betsy Hp: Hilariously (or at least, I find it amusing ) I thought the reason JKR wrote such an... empty ending was due to a certain amount of cynicism or nihilim on her part. That there are no such things as true heroes so the Trio and Order are the best we can do. That there is no way to improve our world for the better so the WW remains xenophobic and dark and house-elves remain slaves. That all morals are relative so there's no such thing as a "bad" action. That people for the most part suck so it's only practical to judge them young and only trust those you find personally pleasing (and even then, most aren't much use to you). I thought the bleakness and hopelessness of the conclusion was supposed to point towards a brave kind of "realism". At least, that's what I've been told. It's not to my taste. But it's not because I'm a nihilist. In fact, I'd say it's quite the opposite. Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 19:03:36 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:03:36 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179379 > Carol: > We don't know that he had no right to take money out of the vault. > After all, both Bill Weasley and Molly Weasley took money from Harry's > vault to pay for his books, and that's what Dumbledore was doing: > taking money to pay for Harry's books, robes, cauldron and other > school supplies. Possibly the Potters authorized DD to take money from > the vault to take care of Harry in the event of their deaths. a_svirn: Seems quite impossible, considering that they appointed *Sirius* as their son's guardian. > Carol: It's not > as if he was taking it to spend on himself or the school. Evidently, > all that's required is the key and a note authorizing the withdrawal. > [Hagrid presented such a note from DD along with the key to Harry's > vault, so possibly Molly and Bill also had such a note. *Crookshanks* > delivered a note authorizing a withdrawal from Sirius Black's vault, > IIRC. a_svirn: Yes, that did seem somewhat farfetched to me too. > Carol: > At any rate, *someone* needed to get into Harry's vault to allow him > access to his own money. a_svirn: Not necessarily. In POA he takes his money out himself and spends them at his own discretion. Could have spent the whole of his fortune on broomsticks if he wanted to. > Carol: If DD hadn't had the key (either given/lent > to him, perhaps at the time he was lent the Invisibility Cloak, or > found in the partially ruined house at Godric's Hollow), a_svirn: I wonder how people do give/lent such things as keys to their money vault to their acquaintance? Then again what'shisname did lend Dumbledore his notes on the uses of Dragon Blood > Carol: Harry would > have been dependent like Tom Riddle on charity money--absurd since all > that money was his by right. a_svirn: Why? Surely if the money were his by right he would be given an access to it? > Carol: Essentially, DD did whatever was required > to give *Harry* or those acting in his interest access to Harry's > money. It was never used for any purpose except school supplies and > pocket money for Harry. DD didn't buy brooms for the Gryffindor team > or pay teachers' salaries with it, after all. a_svirn: Well, he could, if he felt like it. He seemed to have been accountable to no one. > Carol: Nor, as you say, did he > pay the Dursleys to take care of Harry using Harry's money or any > other source of funding. He must have been counting on Petunia's > suppressed love for her sister a_svirn: Counting on what? How on earth could he have counted on any such thing? > Carol: combined with self-interest (keep Harry > safe and the protective charm will protect your family, too). a_svirn: Protect from what? So far as I can see they let the danger in the moment they let Harry in. No Harry, no danger. > Carol, who thinks that without Dumbledore's "interference," Harry > would not have reached his second birthday, with or without Sirius > Black, who was also in danger from the DEs a_svirn: Impossible to verify, isn't it? I would have been quite another story. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 19:16:36 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:16:36 -0000 Subject: Hallows... and Wand Lore (was: Re: Dumbledore - Good as Written?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179380 --- "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Mike: > > There is really no response to ones feelings regarding plot. > > Either you liked it or you didn't, and you obviously > > didn't. I agree with you insofar as the Hallows go. I didn't > > like their addition to the plot ... > > a_svirn: > Well, actually I don't remember saying anything about that > duel in the Atrium. But as for the Hallows, I am sure it was > a relatively late inspiration on Rowling's part. ... bboyminn: As far as the story itself (DH), I think you have to take the books as they come. The book is, as they say, a done deal, and complaining won't change it. You were disappointed with the flow of the story and the ending, yet many many were not. I still say that to some limited extent, those that so vehemently dislike the story, are those who are locked into expectations that they can't let go of. Still, all that said, there is still plenty of room for literary criticism and discussion. As to the Hallows, I think they exist in the story for a very specific purpose, and that purpose, as I have said before, is to give Harry a choice. As I see the choices, they are between 'Power' and 'Sacrifice'. Between choosing immense power, and staying on the straight and narrow. This is, in a very metaphorical sense, symbolic of the Last Temptation of Christ. Harry much choose between the immense power implied in bringing together the Hallows and allowing his opponent to have that power while he, Harry, pursues the Horcruxes. I think Harry needed this temptation and this test of character. It is clear Dumbledore wanted Harry to know about the Hallows, but he also didn't want that knowledge to come to soon. He didn't want Harry to act impulsively. When Harry finally understands, for the first time in his life, he could see a clear course of action, and he chose not to act. For me, that was a major turning point in the story and in Harry's character. > a_svirn continues" > > And the wand-lore thing is obviously recent too, or she would > have dropped a hint or two earlier. Take the whole Shrieking > Shack sequence in POA ? first Sirius disarmed the Trio, then > Trio disarmed Sirius, then Remus disarmed Trio, then Snape > disarmed Remus, then the Trio disarmed Snape. What does it > all mean in terms of the wand-lore? And I don't even start on > the training sessions in the Room of Requirement. > bboyminn: I think you are missing a very important but subtle point. Wand Lore and wand allegiance are about wands defeating wands, not wizards defeating wizards. Again, the difference is extremely subtle. The most glaring example is the Brother Wands. People keep assuming that this means Harry and Voldemort can't Duel or curse each other, but we see that is simply not true. It is not when the wizards duel that the problem occurs, it is when the wands connect. When the wands rather than the wizards duel each other. That can only happen under very rare and specific circumstances. Both wizards must cast their curses simultaneously, and those curses must collied head-on. Only then do the wands connect and the Brother Wand effect comes into play. In the Shrieking Shack and in the Room of Requirements, people are not intent upon depriving the other wizard of their wand permanently. In the Room of Requirements, the people are disarming each other by mutual consent. That means that is not a true defeat. In the Shrieking Shack, no one is trying to defeat or conquer anyone. They fully intend to give those various wands back to their various owners. The intent is only to temporarily disarm them. If the wand is as intelligent as it seems, then it also seems to be able to understand the modified intent. If Harry had given Draco his wand back, would havening taken it still constitute 'defeat' in the eyes of the wand? I don't think so. It might have still been a wizard to wizard defeat, but I don't think it would have been a wand to wand defeat. Again, the distinction is very subtle. Even Ollivander whose family has been making wands since roughly 750 BC doesn't full understand this transfer of power and allegiance. If he doesn't understand, then it has to be a very subtle distinction rather than a hard and fast rule. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 26 19:24:15 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:24:15 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra'/Wand lore ( was: Why Down On All the Characters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179381 > Magpie: > I thought Kendra could easily exist at the time mentioned. Sometimes > you find surprising names in the past, even ones that don't sound > like standards. According to my dictionary Kendra appeared in the 40s > in the US and the 60s in Great Britain, but I can easily believe that > were people who had the name before it became popular. In my > dictionary it says it's probably a combination of Kenneth and > Alexandra. > > Sali: > I found Kendra to be quite jarring when I read the book and so I > thought I'd do a bit of quick research on the UK census. Well, > specifically on the England census, thanks to Ancestry. Magpie: Reading this over, I realized it sounded in my post like I was saying no name would have jarred me the same way, so I wanted to say it might have. Kendra didn't happen to jar me, although it did stand out, but there are plenty of other names that would have pulled me out just the way you're describing. a_svirn: And the wand-lore thing is obviously recent too, or she would have dropped a hint or two earlier. Take the whole Shrieking Shack sequence in POA ? first Sirius disarmed the Trio, then Trio disarmed Sirius, then Remus disarmed Trio, then Snape disarmed Remus, then the Trio disarmed Snape. What does it all mean in terms of the wand-lore? And I don't even start on the training sessions in the Room of Requirement. Magpie: Even worse for me is that it completely destroyed one of the primal pleasures of the Potterverse, the wand that chooses the Wizard. That's a fun idea, and it suggests your wand is part of yourself. That's the way it seems to work through most of the books. Then we find out that wands are completely traitorous. If somebody disarms you, either via expelliariumus or just by grabbing your wand, it will then become their wand, loyal to them. (Strange in a book that's also got the Muggleborn weeping about how her wand chose her--it's chosen whatever DE took it from her by now. And also Ollivander's telling us who all the wands belong to because he remembers--how would he know if they change owners so easily?) Harry gets to retain his palsy relationship with his old wand, but there seems little point to the previous wand lore about the woods, length and cores meaning anything when all that matters is force. Why not just go into Ollivander's, choose the one you want, and then expelliarimus it out of his hand? wrote: > >snip > > So, what didn't I like? I didn't like how inconsequential the Malfoys > were, given the build-up we'd had. I didn't like how absurdly > inconsequential the life debt from Peter Pettigrew was, given how > much Harry's mercy towards him cost. I didn't like how everyone > in the Wizarding World (with the exception of Neville) sat on their > butts for nine months and allowed Voldemort to take over without > any effective resistance. I didn't like that Harry basically sat on > his butt for months without even sending a word of encouragement > to the people who believed in him. Susan responding: Thought the Malfoys were quite central to the whole book -- showing what happens to even the most faithful DEs UNLESS THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL...demonstrating that even the most evil people can have a shred of good in them....in HBP, Draco cannot kill DD and his mother is willing to do whatever to save Draco, and in the DH both parents are actually more concerned about their son than about the triumph of Lord Voldemort..... Magpie: The Malfoys were in the center, but not really doing anything, I think is the point. They didn't have much good in them. What happens to the most faithful DEs if they aren't successful was pretty obvious long before DH. The Malfoys, of course, were never wholly faithful. That just didn't lead to them actually doing much so their usefulness was pretty limited and they dithered a lot throughout the book. Susan: Here's where JKR's skill as an author becomes apparent; I would never have thought I had anything good to say about the Malfoys.... Magpie: I've had good things to say about them until DH. Then they were a completely let down. Here I thought Draco's story in HBP was actually leading somewhere, that as a member of the younger generation he was a new way--but no, nothing anybody did really mattered except how it positioned Harry's actions at the end. Susan: WW sitting on their butts? Except for Neville? What about Ginny, Luna, Xenophilius, was it Michael Corner who was tortured for setting loose a first year?, all of the Potterwatch, all of the Order of the Phoenix....all the people who were trying to save Muggles?....and perhaps Harry had a few things on his mind, struggling to survive, figure out the incomprehensible, find the horcruxes, etc. etc. etc....? Magpie: yes, WW sitting on their butts, as this group shows. You've got a bunch of kids being mildly rebellious at school while they wait for Harry to come in and save them--nice, but that's no resistance movement. The OotP was a glorified taxi service, twice ferrying Harry from Privet Drive to the Dursleys without ever contributing anything to an actual resistance movement on their own. (Even stuff that seemed like it was leading that way turned out again to be useless.) People trying to save Muggles is barely anything--so they put some charms on their Muggle neighbors. That's not a resistance movement. And Potterwatch was an underground radio show. Xeno, too, printed one newspaper--nice, but this isn't a resistance movement. None of this is anywhere near any sort of resistance movement--everybody's just giving Harry support wherever he is. Harry who was also sitting on his butt for most of the book waiting for the next plot point and wondering about Dumbledore's admittedly and intentionally incomprehensible instructions. I think Muggle England would have given Voldemort far more of a run for his money. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 19:31:17 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:31:17 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179382 > Pippin: > The Potters trusted DD with the Invisibility Cloak, which is doubtless > worth more than everything in their vault, so why not trust him with the > key? a_svirn: Ah, but we know that not only didn't they trust Dumbledore to be their secret keeper, but they didn't trust him enough to disclose the identity of one. All in all it doesn't look like that they were full of trust as far as Dumbledore was concerned. > Pippin: They could have made DD the trustee of their estate and the > executor of their will, and given him discretion to appont another > guardian if Sirius was unable to serve. a_svirn: So he needed a mere trifle ? to ensure that Sirius *was* unable to serve. Could be. > Pippin: > If it takes thirty days for a wizarding will to go into effect, then > possibly Sirius never became legally Harry's guardian, and Vernon and > Petunia were appointed quite legitimately. a_svirn: Then WHY didn't they know about, let along administer Harry's fortune? Even if they were appointed only as custodians, they still would have been given some sort of allowance. Which they weren't. Ergo, either they weren't Harry's *legal* guardians or custodians, or Dumbledore withheld the money from them. > Pippin: > I see no reason not to take Dumbledore at his word that the blood > protection was the main reason for choosing the Dursleys as guardians. a_svirn: Of course it was. I take it the Greater Good takes precedence over legal matters. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 19:34:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:34:03 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179383 > Pippin: > The Potters trusted DD with the Invisibility Cloak, which is doubtless > worth more than everything in their vault, so why not trust him with the > key? They could have made DD the trustee of their estate and the > executor of their will, and given him discretion to appont another > guardian if Sirius was unable to serve. Alla: Eh, the opposite question is true I think. Why **trust** him with the key? Why trust him with the possibility of appointing another guardian, especially if one was already appointed? Oh, and I do not remember Potters **trusting** Dumbledore with the cloak that much. I mean, I do not think they **DIS** trusted him to that extent that they would hide cloak from him, but to give him to examine something is way different to me than to give something for safe keeping. I did not get the impression that James was leaving cloak with Dumbledore for a long term - just for a couple days to take a look at. And I thought Harry was WAY too kind telling Dumbledore that if they had cloak it would be no difference. I think they would have some chance to hide ( at least one of them) and maybe even with Harry and run. I am afraid I remain very convinced that Potters wanted Dumbledore to stay as far away from their son's future. They rejected him as secret keeper, so I find it highly implausible that they would decide, oh you know, we won't appoint him as Harry's guardian either, but hey, we will go ahead and give him financial powers over his money AND we will give him powers to appoint legal guardian. Pippin: > If it takes thirty days for a wizarding will to go into effect, then > possibly Sirius never became legally Harry's guardian, and Vernon and > Petunia were appointed quite legitimately. Alla: You mean in that period of time Dumbledore exercised those hypothetical powers? I question the possibility that he HAD those powers in the first place. IMO of course. Pippin: > I see no reason not to take Dumbledore at his word that the blood > protection was the main reason for choosing the Dursleys as guardians. > The blood protection would keep working even if Dumbledore was > killed or the ministry fell, and those were quite reasonable concerns. Alla: It is Dumbledore's authority to **MAKE** those decisions I question, not his reasons. Although to keep Harry's alive to make sure he is dead later does not strike me as very reasonable and in Harry's best interests either. Oh and even at the end of DH we did not see blood protection working, no? So for all I know, blood protection or not Harry may not have ever need it either. JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 19:49:52 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:49:52 -0000 Subject: Hallows... and Wand Lore (was: Re: Dumbledore - Good as Written?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179384 > > a_svirn continues" > > > > And the wand-lore thing is obviously recent too, or she would > > have dropped a hint or two earlier. Take the whole Shrieking > > Shack sequence in POA ? first Sirius disarmed the Trio, then > > Trio disarmed Sirius, then Remus disarmed Trio, then Snape > > disarmed Remus, then the Trio disarmed Snape. What does it > > all mean in terms of the wand-lore? And I don't even start on > > the training sessions in the Room of Requirement. > > > > bboyminn: > > I think you are missing a very important but subtle point. > Wand Lore and wand allegiance are about wands defeating > wands, not wizards defeating wizards. Again, the difference > is extremely subtle. a_svirn: You mean all that fuss about Dumbledore defeating Grindenwald is just that ? fuss? It was actually Dumbledore's wand that defeated Grindenwald's? I wonder what did they give him the order of Merlin for? > bboyminn: > The most glaring example is the Brother Wands. People keep > assuming that this means Harry and Voldemort can't Duel or > curse each other, but we see that is simply not true. It > is not when the wizards duel that the problem occurs, it > is when the wands connect. a_svirn: Where is the difference? I thought they can only connect when wizards duel. > bboyminn: When the wands rather than the > wizards duel each other. That can only happen under very > rare and specific circumstances. Both wizards must cast > their curses simultaneously, and those curses must > collied head-on. a_svirn: Wait a moment. *Wizards* must cast their curses, or *wands* must do something? Because if it's all down to wizards, then it's all down to wizards. > bboyminn: > In the Shrieking Shack and in the Room of Requirements, > people are not intent upon depriving the other wizard of > their wand permanently. a_svirn: I beg to differ. In the Shrieking Shack Snape was bent to deprive Sirius of his soul permanently, let along a wand. And he hoped to have Lupin incarcerated in Azkaban permanently. Wandless. > bboyminn: > If the wand is as intelligent as it seems, then it also > seems to be able to understand the modified intent. If > Harry had given Draco his wand back, would havening taken > it still constitute 'defeat' in the eyes of the wand? I > don't think so. a_svirn: Huh. Does it have eyes as well as intelligence? Seeing as we don't know where it keeps either, would you say that that wand-lore thing belongs properly to the Dark Arts? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 19:55:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:55:53 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179385 > a_svirn: > Yes, I think we were supposed to accept Dumbledore if not as the > epitome of goodness, then at least as full of goodness. Alla: Well, I thought so at some point, but as I said before even prior to DH I would have disagreed. As I also mentioned before my prior DH picture of Dumbledore was certainly not as bad as the one I have now ( does not mean again that I think of him as evil, just the man with many many real faults), but even prior to DH I saw Dumbledore as someone who did truly horrible things - to Harry and Sirius especially, in the name of greater good, sure, but that does not mean that I saw them as good. It is just while I just as Mike did saw Dumbledore's speech in OOP as something bad ( I mean, no, do not want to speak for Mike - his expression was backturner?), I kept hoping that this was not a representation of DD's general character, just certain portion of it. OOPS. a_svirn: > In the end Dumbledore has got another chance to justify himself. In > the Kings Cross chapter he rewrites the whole story once again, and > we are left with the impression that ends do justify means after all > (even if the ends themselves aren't clearly discernable). And > obviously Harry accepted this philosophy ? otherwise why call his son > Albus? Alla: Did Harry accept his philosophy? Or did he forgive Dumbledore? Because I believe that he forgave him an that is why for me there is no dissonance. I do not buy Dumbledore as epitome of goodness anymore, no way. I do not believe JKR wanted to portray it, I am with Steph and Mike on that. I thought he portrayed a very very flawed man, who was willing to do ANYTHING, to hurt and manipulate in the name of the PLAN and for the greater good and who stumbled for the first time when child with the green eyes came into his life, you know? Just my opinion. > a_svirn: > No, it wasn't. On the contrary, the determined iconoclasm of DH > proved to be a sleight of hand in the end. Dumbledore got his last > word in the Kings Cross chapter and explained everything to Harry's > satisfaction. And if Harry is satisfied ? to the point of naming his > son after Dumbledore ? by the end of the last book, then, apparently, > so should we. Only I wasn't. > Alla: See above I guess. I do not believe Harry was satisfied, but forgave DD. IMO. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 20:09:12 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:09:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hallows (was: Re: Dumbledore - Good as Written?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711261209k752149e1l837ba463d106e9bf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179386 a_svirn: in PS Ron, who had never seen an Invisible Cloak before had no difficulty in recognizing it and said that they are "rare". Lynda: But nothing that is said in DH disputes that. In fact, it is confirmed when the trio discusses it after talking to Lovegood. What Harry has is an invisibility cloak that is apparently indestructable, unlike others on which the disillusionment charm wears off after awhile or one that is made of the fur of a magical creature from which the concealment also evaporates eventually, so Ron was correct in calling them rare, and that *does* leave an opening for Harry's cloak to be different than the others because it comes from a different source. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 20:29:13 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:29:13 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179387 --- "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > > The Potters trusted DD with the Invisibility Cloak, which > > is doubtless worth more than everything in their vault, > > so why not trust him with the key? > > a_svirn: > Ah, but we know that not only didn't they trust Dumbledore > to be their secret keeper, but they didn't trust him enough > to disclose the identity of one. All in all it doesn't look > like that they were full of trust as far as Dumbledore was > concerned. > bboyminn: So why would you conclude they didn't trust Dumbledore? I see no evidence of that. I suspect it was more a matter of not wanting to involve more people. It was especially about not wanting to involve someone with as high a profile as Dumbledore has, and also someone who, being at the forefront of the resistance, was as vulnerable as Dumbledore was. Rather than allow someone as likely and vulnerable as Dumbledore, I suspect they thought it best to handle it themselves and told Dumbledore as much. I can't see why Dumbledore would have objected. Certainly he expected to continue to be in the loop. At the time they told Dumbledore that Sirius was the Secret Keeper, I suspect that actually was the plan. But I think their conversation with Dumbledore lead Sirius to conclude that of course HE (Sirius) was the most obvious Secret Keeper, and that is just what the DE's would think. So, Sirius came up with the alternate plan of using Peter under the assumption that the DE's would spend all their time chasing Sirius while Peter remained quietly hidden away. The fewer people who know about the switch, the more likely the switch was to work. > > Pippin: > > They could have made DD the trustee of their estate and the > > executor of their will, and given him discretion to appoint > > another guardian if Sirius was unable to serve. > > a_svirn: > So he needed a mere trifle ? to ensure that Sirius *was* > unable to serve. Could be. > > > Pippin: > > If it takes thirty days for a wizarding will to go into > > effect, then> possibly Sirius never became legally Harry's > > guardian, and Vernon and Petunia were appointed quite > > legitimately. > > a_svirn: > Then WHY didn't they know about, let along administer Harry's > fortune? Even if they were appointed only as custodians, they > still would have been given some sort of allowance. Which they > weren't. Ergo, either they weren't Harry's *legal* guardians > or custodians, or Dumbledore withheld the money from them. > > > Pippin: > > I see no reason not to take Dumbledore at his word that the > > blood protection was the main reason for choosing the > > Dursleys as guardians. > > a_svirn: > Of course it was. I take it the Greater Good takes precedence > over legal matters. > bboyminn: Dumbledore may not have had legal authority to decide Harry's fate, but I think he did have moral authority. Dumbledore was the leader of the Order of Phoenix, that gave him a degree of authority over the members. Further, I think Dumbledore simply realized the great danger that Harry was in and took it upon himself to protect Harry and see to his future. I think all members of the Order, Sirius included, accepted Dumbledore's judgement in the moment as the best for Harry. If Sirius had objections, assuming he hadn't got himself arrested, he could work those out at some point in the future once things stabilized and the true danger could be better assessed. By not objecting or opposing Dumbledore, all those involved gave him implied permission. People trust Dumbledore, and that trust lead them to allow Dumbledore a free hand in Harry's fate. As to the Key, after the fact, Dumbledore would realize that the vault key would be valuable and important, and he recovered or had it recovered from the Godrics Hallow home. I think Dumbledore full well understood the nature of the Dursleys and as such, I think he simply conveniently neglected to tell them about Harry's vault of gold. He knew Harry having money in the future was more important that the successful Dursleys having money in the moment. It was another way that he protected Harry. Further, I think Dumbledore knew he needed to act quickly to protect Harry from the Ministry. He needed Harry carefully placed and protected before he confronted the Ministry and brought them around to his way of thinking. If the Ministy had gotten their hands on Harry first, he would have become the Ministry Mascot. They would have constantly paraded him around as a PR symbol of how well the Ministry was doing, and how the had the seeming endorsement of the brave hero Harry. If they had done that, they could have just as well have strung Harry up on the nearest tree. They would have left him vulnerable and exposed, and likely would have corrupted his life in devastating ways. Dumbledore knew that the second greatest threat to Harry was the Ministry itself. So, yes, Dumbledore took it upon himself to decide Harry's fate. He did so openly, and with no objections from any other member of the Order, who were likely the people closest to the Potters. Sirius offered no objection when Hagrid took Harry on Dumbledore's orders. Remus offered no objection. There were no other family members or very close friends in the Wizard world to object. So, what it amounts to is that all the people who counted trusted Dumbledore in this matter and followed his lead. Whether it was legal or not is another matter. Dumbledore with the implied permission of everyone who counted, took over control of Harry fate and disposition. If there were legal or political matters, Dumbledore argued them out after he had Harry safely tucked away. And notice that he must have convinced the Ministry because he seems to have had their cooperation most of the way up to and beyond 'Order of the Phoenix'. Even when Harry and Scrimgeour were at odds, the Ministry still provided cars and guards for Harry. They still recognized the value in protecting him. Dumbledore had control because the people who counted and eventually the Ministry allowed him that control. You heard it here first...again. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 20:43:34 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:43:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179388 >> bboyminn: > So, yes, Dumbledore took it upon himself to decide Harry's > fate. He did so openly, and with no objections from any other > member of the Order, who were likely the people closest to the > Potters. Sirius offered no objection when Hagrid took Harry > on Dumbledore's orders. Alla: Um, yes he did object. Not enough, sure. But he objected. bboyminn: > Dumbledore had control because the people who counted and > eventually the Ministry allowed him that control. Alla: Sure, members of the Order blindly followed Dumbledore. They blindly followed Dumbledore when they did not bother to check on Harry till he turned eleven. They blindly followed Dumbledore when Dumbledore forbade them to tell Harry about prophecy ( all but Sirius that is). They blindly followed Dumbledore in their trust of Snape AND then just as blindly mistrusted him ( not that I did not understand them and sympathised with them, but it was blindly). I do not see that it in any way reduces Dumbledore's responsibility as I perceive it, just shows their blind faith in Dumbledore IMO, for which I sure hold them responsible. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Nov 26 20:58:29 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:58:29 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179389 > Alla: > I did not get the impression that James was leaving cloak with > Dumbledore for a long term - just for a couple days to take a look at. > > And I thought Harry was WAY too kind telling Dumbledore that if they > had cloak it would be no difference. I think they would have some > chance to hide ( at least one of them) and maybe even with Harry and > run. > Pippin: LOL! "He could hear her screaming from the upper floor" "listening with faint amusement to her attempts to barricade herself in" -- Voldemort didn't see where Lily went, he *heard* her. She panicked. The cloak wouldn't have prevented that. Alla: > I am afraid I remain very convinced that Potters wanted Dumbledore to > stay as far away from their son's future. Pippin: They didn't quit the Order and they lent Dumbledore the cloak they did not think they would need because they trusted in the spell which *Dumbledore* said was their best chance. Nowhere does canon say that they rejected Dumbledore as secret keeper because they didn't trust him. It was more about showing faith in Sirius than in doubting Dumbledore, IMO. > Alla: > > It is Dumbledore's authority to **MAKE** those decisions I question, > not his reasons. > > Although to keep Harry's alive to make sure he is dead later does not > strike me as very reasonable and in Harry's best interests either. Pippin: What authority did Sirius have to go after Pettigrew? And did he plan on taking Harry with him, like Dumbledore would have taken Ariana when he and Grindelwald staged their uprising? It can't be in Harry's interest to live in a world dominated by Voldemort. And let's not forget, Lily and James were proud of what Harry had done and supportive of what he meant to do, which is no more creepy, IMO, than any other parents sending their children to war. Alla: > Oh and even at the end of DH we did not see blood protection working, > no? Pippin: We do see it work. Voldemort did not attack until the protection was deliberately broken, despite knowing when and where to strike. Pippin From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 21:13:44 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:13:44 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0711261313v103472f5pbaef630f57750067@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179390 Kathy Kulesca: I think if Dumbledore had given the Dursleys money for Harry's care they would have spent it on Dudley anyway. In Sorcerer's Stone Harry is forced to eat cold soup and wear Dudley's hand me downs while Dudley gets whatever he wants. I think Vernon made enough money to support the family they made a deliberate choice to neglect Harry. Lynda: Exactly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 21:14:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:14:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Harry was: Re: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179391 > Pippin: > LOL! "He could hear her screaming from the upper floor" "listening > with faint amusement to her attempts to barricade herself in" -- > Voldemort didn't see where Lily went, he *heard* her. She > panicked. The cloak wouldn't have prevented that. Alla: OF COURSE this is no guarantee, but I see no reason why it would not have worked for one of them. Who says that if Lily saw cloak lying around, she would not have put it on herself after she gotten over her panic, which she obviously did enough to stand in front of Harry ready to die IMO. I just do not share the CERTAINTY that it would not have helped, not saying that it definitely would. > Alla: > > I am afraid I remain very convinced that Potters wanted Dumbledore to > > stay as far away from their son's future. > > Pippin: > They didn't quit the Order and they lent Dumbledore the cloak they > did not think they would need because they trusted in the spell which > *Dumbledore* said was their best chance. Alla: Eh, again the degrees. I am not saying that they distrusted Dumbledore enough to think him as next voldemort, just enough to reject his offer to be SC and enough to not appoint him their son's guardian. Pippin: Nowhere does > canon say that they rejected Dumbledore as secret keeper because > they didn't trust him. It was more about showing faith in Sirius than > in doubting Dumbledore, IMO. Alla: Well, to me it is sort of obvious. If one rejects someone who is going to hold your life in your hands and everything will be depending on that person, yeah I make an inference that one does not trust that person. IMO of course. > Pippin: > What authority did Sirius have to go after Pettigrew? And did he > plan on taking Harry with him, like Dumbledore would have taken > Ariana when he and Grindelwald staged their uprising? Alla: I think that if Hagrid did not take Harry away from Sirius, he would not have gone after Pettigrew. I certainly HOPE that he did not plan on taking Harry with him to do that. But yes, I believe that he went after Pettigrew after he had nothing else left to hold dear. I realise that this is an inference as well, but to me the chronology is there. Hagrid comes to take Harry, Sirius argues, Hagrid wins and THEN Sirius goes after Pettigrew. Foolish thing to do obviously. Understandable to me but foolish, but yeah I sure blame Dumbledore for not going there himself and talking to Sirius. Pippin: > It can't be in Harry's interest to live in a world dominated by Voldemort. Alla: Hmmmm, no it can't be of course. But can it be in HARRY's interests to die for the world free of Voldemort? It is certainly in world's best interests - greater good and all that, but Harry's? I do not think so. Pippin: > And let's not forget, Lily and James were proud of what Harry had done > and supportive of what he meant to do, which is no more creepy, IMO, > than any other parents sending their children to war. Alla: You confuse me with someone else Pippin dearest :) ( I am typing it with the smile, not sarcasm). Nowhere did I say that anything occurred in chapter 34 was creepy, I cried almost the whole chapter. OF COURSE they were supportive. They were supportive of their hero son, who is scared and agonising over HIS decision to die for the world. I see nothing creepy in that at all. But nowhere do I see any indication that they **like** what Harry has to do. I see them saying being proud, etc, as any parent IMO would have said to the child or teenager who made a difficult, horrible decision. I especially do not see any indication that they liked what Dumbledore did to Harry. I think JKR rather wisely avoided writing it. Because I see Harry's sacrifice as his independent decision, I totally have no problem his loved ones supporting him. There is no Dumbledore among his loved ones after all. That's how I read it. > Alla: > > Oh and even at the end of DH we did not see blood protection working, > > no? > > Pippin: > We do see it work. Voldemort did not attack until the > protection was deliberately broken, despite knowing when and where to > strike. Alla: I meant protecting Harry when it was not broken. Alla From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 21:55:09 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:55:09 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179392 > > Pippin: > There's no reason that the financial guardian and the custodial guardian > have to be the same person, especially when great sums or esoteric > assets that need special management skills (a pile of wizard gold would > certainly qualify!) are involved. The irony in this case is that the Dursleys > would probably have been much better custodians of gold than they > were of Harry! lizzyben: Well, IMO it's pretty clear that the Dursleys weren't paid for raising Harry, so let's just move past that. I guess it's *possible* that DD was named as the guardian of the estate, while Sirius was named Harry's guardian. But I don't buy it, for many reasons. First of all, it'd make more sense for the child's guardian to also manage the estate for the child. That way, the guardian can easily get money out for the child's expenses. Second, it seems like the Potters were trying to cut DD out of their affairs. DD offered to be SK, but the Potters chose Peter instead. Lily wrote a letter expressing surprise that DD was best friends with Grindewald. I think there's a lot of indication that the Potters were starting to have doubts about DD. So after naming Peter as SK, naming Sirius as Harry's guardian, why would they give DD their entire estate? It doesn't make sense. Finally, since when does DD do things the legal way? He didn't have a legal right to take Harry, but that didn't stop him. Pippin: > The Potters trusted DD with the Invisibility Cloak, which is doubtless > worth more than everything in their vault, so why not trust him with the > key? They could have made DD the trustee of their estate and the > executor of their will, and given him discretion to appont another > guardian if Sirius was unable to serve. lizzyben: Actually they just let DD borrow the Cloak after he asked to examine it - conveniently this happened shortly before their murders. Thus, DD ends up as the new owner of the Cloak, even though it should have gone directly to Harry as the Potters' heir. Kinda like how DD ends up as the new owner of the Potters' bank vault key, even though that should've gone to Harry as well. And how DD ends up taking Harry, even though Sirius was the appointed guardian. After the Godric's Hallow murders, DD ends up with the "Boy Who Lived", the Hallow, and the key to the Potters' estate - even though he apparantly didn't have a legal right to any of that. It all works out very well for DD. A little *too* well, if you ask me. *shifts eyes suspiciously.* I can just see it - "oh, James, why don't you lend me the Cloak for a few days so I can examine it? You won't need it once you're under my super-safe Fidelius Charm. Oh, also, why don't you give me the Potter bank vault key as well? You won't be able to go to Gringotts while you're under my super-safe Fidelius Charm, so this way I can withdraw money for you if you need it." Dumbledore twinkles, cackles evilly. And why did DD want the Invisibility Cloak at that time anyway? He always knew James had it, & mentions that James used to hide under it to steal food. Why ask for it while the Potters' are being threatened by a psychotic wizard who's after their son? Isn't this the exact *worst* time to borrow the Cloak? Except we know that DD was obsessed with the Deathly Hallows, and he already owned the Elder Wand. He just needed two more to complete his collection. And if the Potters' happen to die while DD is "borrowing" the Cloak, well then DD just got a new shiny Hallow. If he hadn't borrowed it at that time, the Hallow would've gone straight to Harry & DD would lose it forever. Just one of those things that make you go hmmmm. I think DD knew the Potters would soon be killed, and arranged things so that everything would go as smoothly as possible after their demise. This way, right after their murders, DD can take the baby, the Hallow, and the money. Nicely done, DD. So yeah, I believe that DD somehow set up/knew about the Godric's Hollow attack before it happened. Maybe he even tipped LV off to Peter in the first place. But, it's one of those things I suspect, but can't prove. Pippin: > If it takes thirty days for a wizarding will to go into effect, then > possibly Sirius never became legally Harry's guardian, and Vernon and > Petunia were appointed quite legitimately. lizzyben: I'm trying to imagine the Dursleys at a wizarding guardianship hearing in the MOM, and failing. Yeah, maybe we can construct more facts that could possibly make this totally legal & aboveboard, but w/the facts we've got it is not. Sirius was the appointed guardian & godfather, full stop. And again, it's not like DD to bother. If Harry's at the Durselys', Sirius is in Azkaban & no one is there to complain, why bother going through all the official routes? Pippin: > I see no reason not to take Dumbledore at his word that the blood > protection was the main reason for choosing the Dursleys as guardians. > The blood protection would keep working even if Dumbledore was > killed or the ministry fell, and those were quite reasonable concerns. lizzyben: I see so, so many reasons not to take DD at his word! From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Nov 26 22:05:34 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:05:34 -0000 Subject: post DH musings on PS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179393 Just for the heck of it I just re-read PS and a few things jump out - 1. Snape - he's much less prominent and not as nasty to Harry as in future. I wonder if his character took on a life of its own after the first book was written. 2. The overall tone of the book is so light and fluffy that reading each page is a delight. I suppose she really *was* writing for children at first. 3. Now that I know to question these things - how did Dumbledore know that the PS was in danger? How did Quirrell know which vault to break into? How did Quirrell get down there to begin with? Why wasn't he trapped inside the vault? It is kind of funny that DD told Snape, "Do keep an eye on Quirrell for me, won't you?" Allie From ianuno3 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 26 22:46:34 2007 From: ianuno3 at hotmail.com (ianuno3) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:46:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179394 This message is a Special Notice for all members of http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/HPforGrownups In addition to being published onlist (available in webview), this post is also being delivered offlist (to email in boxes) to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices." If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact the List Elves at (minus that extra space) HPforGrownups- owner @yahoogroups.com Please Note: IPPY is the author of this Post, not Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding At 3 p.m. on the day of Bill and Fleur's wedding, Harry, Ron, Fred and George, all decked in dress robes, are stationed outside the great white marquee, ready to escort guests to their seats inside for the ceremony. So as not to alert anyone to his presence, Harry takes a large dose of Polyjuice Potion. He looks like a curly-haired, redheaded boy from Ottery St. Catchpole, the town closest to The Burrow where the Weasley family lives and where the wedding takes place. For the wedding, Harry will be known as Barny, one of the many Weasley cousins. Guests keep appearing at the distant boundary of the yard wearing elaborate and colorful outfits. Harry meets old friends and is introduced to new ones: Fleur's Veela cousins, Mr. Weasley's old Ministry colleague Perkins, the recently married Tonks and Lupin (who looks miserable immediately after greeting Harry) and Hagrid causes a comedic stir by breaking several chairs when a specific, magically reinforced one was set aside for him. A strange-looking man in an egg-yolk colored outfit, a yellow cap with a tassel and a strange symbol looking like a triangular eye attached to a chain around his neck, arrives. It turns out to be Xenophilius Lovegood, father of Luna, a friend of Harry, Ron and Hermione's. Xenophilius explains that he and Luna live just over the hill, and they were happy to receive the invitation to the wedding. When Ron asks if Luna is coming, her father says she is spending time with the gnomes who are infesting the Weasleys' garden. Luna comes along shortly afterwards, immediately recognizes the disguised Harry by his expression, and pleasantly tells her father of the bite she received from a gnome. Her father is ecstatic, telling her gnome saliva can help one to be very creative. The next guest we are introduced to is Ron's Auntie Muriel, who is 107 years old and never at a loss for sharing her opinion whether one has asked for it or not. Hermione then comes out of the house in a lilac-colored dress to join Harry and Ron. It is then that Viktor Krum, the Quidditch star from Goblet of Fire, arrives as one of the last guests. Being that Viktor, who received an invitation from Fleur, and Hermione had a romance during the fourth year, Ron is taken a little uneasy by Viktor's presence. Harry (or Barny) decides to escort Viktor in. After all the guests have arrived, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Fred and George quickly move to sit in the second row in the marquee just before the ceremony begins. After Mr. and Mrs. Weasley make their entrance and Bill and best man Charlie arrive at the front, a radiant Fleur in a simple white dress is escorted by her father down the aisle to the sighs of all in attendance. To Harry's surprise, the same tufty-haired man who presided over Dumbledore's funeral, presides over the ceremony. During the ceremony, a wink from Ginny lets Harry reminisce about their romance the last spring. Many tears are to be had by the mothers of the bride and groom (as well as the usually loud and emotional Hagrid and Hermione). The presider then puts his wand over the heads of Bill and Fleur and silver stars fall over the two and around their entwined hands to signify the completion of the ceremony. The presider then asks the congregation to stand while he transforms the marquee into a canopy and the seating area into a dance floor with dining areas encircling it. Ron directs Harry and Hermione to a table away from Auntie Muriel (and presumably Viktor Krum). They end up sitting with Luna. When the music starts, Luna is motivated to get up and sort of float blissfully by herself on the dance floor. Viktor then sits down and asks who Luna's father is. Ron quickly asks Hermione to dance, and Harry is left alone with Viktor. Viktor says if Luna's father wasn't a wedding guest, he'd challenge the man to a duel because of the symbol he is wearing around his neck. Viktor explains that the symbol was used by Grindelwald, the dark wizard whom Dumbledore defeated in the famous duel of 1945. Grindelwald did terrible things where Viktor is from, including killing Viktor's grandfather. Grindelwald carved that symbol into a wall at Viktor's school ? Durmstrang. Many students, who were intrigued by Grindelwald, or inspired by him, took to drawing the symbol into their books and elsewhere. Viktor wonders why a person who wore the symbol of Grindelwald would be at the wedding. Harry explains that Xenophilius is an eccentric man with strange beliefs, but Harry didn't believe he could be someone who embraced the Dark Arts. Harry says that Luna's father couldn't be like that because he knew Luna. Explaining the strangeness of the Lovegood family doesn't seem to do well by the time the conversation ends. Viktor takes out his wand and starts tapping it against his leg in anger. It is then that Harry has a revelation. "Gregorovitch." He knew he had heard that name before his dream about Voldemort the other night. Gregorovitch is the wandmaker who made Viktor's wand. He remembered hearing the name during the Tri-Wizard tournament involving Viktor. Harry quizzes Viktor (who briefly wonders why "Barny" would know his wandmaker's name, which Harry dismisses as something he read in a fan magazine) about Gregorovitch. Where Viktor comes from (he did play for Bulgaria in the Quidditch World Cup), Gregorovitch was the pre-eminent wandmaker. Harry deduces that Voldemort must be looking for Gregorovitch to make a wand that would not fail against Harry's wand like it did the night Voldemort pursued Harry across the skies. Harry then wanders around the reception to find Ron to tell him about Gregorovitch, but sees Ron and Hermione enjoying themselves on the dance floor. He then sees an old wizard who seems familiar sitting alone at a table. Harry realizes it is Elphias Doge, a lifelong friend of Dumbledore's who wrote Dumbledore's obituary in the Daily Prophet. Harry sits down next to Doge and tells the old man that he is Harry in disguise. Doge is happy to meet Harry and talk with him. Harry asks Doge about the Rita Skeeter article in the Daily Prophet. Doge is quickly angered by the mention of Skeeter and tells Harry not to believe a word she says about Dumbledore's affection for the Dark Arts in his youth. But the continued mentioning of Skeeter's name grabs the attention of Auntie Muriel, who is half-drunk already and excited at the prospect of talking about the scandalous past of Dumbledore, even as Doge protests against the very thought. Muriel, who continually takes gulps of champagne during the conversation, tells Doge to face the facts and to get over his idolatry of Dumbledore. She can't wait to read Skeeter's biography of Dumbledore, especially the parts about Dumbledore's sister, whom no one knew very well. According to Muriel, Dumbledore's sister was a Squib, a non-magical child born to magical parents. ("Ariana was not a Squib," Doge said. "I thought she was ill," Harry said.). Muriel leapt to describe a different tale about how Dumbledore's mother kept Ariana hidden in the house, away from the public. And when their mother died, Dumbledore, now as head of the household, kept her hidden too. And, when Ariana died, Dumbledore's brother, Aberforth, blamed Dumbledore for her death, breaking Dumbledore's nose at Ariana's funeral. Muriel speculates, scandalously, as to how Dumbledore's mother and sister died. While an emotional Doge sporadically tries to protest, Muriel continues, stating her belief that Bathilda Bagshot ? the same Bathilda Bagshot who wrote a history book Harry studied at Hogwarts ? is likely to be Skeeter's incredible close source for the biography. Bathilda lives in Godric's Hollow (the same village Harry's parents lived in when they were killed by Voldemort), and so did the Dumbledore family. Harry is taken aback by all of this information, and doesn't know what to do with it. Hermione then leaves the dance floor, exhausted, and sits next to Harry at the table. Other than noticing that Viktor was having an argument with Luna's father, Hermione and Harry don't have time to even think about having butterbeers that Ron was going to get. Just then, a Patronus in form of a lynx shoots through the top of the canopy and into the middle of the dance floor. As all the guests freeze, the lynx, in the deep distinct voice of Kingsley Shacklebolt, says, "The Ministry has fallen. Scrimgeour is dead. They are coming." Questions: 1. How is that Harry can take a large dose of Polyjuice Potion and it lasts the entire wedding and reception afterward? Throughout the books, Polyjuice Potion's effect lasts just one hour, unless the taker uses it again before that hour is up. How does a larger dose suffice? Do we just assume Harry kept taking doses throughout the day/evening? 2. Did the Delacour family pay for most, if not all, of the wedding? Seeing as how often it is described how little money the Weasley family has to spare, how could they afford such a wedding at their home? 3. What is wrong with Lupin? He's at a celebration, why can't he enjoy it, especially since he and Tonks are newlyweds themselves? 4. What is the significance of meeting Xenophilius Lovegood? Is it just to explain where Luna gets her "Looneyness" from? 5. If the Lovegoods essentially were neighbors of the Weasleys, how come Ron and the other Weasleys (Ginny apparent knew Luna because they were in the same year) didn't know her before we met Luna in Order of the Phoenix on the train? 6. Auntie Muriel asks where Harry is, since Ron says they are close friends. If so many people know Harry is that close to the Weasleys, wouldn't they expect him to be there? The important people know Harry's in disguise, but wouldn't more people be questioning his absence? 7. Are we just to assume Ron and Hermione are an item now? Does everyone else assume they are? No one seems to acknowledge it except for a brief exchange between Viktor and Harry. 8. JK Rowling said in an interview after Goblet of Fire that international wizards no longer were going to factor in the books. Why was Viktor here, just as a device to explain Grindelwald's symbol? 9. Did Hermione discontinue her correspondence with Viktor? She had no idea why he was at the wedding? She made a point of staying in touch for at least a year after Goblet of Fire. 10. Just like many other traditions and holidays, the magical world has seemingly borrowed from Muggle traditions again with the entire wedding. Why isn't there much difference between that ceremony and a traditional Muggle ceremony, religious or not? Is it easier just to believe there is more in common between the two worlds than they let on? We see this wedding through Harry's eyes. Harry admittedly has never been to a wedding ? magical or Muggle ? before. Does that make a difference? 11. Why is Grindelwald's symbol so important? Why is Xenophilius Lovegood wearing said symbol? Is it just costume jewelry? 12. Is Elphias Doge protecting Dumbledore's memory by telling Harry not to believe a word Rita Skeeter says? 13. What is the deal with Doge's relationship with Dumbledore? Did Doge love Dumbledore as more than a friend? Knowing Dumbledore's sexuality now, could Doge and Dumbledore also have been lovers at some period? Or could Doge have had that kind of affection for Dumbledore, but it was never realized in a physical sense? Was their planned yearlong journey around the world more than just two friends on a quest? 14. Muriel seems so taken by the scandals involving Dumbledore; do you think she's ashamed of the Weasley clan? She mentions once, "Another Weasley? You breed like gnomes." What would she think of the scandals Arthur's been involved with? Does she dismiss it because she apparently is from Mrs. Weasley's side of the family? 15. Was Kinglsey not at the wedding because he was still protecting the Prime Minister? If so, how did he know so quickly about the Ministry of Magic's fall and Rufus Scrimgeour's death? -IPPY --------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Next Chapter Discussion, Chapter 9, Kreacher's Tale: December 10 From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Mon Nov 26 22:52:41 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:52:41 -0000 Subject: Running Water In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179395 > Tiffany now: > I do believe that the tent they used in DH was a different tent than what they used at the world cup. I don't remember who they borrowed the GoF one from. > > ~~Tiffany Marie*Twice I have lived forever in a smile* Shaunette: They borrowed it from Perkins. Poor fellow's got lumbago. Shaunette, who feels Aguamenti (Aquamenti?) would do the trick either way From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 02:18:01 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:18:01 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179396 Thanks for the summary! > Questions: > > 3. What is wrong with Lupin? He's at a celebration, why can't he > enjoy it, especially since he and Tonks are newlyweds themselves? Petra: Lupin's misery here ((pg. 139, US HB) seems to continue his state of mind from chapter 7, where we hear that Tonks "looked simply radiant" (pg. 119) while Lupin looks rather unhappy. Consider these two instances with what we find out in chapter 11 (pg. 212), namely Tonks is going to have a baby. As pregnant women are often described as being radiant, it would seem that from the start, Lupin does not share Tonks's anticipation of a rosy future for their baby (pg. 213). IOW, this little observation continues the set up for the scene in chap. 11 between Harry and Lupin that started in chap. 7. Lupin is an interesting example of fatherhood, one of many in the series, and his last words on pg. 700 confirm that he dreaded having brought a son into a world in which he is condemned to live an unhappy life. So yeah, the guy's feeling too agonized to be lighthearted at the wedding. > 4. What is the significance of meeting Xenophilius Lovegood? Is it > just to explain where Luna gets her "Looneyness" from? Petra: Yes, at least in part. The other part may be to introduce the wand-stone-cloak symbol as being Grindelwald's symbol and to set it up as being more than just Grindelwald's. > 11. Why is Grindelwald's symbol so important? Petra: Grindelwald took the sign of the Deathly Hallows as his symbol and mere decades later, only the most learned (and the eccentric!) seem to even know that the symbol has origins beyond its most recent and most bangy association to Grindelwald's regime. Hmm...it would seem, not that many even know about the Deathly Hallows being the origins of the children's tale, eh? Which is kind of interesting in itself since the Hallows Quest is somewhat reminiscent of the Grail Quest and other stories of that very popular paradigm. Amazing ain't it, how you can never predict how people's neurons will fire...how the lives of the Peverell brothers morphed into the Tale of the Three Brothers as told by Beedle the Bard (chap. 21) and then became a symbol that's synonymous with Grindelwald's bloody reign. Rather nicely parallel the story of the swastika in how things can change and morph through time. * To some extent, this makes me wonder just many in the WW even realize how far Voldemort's ideology may have strayed from Salazar Slytherin's original philosophy. Petra a n :) * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4183467.stm (Funny story: I once asked a librarian about the swastika in a Kipling book and I swear, she looked at me as if I'm about to suggest that the book be burnt or that someone sue the library for having that book in its collection!) From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Nov 27 03:21:19 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:21:19 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179397 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > The Dursleys treat Harry like he's worthless because they consider > him worthless, and a drain on the family finances. Once the Dursleys > realize that he's got access to money, they change their ways, > because it's now in their interests to be nicer to Harry. Allie: Nothing the Dursleys ever do for Harry resembles, "Nice." The closest we get is Uncle Vernon saying he'll sign a permission slip. >An involved Muggle family would > muddle this plan, because the family might object, & Harry might not be willing to die for DD's cause. So DD would want the Dursleys to resent Harry, and ensure that Harry's experience with the Muggle > world was a miserable one. Then, by the time Hagrid comes back to > fetch Harry to Hogwarts, Harry is so insanely grateful that he's > willing to do anything for DD & to protect his new home in the > wizarding world. > Allie: I'm sorry, but the overwhelming evidence is that the Dursleys resent Harry for being magical, *not* for being a drain on their resources. There are what, one or two references to it costing the Dursleys money to take care of Harry? And *numerous* references to the Dursleys hating all things magical? Maybe they complained about feeding him, they certainly had no right to complain about clothing him since all he had were hand-me-downs, but that was definitely second place on their list of reasons to hate Harry. Nothing Dumbledore could possibly have done would have changed the fact that he was a wizard and they weren't. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 03:28:38 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:28:38 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179398 > > Allie: > > I'm sorry, but the overwhelming evidence is that the Dursleys resent > Harry for being magical, *not* for being a drain on their > resources. There are what, one or two references to it costing the > Dursleys money to take care of Harry? lizzyben: I'm really not sure what the disagreement is here. Durseleys didn't get money, Dursleys hate Harry, Dursleys hate magic. Check. They got slightly more civil to Harry once they realize that he has money. My point was just that that indicates that they didn't know he had money before. Which was the original discusssion. They'll hate Harry regarless, but if they were getting money or strings on that money, they might've treated Harry better out of their own self-interest. From stephab67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 02:26:52 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:26:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179399 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ianuno3" wrote: > CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding > > Questions: 1. How is that Harry can take a large dose of Polyjuice Potion and it lasts the entire wedding and reception afterward? Throughout the books, Polyjuice Potion's effect lasts just one hour, unless the taker uses it again before that hour is up. How does a larger dose suffice? Do we just assume Harry kept taking doses throughout the day/evening? Steph: First, thanks to ianuno3 for a great chapter recap and very thought-provoking questions! Now to my answer: I got the impression that the larger the dose taken, the longer effects of polyjuice last. The chapter says something to the effect that Harry took a large dose. 2. Did the Delacour family pay for most, if not all, of the wedding? Seeing as how often it is described how little money the Weasley family has to spare, how could they afford such a wedding at their home? Steph: Since the wedding as a whole was pretty much just like every traditional wedding I've ever been to, I'm going to say that the Delacours did pay for most of it. Perhaps the fact that the Weasleys were having the wedding at The Burrow eased the pain of the expense somewhat. 3. What is wrong with Lupin? He's at a celebration, why can't he enjoy it, especially since he and Tonks are newlyweds themselves? Steph: As we don't find out later exactly what Lupin's problem is, I took it to be some kind of uneasiness regarding Voldie and his plans, that perhaps Lupin wasn't feeling as carefree at the wedding as Tonks and everyone else, given the situation in the wizarding world. I'll save my ire for him for later, during the appropriate chapter. > 4. What is the significance of meeting Xenophilius Lovegood? Is it just to explain where Luna gets her "Looneyness" from? Steph: Partially, but also to introduce the Hallows symbol, since Xeno is wearing it. Of course, our three heroes don't yet know what it is, and of course, neither do we. This is pretty much my answer for Q#11 as well. > 5. If the Lovegoods essentially were neighbors of the Weasleys, how come Ron and the other Weasleys (Ginny apparent knew Luna because they were in the same year) didn't know her before we met Luna in Order of the Phoenix on the train? Steph: The Lovegoods seem like the type of people who would keep to themselves due to their quirkyness, or, rather, people would steer clear of them for the same reason. There's usually one family in a neighborhood which doesn't quite fit in and therefore are generally ignored/avoided by everyone else. Arthur obviously knew Xeno, but it seems clear that the two never socialized, so there probably was never an opportunity for the kids to meet until Ginny met Luna at Hogwarts. > 6. Auntie Muriel asks where Harry is, since Ron says they are close friends. If so many people know Harry is that close to the Weasleys, wouldn't they expect him to be there? The important people know Harry's in disguise, but wouldn't more people be questioning his absence? Steph: I thought Ron provided an eminently reasonable explanation for Harry's absence - that the situation was too dangerous for Harry to be out in public. Muriel certainly bought it, and she didn't strike me (in her few scenes) as someone who would fall for something easily. > 7. Are we just to assume Ron and Hermione are an item now? Does everyone else assume they are? No one seems to acknowledge it except for a brief exchange between Viktor and Harry. Steph: Yes, as they can't seem to keep their hands off each other, although I did find it strange that no one seemed to acknowledge it, especially after Hermione threw herself at Ron in the Fallen Warrior chapter. I'd have expected Molly to say something in Harry's presence, at the very least. Not even the twins said anything, and you'd think they at least would be teasing Ron about Hermione. They usually find humor even during inappropriate times. > 8. JK Rowling said in an interview after Goblet of Fire that international wizards no longer were going to factor in the books. Why was Viktor here, just as a device to explain Grindelwald's symbol? Steph: That, and as a way to push Ron into making a move on Hermione, even if it was just to ask her to dance. Baby steps, though! > 9. Did Hermione discontinue her correspondence with Viktor? She had no idea why he was at the wedding? She made a point of staying in touch for at least a year after Goblet of Fire. Steph: Maybe she abandoned her correspondence with him after it seemed as though Ron was finally going to make a move on her. It could also be that Viktor got too busy being an international quidditch champion to have time to writer to Hermione. Maybe a bit of both. > 10. Just like many other traditions and holidays, the magical world has seemingly borrowed from Muggle traditions again with the entire wedding. Why isn't there much difference between that ceremony and a traditional Muggle ceremony, religious or not? Is it easier just to believe there is more in common between the two worlds than they let on? We see this wedding through Harry's eyes. Harry admittedly has never been to a wedding ? magical or Muggle ? before. Does that make a difference? Steph: It doesn't make a difference that Harry's never been to a Muggle wedding. Any of JKR's readers who have will recognize it as just like any other traditional wedding they've ever been to (without the magic, of course!). Perhaps it was to indeed show that these *are* just people, even if they do have magical abilities, and there are things the two worlds share. Plus, she's already come up with such a rich world, maybe she just decided to punt on the wedding - too much effort to come up with something more "magical." > 11. Why is Grindelwald's symbol so important? Why is Xenophilius Lovegood wearing said symbol? Is it just costume jewelry? Steph: Clearly we don't know the answer to this at this stage in the story, but the conflict between Xeno and Victor show that there's something more to it than what Harry thinks. > 12. Is Elphias Doge protecting Dumbledore's memory by telling Harry not to believe a word Rita Skeeter says? Steph: Possibly, and it's likely that he doesn't really know the whole story anyway. As we would find out later, DD was a pretty secretive guy. He likely kept stuff from Elphias that wouldn't have reflected on DD too well, and what he didn't want anyone to know. > 13. What is the deal with Doge's relationship with Dumbledore? Did Doge love Dumbledore as more than a friend? Knowing Dumbledore's sexuality now, could Doge and Dumbledore also have been lovers at some period? Or could Doge have had that kind of affection for Dumbledore, but it was never realized in a physical sense? Was their planned yearlong journey around the world more than just two friends on a quest? Steph: No way to know, except that Elphias seemed to have the same attitude toward DD that Peter Pettigrew had for James and Sirius - hero worship. Or maybe you might want to call Elphias DD's fanboy! In any case it appeared to have blinded him to any faults DD might have had, hence the appalled attitude Elphias had to Rita Skeeter's book. > 14. Muriel seems so taken by the scandals involving Dumbledore; do you think she's ashamed of the Weasley clan? She mentions once, "Another Weasley? You breed like gnomes." What would she think of the scandals Arthur's been involved with? Does she dismiss it because she apparently is from Mrs. Weasley's side of the family? Steph: I don't think Muriel is ashamed of the Weasleys, otherwise she wouldn't have shown up for the wedding and certainly wouldn't have loaned Fleur the tiara. I do think she's a bit disapproving of the number of kids they've had. As for Arthur's scandals, she likely sides with the Weasleys as she's pretty smart and would realize that something's rotten in Denmark, er, the Ministry of Magic. I doubt she would have allowed her house to be used as a safe location for Harry's escape from Privet Drive if she was scandalized by Arthur. > 15. Was Kinglsey not at the wedding because he was still protecting the Prime Minister? If so, how did he know so quickly about the Ministry of Magic's fall and Rufus Scrimgeour's death? Steph: Could be, or maybe he was keeping an eye on things at the Ministry when he was "off duty" from the Prime Minister. I would have expected someone at his level of Auror who was in the Order to be holding down the fort while the others attended the wedding. Wow, I'm tired! Again, great questions! BTW, there's one (well, more than one, but Q#8 made me think of it again) question/comment/whatever, I had, repeatedly, over several books (at least GOF - DH) regarding Ron and Hermione. I always thought it was weird/interesting that Hermione's parents let her stay at Ron's house repeatedly in the summers and over winter break. I don't think that my parents would have allowed me to do that, even if the boy in question and I were 'just friends' and there was constant parental supervision. I'm surprised JKR never had Hermione commenting to Harry that her parents were teasing her about spending so much time with Ron. Let's face it - Hermione loves Harry, but we all know she really wanted to be with Ron. Why else would she always show up to the Burrow a few days before Harry? It probably wasn't to hang out with Ginny (not that they hadn't become friends). Maybe I'm reading more into this than there is, but I'm just sayin'. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 03:55:12 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:55:12 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water /... Bath, Stove, and More In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179400 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > But on the issue of the Bathroom, or more correctly the 'toilet', > do you suppose the 'disposal' (he said euphemistically) aspect > of the room actually used water? Likely it used some kind of > vanishing spell. I thought bathroom was a room with a sink, a shower (a bathtub) and a toilet in it :-). Anyway, you are right and the toilet part of the tent's bathroom wouldn't require any water. > Now Tap-water would be a different matter, there is really > nothing to dispose of, just water-in/water-out. But "water-in\water-out" also requires plumbing, which is nonexistent in this case. So what would it be, some kind of permanent Aguamenti on one end and a permanent vanishing spell on the other end :-)? > By that I mean, does Molly merely have a cook stove-looking > object in and upon which she casts her own flame charms, or > are the flame charms actually built into the stove; turn a > knob and magical flames appear? This I cannot answer. I remember in GoF Molly lit the stove just by poking it with her wand, but it really doesn't say much. Maybe she cast a flame charm, but maybe she just used her wand to turn the stove on (instead of a knob). Maybe these stoves come with instructions: "To turn on - poke with a wand, to turn off - poke again":-). > And as long as we are on the subject of cooking, which ties > to the subject of food, where do wizards get their food? I > don't recall hearing about or seeing or even the implication > of a wizards grocer in any of the books. Wasn't that you who said that if something is not mentioned in the book it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in WW? Or was it someone else :-)? Maybe there are wizard grocers and farmers. Besides, Hermione says that you can "increase the quantity" of the food if you have some, so the wizards wouldn't need a lot of food. They'll just get a little and then "increase the quantity" :-)! zanooda From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Nov 27 04:16:45 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:16:45 -0500 Subject: Fees for Harry / Running Water /... Bath, Stove, and More Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179401 We know that it is possible to change Wizardling money for Muggle money, so there are probably shops that buy things like food that can't be magic-ed up and resell them to wizards. JKR doesn't go into details because they aren't directly related to the plot. Unlike some authors--*cough*David Eddings*cough*--JKR doesn't feel the need to explain everything. As for the food at Grimmauld Place after Kreacher's conversion, there are two explanations: 1. Kreacher as a House Elf doesn't feel bound by human morality; therefore, he doesn't mind nicking the food from Muggle shops. Harry & Co. don't ask questions. 2. Alternatively, Kreacher as a Black family retainer has access to the Black accounts at Gringott's; the sums necessary to maintain three people--even three teenagers--are relatively small, so only a thorough audit (which nobody bothers to do during the time in question) would notice it. In any case, as Harry is Sirius heir, who would have authority to order such an audit? 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 Tue Nov 27 04:22:45 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:22:45 -0500 Subject: The name 'Kendra' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179402 To the person who couldn't see calling a boy "Harry", Harry is short for Henry. It goes back to Shakespeare. It could also be short for Harold. 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 Tue Nov 27 08:11:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:11:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179403 ---"dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > >> bboyminn: > > > So, yes, Dumbledore took it upon himself to decide Harry's > > fate. He did so openly, and with no objections from any > > other member of the Order, who were likely the people > > closest to the Potters. Sirius offered no objection when > > Hagrid took Harry on Dumbledore's orders. > > Alla: > > Um, yes he did object. Not enough, sure. But he objected. > bboyminn: I don't think Sirius objected at Godrics Hollow, I think he simply had an alternate suggestion, and when Hagrid explained that Dumbledore had a plan to protect Harry, Sirius relented ... for now. To the best of my recollection, since I can't find the passage, Sirius offered to take Harry from Hagrid, though we don't have a direct quote, Hagrid seems to have explained that he was taking Harry on Dumbledore's order so Dumbledore could protect him. Sirius relented ... for now. Again, I keep saying 'for now' because I don't think Sirius believed for one moment that he was totally abdicating his rights as guardian. He was simply allowing Dumbledore to have control while the situation was so volatile. Of course, Sirius immediately got himself arrested, so that sort of curtailed any guardian activities on his part. > > bboyminn: > > > Dumbledore had control because the people who counted and > > eventually the Ministry allowed him that control. > > > Alla: > > Sure, members of the Order blindly followed Dumbledore. They > blindly followed Dumbledore when they did not bother to check > on Harry till he turned eleven. bboyminn: Not quite true. Harry had several encounters with wizards and witches in his life. Wizards and witches that we eventually discover were members of the Order. Dedalus Diggle bowed to Harry in a shop one day, and Dedalus was thrilled that Harry remembered him. Plus, Mrs. Figg was always on the scene keeping tabs on Harry. Now it is clear that Harry wasn't treated the best, but being treated bad is far better than being dead. Further since Harry didn't die and wasn't attacked at Privet Drive, Dumbledore's choice seems pretty sound. > Alla: > > They blindly followed Dumbledore when Dumbledore > forbade them to tell Harry about prophecy .... > > They blindly followed Dumbledore in their trust of Snape.. > > I do not see that it in any way reduces Dumbledore's > responsibility as I perceive it, just shows their blind > faith in Dumbledore IMO, for which I sure hold them > responsible. > > JMO, > > Alla > bboyminn: Yes, precisely, they trusted Dumbledore, he was their accepted and respected leader, so they let him lead, and they followed. That is how these things work. Dumbledore may not have ultimately been great, but he was the best they had, and he was the man with the plan. A plan that, by the way, ultimately worked. As to what Dumbledore is responsible for, I'm not quite sure. Well, I know what he is accused of, but war is never clean. To fight war, even wars that haven't started yet, people have to get their hands dirty. Yes, Dumbledore had dirt on his hands. He had to make dark and terrible decision. But again those decisions ultimately worked out and paid off. So where's the problem? Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 12:14:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:14:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179404 > bboyminn: > > Yes, precisely, they trusted Dumbledore, he was their accepted > and respected leader, so they let him lead, and they followed. > That is how these things work. Dumbledore may not have > ultimately been great, but he was the best they had, and he > was the man with the plan. A plan that, by the way, ultimately > worked. Alla: I read your previous argument as if the fact that the members of the Order followed Dumbledore somehow justifies his manipulations or makes htem less manipulations. Have I misread you? If I did I am sorry, if I did not, then Members following him does not make his manipulations to be less horrible to me. bboyminn: > As to what Dumbledore is responsible for, I'm not quite sure. > Well, I know what he is accused of, but war is never clean. > To fight war, even wars that haven't started yet, people > have to get their hands dirty. Yes, Dumbledore had dirt on > his hands. He had to make dark and terrible decision. But > again those decisions ultimately worked out and paid off. > So where's the problem? Alla: It is that ends and means problem. NO, IMO he did not HAVE to make dark and terrible decisions and for that I hold him responsible. It is the ones he CHOSE to make IMO. They worked more or less with innocents hurting and dying along the way. Good point Dana (I think???) brought up. Moody owes his death to Dumbledore before he owns his death to DE, no? Yes, DE pulled the trigger so to speak, but Dumbledore and nobody else told Snape to make Voldemort aware of their plans. I find this disgusting and yes, I know Moody was a soldier who knew that he can die at any time. I highly doubt that he wanted to die betrayed by the man he hold in such respect. Dumbledore I mean. Hmmmm, how about **keeping a secret** how Harry would be transported eh? Moody's death was as far as I bam concerned totally unnecessary and just another victim of Dumbledore stupid strategy. Why, why DE needed to know that? Such idiocy as far as I am concerned. Never mind poor Hedwig. So, yes DD's plans worked. It is the means I question. JMO, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Nov 27 12:53:21 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:53:21 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179405 Steph: > First, thanks to ianuno3 for a great chapter recap and very > thought-provoking questions! SSSusan: Yep, thanks IPPY! IPPY: > 1. How is that Harry can take a large dose of Polyjuice Potion and > it lasts the entire wedding and reception afterward? Throughout the > books, Polyjuice Potion's effect lasts just one hour, unless the > taker uses it again before that hour is up. How does a larger dose > suffice? Do we just assume Harry kept taking doses throughout the > day/evening? Steph: > I got the impression that the larger the dose taken, the longer > effects of polyjuice last. The chapter says something to the effect > that Harry took a large dose. SSSusan: I have to wonder along with Ian on this one. If all it takes is a large dose to make it last longer, then why didn't the Trio take more in their first year? And why would Mad-Eye have had to keep his flask constantly with him? (I know, I know -- part of that was reinforcement of the "paranoid" description of him, but still.) I thought it was sort of a strangity (I don't think that's a real word, but whatever :)) to bring in an apparent option of "large doses" at this point. IPPY: > 3. What is wrong with Lupin? He's at a celebration, why can't he > enjoy it, especially since he and Tonks are newlyweds themselves? Steph: > As we don't find out later exactly what Lupin's problem is, I took > it to be some kind of uneasiness regarding Voldie and his plans, > that perhaps Lupin wasn't feeling as carefree at the wedding as > Tonks and everyone else, given the situation in the wizarding > world. SSSusan: I'm trying to remember back to what I really thought on the first reading.... I think it was a combination of flat-out wondering what was wrong and also what Steph has said -- assuming that Lupin was just focusing on the "what could go wrong here" and the idea that they'd better be prepared for something coming from the DEs and Voldy. IPPY: > 5. If the Lovegoods essentially were neighbors of the Weasleys, how > come Ron and the other Weasleys (Ginny apparent knew Luna because > they were in the same year) didn't know her before we met Luna in > Order of the Phoenix on the train? Steph: > The Lovegoods seem like the type of people who would keep to > themselves due to their quirkyness, or, rather, people would steer > clear of them for the same reason. SSSusan: I love this response -- either they keep to themselves because of their quirkyness or others avoid them because of it! Very likely! This also reminded me of when the Weasleys, Harry & Hermione went to the QWC at the start of GoF and they didn't really know the Diggorys either. That didn't make much sense to me, especially as Cedric was a "cool" kid -- outgoing, friendly, popular -- someone it seems Fred & George might've wanted to hang out with a bit over breaks. IPPY: > 7. Are we just to assume Ron and Hermione are an item now? Does > everyone else assume they are? No one seems to acknowledge it except > for a brief exchange between Viktor and Harry. Steph: > Yes, as they can't seem to keep their hands off each other, > although I did find it strange that no one seemed to acknowledge > it, especially after Hermione threw herself at Ron in the Fallen > Warrior chapter. SSSusan: I just figured it was the small passage of time between DD's funeral and when we pick up the story again that we weren't privy to. I assumed, from the scene we got of Ron & Hermione at the funeral, that they were going to be together then, and openly. I guess I figured the family would recognize this pretty quickly, too... and most of 'em probably saw it coming as well. >;) Steph: > Not even the twins said anything, and you'd think they at least > would be teasing Ron about Hermione. They usually find humor > even during inappropriate times. SSSusan: This I'll agree is a bit odd. :) OTOH, while I know I'm extrapolating here, I could see Ron being quite *firmly* open in his acknowledgement of his feelings for & relationship with Hermione, now that it was finally going. I could actually see F&G respecting that. Usually it's Ron's insecurities they pick up on & go after, but if Ron & Hermione were quite secure in & open about their relationship, I could see F&G backing off. Or am I nuts? IPPY: > 12. Is Elphias Doge protecting Dumbledore's memory by telling Harry > not to believe a word Rita Skeeter says? SSSusan: I didn't get the feeling it was that intentional. I think he just really liked & respected DD and, as with so many people, couldn't possibly have believed there might have been any truth to what Rita was reporting -- especially because it was Rita. I suppose he was meant to represent that strong (over)confidence in DD a bit? IPPY: > 13. What is the deal with Doge's relationship with Dumbledore? Did > Doge love Dumbledore as more than a friend? Knowing Dumbledore's > sexuality now, could Doge and Dumbledore also have been lovers at > some period? Or could Doge have had that kind of affection for > Dumbledore, but it was never realized in a physical sense? Was their > planned yearlong journey around the world more than just two friends > on a quest? Steph: > No way to know, except that Elphias seemed to have the same attitude > toward DD that Peter Pettigrew had for James and Sirius - hero > worship. Or maybe you might want to call Elphias DD's fanboy! In > any case it appeared to have blinded him to any faults DD might > have had.... SSSusan: I'm piggybacking on Steph once more (you said it all!). I agree that we can't really know how likely any of the notions IPPY put forth are. I rather doubt there was an actual love affair, though, because I suspect the tidbit of an actual relationship would have been "dropped" by JKR along with the crush on Grindelwald tidbit. But the way Doge went on & on about DD, it would make sense that it was either flat-out tremendous respect for him or an aspect of the hero worship/fanboy thing. I still think, too, that JKR wrote him to be representative of the admiration & faith people held towards DD, so that the discovery of his failings & mistakes would be even more powerful. Siriusly Snapey Susan From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 13:34:24 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:34:24 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179406 > Alla: > > Did Harry accept his philosophy? Or did he forgive Dumbledore? > Because I believe that he forgave him an that is why for me there is > no dissonance. > a_svirn: Did he? If it only were the case! But at no point during the King's Cross chapter does Dumbledore asks Harry's forgiveness and Harry gives it to him. Not, of course, because Harry is incapable of forgiveness, but because according to him there isn't anything to forgive. This is what I find so infuriating about this chapter (apart from the Dumbledore's usual affectations, and his incomprehensible plan). It is as though the seething resentment Harry has felt throughout DH and the sting of betrayal from the previous chapter have been obliterated by Voldemort's killing curse. When they meet at King's Cross they slip effortlessly into their usual pupil/mentor mode. Dumbledore explains Harry listens raptly and asks questions. But Dumbledore does *not* feel any remorse about his plan. Oh, he is very remorseful and penitent, but that is all about the things of his very distant past: his fevered friendship with Grindenwald, his youthful dreams of world domination, his neglect of his siblings and the death of his sister. I suppose, if he met Ariana in limbo, he would forget his gaudy magniloquence and ask her forgiveness humbly as befits a sinner. But not so with Harry. I did not get the feeling that Dumbledore felt any remorse about or admitted to any fault in his infamous plan. He did conceded the flaws ? poor Severus didn't end up with his wand, for instance, but those are flaws in the plan, not in Dumbledore. As for the Cloak episode you mentioned, I don't agree that Harry was *forgiving* anything. Harry rejects the idea that there is anything to forgive. (And does Dumbledore, by the way, "true, true" he says when Harry assures him that cloak wouldn't have made any difference for his parents.) If he acknowledged that Dumbledore robbed his parents of their last chance to survive and forgave him nonetheless ? that would be forgiveness. But he simply dismissed the issue as unimportant, and this is closer to betrayal, than to forgiveness. In a more charitable light you can say that Harry was in denial. In any case, an exchange like "Oh, sorry about that" ? "Oh, not at all" is not about forgiveness, it's about pleasantries. And this is what is going on during their chat. It's like a meeting of the "Mutual Appreciation Society". And even after death their roles did not change: Dumbledore is still a wise Professor; Harry is still a bright student. He left King's Cross still a Dumbledore's man, he duelled Voldemort as Dumbledore's man, and while duelling discussed Dumbledore's plan and his infinite wisdom. He called Snape Dumbledore's man, and that obviously is the highest accolade he could come up with. So no, I don't think it is about Christian forgiveness and "the quality of mercy". It is that sticky Greater Good thing all over again. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 14:00:31 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:00:31 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179407 > Alla: > Good point Dana (I think???) brought up. Moody owes his death to > Dumbledore before he owns his death to DE, no? > > Yes, DE pulled the trigger so to speak, but Dumbledore and nobody > else told Snape to make Voldemort aware of their plans. > > I find this disgusting and yes, I know Moody was a soldier who knew > that he can die at any time. I highly doubt that he wanted to die > betrayed by the man he hold in such respect. Dumbledore I mean. > > Hmmmm, how about **keeping a secret** how Harry would be transported > eh? > > Moody's death was as far as I bam concerned totally unnecessary and > just another victim of Dumbledore stupid strategy. a_svirn: Well, actually, Moody contributed to his death himself. Not that I absolve Dumbledore, mind. But you see, Dung Fletcher did not want to come at all, he did not want to come as fake Harry at he certainly did not want to come with Moody, because Moody was considered the target #1. He was forced to do all of the above, however. So not only Dumbledore put the Order's member's lives in jeopardy, Moody and Co took it upon themselves to appoint Fletcher as canon folder, because obviously they thought him dispensable. In the event he scampered, and in the ensuring scuffle Moody lost concentration and was killed. Served him right. By the way, there is one thing about the fake Potters busyness that gave me a slight pause. Ok, Fletcher was matched with Moody because they were most the dispensable member of the Order and the most famous Auror respectively. But how did Hermione ended up as #2 on the scale of dispensability?! She flew with Kingsley, and Kingsley was commonly regarded as the target #2. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 14:08:45 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:08:45 -0000 Subject: Hallows (was: Re: Dumbledore - Good as Written?) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0711261209k752149e1l837ba463d106e9bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > a_svirn: > > in PS Ron, who had never seen an Invisible Cloak before had no difficulty in > > recognizing it and said that they are "rare". > > Lynda: > > But nothing that is said in DH disputes that. a_svirn: But I didn't say that DH contradicts it. All I say is that at no point in the previous six books were we told that all the other Cloaks are inferior to the one in Harry's possession. All the pre-DH evidence points to the contrary ? that they were *like* the Potter's heirloom. Ergo Ignatus Peverel and his legacy must be comparatively late inspiration. From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 27 15:21:26 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:21:26 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179409 > a_svirn: > Well, actually, Moody contributed to his death himself. Not that I > absolve Dumbledore, mind. But you see, Dung Fletcher did not want to > come at all, he did not want to come as fake Harry at he certainly > did not want to come with Moody, because Moody was considered the > target #1. He was forced to do all of the above, however. So not only > Dumbledore put the Order's member's lives in jeopardy, Moody and Co > took it upon themselves to appoint Fletcher as canon folder, because > obviously they thought him dispensable. In the event he scampered, > and in the ensuring scuffle Moody lost concentration and was killed. > Served him right. Celoneth: I don't understand why they'd go with this plan in the first place. Why trust Dung, when I don't think they'd trusted him in the past given his reputation for being a thief & coward. Why not do side-by-side apparition or something similar that would be much safer (and why they didn't do this in OOtP either or any other time they need to transport Harry?). Or since the ministry hadn't fallen yet, surely they could have gotten authorisation for a portkey or connect the house to the floo network. I don't get the Fake-Harry plan at all, its stupid enough w/o being known by the DEs. I think its both Moody and DD's fault (and to some degree Snape for going along w/ DD's plan), DD's plan was ridiculous, Moody & Snape should have known better. For a manipulative "genius" DD had some idiotic plans that only succeeded b/c of coincidence more often than not. Celoneth From lmkos at earthlink.net Tue Nov 27 18:16:09 2007 From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:16:09 -0700 Subject: How do the books affect children? (was: Why down on all the characters?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179410 >Stephanie: >One thing I always kept in my mind as I was reading is that JKR's >primary audience was not adults, but children. Kids don't analyze >books as adults do, and look at things from a different perspective >than adults. Lenore: What really gave me a chill about the books was knowing that they were being read by massive numbers of children-- children who do not have the capability to read the books critically, and therefore do not make a choice about what kind of message gets under their unconscious radar. The books make a strong impact on adults, too, as have most of us experienced, so we can just imagine how strongly a child's mind is influenced. Because of this, children need books of a higher tenor, imo; books that might inspire them to see what is possible for humanity, books that give them some kind of model (at least some of the time) for integrity and character development. In that sense, for me, the books are impoverished. Kids don't need to know everything about "what's it's really like" in our dysfunctional world or in a fictional world that is similar in many ways, a world where nothing seems to work and where the "good" guys seem to have little awareness about how they treat one another. The books can be great for somewhat older kids who *also* have an understanding parent to accompany them through the books and encourage them to ask questions. I can't see any benefit for younger children age 6-9. There's a part of me that holds out a slender hope that there is something more in the books that I may have missed, something that might be useful and enduring. What blights that hope are all those comments made by the author about using the books to get petty revenge on whoever, and the stark separating of people into groups of "us" and "them", and "in-group" vs "outies". There's such a mixture of great entertainment along with, apparently, a lot of petty authorial self-indulgence at the reader's expense. Most adults can tell the difference; most children cannot. Stephanie: >Some of the things that might bother adults might make >perfect sense to kids. Lenore: Yes, they accept the hidden messages much less critically than adults. They accept the inconsistency in values which has been pointed out by many of our posters here. Just like the ugliness in TV and movies, their minds take it all in, indiscriminately, hook, line and sinker, and many aspects of their lives are ultimately shaped by what they think and perceive and ACCEPT, as children. I agree with Magpie that it's "got a lot of disturbing stuff in it". Stephanie: >It doesn't mean that the standards should be >lowered just because the books are written for kids, it's just that we >have to keep in mind that they were written for kids. Lenore: And yet, that's what happens. I suppose standards are low for children for the same reason that standards are low for adults (in TV, movies, books). I've run across a few books "written for kids" that truly make my mind reel with horror. I have worked closely with children with emotional disturbances and/or learning disabilities and other kinds of fear reactions, so I've had some experience. I also have a kind of empathic sensitivity and attunement to what children are feeling and experiencing, and there's too much in the books that I don't want them to feel and experience at such young ages. Lenore From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 19:43:42 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:43:42 -0000 Subject: Hallows (was: Re: Dumbledore - Good as Written?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179411 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > All I say is that at no point in the previous six books were > we told that all the other Cloaks are inferior to the one in > Harry's possession. All the pre-DH evidence points to the > contrary ? that they were *like* the Potter's heirloom. zanooda: I don't intend to argue your main point (that the Hallows were invented by JKR late in the process of writing the books) - I really don't know and maybe you are right about this. I just want to point out that *there are* degrees of quality of Invisibility Cloaks. In OotP Moody complained about Sturgis taking and not returning his *best* IC (p.173), so he had to use his spare one. This means that some IC are better (probably just newer :-) than others, and, I suppose, Harry's is just the best of them all :-)! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 21:06:44 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:06:44 -0000 Subject: Hallows - The Cloak and the Story In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179412 --- "a_svirn" wrote: > > --- "Lynda Cordova" > wrote: > > > > a_svirn: > > > > in PS Ron, who had never seen an Invisible Cloak before had > > no difficulty in recognizing it and said that they are > > "rare". > > > > Lynda: > > > > But nothing that is said in DH disputes that. > > a_svirn: > But I didn't say that DH contradicts it. All I say is that > at no point in the previous six books were we told that all > the other Cloaks are inferior to the one in Harry's possession. > All the pre-DH evidence points to the contrary ? that they > were *like* the Potter's heirloom. Ergo Ignatus Peverel and > his legacy must be comparatively late inspiration. > bboyminn: I think we need to consider the Point-of-View character in discussing this. Harry doesn't know his cloak is ancient. He knows it was his Dads but he don't know it has been handed down through generation after generation. As far as he assumes it is just a bog-standard Invisibility Cloak, and there is no immediate plot reason for him to think otherwise. Partly because JKR did not and should not give away the uniqueness of Harry's cloak too early in the plot. Even taking Ron's POV into consideration, sure he knew what an I-Coak was, and he may have even seen one at some point, but it would have been seen from a distance. He certainly would not have detailed knowledge of all-thing-cloak. So, how could Ron know that Harry's cloak was anything but a first generation bog-standard I-Cloak? I don't think he could know. As someone else pointed out, Moody had his 'good' cloak and his 'old' cloak, and was mad that his 'good' cloak wasn't available. That is very very subtle, but it is a hint that something or other affects the quality of a cloak. It's not much, but we have to consider that we the readers discover information as Harry discovers it. When he discovers the unsuspected uniqueness of his cloak, at the appropriate time in the story, that is when we discover it. As to the Hallows being an after thought on JKR's part, that seems unlikely as Dumbledore has his wand and Harry has his cloak from the very beginning of the books. As to the last book being flawed, to some extent I can see that, but none-the-less it was still a ripping good story, just not up to par with the others. But, to some extent, I can understand how that happens. I picture the series as symbolically two funnels placed with the large ends together. In the beginning the world is simple but expanding, by GoF and OotP, it has expanded as far as the story will allow. After that, JKR has to start contracting the story. She has to focus on the goal and not let herself be sidetracked from that final objective. Plus, she need to keep the book contained to a reasonable size. The last book is already over 750 pages, and for a children's book, that is mammoth in size. But, I think she over did it. I think she self-edited a degree of heart out of the story as a result. Take for example, the long-lasting Polyjuice potion, I think she skipped over the details of that because she wanted to keep the story focused and not have to deal with writing minor details like the Gang having to stop now and then to take more 'juice'. So, she simply skipped over those extra pages as being unnecessary to the central story. Again, the objective is to stay focused on the goal and eliminate anything that detracts from that direct-line path. I do think this obsession with staying on the straight-and- narrow took some of the richness from the story, but at the same time I take the books as they are written. Some literary criticism is fun and productive, but 'hating' the books is pointless because you can't rewrite the story. It is negative energy that will only bring you down. Enjoy the story that was written, flaws and all, rather than fuming about the story you wanted to be written. Just a thought, plus a little more. Steve/bboyminn From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 00:29:06 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:29:06 -0000 Subject: A classic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179413 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > Terry Pratchett & the Discworld series introduced me to the world of > magic. CS Lewis & Aslan at about the same time. Some time, I'll > probably try HP 1-7 again but currently, DH has turned me off from the > lot. > Barry Niru writes: I actually loved DH. It is my favourite book in the series. I'm not quite sure what answers people were expecting but JKR made it quite clear that she would not and could not answer everything. And to be fair she did tie up many loose ends. I'll definitely read HP to my daughter when she's old enough and I know at least some friends who will be reading to their kids. So I think the books will endure. HP isn't all about the great marketing machine. We have to remember that the great marketing machine only fell behind HP after the books had caught on by simple word of mouth. - Niru From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 00:51:49 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:51:49 -0000 Subject: First war with VD - did James trust Remus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179414 vivida89 wrote: > > > In PoA we get to know that it was like everyone suspected > > everyone. Remus suspected Sirius and Sirius suspected Remus. > > This is also why Sirius asked James to switch the figure of > > the secret keeper to Peter. Niru: I think Sirius definitely suspected Remus. However I do not think that Remus suspected Sirius. Remus only thought that Sirius had been the spy after James and Lily's deaths and the incident with Peter Pettigrew. In this, Remus was no different to the rest of the wizarding world. Which is why he tells Harry in PoA that he THOUGHT he knew Sirius. vivida89 wrote: > > That James initially agreed with that shows me he saw the need > > why to do this. Meaning he must have distrusted Remus as well - > > which I can not think of, not after DH. > > > If James trusted everyone, he must have trusted Remus as well. > > Did he only agree to make Peter the secret keeper because > > Sirius was his best friend and he didn't want to reject him? Niru: Probably. Sirius was James' best friend. And James may have trusted Sirius' opinion over his own at times. Plus we don't know for sure how Sirius sold the switching idea to James and Lily. He may have said it such that Peter was the obvious choice. He may never have mentioned his doubts about Remus. vivida89 wrote: > > I can see James clearly as a person who would have trusted > > his friends still if it was utterly obvious WHO was the spy. > > I suppose he didn't want to believe that any of his friends > > could have been capable of betraying him. Niru: James trusted his friends. But if he had known that one of them was a spy I don't think he'd have turned a blind eye and done nothing. He would have gone to Dumbledore or probably taken care of the problem himself. - Niru From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Nov 28 03:03:09 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:03:09 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179415 > a_svirn: > Did he? If it only were the case! But at no point during the King's > Cross chapter does Dumbledore asks Harry's forgiveness and Harry > gives it to him. Pippin: "Can you forgive me? " he said. "Can you forgive me for not trusting you? For not telling you? Harry, I only feared that you would fail as I had failed. I only dreaded that you would make my mistakes. I crave your pardon, Harry. I have known, for some time now, that you are the better man." Dumbledore begs Harry's pardon with "sudden tears in his eyes." Harry is not angry any more, he comforts Dumbledore, but there's no doubt that Dumbledore is remorseful. A_svirn: This is what I find so infuriating about this chapter (apart > from the Dumbledore's usual affectations, and his incomprehensible > plan). It is as though the seething resentment Harry has felt > throughout DH and the sting of betrayal from the previous chapter > have been obliterated by Voldemort's killing curse. Pippin: Not by Voldemort's killing curse but by Harry's enlightenment. To become utterly willing to die, to cast the spell of protection and to keep the mastery of the Elder Wand from being transferred to Voldemort, Harry had to give up any notion of self-interest. There is, I'm afraid, just no room for any notion of enlightened self-interest in the Potterverse. Self-interest will do as a reason to seek enlightenment, but enlightenment, once found, obliterates self-interest. How, after all, could you truly believe that every life is worth the same, unless you recognized that your life, your loves, your interests are only valuable in their own right and never at all because they are yours? Not a comforting message, that. I'm not surprised it's unpopular. How Christian it is I couldn't say, but "He who would save his life must lose it." That's far more demanding than saying we should all get along because it's in our best interest to do so, which is, I think what a lot of people expected the message to be. Harry, of course, doesn't keep his enlightened state. He knows he's heading back to pain and more fear. But for that brief time, he was able to transcend them. Pippin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 03:08:41 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:08:41 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice, Gringotts, and Doppelgangers [WAS Gringotts Speaks Out] In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED210@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179416 > Sharon > If someone takes polyjuice and transforms into another person, > they retain their own mind. -- Now if they keep at least > their brain, surely the goblins would find a way of detecting > this -- a much more secure way of identification if you ask me. > Surely there is some magical lie detector test to reveal imposters? Mike: There was and they did. The goblins had two sentries posted at the entrance with those secrecy detecter wands. Harry had to confund them so they wouldn't use the wands on Hermione/Bella. Those seem to work fine, as folks don't really care *what* the form of deception, just that there *is* some deception being employed. > Sharon > On the subject of polyjuice, do the internal organs transform as > well? -- Is it just the external appearance that is changed? > -- Moreover, If all the internal organs change as well, then > how does the person retain their own mind/personality? That leads > me to think that it IS just outward appearance that's changed. Mike: I have to go along with just the external appearance, with some allowance for stretching or shrinking the spine and muscles as necessary for height differences. Remember, Hermione accidentally took Polyjuice with a cat hair, I don't think her internal organs changed to that of a cats. I wonder how far that transformation actually progressed? > Sharon > Also on the subject of the doppelgangers, Hermione and Fleur are > the only girls to transform into Harry. JKR makes no mention of > how weird that must have been. Sorry if this seems trivial but to > go from having female "bits" to suddenly having male "bits" must > feel awfully odd. Mike: But it's magic. They don't have a sense of being male, they only have the appearance. If they retained all their internal organs, like both of us think they did, then their male "bits" don't work like they would if the had been men transforming. Those "bits" probably don't even have any sensation to them, as in there's no there there. ;) > Sharon > Neither Hermione nor Fleur bat an eyelid at the change, although > Fleur thinks she looks hideous, it's all about outward appearance, > not about genitals -- I know if it were me, I would totally freak > out, and at LEAST be curious to have a look! LOL. Mike: Shall I tell you what a friend and I in our adolescence imagined we would do if we suddenly changed into a member of the other sex? No, I think I'll not. :D > Sharon > Hermione and Fleur would also have been much smaller than Harry > (one assumes?) and no mention is made about them busting out of > their bras or clothes. Mike: I seem to remember in my youth a commercial that touted something like "No visible means of support". Possibly, in the WW, they've made this literal. Probably more comfortable than underwires, no? > Sharon > I can't imagine Fred and George watching them stripping off and > seeing Hermione/Harry or Fleur/Harry in pink lacey knickers and > not making some comment! Mike: This, I'll grant you, was odd. The chance to comment to Harry on how that "looks good on you, though" would not possibly elude the twins. Took me right out of the story, that! LOL > Seriously. Oh, let's not! > Just my totally over-obsessed mind working here. > > Sharon, wondering if "over-obsessed" is a redundant term? Mike, with his totally deviant mind in overdrive ;) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 05:00:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:00:21 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179417 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ianuno3" wrote: > > This message is a Special Notice for all members of > > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/HPforGrownups > > Carol: I had almost completed this post and had to start over after losing the whole thing! I hope I can remember what I said earlier. :-( > Questions: > 1. How is that Harry can take a large dose of Polyjuice Potion and it lasts the entire wedding and reception afterward? Throughout the books, Polyjuice Potion's effect lasts just one hour, unless the taker uses it again before that hour is up. How does a larger dose suffice? Do we just assume Harry kept taking doses throughout the day/evening? Carol: This inconsistency with previous books is one of several in DH. I can't decide whether JKR merely forgot what she said in the earlier books, or whether she's changing the rules at her own convenience and hoping *we'll* forget. At any rate, there's no evidence of Harry's taking doses every hour, so I guess we just have to assume that a larger dose will get him through the entire evening. As for later incidents, maybe the events at Godric's Hollow and Gringotts take less than an hour. > > 2. Did the Delacour family pay for most, if not all, of the wedding? Seeing as how often it is described how little money the Weasley family has to spare, how could they afford such a wedding at their home? Carol: In RL, at least in the U.S. and (I think) in Britain, the bride's father (or parents, these days) traditionally pays most of the wedding expenses. Bill, who presumably makes good money as a curse breaker, could easily pay any expenses traditionally assigned to the groom's family. Meanwhile, the Weasleys are providing a supposedly secure place for the wedding and hospitality for the bride's family (the other members of the wedding party are Weasleys, anyway). And they seem to be keeping track of the presents in case Fleur is the sort of bride who writes thank you notes. (BTW, I hope that they wedding presents survived the raid. We don't hear them mentioned in later chapters.) > > 3. What is wrong with Lupin? He's at a celebration, why can't he enjoy it, especially since he and Tonks are newlyweds themselves? Carol: Lupin is clearly regretting his marriage and possibly Tonks's pregnancy, if he already knows about it. He seems to feel guilty for endangering his bride (and unborn child?), not to mention that his chronic illness and unemployment make it difficult to provide for her (or necessary for her to be the sole provider, which can only make him feel more inadequate), and the sight of a happy, healthy young groom with a steady income probably doesn't make him any happier. True, Bill was mauled by Fenrir Greyback, but it doesn't seem to have harmed either him (beyond scarring) or altered his relationship with Fleur. I suspect that Lupin, besides being unhappy for himself, can't help envying Bill (in contrast to Tonks, who seems oblivious to her husband's emotional state because she's so happy herself). > > 4. What is the significance of meeting Xenophilius Lovegood? Is it just to explain where Luna gets her "Looneyness" from? Carol: Xenophilius Lovegood will prove important later, both in relation to the Deathly Hallows and his daughter's own kidnapping (which leads him to attempt to betray Harry to the DEs). He also serves to introduce the Deathly Hallows symbol, which Viktor Krum associates with Grindelwald. Lots of foreshadowing here, not to mention the minor mystery of why a Ravenclaw lunatic, erm, eccentric, would be an apparent follower of the Dark wizard DD defeated in 1945. > > 5. If the Lovegoods essentially were neighbors of the Weasleys, how come Ron and the other Weasleys (Ginny apparent knew Luna because they were in the same year) didn't know her before we met Luna in Order of the Phoenix on the train? Carol: Although the Weasleys know that the Lovegoods live in Ottery St. Catchpole (Mr. Weasley mentions in GoF that they won't be taking the portkey to the QWC), they don't live close together. HRH can see the trees and hedges that screen the Burrow from view (it's hidden from Muggle eyes) when they land on a hill overlooking the village, but they walk for *two hours* without catching sight of any house that looks as if the Lovegoods would live in it. They Disapparate to another hill a few miles away and then spot what has to be the Lovegoods' house. (Ron has never been there, but he has no trouble picking it out.) I'm guessing that Luna was home-schooled, first by her mother and then by her father, and that the eccentric Lovegoods don't socialize much with other families. > > 6. Auntie Muriel asks where Harry is, since Ron says they are close friends. If so many people know Harry is that close to the Weasleys, wouldn't they expect him to be there? The important people know Harry's in disguise, but wouldn't more people be questioning his absence? Carol: Since we're seeing from Harry's pov, we don't know whether anyone was asking about him besides the few people that he speaks with. People might ask Ron or Hermione, but they're out on the dance floor escaping Auntie Muriel and/or Viktor Krum, and I don't see why anyone would ask "Cousin Barny" about Harry. Maybe the Weasley Twins and their parents are fielding the questions about Harry. > > 7. Are we just to assume Ron and Hermione are an item now? Does everyone else assume they are? No one seems to acknowledge it except for a brief exchange between Viktor and Harry. Carol: I'm sure that the Weasley family has seen the attraction building between the two and expected them to get together before now. Viktor quickly finds out that Hermione is "taken," and Lavender doesn't seem to be present. I'm not sure why anyone else would care. Anyone who was present at DD's funeral would have seen Ron comforting Hermione, in any case. > > 8. JK Rowling said in an interview after Goblet of Fire that international wizards no longer were going to factor in the books. Why was Viktor here, just as a device to explain Grindelwald's symbol? Carol: To me, it makes perfect sense for Fleur, as a fellow TWT champion, to invite him. (I expected Madame Maxime to be there as well, but I suppose that her house-sized carriage and Abraxan horses would have drawn a bit too much attention to the Burrow, even if the Weasleys could have come up with the single-malt whiskey to "water" them.) It's a nice touch to bring in Viktor and tie up the loose thread of his brief relationship with Hermione, but, of course, he also helps Harry to remember who Gregorovitch is and identifies the Deathly Hallows symbol as Grindelwald's mark, introducing two or three subplots at once (GG/DD, the Hallows, the Lovegoods). He also provides a touch of humor ("What is the use of being an international Quidditch star if all the good-looking girls are taken?) it's a shame that he didn't stay around to join the Order, but I suppose a little thing like the takeover of the British MoM by Death Eaters can't stop the ongoing Quidditch competition. Either that or he felt a need to protect his home territory (Bulgaria or Romania or wherever Durmstrang is) rather than remain in England. > > 9. Did Hermione discontinue her correspondence with Viktor? She had no idea why he was at the wedding? She made a point of staying in touch for at least a year after Goblet of Fire. Carol: Hard to say. Maybe the increasing threat of Voldemort or her feelings for Ron (finally brought into the opening after he's poisoned in HBP) caused her to stop writing to Viktor. I think he's last mentioned in OoP before the battle of the MoM. > > 10. Just like many other traditions and holidays, the magical world has seemingly borrowed from Muggle traditions again with the entire wedding. Why isn't there much difference between that ceremony and a traditional Muggle ceremony, religious or not? Is it easier just to believe there is more in common between the two worlds than they let on? We see this wedding through Harry's eyes. Harry admittedly has never been to a wedding ? magical or Muggle ? before. Does that make a difference? Carol: I don't think Harry's pov makes any difference, but JKR is clearly suppressing any religious elements here, just as she did with DD's funeral. I think that the WW shares common traditions with the Muggle world and to some degree went its separate way after 1692 (or 1689, if we use the revised date in DH), but the large number of Muggle-borns and Half-Bloods probably influenced the way those shared traditions were celebrated. In other matters (clothing, communication, lighting, etc.) the WW has remained more conservative, in part because it never substituted "eckeltricity" for magic. > > 11. Why is Grindelwald's symbol so important? Why is Xenophilius Lovegood wearing said symbol? Is it just costume jewelry? Carol: As we find out later, Xenophilius, like DD and GG before him, is in quest of the Hallows (not that he would ever find them). It's certainly not costume jewelry. He certainly knows that the Hallows are real and is aware of the Peverell connection. Since he tends to believe what other wizards reject as absurd, I suspect that he believes the entire tale of the Three Brothers, including their meeting with Death. Hermione's connection of the symbol in her book to Xenophilius takes them one step closer to solving the mystery of the Hallows and the parallel mystery of the Grindelwald/Dumbledore relationship. (Harry's quest for truth relates primarily to DD.) > > 12. Is Elphias Doge protecting Dumbledore's memory by telling Harry not to believe a word Rita Skeeter says? Carol: I think that Elphias Doge believes what he wrote about DD and reveres him almost as a saint. He is horrified by Rita Skeeter's (and Auntie Muriel's insinuations). The only thing he knows that he's covering up, IMO, is that Aberforth broke Albus's nose at Ariana's funeral. But he believes what he says about Ariana being frail and not being a Squib, and he probably has reason (as does almost everyone who knows her) to distrust Rita Skeeter's brand of investigative journalism. > > 13. What is the deal with Doge's relationship with Dumbledore? Did Doge love Dumbledore as more than a friend? Knowing Dumbledore's sexuality now, could Doge and Dumbledore also have been lovers at some period? Or could Doge have had that kind of affection for Dumbledore, but it was never realized in a physical sense? Was their planned yearlong journey around the world more than just two friends on a quest? > Carol: I seriously doubt that Dumbledore felt anything besides a vague affection or tolerance for Elphias, who was probably a hero worshiper much like Wormtail in relation to James Potter. As for their planned journey around the world, the Grand Tour was the culmination of every young Englishman's (or at least, every young English gentleman's) education in the nineteenth century, and, in many cases, part of a young Englishwoman's, too. The only difference between Doge's Grand Tour and that of his Muggle contemporaries is that he visited wizard sites rather than Muggle attractions. > 14. Muriel seems so taken by the scandals involving Dumbledore; do you think she's ashamed of the Weasley clan? She mentions once, "Another Weasley? You breed like gnomes." What would she think of the scandals Arthur's been involved with? Does she dismiss it because she apparently is from Mrs. Weasley's side of the family? Carol: I agree that she's from Molly's side of the family (the Prewetts), so she wouldn't feel any *shame* in relation to the Weasleys. A bit of aristocratic contempt for her poor relations (by marriage), maybe. I don't know what she would think about the scandals because I'm not sure whether you mean his legislation or the flying Ford Anglia or the Ministry's mishandling of the QWC. I doubt that she worries much about it. In fact, I'm surprised that she allowed her house to be used as a "safe place" for the Order members. Maybe there's more kindness in her than she reveals. > 15. Was Kinglsey not at the wedding because he was still protecting the Prime Minister? If so, how did he know so quickly about the Ministry of Magic's fall and Rufus Scrimgeour's death? > Carol: Good question. Maybe the little froglike man in the portrait informed the Prime Minister, who informed Kingsley. He must have had a Ministry contact of some kind. Carol, thanking IPPY for the interesting questions even though she doesn't know who IPPY is From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Nov 28 06:16:26 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:16:26 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179418 a_svirn: > Well, actually, Moody contributed to his death himself. Not that I > absolve Dumbledore, mind. But you see, Dung Fletcher did not want > to come at all, he did not want to come as fake Harry at he > certainly did not want to come with Moody, because Moody was > considered the target #1. He was forced to do all of the above, > however. So not only Dumbledore put the Order's member's lives in > jeopardy, Moody and Co took it upon themselves to appoint Fletcher > as canon folder, because obviously they thought him dispensable. In > the event he scampered,and in the ensuring scuffle Moody lost > concentration and was killed. Served him right. Dana: Well I disagree with you here. The plan wasn't Moody's but Dung's through Snape (through DD). To me, it would be very strange if the person who suggested the plan in the first place, actually thinks it is to dangerous to be part of it. I understand the he was confunded to suggest the plan but the Order doesn't know that and neither do they know there is an ambush waiting to them. Personally I do not think either of them are to blame. Dung didn't know what he was suggesting and Moody didn't know what he was accepting when he went along with this plan. Of course the entire plan is just very childish to begin with and something kids would come up with and not grown-up war veterans but that is just me of course, still I disagree that Moody took it upon himself to use Dung as canon folder. If you want to blame someone for the ridiculous plan and using Dung to set up the Order and make them target practice for a bunch of DE, then it is still DD and I also do hold Snape responsible for not rejecting this plan and telling DD that he already has enough credit with LV to ask him for the job of headmaster. I think the real problem is that JKR tried to make a convincing plot that would increase the suspense in who she was going to kill off during the book and trying to set up Snape as being LV's man to later turn it around. The first chapter was convincing, this one? Not so much. JMHO Dana From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Nov 28 06:38:42 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:38:42 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Polyjuice, Gringotts, and Doppelgangers [WAS Gringotts Speaks Out] In-Reply-To: References: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED210@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>, Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED214@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 179419 Mike: There was and they did. The goblins had two sentries posted at the entrance with those secrecy detecter wands. Harry had to confund them so they wouldn't use the wands on Hermione/Bella. Those seem to work fine, as folks don't really care *what* the form of deception, just that there *is* some deception being employed. Sharon: Of course, I had forgotten about those -- good point. Which also proves my point (with which you agree) that polyjuice only changes external appearances. My poor little mind still can't get around the DNA problem though- -that means that for the hour you were polyjuiced you would have two lots of DNA-- one for your cells and one for the foreign cells. I know it's magic and magic can do all kinds of seemingly unreasonable things, but that just seems downright dangerous. What an easy way to get a bit of someone else's DNA or stem cells, for example! UNLESS polyjuice works like a kind of glamour spell, just giving the appearance of another person when really it is just a mask, with everything really still being your own DNA etc. Mike: But it's magic. They don't have a sense of being male, they only have the appearance. If they retained all their internal organs, like both of us think they did, then their male "bits" don't work like they would if the had been men transforming. Those "bits" probably don't even have any sensation to them, as in there's no there there. ;) Sharon: First of all thanks for replying to that Mike! I didn't think anyone would touch it with a barge pole LOL. OK based on m y reasoning above, that polyjuice is really just a glamour spell, that would probably be right. Mike: Shall I tell you what a friend and I in our adolescence imagined we would do if we suddenly changed into a member of the other sex? No, I think I'll not. :D Sharon: Aw come on Mike -- maybe on the off-topic list???? ;-) From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Nov 28 06:43:03 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:43:03 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179420 a_svirn > I did not get the feeling that Dumbledore felt any remorse about or > admitted to any fault in his infamous plan. He did conceded the > flaws ? poor Severus didn't end up with his wand, for instance, but > those are flaws in the plan, not in Dumbledore. Dana: I didn't get the feeling that DD had any remorse about his doings either. He says he is sorry for not telling Harry about the Hallows because he didn't trust Harry enough to not go after the power of the Hallows as DD did himself but otherwise he feels totally righteous about all he has done to help destroy Tom Riddle. Besides what is the point of a death guy having any remorse? It is not like he can atone for his doings in the living world anyway, it only means he will not end up like LV. Personally what it comes down to for me when it comes to DD is indeed that we as a reader are still expected to see DD as a presentation of the ultimate good. And although JKR has denied that she sees him as a God, it still feels like DD's character is still a representation of how she views God and seems to be a refection on her own doubts and her faith in God. So in other words all who had blind faith in him are still the better people then does who distrusted or actually went against him because in the end God always knows best. Personally I am not specifically interested in the author's problems with her faith, I am not a Christian and although I have no problem with the Christian content of a book or it doesn't distract me from the story because these ideas are not mine, but I have to admit this part isn't working for me. Anyway I just wanted to point out that it was NOT DD's intention for Snape to end up with his wand. His intentions was for the wand to no longer have an owner and thus its power dying with DD. The wand would not have been overpowered by Snape because the death of DD was arranged. What wasn't arranged was Draco disarming DD and thus becoming the wand's master but in the end it doesn't matter because as (authorial) fate would have it, Harry disarmed Draco and thus transferring the wand owner ship to him because the wand is so intelligent that it knows even when not present that his real own of that time is actually defeated, which makes the end of the book when Harry asks if the wand will lose its power after his death entirely bogus for the simple fact that if Harry is ever (which of course he won't because the author will not allow anyone to mess with her Harry) defeated the person unknowingly would become owner of the elder wand too. I thought I just pointed this out. JMHO Dana From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 06:50:31 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:50:31 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179421 "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > To the person who couldn't see calling a boy "Harry", Harry is > short for Henry. It goes back to Shakespeare. It could also be > short for Harold. > Snape's Witch answers: There is also a another famous young man in the UK named Harry, Harry Windsor; his name is not a nickname for Henry or Harold -- just Harry. I'll bet there were a lot of male babies named Harry after he was born. Perhaps there are even some named for our Harry? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 07:27:43 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:27:43 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179422 --- , "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: > > "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > > > To the person who couldn't see calling a boy "Harry", Harry is > > short for Henry. It goes back to Shakespeare. It could also be > > short for Harold. > > > > Snape's Witch answers: > > There is also a another famous young man in the UK named Harry, > Harry Windsor; his name is not a nickname for Henry or Harold > -- just Harry. > > I'll bet there were a lot of male babies named Harry after > he was born. Perhaps there are even some named for our > Harry? > bboyminn: Close but not quite, Prince Harry's name is really - Henry Charles Albert David Windsor Amoung some parents, they prefer to give their kids a nickname type name rather than a formal name. For example, I had a friend who was named 'Jimmy' rather than 'James'. Jimmy is the name on his birth certificate. So, it is possible that Harry really is just Harry. At his hearing, he is referred to as 'Harry James Potter', so that seems very likely. As far as just-Harry becoming a more popular name, I think that is likely both because of Prince Harry and because of /our/ Harry. What I'm waiting for is the first kid named 'Draco'. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 28 07:56:00 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:56:00 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179423 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- , "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: > > > > "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > > > > > To the person who couldn't see calling a boy "Harry", Harry is > > > short for Henry. It goes back to Shakespeare. It could also be > > > short for Harold. bboyminn: > Close but not quite, Prince Harry's name is really - > > Henry Charles Albert David Windsor > > Amoung some parents, they prefer to give their kids a nickname > type name rather than a formal name. For example, I had a > friend who was named 'Jimmy' rather than 'James'. Jimmy is > the name on his birth certificate. Geoff: Traditionally in the UK, certain names have always tended to be shortened when used informally. I don't mean, as in my own case, Geoffrey/Geoff or, say, Frederick/Fred, Joanne/Jo or Antony/Tony but with a change in spelling: Harold = Harry Terence = Terry Sarah = Sally William = Bill Robert = Bob and so on. There is also a habit, particularly among Cockneys to give further abbreviate so giving a name ending in 'l'... Terry = Tel Harry = Hal (also Shakespearian) Sally = Sal But there has been a growing tendency for many of these shortened versions to become given names ands appearing as such on Birth Certificates. I saw this a lot as a teacher. So it is quite feasible that Harry could be, as Steve, remarks 'just Harry'. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 09:34:59 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:34:59 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179424 > Dana: > Well I disagree with you here. The plan wasn't Moody's but Dung's > through Snape (through DD). To me, it would be very strange if the > person who suggested the plan in the first place, actually thinks it > is to dangerous to be part of it. a_svirn: Not really. He was willing to contribute to the planning, but not willing to die. Simple as that. They were expecting a few death eaters on the lookout, and they were expecting them to come after Moody. (In fact, this is the essence of the idea of decoy. But it puts the one who does distracting in jeopardy.)So when Moody insisted on taking Fletcher with him, he *was* setting him up as canon folder. Of course, he was putting himself at even greater jeopardy (not least because Fletcher was "an unreliable bit of scum" to quote Harry), and I suppose, he reckoned it gave him the right to demand the same sacrifice from Dung. But the thing is - it didn't. > Dana: I understand the he was confunded > to suggest the plan but the Order doesn't know that and neither do > they know there is an ambush waiting to them. a_svirn: Moody did know that he and Mundungus Fletcher would be in the greatest danger. As Tonks said he *expected* death eaters to chase himself at first, and then to come after Kingsley. Which means that the doppelganger that came with Moody was in the most danger. Moreover, they discussed it between them ? afterwards Tonks praised his perspicacity. So Fletcher knew that he was elected to be the sacrificial lamb. And incidentally, Hermione was chosen as the second best target, because she flew with Kingsley. I wonder why. > Dana: > Personally I do not think either of them are to blame. Dung didn't > know what he was suggesting and Moody didn't know what he was > accepting when he went along with this plan. > Of course the entire plan is just very childish to begin with and > something kids would come up with and not grown-up war veterans but > that is just me of course, still I disagree that Moody took it upon > himself to use Dung as canon folder. a_svirn: Why? From Moody's point of view it wasn't that bad. I mean, he only expected a couple of death eaters on the lookout. They would go after him and Dung, and even if they killed them both and go after the next best target (Kinsley and Hermione), well, it would still buy some time for Harry. Nice and easy does the tick. He didn't know, poor man, that the plan was excogitated by Dumbledore, and Dumbledore doesn't like nice and easy. He likes dire and convoluted. > Dana: If you want to blame someone for > the ridiculous plan and using Dung to set up the Order and make them > target practice for a bunch of DE, then it is still DD and I also do > hold Snape responsible for not rejecting this plan and telling DD a_svirn: I do hold them responsible. But I like Moody's methods as little as Dumbledore's. > Dana: > that he already has enough credit with LV to ask him for the job of > headmaster. a_svirn: And even if he didn't, they still had no right to sacrifice others to improve Snape's standing. > Dana: > I think the real problem is that JKR tried to make a convincing plot > that would increase the suspense in who she was going to kill off > during the book and trying to set up Snape as being LV's man to later > turn it around. The first chapter was convincing, this one? Not so > much. a_svirn: Personally I don't understand what was stopping Harry from waiting until he's seventeen (perhaps last couple of hours with the Cloak on, just in case) and apparating ? as soon as the Trace broke ? to some safe location. From salilouisa at googlemail.com Wed Nov 28 10:16:29 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (salilouisa) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:16:29 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179425 bboyminn: As far as just-Harry becoming a more popular name, I think that is likely both because of Prince Harry and because of /our/ Harry. What I'm waiting for is the first kid named 'Draco'. Sali: On a quick search, in England there are two Dracos in the records I have access to, one born in 2001 and one in 2005 (I don't have access beyond 2005). There are also three more with Draco as a middle name. The earliest of those was born in 1990 but the others were 2003. There doesn't seem to be evidence of earlier usage (at the moment) - I'm going to make the assumption that most of these were influenced by the books. Are there any other famous Dracos they could have been named after? It's a bit more difficult to work out what the effect of the books might have been on the name Harry. It's too popular for me to see a direct effect without spending far more time than I have on it. No Severus yet. That's the one I'm waiting for. Sali, who is not a Sarah. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 13:19:51 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:19:51 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179426 Warning - this got pretty long & rambly! > > lizzyben: > ------ > > DD's first question is "how much did of the prophecy did you carry > > to LV?" Very important - DD only wants LV to hear the first half. > > Snape's answer ("everything I heard") seems to satisfy Dumbledore. > > Mike: > Here's where we have divergence. Why ask the question if he already > knows the answer? No, that's not it. He could be trying to determine > whether Snape is about to be honest with him. But, "everything I > heard" is no answer at all insofar as determining *what* Snape > actually heard. Unless DD is Legilimensing Snape just then. lizzyben: Unless he's Legimising, or unless he knows that he cast a Silencing Spell halfway through the prophecy. Snape's assurance that he took everything he'd *heard* to LV would reassure DD that Snape hadn't heard & relayed the entire prophecy. > > lizzyben: > > Why? How could DD be sure that Snape didn't hear the second half > > of the prophecy? The text tells us how. Right before this exchange, > > DD ensures that he & Snape can't be heard by any eavesdroppers. > Mike: > Two problems with this analysis. DD's spell made the outside noise > go away, there is no indication that he was keeping his conversation > with Snape bound to within that bubble. lizzyben: Nah, why would DD bother casting a spell just to muffle the wind? I think it's pretty clearly a silencing spell of some kind, which encases Snape & DD in a bubble of silence - they can't hear the wind anymore, and outsiders can't hear them anymore. DD cast this right when Snape mentioned that he came with a warning, in order to keep the information Snape gave secret from possible eavesdroppers. And we all know how DD loves secrets. It doesn't work like Snape's own Muffliato spell, because that's one that Snape invented for himself. DD is using a different type of silencing spell - and this spell apparantly works by creating a bubble of silence around the two people having the conversation. Mike: > The second problem is that for DD to have done something to prevent > an eavesdropper from hearing any more of Trelawney's prophesy, > shouldn't he have suspected an eavesdropper? There was no indication > DD knew Snape was there. lizzyben: Well, yeah. I think DD already probably already knew that Snape was sent to spy on him. But it's a moot point, anyway. DD's the leader of the resistance, he should assume that he's being spied on at all times. Besides which, he was in the Hog's Head, a dodgy bar that had a reputation for an "interesting clientele" full of spies, smugglers, Slytherins & other low-lifes. DD HAD to suspect an eavesdropper. This was just a boring job interview, so he doesn't bother concealing anything. DD said that he was just about to leave when Trelawney began prophicizing. When T gives a real prophecy, her demeanor totally changes - her voice falls very low, she falls into a trance, etc. As soon as DD heard the first sentence "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," he must have realized that something odd was happening - it's directly related to Voldemort, predicting the LV's defeat, and who will ultimately defeat him, etc. DD casts the silencing spell at this point, protecting the rest of the prophecy from possible (or known) eavesdroppers. Then, Aberforth comes in with a Death Eater who had been listening outside the door. And DD lets him go, knowing that he will take the prophecy straight to Voldemort. Because only DD had heard the 2nd half of the prophecy, & only DD knew that acting on the prophecy would lead Lord Voldemort to his downfall. What makes you think that DD didn't put any stock in the prophecy? Or that he doesn't care about the rest of the prophecy? DD was about to turn down Trelawney for a job, but after she makes that prophecy, he hires her instead & keeps her at Hogwarts for 20+ years as protection. He certainly put stock in Harry being the "Chosen One" who would defeat LV. All indications are that DD took this prophecy very seriously. But this is also a moot point. Because it doesn't matter if Dumbledore himself believes in prophecies or not. He knew that LV was afraid of death, so he knew or should have known that VOLDEMORT would take the prophecy seriously and act upon it. By letting Snape go, DD was endangering every family that fit the prophecy's description. But DD didn't care - he'd finally found a way to defeat LV. > Mike: > We've now leaped into the formative stage of what to do once the > prophesy has gotten to LV. Before that, when DD had the chance to > Obliviate or Legilimens Snape, is where my big questions come in. > This is when DD shows his contempt for prophesies, imo. He really > doesn't care if Snape heard it, nor if Snape is going to take it to > LV. He doesn't believe in the damn things. lizzyben: Nope, I don't buy this at all. DD may have contempt for prophecies, but he has caught a real live Death Eater outside his door. Wouldn't this be the time to call the Aurors? But he lets Snape go to LV, knowing the prophecy could endanger an innocent family if LV takes it seriously. Because DD knew that LV believed in prophecies, most especially anything foretelling his own death. DD doesn't have contempt for prophecies; in HBP, he just says that one party has to *act* upon it to make it come true. DD let the prophecy go to ensure that LV would act upon it, & make it come true. Mike: > > Now, as to your assertion that DD would sacrifice the Potters; I > don't think so, for one simple reason and it was a basic premise of > the entire series. What happened in GH had *never* happened before. > For DD to have predicted that would happen takes us out of the realm > of believability, imo. So DD would have earnestly tried to protect > Harry and, by extension, Harry's parents. He couldn't predict the > backfiring AK, the split off soul piece, nor what constituted "mark > him as his equal". lizzyben: Well, that's why I just threw it in as a "maybe." I'm not sure if he did or not, but IMO there's a lot of circumstantial evidence tying DD to the crime. First of all, DD asked for the Potters' invisibility cloak a week or so before the murders. The cloak could've concealed Harry, & prevent him from being "marked" by LV. Secondly, how did DD know what had happened so quickly? He sent Hagrid to take Harry before the authorities had even shown up. And he also knew about the "blood protection" that Lily's sacrifice had created for Harry. Meaning he knew that Lily had stood in front of Harry & sacrificed her life. How does he know this? Really, how would he know what happened in Godric's Hollow? There were no witnesses, but within hours of the attack, DD knew exactly what had happened, how it had happened, & why Harry survived. He sent Hagrid specifically to pick up Harry - meaning that he already knew that the Potters were dead, & Harry was still alive. In real life, if someone has that level of detailed, private, information about a crime, it is considered incriminating evidence. Heck, maybe DD watched it all happen. I truly wouldn't put it past him. Mike: > For all DD knew, targeting Harry constituted the marking. The "uniquely deadly weapons" turns > out to be the soul piece that gave Harry those powers, not something > that DD could have predicted nor counted on. lizzyben: But he knew that simply "hand-picking" or targeting someone wouldn't give anyone special powers. LV had to *mark* the child to make him his equal - and DD wouldn't know exactly how that would happen, but he knew that LV and Harry had to have a confrontation for it to happen. You can't have that confrontation when the child is hidden under an invisibility cloak or a Fidelius Charm. To trigger the 2nd part of the prophecy, LV had to meet and mark Harry. I think DD didn't care either way about the Potters & he certainly didn't respect their wishes after their deaths. If Snape hadn't given "anything" to protect them, IMO DD definitely would've let the attack happen, just as he was willing to let an anonymous family be attacked when he let the prophecy loose. With Snape as a valuable double agent, DD would have to make sure that the murders could never be traced to any fault or neglect on his part. Thus - Fidelius Charm, Peter as SK, & an attack within a week. I don't know, but I do suspect that DD pulled some strings there, just as he pulled many strings right after the attack occured to put the "Chosen One" within his control. I'm not sure, but I do suspect DD had a hand in arranging the attack, just as he had a hand in arranging LV's attack on Harry in Sorcerer's Stone. Mike: > So DD's obvious course of action would have been to do everything to > keep Harry alive, not to put him in harms way on the chance that > several unknown and never before seen things would occur if Voldemort > got the chance to personally attack Harry. lizzyben: But a Harry that's kept safe & far away from Voldemort won't become the Chosen One. Both Harry & Neville could potentially fit the first half of the propechey - LV would have to mark one "as his equal" in order to trigger the second half & create the one who can defeat him. DD doesn't need to know exactly how the prophecy would play out, or how Harry would become an equal, he just needs to know that this attack will create one w/special powers to defeat LV. DD has never shown hestitance to sacrifice for the "greater good". He's losing, LV is killing many people, etc. It's worth a shot. Harry wouldn't get the special powers until he was marked by LV, & that's not going to happen if he's sucessfully hidden from LV. > > lizzyben: > > > > The "keeping Harry alive" thing gets a little muddled when DD's > > sending Harry into obstacle courses to confront Dark Wizards, > > disappearing w/Basiliks on the loose, making Harry enter the Tri- > > Wizard tournaments, etc. etc. All part of letting Harry "try his > > strength". > > Mike: > It was training, combat training at that. I don't see why it would be > hard to believe a manipulative DD wouldn't do these things. lizzyben: No, I totally believe that DD did do these things. I'm just saying that it shows that "protecting & keeping Harry alive" wasn't the primary mission here. It was all DD's version of training - which often seemed to involve a rather high danger of death/serious injury. > Mike again: > Same for the Basilisk in CoS. Notice that DD was already back at the > school and in conversation with the Weasleys when the CoS adventurers > turn up, led by Fawkes. lizzyben: Yeah, agree here. The Basilik was another training opportunity for Harry. The petrified & possibly killed students were all collateral damage for the Plan. This is why I consider DD evil - he just used people up & casually tossed them aside. Hermione, Colin Creevy, Ginny etc. could have all died, but that just wasn't important to DD. I'm not sure he's capable of seeing people as real people at all. They're just pawns who can be used for a larger purpose. This POV is also why most of DD's plans fail - he doesn't seem capable of understanding that people have seperate motivations, agendas, emotions & thoughts of their own. I just realized that Snape's plan, w/as little freedom as he had, actually worked much better than DD's plan. Snape's plan for the Sword of Gryfindor worked perfectly. Because Snape seemed to understand how Harry would react, & how events would actually unfold. He knew that Harry would follow the Doe patronus because of the connection to his parents, knew that Harry would show Gryffindor courage/recklessness & dive into freezing water to get the Sword, knew that Ron had split from the group & how to guide him back. It's a kind of empathy (NOT sympathy) that DD just doesn't seem to have. DD thinks that everyone else thinks exactly the same way he does. If DD is obsessed with power, well then everyone else must be too. Mike: > The TWT was a perfect training ground, what with all the new safety > precautions. I don't think the trip to the graveyard was in DD's > plan, but luck saved Harry on that one. lizzyben: Well, I'm not so sure about that. So, you agree that DD wanted Harry to enter the TWT as training. But he also should have known that there was a very big risk that Voldemort's minions also wanted Harry in the TWT. DD is reading the Little Hagleton paper, so he knows that Frank Bryce was murdered at the Riddle house. He knows that Snape's mark is growing darker, signaling LV's return. He knows that LV wants to kill Harry, and he knows that *someone* put Harry Potter's name in for the TWT, for some unknown reason. It doesn't take a genius to put 2 & 2 together here. Sirius suspected that LV was involved; certainly DD must have as well. Oh, and don't forget that unnamed kind man who bought the abandoned Riddle house fifty years ago for "tax purposes". So kind, the owner even kept on the old groundskeeper, Frank Bryce, even though Bryce was accused of the murders that LV actually committed. What benevolent old man do we know that likes to give accused groundskeepers a second chance? Hmmmmm. Yeah, IMO DD owned the Riddle estate. He knew exactly what was going on there, and exactly why Harry's name was entered into the TWT. Both DD and LV wanted Harry to end up in that graveyard. When LV used Harry's blood to resurrect, that gave Harry the ability to survive an AK from LV. DD's plan *worked*, which is why he had a "gleam of triumph" at the end of GOF. Casualty count for the GOF Plan: Frank Bryce, Barty Crouch Sr., Barty Crouch Jr., Cedric Diggory. Isn't it odd how often LV's & DD's interests coincide? They both wanted Quirrel to go after the Stone, both wanted a LV/Harry confrontation, both wanted Harry to enter the TWT, both wanted the Hallows, & both planned for Harry to die. It's more than complicity - it's almost *collaboration*. > > lizzyben: > > > > DD's plan in DH is so nonsensical from top to bottom that I don't > > even know where to begin. Why did Harry have to find the Horcruxes? > > Wouldn't using some of the capable Order members be a better idea? > > Mike: > I think DD's penchant for secrecy was well established within the > series. It was a flaw in his personality. He even told Snape that he > didn't want to "keep all his secrets in one basket" (quoted from > memory). It's a fault that even his brother decries. lizzyben: Yeah, I was looking for an actual logical reason why DD made this plan so ridiculous, implausible & doomed to failure. But there isn't one. The Plan makes no sense. I'm not sure whether to blame DD or bad writing here, but IMO it is in character for DD to make over- elaborate, flawed plans. This is just worse than most. A child could come up with a better plan - indeed, no plan at all would've been a better plan. DD's plan allows LV to get the Elder Wand, allows him to kill Snape, & distracts the leader of the resistance from his vital mission w/useless, confusing red herrings. It also keeps Harry Potter away from the MOM or Hogwarts, where he could rally the resistance, & instead keeps him shivering in a tent, out of sight. It's a brilliant plan - if you want LV to win. Otherwise, not so much. > Mike: > DD explained that he wanted Harry to know about them, while at the > same time he wanted Harry to be slowed down enough to understand them and make the right decision. As to the plot contrivance - I agree, and I'll not waste time defending JKR's choice in this. lizzyben: This again shows DD's inability to understand others. Since when has Harry ever wanted power? That's DD's issue, not Harry's. So... he wanted to slow Harry down while he followed the red herring, then let Harry make the right decision to reject the red herring, & then do the actual mission. Why include the Hallows red herring at all? It seems to have more to do w/DD's own obsession with the objects - it's like some twisted test of moral virtue? So he can see who's the better man, Harry or DD? Meanwhile people are dying. > Mike: > It was DD's **it's all my fault but here's why I did it** speech in > OotP that clued me into where DD was coming from. That's when it > became clear that DD had a plan for Harry that was too clever by > half. It was if he knew his problem with secrecy and instead of > correcting it, came up with his clever plans to to make his secrecy > problem integral to the plan. lizzyben: Which is why I think it's all about DD in the end. He knows that his secrecy is a problem, but becomes even more secretive in each novel. Because IMO knowing secrets gave DD a feeling of power. The more secrets he knows, the more power he has & the more ability he has to manipulate people. DD denied himself power in the political world, but he can't stop himself from consolidating power anyway wherever he goes. He's a tyrant in nature, IMO, though he denies himself that role in real life. So even though he's decided not to seek world domination & evil overlordship, his instincts for tyranny & domination come out anyway in different ways. In his role as Order leader, DD consolidates power in himself only by denying any information or knowledge to other Order members. This makes them all totally dependent on him. It converts people into pawns, which DD can more easily move across the board. This is bad for the goal of LV's eventual defeat, but good for increasing DD's power, control & influence over his Order subjects. DD reminds me of the Grand Inquistor, using mystery, miracles & authority to control the masses, while keeping the truth secret for only the intellectually worthy (read: Albus Dumbledore). Mike: > Don't tell Harry about the prophesy, do everything you can to keep > him in the dark. Lock up Sirius and forbid him to tell. Don't teach > Harry yourself, make Snape teach Harry Occlumency, maybe it will > forge a bond between them (fat chance!). Don't tell Harry about the > Voldiepiece in him, that way he'll meet Voldemort with the intention > of sacrificing himself without knowing he could survive it. Don't > tell Harry about the Hallows and that he owns one himself, make him > waste time discovering that so he has time to mature into the right > decision. If I was Harry, I'd have been too pissed at DD by the time > I got to "King's Cross" to have listened to a word he said. lizzyben: It's almost a plan that's designed to fail, isn't it? And I think perhaps it WAS designed to fail. Dumbledore's plan makes absolutely no sense at all in the end. W/all his supposed brilliance, DD ended up creating a plan that would almost certainly result in LV's victory. Why would he do this? And why would DD create all these elaborate plans centered on himself, instead of simply turning over LV to the Aurors when had the chance - while Riddle was at Hogwarts, or returning for a teaching job, or living in Quirrel's turban, or hanging out at the Riddle mansion, etc. I think it's because DD secretly liked having Voldemort around. It's a symbiotic relationship between tyranny and terrorism, in that one strengthens & feeds the other. Voldemort gave DD *power*, influence, pawns, followers, importance. It creates a society of fear in which people look to DD as their savior. And it creates a cult of personality around DD, the only wizard LV ever feared. W/o LV, DD is just a barmy old headmaster, but w/LV, DD is a great war leader, enlightened fighter for Muggle rights, a powerful wizard, & the epitome of goodness & justice. And LV also acted out DD's own subconscious wishes - for Muggle domination, for Hallow collection, for immortality and absolute power. It's like Dr. Jekell & Mr. Hyde, or Frankenstein & Frankenstein's Monster. In these novels, the main character creates a monster that ends up acting out their own dark sides. I think Voldemort was Dumbledore's monster, in the end. Mike: > But, that's the character that JKR wrote. And within the story, I > think DD's characterization works just fine. Not that I like him. ;) > > Mike lizzyben: Oh, I don't like him either. I think he's downright evil, maybe more evil than Voldemort. But he just might be my favorite character in the series. He's incredibly complex, conflicted, ruthless and idealistic. I agree that DD's characterization is just fine & IMO totally consistent throughout the series. Some characters seems to change radically from one novel to the next, but DD is always the same. For example, read the scene where DD tells Snape that Lily is dead, & see how cold, imperious, and ruthless he is. How oblivious & uncaring he is about Snape's grief. It's almost like he doesn't understand emotion or how to relate to people who are in pain. Then flip to the very first chapter of the first book, when DD dumps Harry off at the Dursleys. This scene took place, in real time, within hours of the DH scene with Snape. So the Potters have just been murdered, Snape is destroyed, Hagrid is weeping, & McGonegal has stood vigil all day to find out what happened. And as soon as DD spots McGonegal, he says "why aren't you out celebrating?... We have much to be thankful for. Lemon drop?" LOLOL, Dumbledore, what an asshole. And he's a consistent one! Is this a man who's grieving over the Potters' death & his inability to protect them - or one who's quite smug & pleased about the success of his Plan for a chosen one? You decide. lizzyben From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Nov 28 14:30:05 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:30:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fees for Harry References: Message-ID: <002a01c831cb$2c7079f0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179427 > Alla: > I am afraid I remain very convinced that Potters wanted Dumbledore to > stay as far away from their son's future. > > They rejected him as secret keeper, so I find it highly implausible > that they would decide, oh you know, we won't appoint him as Harry's > guardian either, but hey, we will go ahead and give him financial > powers over his money AND we will give him powers to appoint legal > guardian. Shelley: Excuse me if I'm butting in here, but I don't see in canon where the Potters REJECTED Dumbledore at all. It was Dumbledore who came to the Potters and told them how to protect themselves. The Potters not only trusted that Dumbledore was right about this protection, they took active steps to put it into practice. That shows trust and respect right there, for they didn't doubt that Dumbledore was wrong about how to save their lives. I imagine that Dumbledore told them to "pick someone that they trusted" to be the Secret Keeper, but let's face it- there could be a DOZEN or more of people that the Potters might have picked- people that they trusted. I image that Dumbledore told them to pick someone close to them. It makes sense that they would choose one of their best friends, but again, they are only choosing ONE person. Choosing "one" in a field of contenders isn't nearly the same as "rejecting" the rest. Obviously, some people would have been "rejected" right off the bat because they didn't meet the criteria of "being trusted enough to put their lives in the that person's hand", but once they had their short list of possible people (which still could have included Dumbledore), still they could only choose one. Even at the last minute, they switched who it was that was that "one". Sirius doesn't seem to take it that the Potters rejected him; instead, he, like the Potters, are thinking that throwing Voldemort off their scent so that they could live was a smart idea. It's very possible that Peter had visited them right at the exact second that they were ready to do it, and so inspiration struck to change the plan. Had DD been visiting at that second, he also might have been chosen. Just speculating here at to "how" Peter ended up as Secret Keeper after it was Sirius that was "chosen". It's like having several friends around you in gym class, and you are instructed to pick a team captain. You reject those who aren't your friends immediately, but among your friends, you have several choices, and you only get to choose "one" to be captain. The rest of the friends aren't going to yell at you that they weren't "trusted" to be captain. Last second, after other team might know who was your chosen pick and then formed their plans around that, you switch your choice just to throw their plans off so you can win the game. I think Dumbledore was in their trusted circle- that he was on their short list of people that could have worked, but Sirius just seemed like the better choice given Dumbledore's busyness and importance. Sirius wouldn't have minded going into hiding himself and playing games with Voldemort in order to protect the Potters. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Nov 28 15:22:26 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:22:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore References: Message-ID: <003901c831d2$7c8bf7a0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179428 > a_svirn: > No, it wasn't. On the contrary, the determined iconoclasm of DH > proved to be a sleight of hand in the end. Dumbledore got his last > word in the Kings Cross chapter and explained everything to Harry's > satisfaction. And if Harry is satisfied - to the point of naming his > son after Dumbledore - by the end of the last book, then, apparently, > so should we. Only I wasn't. > Alla: See above I guess. I do not believe Harry was satisfied, but forgave DD. IMO. Shelley: For me, Harry's forgiveness and understanding of Dumbledore was completely satisfying- I never expected Harry to hold a grudge against Dumbledore, no matter how badly Dumbledore might have sinned or manipulated the circumstances. Harry would forgive Dumbledore as one forgives a friend, because they were friends. He would have forgiven Dumbledore no matter what, because at the time in his life when he had no one, Dumbledore was the one adult who stepped up and took some interest in Harry. Dumbledore was the closest Harry had to a mentor or parent, and his forgiveness of him was totally predictable. No, what I have a hard time believing is the naming of the child after Snape. That is the much bigger leap of faith, imho, than Harry forgiving Dumbledore. Snape, in contrast to Dumbledore, is always pictured as working against Harry right from the start, and unlike Dumbledore's actions that seem to have a purpose that Harry finally comes to understand, Snape's meanness and cruelty to Harry doesn't have a justification in the end. Nor do we see Harry reconciling in his mind anything about Snape, the way he wrestles with questioning Dumbledore, so that the forgiveness is a well thought out process. This thought that "well, I was in love with your mother" still sounds so sick and perverted to me, even after several months of stewing on it, still doesn't explain why Snape was such an ass to Harry for all those years. So for me, the forgiveness of Snape the point of naming a child after him just comes off as unrealistic and wholly unbelievable. An ass is an ass, and even if Harry understood that Snape all along was a spy at Dumbledore's request, and acting like that ass was one way to keep his cover, that still does not explain, in one bit, why you would name your child after that ass. The leap of logic here is sudden deep "affection" for Snape after Harry hates him for so long. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Nov 28 15:38:48 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:38:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fees for Harry References: Message-ID: <004001c831d4$c571daa0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179429 bboyminn: Dumbledore may not have had legal authority to decide Harry's fate, but I think he did have moral authority. Dumbledore was the leader of the Order of Phoenix, that gave him a degree of authority over the members. Further, I think Dumbledore simply realized the great danger that Harry was in and took it upon himself to protect Harry and see to his future. I think all members of the Order, Sirius included, accepted Dumbledore's judgement in the moment as the best for Harry. If Sirius had objections, assuming he hadn't got himself arrested, he could work those out at some point in the future once things stabilized and the true danger could be better assessed. By not objecting or opposing Dumbledore, all those involved gave him implied permission. People trust Dumbledore, and that trust lead them to allow Dumbledore a free hand in Harry's fate. Shelley: It is very possible that Sirius might have even been consulted about the plan to put Harry in the Dursley's protection under the blood spell, and that he agreed to the plan. I imagine, althougth it's not stated, that Sirius might have even used that as an excuse to go after Peter with such reckless abandonment- knowing that Harry was already safe and taken care of for the moment, so that if got killed trying to kill Peter that Harry still had a home. It's possible that Sirius could agree to the Dursleys being "home", because he could still visit and take Harry for weekends and outings, to be a mentor and friend without the home that Harry slept in each night. He, as a godfather and wizard, still could have bullied or intimated the Dursleys about their treatment of Harry should they not take care of him properly, and as godfather, he could have used his influence to teach Harry about the magic world much earlier than it happened. But, that incident with Peter didn't go well, and he ended up being separated from Harry much longer than planned, but still, we don't see him worrying about Harry while he sits in Azkaban because he knows Harry is safe and protected while at the Dursleys. We don't hear at all that he was fretting about Harry's safety while he spent time in jail, so the conclusion that he was in on the plan seems very reasonable to me. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Nov 28 15:52:23 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:52:23 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fees for Harry References: Message-ID: <004701c831d6$ab581ce0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179430 >> Alla: >> And I thought Harry was WAY too kind telling Dumbledore that if they >> had cloak it would be no difference. I think they would have some >> chance to hide ( at least one of them) and maybe even with Harry and >> run. >> > Pippin: > LOL! "He could hear her screaming from the upper floor" "listening > with faint amusement to her attempts to barricade herself in" -- > Voldemort didn't see where Lily went, he *heard* her. She > panicked. The cloak wouldn't have prevented that. Shelley: Oh, come on. Do you really think that if Lily had an invisibility cloak that she wouldn't have immediately ducked under it with Harry and then attempted to be as quiet as possible? Do you really think that she'd be screaming her head off beneath an invisibility cloak, or making noise by attempting to block the door if she might need it to excape??? I just don't see her being that stupid, hiding under something that conceals your presence only to give it away by screaming in terror. Even if she had screamed initially at hearing James being killed, she was still hidden and the very moment that she was silent, she could have moved around and attempted to evade the killer who could come for her and her child. Voldemort still had to come upstairs for her, giving her a few seconds to get silent and move. She could have attempted to sneak past Voldemort to get outside of the house to freedom and safety, and the cloak would have given her hope. No, she does those things (screams, barricades the room) only because she has no protection, and she knows she's a sitting duck for Voldemort who surely is after her next. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Nov 28 16:10:12 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:10:12 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fees for Harry References: Message-ID: <005001c831d9$2897a430$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179431 > Pippin: >> If it takes thirty days for a wizarding will to go into effect, then >> possibly Sirius never became legally Harry's guardian, and Vernon >> and Petunia were appointed quite legitimately. > > lizzyben: > > I'm trying to imagine the Dursleys at a wizarding guardianship > hearing in the MOM, and failing. Yeah, maybe we can construct more > facts that could possibly make this totally legal & aboveboard, but > w/the facts we've got it is not. Sirius was the appointed guardian & > godfather, full stop. Shelley: Yes, and let's look at the timing of things. Voldemort murders Harry's parents. They find Harry alive, and everyone starts questioning WHY did this child live? Dumbledore wracks his smart brain and comes up with Lily's sacrifice, and the brilliant blood connection the might still protect Harry. He seeks to immediately move on that thought, taking Harry from Sirius and putting him in the Dursley home for temporary shelter. Sirius then goes to kill Peter and fails, only to be put in jail. The 30 day period comes around, and the will is read. But, Sirius can't raise the child while in prison, and besides, Harry's currently with other blood relatives. What would there even need to be a guardianship hearing at all? No one was contesting anything, not Sirius's godfather position, nor the Dursley home where Harry was residing for the time. Nothing different needed to be done. Only would a contest ensue for Harry's care if Sirius got out of prison and then wanted to take Harry away from the Dursleys. That only happens much later in Harry's life, only Sirius still ends up on the run and never able to offer Harry a proper home, so he never fully attempts to take Harry into his home as a son. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Nov 28 16:17:40 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:17:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fees for Harry Message-ID: <583507.96688.qm@web86201.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179432 > > Shelley: > Oh, come on. Do you really think that if Lily had an invisibility cloak that > she wouldn't have immediately ducked under it with Harry and then attempted > to be as quiet as possible? Do you really think that she'd be screaming her > head off beneath an invisibility cloak, or making noise by attempting to > block the door if she might need it to excape??? JRK for some reason needed James and Lily to be stupid in that scene. I mean, barricading the door instead of apparating? Pleeeease. "I'll delay him" without a wand? Pathetic. So the cloak would not help them to avoid the murderous author, I'm afraid. :-) Irene From aeshawilliams at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 16:29:04 2007 From: aeshawilliams at gmail.com (Aesha Williams) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:29:04 -0600 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding Message-ID: <4d5c41890711280829m6e33d710tfd3e843a107168b1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179433 >7. Are we just to assume Ron and Hermione are an item now? Does everyone else assume >they are? No one seems to acknowledge it except for a brief exchange between Viktor and >Harry. You know, I must be the only one who *doesn't* see them as a couple at this time. As much a Ron/Hermione 'shipper as I am (and believe me, I am), I don't consider them as truly being together - and really acknowledging the fact that they love one another - until the battle, when Ron expresses concern for the house elves and Hermione finally goes for it. All these other times - when Ron comforts Hermione, when Hermione begs Ron not to leave them by the riverside, when they fall asleep next to one antoher in the tent - I see these times as... hmmm. Like they're near getting together, and they're kind of getting closer, but not fully acknowledging that they love each other - mostly because of insecurities or whatever. Ron still worries that Hermione actually loves Harry, as evidenced by the images he sees right before he destroys the locket Horcrux. Also, he whispers to Harry that "all's fair in love and war, and this is a little bit of both", which makes me feel like he's still fighting to get through a last barrier (besides Hermione's anger!). Just my two cents. :) Aesha [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Nov 28 16:30:40 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:30:40 -0000 Subject: Lily's panic was Re: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: <004701c831d6$ab581ce0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179434 > > Pippin: > > LOL! "He could hear her screaming from the upper floor" "listening > > with faint amusement to her attempts to barricade herself in" -- > > Voldemort didn't see where Lily went, he *heard* her. She > > panicked. The cloak wouldn't have prevented that. > > Shelley: > Oh, come on. Do you really think that if Lily had an invisibility cloak that > she wouldn't have immediately ducked under it with Harry and then attempted > to be as quiet as possible? Do you really think that she'd be screaming her > head off beneath an invisibility cloak, or making noise by attempting to > block the door if she might need it to excape??? Pippin: In the first place, Peter Pettigrew knew all about the cloak, so Voldemort would have been prepared for it. In the second place, if Lily didn't think of being still and silent and then sneaking out of the house while Voldemort was looking for her, why would she think of it if she'd had the cloak? Panicky people do stupid things because panic makes people stupid -- it has nothing to do with how smart they are otherwise, or whether there are means of escape which they could have used if they weren't out of their minds with fear. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Nov 28 17:06:41 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:06:41 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179435 > a_svirn: > Not really. He was willing to contribute to the planning, but not > willing to die. Simple as that. They were expecting a few death > eaters on the lookout, and they were expecting them to come after > Moody. (In fact, this is the essence of the idea of decoy. But it > puts the one who does distracting in jeopardy.)So when Moody insisted > on taking Fletcher with him, he *was* setting him up as canon folder. > Of course, he was putting himself at even greater jeopardy (not least > because Fletcher was "an unreliable bit of scum" to quote Harry), and > I suppose, he reckoned it gave him the right to demand the same > sacrifice from Dung. But the thing is - it didn't. Pippin: It didn't? Did anyone, with the possible exception of Peter Pettigrew, not realize that joining the Order means you're expendable? Moody certainly knew that. Sirius put it directly in OOP when he was explaining to the twins that their father wouldn't thank them for putting his interests ahead of the Order's. Dung didn't want out of the operation after all, he was only angling for what he thought would be a safer position. He accepted Moody's argument that he'd be safer as a decoy than a protector, and that turned out to be true. As Moody's decoy he was in a more exposed position but he also had the strongest protector. The same goes for Hermione, with the added factor that she was on a thestral while the DE's would know that Harry prefers a broom. > a_svirn: > And even if he didn't, they still had no right to sacrifice others to > improve Snape's standing. Pippin: Why not? The lives of a thousand children are at stake. We saw that the Hogwarts defenses are not mighty enough to repel an attack by Voldemort. Subterfuge was their only protection. > > a_svirn: > Personally I don't understand what was stopping Harry from waiting > until he's seventeen (perhaps last couple of hours with the Cloak on, > just in case) and apparating ? as soon as the Trace broke ? to some > safe location. Pippin: The ministry had placed anti-apparation spells around Privet Drive supposedly to protect Harry but actually to hinder his escape. Your plan would result in his being trapped inside the anti-apparation ring when the Privet Drive protection broke, unless I'm missing something. In any case, the books are entertainment, not a manual on how to conduct a war. I thought it was a clever way to re-introduce a number of characters, establish that they would (mostly) risk their lives for Harry and start things off in a suitably bangy fashion. Pippin From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 17:37:43 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:37:43 -0000 Subject: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: <583507.96688.qm@web86201.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179436 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > JRK for some reason needed James and Lily to be stupid in that > scene. I mean, barricading the door instead of apparating? > Pleeeease. Lily didn't have her wand with her at that moment (p.344), so she couldn't apparate. Not to carry a wand - yes, not very smart. But they were both overconfident about the Fidelius Charm, I guess ;-(. zanooda From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Nov 28 19:55:34 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:55:34 -0000 Subject: Lily's panic was Re: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179437 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Shelley: > > Oh, come on. Do you really think that if Lily had an invisibility cloak that > > she wouldn't have immediately ducked under it with Harry and then attempted > > to be as quiet as possible? Do you really think that she'd be screaming her > > head off beneath an invisibility cloak, or making noise by attempting to > > block the door if she might need it to excape??? > > Pippin: > In the first place, Peter Pettigrew knew all about the cloak, so Voldemort > would have been prepared for it. In the second place, if Lily didn't think > of being still and silent and then sneaking out of the house while Voldemort > was looking for her, why would she think of it if she'd had the cloak? > > Panicky people do stupid things because panic makes people stupid - - > it has nothing to do with how smart they are otherwise, or whether there > are means of escape which they could have used if they weren't out of their > minds with fear. > Allie: I tend to agree here. If Lily could do a disillusionment charm (which I'm sure she must have been able to do, since Crabbe and Goyle were proficient enough in it that they went unnoticed by Harry & co. in the Battle of Hogwarts), then she would have been able to accomplish virtually the same thing as with a cloak. Cast a charm over herself and Harry and they can be hidden. I still don't think this would have fooled Voldemort, nor would a cloak, but she didn't think of it in the panic. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 20:11:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:11:23 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179438 Pippin: > In any case, the books are entertainment, not a manual on how to > conduct a war. I thought it was a clever way to re-introduce a number of > characters, establish that they would (mostly) risk their lives for Harry > and start things off in a suitably bangy fashion. Alla: Now with this I agree absolutely. But it all comes down for me to the how I view plot holes again. I have no problem, or at least not much to just enjoy what JKR did simply because she chose to do it certain way. At the same time though, if I were to enjoy the contrived development, I have to have **something** to enjoy about it. Contrary to GoF for example, where I found Harry participating in TWT to be quite contrived but found plenty of things to enjoy in the tournament and Harry suffering, etc, here, well I enjoyed touches of humor very very much. I enjoyed their encounter with DE, yes, but did I find this plan to be clever as in characters coming up with clever things? Um, no, not at all. In fact I think Dumbledore's coldness shined through here indeed. I am trying to put into words as to what indeed changed in my view of Dumbledore after book 7. As I mentioned several times before I certainly thought he was capable and did horrible things before this book, but I still thought of him as good man all together. But I could not put my finger on what indeed changed majorly for me and here I realised. I now firmly believe that every life for Dumbledore is expendable indeed in order to achieve his plan for the greater good. The funny thing is that I have no problems believing that Dumbledore wants the peace and Voldemort free WW and of course I do not consider him to be worse than Voldemort, but at the same time can I truly respect someone who has no problem sacrificing the lives of his soldiers on the way to achieve it? NO, I really cannot. Again, I can forgive him and JKR saved him from complete destruction in my imagination by his remorse and his love for Harry, but no, there is no respect for this character in my mind. Now, do I agree that this is the philosophy of the Order? Oh sure I do. But heck that was the major difference I think in my view of Dumbledore before and now. I thought he was trying really hard to save the lives of his soldiers, to do everything possible to make sure they survive that fight. RIGHT. Instead he pretty much IMO gives them all as pigs for slaughters for DE to make sure Snape is even more in favor of Voldemort? As if he was not enough. But hey, why did I delude myself of Dumbledore's general character, I do not really know. I mean in HBP he pretty much let Malfoy run amock in the school and two almost deaths did not stop him from continuing. And hate Snape as I am, I sure give him credit here for saving Lupin. OMG. Saving Lupin of all people. I do not see Harry adopting Dumbledore's philosophy all that much though when he is back. He shields everybody everybody everybody. I do not know, to me it was clear that Harry forgives Dumbledore, not blindly follows him, even if he can sympathise with DD again. JMO, Alla From wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au Wed Nov 28 22:08:49 2007 From: wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au (Lesley McKenna) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:08:49 +1100 (EST) Subject: What Happened to The Dementors? Message-ID: <664010.18795.qm@web59111.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179439 I was just wondering hwether anybody had any theories about the Dementors. I am sure they did not just disappear after the fall of LV and as they were breeding all the way through HBP, there must be thousands of the horrors out there now. They still have to feed by leeching all the happiness out of people, so presumably, there would still be Dementor attacks. Obviously, they are no longer under the control of the ministry (exactly how do you control a Dementor?) and no longer have gainful employment guarding Azkaban. I presume their payment took the form of being able to live off the emotions of the poor prisoners, although from everything we've heard of Azkaban, that happenes in fairly short order as most people end up mad very quickly. So unless Azkaban was always getting lots and lots of new prisoners, I don't see how they remained content for as long as they did. And I also don't think that the guards of Azkaban could have been ALL of the Dementors, even before they started breeding. Perhaps, some sort of spell had to be cast before they could start breeding and LV would have been only too happy to cast such a spell. I'll be interested to hear any theories that may be out there. wrappedinharry. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Wed Nov 28 22:53:55 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:53:55 -0000 Subject: What Happened to The Dementors? In-Reply-To: <664010.18795.qm@web59111.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179440 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lesley McKenna wrote: > > I was just wondering hwether anybody had any theories about the Dementors. > > I am sure they did not just disappear after the fall of LV and as they were breeding all the way through HBP, there must be thousands of the horrors out there now. > The ability of any creature to breed successfully is reliant on an adequate food supply. So I surmise that pre-Voldemorts return the Dememtors of Azkaban were effectively living in a reservation. They stayed there in return for an adequate food supply. I would assume that any who 'went rogue' and left were hunted down so they stayed and accepted Ministry restrictions in return for their subsistence level food supply. In PoA when they were sent to guard Hogwarts and therefore seperated from their usual food sourse wasn't it stated at one point that they were getting angry. More like very hungry, hence their gathering so quickly to 'dine' on Sirius and Harry. Once Voldemort came back to power he released them from the requirement to guard Azkaban and allowed them a freer rein, provided no doubt that they served him directly when required. Dumbledore warned Fudge that the Dementors would serve Voldemort if he returned to power and he was right. One analogy in the real world is the Smallpox virus. It has been eradicated in the wild but stocks are still kept by Russia and USA/UK in case the 'other' side release it as a weapon leaving 'us' without the means to create a vaccine. The Dementors were kept as a defence against the confined Death Eaters in Azkaban even though they remained a deadly threat in themselves. With Voldemort gone for good the Dementors would be an ongoing problem but provided the Ministry saw sense and gave up using them as guards the Auror could then hunt them down and destroy them. allthecoolnamesgone From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 23:36:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:36:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179441 --- "ianuno3" wrote: > > ... > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding > > ... > > Questions: > 1. How is that Harry can take a large dose of Polyjuice > Potion and it lasts the entire wedding ...? > bboyminn: I'm of the belief that JKR is self-editing the story. She is fully aware of the one hour time limit on Polyjuice, but she doesn't want to clutter the story with that small detail. I think we are suppose to assume that this /detail/ is being taken care of off page. This 'self-editing' concept is one of the few complaints I have about the last book. I do understand it, but for me it would be better to have a longer better book, than a short one lacking in a few critical details. I think the reason, for this aspect, is that JKR is fighting to stay on the straight-and-narrow, and not let the plot wander off. She is at the finish line now, and she is concentrating on that one objective; getting to the conclusion. Keep in mind, that I take the books as they come, and I liked the last book, just not as much as the others. > 2. Did the Delacour family pay for most, if not all, of the > wedding? ... > bboyminn: I suspect yes, though I'm sure Bill, Molly, and Arthur contributed as well. It is even possible the Fred and George help in some way, say...maybe...hiring the caterer. I can't say that they did, because it is not in the book. To some extent, it is traditional for the bride's parents to throw a huge wedding for the bride. > 3. What is wrong with Lupin? ... > bboyminn: I think while he was there, Lupin did enjoy himself. But enjoying the moment doesn't erase the worry that he has made a grave mistake in marrying and having a child. I think he feels terrible guilty and somewhat selfish. He feels, to some extent, that he has endangered his child-to-be and wife, as well as condemning them to a life of misery and poverty, all to increase his own happiness. I think a part of him feels very very guilty for momentarily thinking he could be happy. > 4. What is the significance of meeting Xenophilius Lovegood? > Is it just to explain where Luna gets her "Looneyness" from? > bboyminn: As far as Mr Lovegood at the wedding, it serves two purposes. First, to introduce Mr Lovegood himself, because he will be important later in the story, and second, to introduce the symbol that is essential to the story, and further involves and sets up Lovegoods later involvement in explaining the Hallows. In simplest terms, he is introduced now so he can play his role later. > 5. If the Lovegoods essentially were neighbors of the Weasleys, > how come Ron and the other Weasleys ... didn't know her before > we met Luna in Order of the Phoenix on the train? > bboyminn: Consider transportation in the wizard world. It makes a friend 50 miles away just as close as a friend 1 mile away. Also, the Weasleys has a large 'farm' family. I live in farm country and farm kids are very independent. They don't need much to keep them occupied. And since the Weasley family is large, everyday during the summers, they had their brothers and sisters to play with and the whole country side to roam and explore. Now for regular farm kids, any kids outside the family are going to come from neighboring farms. That doesn't give you much choice. As a kid, your friends can only be other kids whose farms are within walking or biking distance. You take what you can get. The Weasleys on the other hand could arrange play-dates with kids anywhere in the wizard world. At least, anywhere in the range of Floo Powder. Also, consider that it is unlikely that a pack of wild boys is going to want a play-date with a giirrrllll. Plus, I think for most people, Arthur Weasley included, Xeno was just a little too eccentric of significant socializing opportunities. > 6. Auntie Muriel asks where Harry is, since Ron says they > are close friends. If so many people know Harry is that close > to the Weasleys, wouldn't they expect him to be there? The > important people know Harry's in disguise, but wouldn't more > people be questioning his absence? > bboyminn: I don't think they would necessarily /expect/ Harry to be there, though they likely suspected he /might/ be there. When they don't see him, they assume he is not. Auntie Muriel on the other hand is a busy-body and rabble-rouser, and would not be content to not see Harry and let it go. Muriel just doesn't seem to be the 'let it go' type. > 7. Are we just to assume Ron and Hermione are an item now? >... bboyminn: At this point in the story, I don't think Ron and Hermione are an 'item'. I think, at this point, Ron has finally figured out that he wants to be an item, but it hasn't happened yet. I think as friends, through most of the story, they are growing closer and more comfortable. But the Big-I (for Item) doesn't happen until the very end of the books and beyond. > 8. JK Rowling said in an interview after Goblet of Fire > that international wizards no longer were going to factor > in the books. Why was Viktor here, just as a device to > explain Grindelwald's symbol? > bboyminn: I think we need to be careful about assigning absolutes to JKR's statements. No one every speaks in absolutes. Also, note that JKR specifically said we would see Viktor again. So, the statement you are referring to has context assigned to it. We are not going to see foreign wizards in-mass the way we did in GoF. That doesn't mean one or two foreign individuals won't come wandering through. As others have indicated, I would have liked Viktor to have taken a more active role in the story. But, he came, he relayed his necessary plot information, he got a laugh or two, then he has served his purpose and was gone. > 9. Did Hermione discontinue her correspondence with Viktor? > She had no idea why he was at the wedding? She made a point > of staying in touch for at least a year after Goblet of Fire. > bboyminn: I don't think she /discontinued/ her correspondence with Viktor. I think that do to distractions, it had merely become less frequent. I suspect Viktor equally had distractions of his own to contend with. So, they aren't cut off from each other, the frequency has just diminished as these things typically do. > 10. Just like many other traditions and holidays, the magical > world has seemingly borrowed from Muggle traditions again > with the entire wedding. Why isn't there much difference > between that ceremony and a traditional Muggle ceremony, ...? > bboyminn: I think we are not seeing similarities between magic and muggle weddings, but we are seeing the similarity between all weddings. While the details may be different, the structure of weddings around the world are virtually the same; friends and relatives of the bride and groom gather round to bear witness, a pronouncement is made by an offical, and some ritual act seals the deal. In an overview, there really aren't that many ways to have a wedding. > 11. Why is Grindelwald's symbol so important? Why is > Xenophilius Lovegood wearing said symbol? Is it just costume > jewelry? > bboyminn: I think for Xeno the symbol was both a decoration and a conversation starter. He obviously knew of no connection between the symbol and Grindelwald. I think he wore it for the same reason all people wear odd bobbles and bangles to adorn themselves. The symbol as we eventually know is significant to the story, and it introduces that symbol to us and makes a connection to Grindelwald that will pay off later. JKR is laying ground- work. After the fact, it is easy to see the author's hand in it all bringing characters and symbols together so we the reader can get clues and partial explanation. However, in the moment, as a reader, it was just all curious happenings, that may or may not have ment something beyond that moment. Only time and more reading will tell. > 12. Is Elphias Doge protecting Dumbledore's memory by telling > Harry not to believe a word Rita Skeeter says? > bboyminn: I think in a sense, it is partly the old adage, 'don't speak ill of the dead'. It's disrespectful. What ever flaws Dumbledore might have had, it's best to look at the contribution he made and think fondly of him. Unfortunately, that doesn't do Harry much good. He knows that there are TONS of things he needs to know. Things that could save his life. So he is annoyed when people only want to look at the good side. He doesn't need fond memories, he needs the truth; he can't beat Voldemort and live himself on nothing but fond memories. Still, Rita has written about Harry and Hermione, so he knows what a lying cow she is. But he also knows that some were under the lie is a small seed of truth. But he can't sort out for sure which is which, so he is rightly frustrated. In a sense, it is a luxury for everyone else to dwell in fond memories of Dumbledore, but that is a luxury that Harry does not have. > 13. What is the deal with Doge's relationship with Dumbledore? > Did Doge love Dumbledore as more than a friend? Knowing > Dumbledore's sexuality now, could Doge and Dumbledore also > have been lovers at some period?... > bboyminn: I think that Dumbledore was always to a certain degree a loner. He has very few peers in life, so beyond pleasant and general conversation, there really wasn't anyone to talk to on a deep and personal level. I suspect to some extent Dumbledore did confide in his old friend Doge, but Dumbledore has secrets, some dark and potentially deadly secrets. So, he always held back, he was always reserved beyond pleasantries. I do think the Doge was a loyal and trusted friend to Dumbledore, and while I don't see them as lovers, I do see the limited potential for friends-with-benefits on the long and lonely nights we all encounter in our long lives. This could very much contribute to Doge's insistence that no one tarnish the name and memory of Dumbledore. He knew Dumbledore more deeply and more intimately than any other, and that represented a powerful weight on him now that Dumbledore was gone. > 14. Muriel seems so taken by the scandals involving > Dumbledore; do you think she's ashamed of the Weasley clan? > ... > bboyminn: I think we are just seeing Muriel's personality shining though. As I recall Ron said she used to come around for Christmas and give good presents until Fred and George decide to play a joke on her. Also, the notion that because of the joke Muriel had disinherited Fred and George, which implies that at one point they were in here Will, as I assume are the other Weasleys. I think Muriel is just a cranky old curmudgeon, who for all her ill-temper is basically a good person who likes to stir things up. Kind to dogs in general, but never really content to let sleeping dogs lie. > 15. Was Kinglsey not at the wedding because he was still > protecting the Prime Minister? If so, how did he know so > quickly about the Ministry of Magic's fall and Rufus > Scrimgeour's death? > bboyminn: As others have suggested, the portrait in the muggle Prime Minister's office might have tipped Kingsley off. Also, not everybody in the world can be at the wedding, especially a small wedding held under a tent in the Weasley's backyard. As anyone knows who has planned a wedding, you have to draw the line on guest somewhere. It is also possible the Kingley just had other pressing things to do. He may have been invited and he may have intended to come. But he stopped off at the Ministry on his way and saw a coup in progress and stuck around to keep an eye on it. When the Minsitry fell, Kingley split and sent word. As I always say, even if we don't see it, there is likely a very reasonable in-story explanation for why Kingley wasn't there. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Nov 29 00:47:11 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:47:11 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179442 Alla: > > I thought he was trying really hard to save the lives of his > soldiers, to do everything possible to make sure they survive that > fight. RIGHT. Instead he pretty much IMO gives them all as pigs for > slaughters for DE to make sure Snape is even more in favor of > Voldemort? As if he was not enough. > Pippin: Does it matter how many soldiers' lives are saved if the war is lost? It's no different than Gandalf counselling Eomer and Aragorn to lead their forces against the Black Gate, IMO. As Gandalf said himself, it was not a prudent choice and the only purpose was to give the Ringbearer's mission a better chance. Certainly no common soldiers were asked for their opinion, nor was it explained to them that they were being marched to certain death for the sake of a secret mission that was no more than a fool's hope in the first place. So I guess Gandalf, Aragorn and Eomer by your definition would not be good people either. Of course if you look at what real life leaders like Lincoln or FDR were willing to sanction, they make Dumbledore look like a saint. We have discussed Dumbledore's decision to save Draco before, so I will only add that although, as I said, there is no room for enlightened self-interest in the Potterverse, I think that applies only to adults. A child's selfishness is innocent and his life is worthy of protection no matter what he does. We know now that Dumbledore did take measures to protect the other children, so no, Malfoy was not left to run amock. Alla: > And hate Snape as I am, I sure give him credit here for saving Lupin. > OMG. Saving Lupin of all people. Pippin: Ah, but you see, if Snape had not been so high in Voldemort's favor, he might not have been there to save Lupin. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 01:34:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:34:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders WAS: Moody's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179443 > Alla: > > > > I thought he was trying really hard to save the lives of his > > soldiers, to do everything possible to make sure they survive that > > fight. RIGHT. Instead he pretty much IMO gives them all as pigs for > > slaughters for DE to make sure Snape is even more in favor of > > Voldemort? As if he was not enough. > > > > Pippin: > Does it matter how many soldiers' lives are saved > if the war is lost? > Alla: How is this relevant to the point I was making? I am not arguing that Dumbledore should have tried to save the lifes of as many soldiers (not even soldiers, volunteers) who fight for him and lost the war. I am saying that he should have tried **harder**, I am saying that he did not tried enough in my opinion. Pippin: > It's no different than Gandalf counselling Eomer and Aragorn > to lead their forces against the Black Gate, IMO. As Gandalf said > himself, it was not a prudent choice and the only purpose was to give > the Ringbearer's mission a better chance. Alla: Oh yeah I think it was very different IMO. I do not remember anybody betraying their mission in advance to Sauron. Oh, and another key difference to me is that mission, suicidal and desperate as it was **had** a purpose. Tell me what was the purpose of seven Potters again? And another difference to me is that I am much more comfortable with Godlike being deciding the fates of the people. Last time I looked Dumbledore was not one. The better comparison with that battle IMO would be battle of Hogwarts. The only purpose of which was to give Harry a better chance to find diadem, no? Now, I am totally with a_svirn that this battle could have been avoided and so many lives saved had Dumbledore shared and allowed Harry to share information earlier ( about horcruxes I mean), but at that moment I totally understand why the battle had to happen. Suicidal and desperate, but necessary, I think. Pippin: > Certainly no common soldiers were asked for their opinion, nor was it > explained to them that they were being marched to certain death for the > sake of a secret mission that was no more than a fool's hope in > the first place. So I guess Gandalf, Aragorn and Eomer by your definition > would not be good people either. > > Of course if you look at what real life leaders like Lincoln or FDR were > willing to sanction, they make Dumbledore look like a saint. Alla: I mentioned somewhere Pippin that I do not hold the majority of RL politicians in much respect, so I fail to see the relevance of your analogy again. Oh, and Lincoln specifically is not on my high list either. When I vote, I vote for ideas and hoping that people who will implement them, will at least try to implement them close enough to their promises and do not become corrupt, desperate and greedy. Anyways, back to fictional leaders. Let me bring up fictional leader, who makes Dumbledore and his morals look like a devil as far as I am concerned. Have you watched "American President" movie? Well, if you did the president as portrayed there is my ideal of the politician, which yes I am quite aware of pretty hard to find in RL. There is an episode there, when he has to decide whether to order an attack on Libya's military thing in responce to attack on american personel. He does order an attack, but he chooses at least the night shift to make sure that as little as possible civilans are killed, And he STILL says that this is the least presidential thing he ever did. So, no I do not want Dumbledore to shy away from hard decisions, but I certainly wanted him to think twice before submitting the lifes of his people to unnecessary risks and this COO COO plan certainly counts as such in my book. IMO of course. > Alla: > > And hate Snape as I am, I sure give him credit here for saving Lupin. > > OMG. Saving Lupin of all people. > > Pippin: > Ah, but you see, if Snape had not been so high in Voldemort's favor, > he might not have been there to save Lupin. Alla: And had Dumbledore did not come up with this plan Snape did not NEED to be there to save Lupin in the first place. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 02:18:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:18:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders WAS: Moody's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179444 Alla wrote: > > > Oh, and another key difference to me is that mission, suicidal and desperate as it was **had** a purpose. Tell me what was the purpose of seven Potters again? Carol responds: Thanks to Pius Thicknesse, Harry could neither use Floo Powder nor Apparate to escape from 4 Privet Drive. Either action would have led to his capture and arrest. The only alternative was to fly out, with as many decoys as feasible, so that the Death Eaters would be split up instead of having all of them following Harry. Also, the real Harry was sent with the person Voldemort was least likely to follow, that unqualified "oaf," Hagrid. Yes, it was a dangerous plan, but all of them (except possibly Mundungus) were there to protect Harry, putting his life above their own because he was the Chosen One. Some things are worth dying for, as Mr. Weasley told the Twins back in OoP. Agreed, it wasn't a perfect plan (I don't think that Snape liked it much, either, or he wouldn't have risked blowing his cover by saving Lupin against DD's orders to "play his part"), but it did give *Harry* a better chance of survival than he would have had faced with thirty DEs and Voldemort, all of them knowing that he, the only Harry, was the real Harry, if that makes sense. The Order could have surrounded him as a guard, but they would still have been risking their lives at least as much as they were risking them in the seven Potters plan. This way, at least, the DEs were split up. Divide and conquer, or, at least, divide the pursuers and increase your chances of escaping them. Everyone involved was an of-age Order member and everyone involved knew the risk they were taking. It was not a suicide mission; only one person was killed and that was because of Mundungus Fletcher's cowardice. (Then again, I'd have panicked, too, with Voldemort himself trying to kill me.) What made it risky was not the plan itself but DD's order to Snape to reveal the intended departure time. (He didn't reveal the most important element of the plan, the use of decoys. That part caught the DEs and Voldemort by surprise.) Carol, who thinks that Harry should simply have gone off with the Dursleys and then Disapparated to the Burrow when Mr. Dursley stopped the car From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 02:45:31 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:45:31 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <003901c831d2$7c8bf7a0$6401a8c0@homemain> References: <003901c831d2$7c8bf7a0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: <2795713f0711281845m49983afcs2365d7ffba668e80@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179445 Shelley: what I have a hard time believing is the naming of the child after Snape. That is the much bigger leap of faith, imho, than Harry forgiving Dumbledore. Snape, in contrast to Dumbledore, is always pictured as working against Harry right from the start, and unlike Dumbledore's actions that seem to have a purpose that Harry finally comes to understand, Snape's Lynda: But isn't that true forgiveness, to forgive someone who always worked against you, as Snape did Harry, in the realization that as wrong as his motivations were, and as much as he had against Harry, again for the wrong reason--that Lily chose James over him, because of Snape's being drawn to the dark arts, enough to name your child after them? Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 04:06:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:06:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH8, The Wedding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179446 5. If the Lovegoods essentially were neighbors of the Weasleys, how come Ron and the other Weasleys (Ginny apparent knew Luna because they were in the same year) didn't know her before we met Luna in Order of the Phoenix on the train? Alla: I can actually totally buy this. Luna does not strick me as very sociable person and before she got involved in DA, she probably did not have even few friends. And her father keeps to himself, no? Makes sense to me that Weasleys would not know her. 7. Are we just to assume Ron and Hermione are an item now? Does everyone else assume they are? No one seems to acknowledge it except for a brief exchange between Viktor and Harry. Alla: Absolutely. I assumed right after the funeral when Ron was hugging her. I did not even see the need for people to talk much about it. 9. Did Hermione discontinue her correspondence with Viktor? She had no idea why he was at the wedding? She made a point of staying in touch for at least a year after Goblet of Fire. Alla: I do want to believe that Hermione valued him as a friend, Victor I mean, but yeah, I think she stopped. I think Ron was too much on her mind, heheh and not much of Victor. 10. Just like many other traditions and holidays, the magical world has seemingly borrowed from Muggle traditions again with the entire wedding. Why isn't there much difference between that ceremony and a traditional Muggle ceremony, religious or not? Is it easier just to believe there is more in common between the two worlds than they let on? We see this wedding through Harry's eyes. Harry admittedly has never been to a wedding ? magical or Muggle ? before. Does that make a difference? Alla: To me the fact that there was so much in common was just another indication that WW IMO meant to reflect a lot of muggle world things ? metaphorically, satirically, whatever. But IMO some common symbols, like weddings, funerals, etc are meant to be recognizable. 13. What is the deal with Doge's relationship with Dumbledore? Did Doge love Dumbledore as more than a friend? Knowing Dumbledore's sexuality now, could Doge and Dumbledore also have been lovers at some period? Or could Doge have had that kind of affection for Dumbledore, but it was never realized in a physical sense? Was their planned yearlong journey around the world more than just two friends on a quest? Alla: I never predicted Dumbledore and Grindelwad, but actually I had that thought about DD and Doge, or more precisely that Doge had one sided affection towards DD. It was a brief thought, but I had it. Thank you for wonderful questions. From zzzbinky at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 03:54:23 2007 From: zzzbinky at yahoo.com (Doug) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:54:23 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179447 Off subject... "Aurors are used to lifes of danger, to everyone they meet they remain a stranger. with every move they make, another chance they take, Odds are they won't live to see tomorrow.." Oops, my mistake, those are words to "Secret Agent Man" You know, it seems that people knuckled under pretty easily after LV's proxy take over. The M of M being a puppet, just like "the Chief" was in the Shire. And just like the Raising of the Shire, it only took Harry to show up to get 'em roused. Of course, the analogy starts breaking down after that. What I don't understand is, why didn't someone say "Voldemort", vanish, and when they showed up, blast'em from behind a bush? zzzbinky From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 05:29:40 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:29:40 -0000 Subject: The name 'Kendra' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179448 > > bboyminn: > > Close but not quite, Prince Harry's name is really - > > Henry Charles Albert David Windsor > Oops, excuse me whilst I take foot out of mouth!! Snape's Witch From rvink7 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 29 09:05:12 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:05:12 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179449 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Alla: > > > > I thought he was trying really hard to save the lives of his > > soldiers, to do everything possible to make sure they survive that > > fight. RIGHT. Instead he pretty much IMO gives them all as pigs for > > slaughters for DE to make sure Snape is even more in favor of > > Voldemort? As if he was not enough. > > > > Pippin: > Does it matter how many soldiers' lives are saved > if the war is lost? > > It's no different than Gandalf counselling Eomer and Aragorn > to lead their forces against the Black Gate, IMO. As Gandalf said > himself, it was not a prudent choice and the only purpose was to give > the Ringbearer's mission a better chance. > > Certainly no common soldiers were asked for their opinion, nor was it > explained to them that they were being marched to certain death for the > sake of a secret mission that was no more than a fool's hope in > the first place. So I guess Gandalf, Aragorn and Eomer by your definition > would not be good people either. Renee: Mentions of Tolkien always wake me up... >From Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King, Chapter "The Black Gate opens" "Upon the fourth day from the Cross-roads (...) they came at last to the end of the living lands, and began to pass into the desolation that lay before the gates of the Pass of Cirit Gorgor. (...) So desolate were those places and so deep the horror that lay on them that some of the host were unmanned, and they could neither walk nor ride further north. Aragorn looked at them, and there was pity in his eyes rather than wrath; for these were young men from Rohan, from Westfold far away, or husbandmen from Lossarnach, and to them Mordor had been from childhood a name of evil, and yet unreal (...); and now they walked like men in a hideous dream made true (...). 'Go!' said Aragorn. 'But keep what honour you may, and do not run! And there is a task which you may attempt and so be not wholly shamed. Take your way south-west till you come to Cair Andros, and if tht is still held by enemies, then retake it, if you can, and hold it to the last in defence of Gondor and Rohan.' Then some being shamed by his mercy overcame their fear and went on, and the others took new hope, hearing of a manful deed within their measure that they could turn to, and they departed." It seems to me that the common soldiers, though they aren't asked for their opinion, clearly have a choice here. Aragorn is merciful and allows them to leave if they want (he doesn't even explicitly forbid them to go home, though he suggests they do something useful if they do turn back). And as I don't read about Gandalf or Eomer objecting to this, I guess they agree with Aragorn. What this does make clear, is that it's very hard to run from a war altogether. But those who don't have the heart to act as bait certainly get a chance to do something less hopeless than marching to certain death. They do have a choice. Just like the people in the Seven Potters episode, actually (except for Mundungus Fletcher, one might argue). They take the risk willingly, they know what could happen, and I fail to see the resemblance with pigs for slaughter. I see nothing in the text that tells me they were coerced to participate. > Alla: > > And hate Snape as I am, I sure give him credit here for saving Lupin. > > OMG. Saving Lupin of all people. > > Pippin: > Ah, but you see, if Snape had not been so high in Voldemort's favor, > he might not have been there to save Lupin. > Renee: If I'm not mistaken, Snape doesn't actually save Lupin, as he misses the Death Eater's wand hand and cuts off George's ear instead. Lupin survives because the Death Eater apparently misses as well. I agree it's the intention that counts, though. Renee From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 12:33:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:33:23 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179450 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > What this does make clear, is that it's very hard to run from a war > altogether. But those who don't have the heart to act as bait > certainly get a chance to do something less hopeless than marching to > certain death. They do have a choice. Alla: Yes. Renee: Just like the people in the > Seven Potters episode, actually (except for Mundungus Fletcher, one > might argue). They take the risk willingly, they know what could > happen, and I fail to see the resemblance with pigs for slaughter. I > see nothing in the text that tells me they were coerced to participate. > Alla: I am not arguing that they were coerced to participate, of course not. What I am arguing is that Dumbledore put their lifes in the risk that could have been avoided **because of that particular plan**, that's all. Even at war, if commander can avoid the army of the enemy waiting to ambush their forces durin the war operation, isn't the duty of the commander to do so? OF COURSE there is always a possibility that those same troops will be killed during next operation, of course. But I believe that commander should not do idiotic things if possible IMO. Like as I said , at least battle of Hogwarts had reason, reason I can understand and I see why it should have happened? This - no way, if Harry could leave in simpler and safer ways. IMO of course. JMO, Alla. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Nov 29 14:00:39 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:00:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's panic References: Message-ID: <009201c83290$3a836c30$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179451 > Allie: > > I tend to agree here. If Lily could do a disillusionment charm > (which I'm sure she must have been able to do, since Crabbe and > Goyle were proficient enough in it that they went unnoticed by Harry > & co. in the Battle of Hogwarts), then she would have been able to > accomplish virtually the same thing as with a cloak. Cast a charm > over herself and Harry and they can be hidden. I still don't think > this would have fooled Voldemort, nor would a cloak, but she didn't > think of it in the panic. > Shelley: Again, Lily didn't have a wand to do a disillusionment charm. It wasn't a matter of her panicking and not being able to pull the spell off with her wand, it's a matter that she couldn't have even attempted the spell wandless. She was a sitting duck. You do know the real reason that Lily didn't have a cloak, the real reason that she didn't perform a disillusionment charm, the real reason she didn't have a wand handy? It has nothing to do with what a smart and capable witch she was, nor how she panicked- it's because Rowling wanted, no, needed, her dead. From the moment JKR starting planning this story, she planned for Harry to be alone. This whole series, repeated, she had killed off anyone at all that was helpful to Harry. She wanted him to be parentless, singular, and so Lily not having the Invisibility Cloak and not having a wand and not being able to do any spells while wandless were just the details that she used in the death scene. It's not a matter of if it would be reasonable to say "if she had this, she would have lived", because no matter what she had, the final outcome of JKR's writing for that scene is for her to be dead. So, it's a given that anything that would have been a help, Lily would NOT be given. I still think that she's a smart witch and would not have panicked had she had aids (a wand, an invisibility cloak, the means of disapparating, the means of performing a disillusionment charm), but Rowling needs her to be totally vulnerable because she needs Voldemort to successfully be a murderer that night so that Harry is an orphan. It's also the reason that James is wandless, because she meant for Voldemort to just pick them off easily, so he can get to Harry. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Nov 29 14:19:31 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:19:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore References: <003901c831d2$7c8bf7a0$6401a8c0@homemain> <2795713f0711281845m49983afcs2365d7ffba668e80@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009f01c83292$dcdffd20$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 179452 > Shelley: > what I have a hard time believing is the naming of the child after > Snape. That is the much bigger leap of faith, imho, than Harry forgiving > Dumbledore. Snape, in contrast to Dumbledore, is always pictured as > working > against Harry right from the start, and unlike Dumbledore's actions that > seem to have a purpose that Harry finally comes to understand, Snape's > meanness and cruelty to Harry doesn't have a justification in the end. > > Lynda: > But isn't that true forgiveness, to forgive someone who always worked > against you, as Snape did Harry, in the realization that as wrong as his > motivations were, and as much as he had against Harry, again for the wrong > reason--that Lily chose James over him, because of Snape's being drawn to > the dark arts, enough to name your child after them? Shelley: My point wasn't at all about the nature of forgiveness. My point was the believability of it in the context of the story JKR wrote. She spends a significant piece of the text having Harry mull over in his mind his doubts about Dumbledore. She has a scene where Dumbledore asks Harry's forgiveness. Thus, in that written context, it's a natural for the reader to agree with Harry's complete forgiveness of Dumbledore. But of Snape's redemption, all we have are endless pages, 7 books worth, of the tension between Harry and Snape, and suddenly, at the end, we are supposed to do this quantum leap of Harry forgiving Snape? No, I think it was Rowling's job to SHOW it to us, to make us understand why Harry did it, why Harry changed his mind. It's unreasonable to me just to say "well, Harry changed his mind, so just deal with it", because just saying "Harry changed his mind somewhere" doesn't make for a satisfying story, nor does it make for a GOOD story. The good author makes you feel it in your soul, the words on the page drive you to feel for the character, but in this epilogue, she does such a huge leap that I was like "what? No way". That's how disconnected that line was. She didn't show me Harry's thoughts, why he forgave Snape, she didn't show us why Harry thought that Snape even deserved it. Thus that forgiveness is very shallow and totally unbelievable. It would be like saying Sirius and Snape were now best friends and very chummy; none of us would believe that without some solid evidence of an event that changed things. I don't see Snape giving Harry the memories as enough of a significant event- sure it helped Harry understand what happened, but there is a HUGE gap between understanding a crime and forgiving that crime enough to name your child after the criminal! There was a gulf of hatred between Snape and Harry, and you just don't cross or repair that gulf with a wave of a wand, as Rowling attempts to do with simply saying Harry named his child after Snape. As I said, Snape's meanness and cruelty to Harry doesn't have a justification in the end, that it even is reasonable that it should be forgiven. It's totally unbelievable for Harry to just forgive Snape, and if Rowling was going to have Harry change his mind, she should have showed us it, not merely have Harry mane his kid after Snape so that we must conclude that it happened somewhere. That doesn't make a good story at all. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 14:39:10 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:39:10 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179453 > Pippin: > It didn't? Did anyone, with the possible exception of Peter Pettigrew, > not realize that joining the Order means you're expendable? a_svirn: I don't know. Do you? Personally I find it most improbable that any sane person would join an organisation under such terms. No doubt the Dark Lord thought his death eaters and their nearest and dearest *expendable*, but the good guys are supposed to be different, aren't they? Being ready and even eager to risk your life is not the same thing as being *expendable*. If you appreciate the distinction. As for Fletcher, it is painfully obvious that he does *not* want to sacrifice himself. He is compelled to do so by the other members of the Order. Because they think him expendable. Which is not only immoral, but also stupid, because force and compulsion can only help so far. Surely after the Kreacher debacle they shoul have learned their lesson? If Moody wanted to get rid of the most unreliable member of the order he would have done better to simply kill him. It would have been just as immoral but far more practical. > Pippin: Moody > certainly knew that. Sirius put it directly in OOP when he was explaining > to the twins that their father wouldn't thank them for putting his interests > ahead of the Order's. a_svirn: And that made them *expendable*? I can't say that I follow you. > Pippin: > Dung didn't want out of the operation after all, he was only angling for > what he thought would be a safer position. He accepted Moody's > argument that he'd be safer as a decoy than a protector, and that turned > out to be true. a_svirn: Nope. Nobody asked his acceptance. He was told that he was going with Moody and that was that. > Pippin: > As Moody's decoy he was in a more exposed position but he also had the > strongest protector. a_svirn: I wonder why this thought failed to console him? > Pippin: The same goes for Hermione, with the added > factor that she was on a thestral while the DE's would know that Harry > prefers a broom. a_svirn: That's what you say. Moody didn't take that into account and he was right. As he predicted the death eaters came first after him and then after Kingsley. > > a_svirn: > > And even if he didn't, they still had no right to sacrifice others to > > improve Snape's standing. > > Pippin: > Why not? The lives of a thousand children are at stake. We saw that the > Hogwarts defenses are not mighty enough to repel an attack by Voldemort. > Subterfuge was their only protection. a_svirn: Because it's immoral? Oops, sorry, I keep forgetting the Greater Good. But in any case, this argument doesn't hold water, you know. Dumbledore didn't give a damn about thousands of lives. He was only interested in his plan. > > > > a_svirn: > > Personally I don't understand what was stopping Harry from waiting > > until he's seventeen (perhaps last couple of hours with the Cloak on, > > just in case) and apparating ? as soon as the Trace broke ? to some > > safe location. > > Pippin: > The ministry had placed anti-apparation spells around Privet Drive > supposedly to protect Harry but actually to hinder his escape. Your > plan would result in his being trapped inside the anti-apparation > ring when the Privet Drive protection broke, unless I'm missing > something. a_svirn: Not if he walked under the cloak outside the range of the anti- apparition spell. Not to mention, that he could summon Kreacher and told him to apparate himself to the Tonks's place or even straight to the Burrow. > Pippin: > In any case, the books are entertainment, not a manual on how to > conduct a war. a_svirn: Well, if I can't enjoy DH, I can at least entertain myself in finding flaws in it. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 14:47:49 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:47:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders WAS: Moody's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179454 > Carol: > > Thanks to Pius Thicknesse, Harry could neither use Floo Powder nor > Apparate to escape from 4 Privet Drive. Either action would have led > to his capture and arrest. The only alternative was to fly out, with > as many decoys as feasible, so that the Death Eaters would be split up > instead of having all of them following Harry. Also, the real Harry > was sent with the person Voldemort was least likely to follow, that > unqualified "oaf," Hagrid. a_svirn: And yet ? surprise-surprise! He did follow them. And almost succeeded in killing them both. And such eventuality was very likely to happen. After all, he had enough time to follow at least four fake Potters out of seven. These are not very good odds. Carol: > Yes, it was a dangerous plan, but all of them (except possibly > Mundungus) were there to protect Harry, putting his life above their > own because he was the Chosen One. Some things are worth dying for, as > Mr. Weasley told the Twins back in OoP. a_svirn: Even so there is something particularly unsavoury in the idea of using them blindly. They might have been ready to die for Harry, but what right had Dumbledore to play God and decide for them? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 15:12:26 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:12:26 -0000 Subject: Lily's panic was Re: Fees for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179455 > > Shelley: > > Oh, come on. Do you really think that if Lily had an invisibility cloak that > > she wouldn't have immediately ducked under it with Harry and then attempted > > to be as quiet as possible? Do you really think that she'd be screaming her > > head off beneath an invisibility cloak, or making noise by attempting to > > block the door if she might need it to excape??? > > Pippin: > In the first place, Peter Pettigrew knew all about the cloak, so Voldemort > would have been prepared for it. a_svirn: How? His knowledge didn't particularly help him in DH, did it? Harry, Ron and Hermione were standing right under his nose in the Shark concealed by the Cloak; then Harry walked under the Cloak to the Forest without being detected and then used it again in Hogwartrs. All these times with Voldemort's being no wiser. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 18:34:36 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:34:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <009f01c83292$dcdffd20$6401a8c0@homemain> References: <003901c831d2$7c8bf7a0$6401a8c0@homemain> <2795713f0711281845m49983afcs2365d7ffba668e80@mail.gmail.com> <009f01c83292$dcdffd20$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: <2795713f0711291034j4cc61618ubcd1d2f4126226b6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179456 Shelley: My point was the believability of it in the context of the story JKR wrote. Lynda: I understood your point. Mine is this. Harry is action oriented. He does rather than talks. He, along with Dumbledore and Snape was raised with secrets and lies. Don't ask questions. Don't call attention to yourself. Your parents were killed in a car crash.Yeah, he lets things moulder in his mind for months or years and he does let little tidbits slip out like how much he dislikes living with the Dursleys, but then he acts like when he just rushes up and kisses her after the quidditch game. He hates living with the Dursleys and doesn't like his cousin--but when the demontors come after him, he rescues him. Of course he has had seven years of mutual antagonism toward Snape and a goodly amount of angst concerning Dumbledore, but as is true to his preestablished pattern he acts rather than talks about it, although probaby after a good deal of pushing it around in his mind--again that's his pattern and then proves his ability to forgive by acting and naming one of his kids after both Dumbledore and Snape. When a pattern has been preestablished by an other for such a long time I don't expect a deviation from it, so I was neither surprised nor disappointed. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Nov 29 18:51:40 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:51:40 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179457 > a_svirn: > I don't know. Do you? Personally I find it most improbable that any > sane person would join an organisation under such terms. No doubt the > Dark Lord thought his death eaters and their nearest and dearest > *expendable*, but the good guys are supposed to be different, aren't > they? Being ready and even eager to risk your life is not the same > thing as being *expendable*. If you appreciate the distinction. Pippin: I don't, actually. The word means, "open to sacrifice in the interests of gaining an objective, especially a military one." Or as Sirius put it, "This is how it is--that is why you're not in the Order--you don't understand--there are things worth dying for!" (OOP ch 22) He is specifically talking about protecting the Order's plans and not making things look any fishier than they already do. The difference between the Order's plan and Voldemort's is that Voldemort's purpose is world domination and Dumbledore's is saving thousands of innocent lives. I suppose a moral relativist might equate the two, but canon clearly isn't going there. There was a time when innocent lives didn't matter to Dumbledore, but that was before he lost (or killed) Ariana. A_svirn: > As for Fletcher, it is painfully obvious that he does *not* want to > sacrifice himself. He is compelled to do so by the other members of > the Order. Pippin: But he wasn't compelled, that's why he was able to disapparate. He could have been confunded but Moody chose not to do that. Voldemort would have used the Imperius curse, as he did on Stan Shumpike. The only person who was threatened into cooperating was Harry, and that was a case of a child being told what to do by adults in a life-threatening situation. > > a_svirn: > That's what you say. Moody didn't take that into account and he was > right. As he predicted the death eaters came first after him and then > after Kingsley. Pippin: Canon says it, not me: "We think the Death Eaters will expect you to be on a broom." DH US p 53. > > a_svirn: > Not if he walked under the cloak outside the range of the anti- > apparition spell. Not to mention, that he could summon Kreacher and > told him to apparate himself to the Tonks's place or even straight to > the Burrow. Pippin: Dementors and animals can detect someone under the cloak, and both can be used as spies. If you have a limited area to survey and you know that the person you're looking for could be using a cloak, it's not that hard to find them, as canon demonstrates numerous times. It was the resurrection stone, not the cloak, that enabled Harry to get past Voldemort's perimeter in the forest. Harry had not yet won Kreacher's loyalty, it would have been insane to trust him with his life. And Dobby's attempts to save Harry's life had been, well, eccentric to say the least. I'm not surprised no one thought of asking him to help. > a_svirn: > Well, if I can't enjoy DH, I can at least entertain myself in finding > flaws in it. > Pippin: And I can entertain myself by finding flaws in your arguments Alla: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179450 I am not arguing that they were coerced to participate, of course not. What I am arguing is that Dumbledore put their lifes in the risk that could have been avoided **because of that particular plan**, that's all. Even at war, if commander can avoid the army of the enemy waiting to ambush their forces durin the war operation, isn't the duty of the commander to do so? Pippin: Curiously enough, that exact situation comes up in LOTR. There's an attempt to take the leading companies in an ambush. Avoiding them is exactly what Aragorn does *not* do -- instead he sets up a counter ambush and traps them. He could have avoided them, I suppose, but it would have been out of character with the "pride of the new Ringlord" that he was pretending to display. Alla: This - no way, if Harry could leave in simpler and safer ways. IMO of course. Pippin: The trouble is, if we can think of those ways, so could Voldemort. We can amuse ourselves by thinking of other ways that Harry could have left the Dursleys, and how Voldemort could have prepared to thwart those actions, but that's not what the book is about. It's not about *trying*. In the immortal words of Yoda, "There is no try." The Ministry tried -- it tried all sorts of things that didn't work just to show that it was doing something, and it didn't do things that could work because they'd be perceived as risky or unpopular. I think we're supposed to contrast that with Dumbledore's methods, and respect Dumbledore because he was willing to do unpopular things and frankly told people that they would have to fight what seemed to be a losing battle. He was indeed a flawed leader, but one of the things that canon shows us is that those who won't respect a flawed leader are only placing themselves in the hands of leaders clever enough to con people into thinking that they're flawless. *We* were tricked into thinking that Dumbledore was flawless--but JKR did that, not Dumbledore himself. *He* never claimed to be the epitome of goodness. (And as I've pointed out numerous times, that was a tricky statement all along. "Epitome" means a typical example, not a perfect one.) Snape's position was more precarious than you seem to think -- Voldie has a short memory. If Voldemort began to think that Snape's exposure as a traitor lost him the chance of learning the Order's plans to move Harry, Snape might have fallen from favor very quickly. OTOH, if Snape had done nothing, neither informed the DE's of the Order's plans nor suggested the Seven Potters idea, what would have been gained? Voldemort would have had spies in the area in any case, as Moody points out, and canon shows they could have summoned their master and he in turn could summon other Death Eaters almost instantly. We're talking about a few minutes at best. Even if Harry did escape the DE's by dis-apparating, he would then have had the whole Ministry after him for breaking wizarding law. Pippin From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 18:51:42 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:51:42 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] post DH musings on PS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711291051w5fa9bd7k5bb803f4c0c594e4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 179458 On Nov 26, 2007 4:05 PM, allies426 wrote: > Just for the heck of it I just re-read PS and a few things jump out - > > 1. Snape - he's much less prominent and not as nasty to Harry as in > future. I wonder if his character took on a life of its own after the > first book was written. > 2. The overall tone of the book is so light and fluffy that reading > each page is a delight. I suppose she really *was* writing for > children at first. > 3. Now that I know to question these things - how did Dumbledore know > that the PS was in danger? How did Quirrell know which vault to break > into? How did Quirrell get down there to begin with? Why wasn't he > trapped inside the vault? It is kind of funny that DD told Snape, "Do > keep an eye on Quirrell for me, won't you?" > > Allie montims: and without having my book with me, doesn't it talk about Harry learning the uses of dittany, and also what to do if bitten by a werewolf, or something? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 19:08:20 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:08:20 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179459 > Renee: > If I'm not mistaken, Snape doesn't actually save Lupin, as he misses > the Death Eater's wand hand and cuts off George's ear instead. Lupin > survives because the Death Eater apparently misses as well. I agree > it's the intention that counts, though. Zara: While I agree that it is the intention that counts - I do think that the sound of Snape shouting the incantation for his "signature spell" from behind may have inspired the Death Eater to move out of the crossfire rather than complete whatever spell he was contemplating. Not in response to your post in particular, Renee, but I have been thinking, as a result of this thread, about why Dumbledore felt it was necessary for Snape to reveal the date of Harry's transfer. As has been pointed out before, Voldemort could obviously not expect that Snape would have been entrusted with that information by the Order. (Or, if Snape had been prior to the end of HBP, Voldemort would expect the Order to change its plans on the heels of Snape's apparent murder of Dumbledore). And indeed, this is not how Snape obtains the information. He approaches Dung, casts a spell on him, and both gets the date, and plants the plan which should give Harry the best chance of survival (under the circumstances of the date being known). I think this is the point - in GoF, OotP, or HBP, Snape must have passed information suggesting he knows some of the Order members. He and Dumbledore could hardly do otherwise - what kind of spy would Snape seem if Dumbledore did not even trust him with this? If Snape claimed an inability to come up with the date, Voldemort would delegate the task to another, who would then go after the known Order members for the desired information. Since Snape claimed the task, no such order needed to be given. Snape did not resort to violence, which someone like Bella surely would have. And Snape planted the Seven Potters idea, which, again, Bella would not have. With Bella (or Yaxley, or whoever) in charge, an Order member or members might have been offered the opportunity to die rather than betray their friends. Dumbledore's way, those hypothetical people are still alive, and while the secret is known, a precaution is put in place that ends up making the plan a success. (Harry escaped). The other way, people might have died as well, and the secret might still be known. Without the 7 Potters plan to improve the odds. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 19:32:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:32:14 -0000 Subject: Harry's forgiveness of Snap(Was: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <009f01c83292$dcdffd20$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179460 Shelley wrote: > My point wasn't at all about the nature of forgiveness. My point was the believability of it in the context of the story JKR wrote. She spends a significant piece of the text having Harry mull over in his mind his doubts about Dumbledore. She has a scene where Dumbledore asks Harry's forgiveness. > Thus, in that written context, it's a natural for the reader to agree with Harry's complete forgiveness of Dumbledore. But of Snape's redemption, all we have are endless pages, 7 books worth, of the tension between Harry and Snape, and suddenly, at the end, we are supposed to do this quantum leap of Harry forgiving Snape? No, I think it was Rowling's job to SHOW it to us, to make us understand why Harry did it, why Harry changed his mind. It's unreasonable to me just to say "well, Harry changed his mind, so just deal with it", because just saying "Harry changed his mind somewhere" doesn't make for a satisfying story, nor does it make for a GOOD story. The good author makes you feel it in your soul, the words on the page drive you to feel for the character, but in this epilogue, she does such a huge leap that I was like "what? No way". That's how disconnected that line was. She didn't show me Harry's thoughts, why he forgave Snape, she didn't show us why Harry thought that Snape even deserved it. Thus that forgiveness is very shallow and totally unbelievable. Carol responds: Of course, I can't speak for any reader except myself, and obviously the Albus Severus scene doesn't work for you. But you seem to be expecting JKR to *tell* us how Harry felt rather than *showing* it, which is the reverse of good writing according to most editors (including me). (And in fact, he does *tell* Albus Severus that Snape was probably the bravest man he ever knew, which is presumably why he, a Gryffindor who honors courage above all else, gave his son that name.) JKR shows us Snape's memories and we experience them along with Harry. We learn, as he does, that he befriended Harry's mother as a child of nine or ten, that Harry's father sneered at him as a Slytherin without Severus having ever done anything to him, that Severus's love for Lily was real, as was his anguish when she died in part as the result of his eavesdropping, and so on. I'm not going to go through every memory, but there's also the doe Patronus, without which Ron could not have returned to Harry and the locket Horcrux could not have been destroyed. A reader who has believed that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore all along will have a different reaction to these scenes (especially Dumbledore's cavalier reaction to Snape's agony!) than a reader who sees only Snape's "meanness" to Harry, forgetting his saving Harry's life in SS/PS, his conjuring the stretchers in PoA, his going off into great danger at the end of GoF and so on. But, IMO, the memories allow *Harry* to see Snape as he really is for the first time, with the blinders of his own hatred and preconceptions removed. I felt a change in Harry's perception of Snape at the end of that memory in the very subtle words of the narrator: "Snape might have just left the room." There's no longer any hatred or desire for revenge in Harry. But he doesn't even have time to think about his new view of Snape because he's preoccupied with the news that he has to sacrifice himself, to be, as Snape put it, a "pig to the slaughter," and with Dumbledore's perceived "betrayal." But we see Harry identifying with Snape, and even with the young Tom Riddle, as one of the lost boys who found a home at Hogwarts. Harry already "knew" the young Severus as the HBP, and, IMO, he subconsciously finds him again, and identifies with him, even as he's facing the inevitability (as he thinks) of his own death. He has just seen Snape die terribly, giving him those essential memories as his last act, and he has just looked into Snape's eyes. And now he has seen those memories, which erase any petty resentment he may have had of Snape's sarcasm and point deductions, replacing them with an understanding of who Snape really was as boy and man. Later, having survived what he thought would be a fatal encounter with Voldemort, Harry voices his new understanding of Snape, the man who loved his mother and protected him and risked detection by Voldemort in the very dangerous mission of spying on him and lying to him, the man who started out as a Death Eater and ended up saving whatever lives he could, even if they were not directly connected with Harry. Regarding the scene with George's ear, mentioned in your previous post (I think it was yours), my reading is that Snape risked his cover to save Lupin, aiming at the DE's hand. The DE, hearing Snape's shout, swerved away, causing the spell to hit George's ear instead of his hand. True, the DE was not injured (fortunately for Snape's cover), but Lupin's life was still saved. BTW, in those "endless pages, seven books worth" of conflict between Harry and Snape, many of us saw, almost from the beginning, that Snape's loyalties lay with Dumbledore and that Snape was protecting Harry without Harry's understanding what he was doing. "The Prince's Tale" enables Harry to see what we saw all along, and then some. It's not as if we skip from the doe Patronus to the epilogue. We have "The Prince's Tale," the brief references to "poor Severus" in "King's Cross," the very public vindication of Snape in "The Flaw in the Plan," and Harry's off-page explanation to Ron and Hermione of what he saw in the Pensieve. That he should go one step further and demonstrate his understanding and forgiveness of Snape, and honor the trait that he as a Gryffindor appreciates most--courage--in a man he once hated and falsely accused of cowardice, is, IMO, not only believable but moving. "Albus Severus" is perhaps my favorite moment in DH. Carol, who doesn't think that JKR needs to *tell* us about Harry's change of heart or his forgiveness of Snape since she *shows* it through Harry's words and actions and through the symbolic absence of his glasses (he can see clearly now) in the "King's Cross" scene From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 19:42:48 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:42:48 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179461 > > a_svirn: > > I don't know. Do you? Personally I find it most improbable that any > > sane person would join an organisation under such terms. No doubt the > > Dark Lord thought his death eaters and their nearest and dearest > > *expendable*, but the good guys are supposed to be different, aren't > > they? Being ready and even eager to risk your life is not the same > > thing as being *expendable*. If you appreciate the distinction. > > Pippin: > I don't, actually. The word means, "open to sacrifice in the interests > of gaining an objective, especially a military one." Or as Sirius put it, > "This is how it is--that is why you're not in the Order--you don't > understand--there are things worth dying for!" (OOP ch 22) > He is specifically talking about protecting the Order's plans and not > making things look any fishier than they already do. a_svirn: Here is from OED: expendable, a. (and n.) that may be expended; considered as not worth preserving or salvaging; normally consumed in use; spec. of military personnel: that may be allowed to be sacrificed to achieve a military objective. Hence as n., an expendable person or object. The key connotation here is "considered as not worth preserving". In other words ? canon folder. Sirius did not mean that at all. He meant it as a free choice, he did not mean ? could not mean ? that any member of the Order can be sacrificed by other members of the order because he or she is not worthy of preserving! > Pippin: > The difference between the Order's plan and Voldemort's is that > Voldemort's purpose is world domination and Dumbledore's is saving > thousands of innocent lives. a_svirn: And ends justify the means. I get it. > Pippin: I suppose a moral relativist might equate > the two, but canon clearly isn't going there. a_svirn: Actually, you got it backwards. The Greater Good philosophy *is* moral relativism. > Pippin: > But he wasn't compelled, that's why he was able to disapparate. a_svirn: What do you mean he wasn't compelled? That he wasn't Imperused? Sure. But he wasn't there on his free will, that much is obvious. > > a_svirn: > > That's what you say. Moody didn't take that into account and he was > > right. As he predicted the death eaters came first after him and then > > after Kingsley. > > Pippin: > Canon says it, not me: > > "We think the Death Eaters will expect you to be on a broom." DH > US p 53. a_svirn; All right, point to you. Still canon says that Moody expected the death eaters to go after Kingsley once they finished with him, so it's neither here no there. > > a_svirn: > > Not if he walked under the cloak outside the range of the anti- > > apparition spell. Not to mention, that he could summon Kreacher and > > told him to apparate himself to the Tonks's place or even straight to > > the Burrow. > > Pippin: > Dementors and animals can detect someone under the cloak, and > both can be used as spies. a_svirn: So what? Once they come near one can apparate, can't one? > Pippin: It was the resurrection stone, not the cloak, that > enabled Harry to get past Voldemort's perimeter in the forest. a_svirn: It was because of the cloak, that Voldemort had no inkling that Harry had done so. > Pippin: > Harry had not yet won Kreacher's loyalty, it would have been insane > to trust him with his life. a_svirn: Kreacher's loyalty or its absence didn't stop Harry from using Kreacher before. And it wouldn't be insane at all. Kreacher can't disobey a direct order. > Pippin: And Dobby's attempts to save > Harry's life had been, well, eccentric to say the least. I'm not > surprised no one thought of asking him to help. a_svirn: I am. As we know from canon Dobby did save the life of Harry and other prisoners of the Malfoy Manor in a situation that required his join Apparition skill. Why not ask him to apparate Harry to, say, Aunty Muriel's? Where is the possible flaw in that plan? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 19:54:48 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:54:48 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <009f01c83292$dcdffd20$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179462 > Shelley: > but in this epilogue, she does such a huge leap that > I was like "what? No way". That's how disconnected that line was. She didn't > show me Harry's thoughts, why he forgave Snape, she didn't show us why Harry > thought that Snape even deserved it. Thus that forgiveness is very shallow > and totally unbelievable. It would be like saying Sirius and Snape were now > best friends and very chummy; none of us would believe that without some > solid evidence of an event that changed things. I don't see Snape giving > Harry the memories as enough of a significant event- sure it helped Harry > understand what happened, but there is a HUGE gap between understanding a > crime and forgiving that crime enough to name your child after the criminal! zgirnius: The true crimes of which Harry believed Snape to be guilty when he saw Snape die were: 1) Being a Death Eater, and, most important to Harry, the one who gave Voldemort the prophecy fragment that led him to seek out Harry and his parents, 2) The murder of Albus Dumbledore, 3) The deliberate disfigurement (and possibly, attempted murder) or George Weasley, and 4) Enthusiastic collaboration with the Thicknesse/Voldemort regime as Headmaster, including, a short time before, an attempt to find Harry for Voldemort. The memories did not "explain" crimes 2)-4), they showed Snape to have been innocent of them altogether. The memories also showed that Snape did NOT always work against Harry ("Keep an eye on Quirrell, Severus", and the fact that Snape provided the sword of Gryffindor to Harry when he needed it, not to mention instances of which Harry was already aware, such as Snape sending the Order to the DoM in OotP, or protecting him at the end of HBP). The only one of these crimes that Snape truly committed, and thus the memories explained rather than showing it did not exist, was 1). They gave Harry some idea of why Snape did it, and left Harry with the conviction that, just as Albus had told him a year before, 1) was indeed the greatest regret of Snape's life, and that even before Harry's parents had died, Snape agreed to risk his life as Dumbledore's spy in exchange for the protection of the Potters. Being mean to Harry is not a crime, and I personally do not think Harry is or was petty enough to consider it such. Shelley: > There was a gulf of hatred between Snape and Harry, and you just don't cross > or repair that gulf with a wave of a wand, as Rowling attempts to do with > simply saying Harry named his child after Snape. zgirnius: I would like to clarify that I respect that you are expressing the way the books made you *feel*, so please do not take this as me trying to tell you that you should feel differently. I am simply explaining the facts of what is and is not in the books as I see it, because it seems to me there is content you are overlooking or glossing over. We did not jump from Harry diving into the Pensieve to Harry naming little Al Sev, with no intervening text to help us. We have both little hints and big ones before the Epilogue. Within the Pensieve memories, I see evidence of a 180 degree change in Harry's perception of Snape. Consider the scene in which Snape cuts off George's ear. Harry is a neutral observer there; he does not have access to Snape's innermost thoughts. Yet his conclusion is immediately, that Snape attempted to save the life of Remus Lupin. Contrast this to any earlier scene of Snape doing anything remotely ambiguous - Harry would always jump to the *least* favorable conclusion. Not that time. After Snape strides out of the office with the sword at the end of the final memory, Harry, lying in the office, has the feeling Snape has just left. A subtle indication of a new emotional closeness, in my opinion. Also, Harry has no doubt, none at all, about the truth of what Snape told him, regarding what he must do. He now trusts him. Next, in King's Cross Harry brings Snape up, and he and Dumbledore both take a long moment of silence to consider his death. No frowning or impatience by Harry. Then, in "The Flaw in the Plan", Harry flaunts Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore, and throws it in Voldemort's face. It may not work for you, but I felt Harry did so not only because it annoyed Tom, but because he felt it was important everyone should know, it was something he found impressive and admirable. And Harry again tells Ron and Hermione about what he has learned, after the battle is won. All before the Epilogue. > Shelley: > As I said, Snape's meanness > and cruelty to Harry doesn't have a justification in the end, that it even is reasonable that it should be forgiven. zgirnius: It's not just a matter of forgiving the meanness. (And, jutifiable behavior does not need to be forgiven...) The meanness is not the whole story. To me, it seems obvious, on an emotional level, that the story of Snape's service and death outweighs that. Snape struggled and risked and finally died in an attempt (successful, and in part due to those efforts) to ensure that Harry lived. Should that mean nothing to Harry? The process, it seems to me, is not of merely forgetting or forgiving the meanness, but of integrating the siginificant, new information Harry got about Snape. I saw this latter thing happen, in Harry's complete acceptance of the memories within the main body of the novel. From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 20:47:28 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:47:28 -0000 Subject: Why down on all the characters?/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <2795713f0711291034j4cc61618ubcd1d2f4126226b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179463 Shelley: My point was the believability of it in the context of the story JKR wrote. Lynda: "I understood your point. Mine is this. Harry is action oriented. He does rather than talks." Absolutely. Most of the time it's his great strength. When it's his weakness, he has Hermione. Lynda: "He hates living with the Dursleys and doesn't like his cousin--but when the Dementors come after him, he rescues him." Yep. Draco, too, even, more than once. And, he took steps to protect the Dursleys. Lynda: "Of course he has had seven years of mutual antagonism toward Snape and a goodly amount of angst concerning Dumbledore, but as is true to his preestablished pattern he acts rather than talks about it, although probaby after a good deal of pushing it around in his mind--again that's his pattern and then proves his ability to forgive by acting and naming one of his kids after both Dumbledore and Snape." You're right, Harry always rises above his less worthy feelings, just because he's a man of action. He was angsty and frankly annoying in fifth year and rose above it when the stress was relieved. With Snape, though, it's always easier to forgive a dead guy. If Snape lived they still wouldn't be mates, nor would they have to be. Lynda, I don't have a problem believing this, either. Jim Ferer From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 20:58:35 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:58:35 -0000 Subject: What Happened to The Dementors? In-Reply-To: <664010.18795.qm@web59111.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179465 Wrappedinharry: "I was just wondering hwether anybody had any theories about the Dementors. I am sure they did not just disappear after the fall of LV and as they were breeding all the way through HBP, there must be thousands of the horrors out there now. They still have to feed by leeching all the happiness out of people, so presumably, there would still be Dementor attacks. Obviously, they are no longer under the control of the ministry (exactly how do you control a Dementor?) and no longer have gainful employment guarding Azkaban. I presume their payment took the form of being able to live off the emotions of the poor prisoners, although from everything we've heard of Azkaban, that happenes in fairly short order as most people end up mad very quickly." I believe Dementors, true to their name, live off madness and suffering as well as any other negative emotion. I imagine that many Dementors were destroyed when Voldemort was destroyed - the joy and relief and hope of so many wizards must have been like poison to them. The rest must be weakened and less able to attack - perhaps they're reduced to hurting the vulnerable, as they probably used to do. Wrappedinhary: "Perhaps, some sort of spell had to be cast before they could start breeding and LV would have been only too happy to cast such a spell." All the death, terror and hurt Voldemort and his Death Eaters caused was spell enough. He didn't need another. Jim Ferer From gatesreaver at comcast.net Thu Nov 29 08:11:07 2007 From: gatesreaver at comcast.net (thetrojanvabbit) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:11:07 -0000 Subject: J.K. Rowling!Existentialist Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179466 Existentialist!JK Rowling "Of course it's happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean it's not real?" Warning: Deathly Hallows spoilers and Heidegger The central tenet of existentialism is that Cartesian Doubt is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether this life is real or not, because even it it isn't real, we are still living it. It is from that conclusion that the discourse of existentialist thought begins. The metaphysics of the Kings Cross, and Dumbledore's explanation scene is a literal version of that premise. The three main actors in the series are illustrations of different ways of Being-Towards-Death, as defined by Heidegger (whom Monty Python describe as "a boozy bugger who could think you under the table). Harry Potter willingly gives his life for his fellow (das) man. He turns out to be Aslan H. Christ, but only because he thought his sacrifice would be permanent. His eschewing of the ultimately futile Hallows quest is a form of successful Being-Towards-Death. His march to face Voldemort is a form of successful, but inauthentic Being-Towards-Death. Not inauthentic like Tom Riddle's sociopath charisma, but inauthentic in the Heideggerian sense, meaning coming from outside one's self, that is to say, other people. Note that the terms lack a value judgement. Sacrificing one's like for one's friends is the complete expression of inauthentic being. The inauthenticity of his decision is underscored by his use of the Resurrection Stone to summon the comfort of other people. Albus Dumbledore had his Being-Towards-Death problems as a youngster, as we all do on some level, but being ultimately a good guy, he straightens out a bit. Alongside Nicholas Flamel, he is successful in his pursuit of alchemy, yet forgoes Elixir of Life in order to keep it from Voldemort. "After all," he says, "To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." I wouldn't be surprised if the creator of the Philosopher's Stone didn't find the time to read up on a spot of Muggle philosophy. Voldemort chooses (choices are often considered to be the main theme of the series, and are kind of a big deal in existentialism as well, specifically the works of Sartre, who's Being and Nothing is fan-serviced by the Ravenclaw answer; acto McGonagall, vanished objects go "Into non-being, which is to say, everything) any existence, no matter how painful or pitiful, over the death he cannot face. A choice that seems almost...absurd? Much hay has been made over Voldemort's seeming lack of choices, the supposed theme of the books. During his psychologically years, he fails to bond with other human beings. (other people are a big theme in existentialism.) By the time he reaches an age where he can make make decisions for himself, he is irrevocably a psychopath. His choices, it seems, made for him. Not this one though. His pathological fear of death is wholly his own. His tainted, unenviable immortality is a form of unsucessful, yet authentic Being-Towards-Death. Light and Dark Magic are never defined, as critics never cease to point out.. It appears to be classified by the intent of the caster. Harry and other good guys uses Unforgiveable Curses, and yet are, to all appearances, forgiven, whine the critics. Subjectivity is a big theme in existentialism, and is always controversial. Existentialism is frequent denounced as morally relativistic nihilism. Just as in magic, this is not the case. Avada Kedavra as used by Voldemort is Dark Magic, but a killing curse is not evil when used to rid the world of someone like Bellatrix Lestrange. Imperio was a necessary part of Harry's arsenal at Gringotts, on a just mission. So long as we accept premise that torture is evil, than Crucio is evil not in itself, but in the intent of it's caster. Was Harry's use of it justified? McGonagall seems to think it was a gallant sentiment. Rowling said she would reveal what book she had been writing from with Deathly Hallows, and apart from a plot trope that far predates the New Testimate, it wasn't the bible. It was an existentialism textbook. I wonder if that's why some Christians hate Harry Potter so much! --gatesreaver From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Nov 29 21:18:24 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:18:24 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179467 > a_svirn: > Actually, you got it backwards. The Greater Good philosophy *is* > moral relativism. Pippin: IIRC, moral relativism is the belief that morals can only be judged in relation to one's culture or beliefs. Moral relativism might, for example, posit that Bella's belief in Voldemort as the supreme power is just as moral as Dumbledore's belief in love as the supreme power. There's nothing relative about "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" -- it's as absolutist as can be. Perhaps the term you're looking for is "situational"? Most moral systems, including absolutist ones, are situational to some degree. For example Orthodox Judaism is as absolutist as you can get, but with a few exceptions it allows any commandment to be broken in order to save a life. > > Pippin: > > But he wasn't compelled, that's why he was able to disapparate. > > a_svirn: > What do you mean he wasn't compelled? That he wasn't Imperused? Sure. > But he wasn't there on his free will, that much is obvious. Pippin: It's not obvious at all, since he exercised his free will by disapparating. What penalty was he facing if he refused to co-operate? Did anyone threaten him? Did Hagrid hold his nose and pour the polyjuice down his throat? He wasn't eager to risk his life, but he wasn't being forced to do it either. He obviously wasn't being held prisoner, or Snape could never have got to him to confund him. He wasn't even punished for his desertion. > a_svirn; > All right, point to you. Still canon says that Moody expected the > death eaters to go after Kingsley once they finished with him, so > it's neither here no there. > Pippin: But he didn't expect a lethal attack on the Fake Harry because he didn't expect Voldemort to show up in person. Was that a reasonable assumption? I think so. After he failed at Godric's Hollow, Voldemort always tried to get Harry to come to him. This is, IIRC, the one episode in canon where Voldemort initiated the pursuit of Harry. No one could have anticipated that. It was unprecedented. > > Pippin: > > Dementors and animals can detect someone under the cloak, and > > both can be used as spies. > > a_svirn: > So what? Once they come near one can apparate, can't one? Pippin: Harry, and anyone else who apparates near Privet Drive, is being threatened with automatic imprisonment. At this point the one thing Voldemort can't do is openly order the whole Ministry to go after Harry. But if Harry flouts wizarding law, it won't matter. > a_svirn: > It was because of the cloak, that Voldemort had no inkling that Harry > had done so. Pippin: Voldemort had no inkling because he thought he was protected by dementors. Moody had no way of knowing whether Voldemort would station dementors around Privet Drive or not. He could have done so and that's all that matters. > > a_svirn: > Kreacher's loyalty or its absence didn't stop Harry from using > Kreacher before. And it wouldn't be insane at all. Kreacher can't > disobey a direct order. Pippin: When he tried to use Kreacher, he discovered just how useless his power to make Kreacher obey really was, as Kreacher obeyed his order to the letter while completely violating its spirit. > > a_svirn: > I am. As we know from canon Dobby did save the life of Harry and > other prisoners of the Malfoy Manor in a situation that required his > join Apparition skill. Why not ask him to apparate Harry to, say, > Aunty Muriel's? Where is the possible flaw in that plan? Pippin: In the fine old days of TBAY, that one would rate you a yellow flag. There's no canon that House Elves can disapparate with wizards in tow. If they could, then Regulus could have had Kreacher save him from the Inferi. Harry disapparates with Dobby, not the other way round. "Harry seized Dobby's hand and spun on the spot to Disapparate." He wonders, when Dobby's hand jerks, if Dobby is trying to steer them, but since Dobby has a knife in his chest, I really think that was involuntary. Pippin From rvink7 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 29 22:47:10 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:47:10 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > >> > > > a_svirn: > > I am. As we know from canon Dobby did save the life of Harry and > > other prisoners of the Malfoy Manor in a situation that required his > > join Apparition skill. Why not ask him to apparate Harry to, say, > > Aunty Muriel's? Where is the possible flaw in that plan? > > Pippin: > In the fine old days of TBAY, that one would rate you a yellow flag. > There's no canon that House Elves can disapparate with wizards in > tow. If they could, then Regulus could have had Kreacher save > him from the Inferi. > > Harry disapparates with Dobby, not the other way round. > "Harry seized Dobby's hand and spun on the spot to Disapparate." > He wonders, when Dobby's hand jerks, if Dobby is trying to steer them, > but since Dobby has a knife in his chest, I really think that was involuntary. > Renee: No yellow flag for a_svirn, I think. While I also have the impression that it's Harry who Disapparates with Dobby toward the end of the Malfoy Manor chaper, you seem to be overlooking an earlier passage from the same chapter. There, Harry asks Dobby if he can Disapparate out of the cellar they're in, and if he can take humans with him. When Dobby nods, he's asked to take Luna, Dean and Mr. Ollivander to Shell Cottage. He does so, and returns later to drop the chandelier, after which Bellatrix throws the fatal knife at him. In other words, there is canon for House Elves Disapparating with wizards in tow. That Kreacher doesn't Disapparate from the cave with Regulus in tow is not because he can't, but because Regulus wants to protect his family. He doesn't want to serve Voldemort anymore, but any acts of open rebellion on his part will have repercussions for his parents. As he's going to die anyway if he deserts Voldemort, he decides to do so in the cave, unnoticed by anyone but Kreacher, who is sworn to silence. Nothing to do with what Kreacher can or can't do. Renee From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 23:00:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:00:21 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179469 -Renee: > No yellow flag for a_svirn, I think. While I also have the impression that it's Harry who Disapparates with Dobby toward the end of the Malfoy Manor chaper, you seem to be overlooking an earlier passage from the same chapter. There, Harry asks Dobby if he can Disapparate out of the cellar they're in, and if he can take humans with him. When Dobby nods, he's asked to take Luna, Dean and Mr. Ollivander to Shell Cottage. He does so, and returns later to drop the chandelier, after which Bellatrix throws the fatal knife at him. > > In other words, there is canon for House Elves Disapparating with wizards in tow. Carol responds: I was going to quote the same passage. However, it doesn't really matter whether there's canon for House-Elves Apparating with wizards in tow. What matters is whether Harry knows that it can be done, and, as of "The Seven Potters," he doesn't. And even if he did, he can't summon Dobby at will (he doesn't own Dobby) and he's certainly not going to trust Kreacher to help him. And that's assuming that the anti-Disapparation spells wouldn't detect House-Elf Apparition. The MoM detected Dobby's wandless Hover Charm, after all, and couldn't distinguish it from a spell cast by a wizard (Harry). Carol, who thinks that JKR tried to eliminate commonsense methods of removing Harry from 4 Privet Drive by having Pius Thicknesse make those methods illegal From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 23:07:19 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:07:19 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179470 > > > Pippin: > > > But he wasn't compelled, > > > > a_svirn: > > What do you mean he wasn't compelled? That he wasn't Imperused? > > Sure. But he wasn't there on his free will, that much is obvious. > > Pippin: > It's not obvious at all, since he exercised his free will by > disapparating. > > -- > He wasn't eager to risk his life, but he wasn't being forced to > do it either. He obviously wasn't being held prisoner, or > Snape could never have got to him to confund him. Mike: Beg pardon for butting in here. But was Dung really allowed to exercise free will if Snape had confunded him to bring the "7 Potters" plan to the Order? Didn't Snape/DD take that away by compelling him to take their plan to the Order? I agree with Pippin that he wasn't being forced, but for himself he's still none too happy to be a part of the plan. He's not exactly the volunteering type, is he? And if he hadn't been "compelled" to bring this plan up, would the Order have picked him to be a party to it? I think a_svirn has a valid point in calling Dung an involuntary participant, when all factors are considered. > > a_svirn: > > I am. As we know from canon Dobby did save the life of Harry and > > other prisoners of the Malfoy Manor in a situation that required > > his join Apparition skill. Why not ask him to apparate Harry to, > > say, Aunty Muriel's? Where is the possible flaw in that plan? > > Pippin: > In the fine old days of TBAY, that one would rate you a yellow > flag. > There's no canon that House Elves can disapparate with wizards in > tow. If they could, then Regulus could have had Kreacher save > him from the Inferi. Mike: Ah, but then you'd have to pick up that flag and dip your fork into that crow pie. @ "You can Disapparate out of this cellar?" he asked Dobby, who @ nodded, his ears flapping. @ "And you can take humans with you?" @ Dobby nodded again. @ "Right. Dobby, I want you to grab Luna, Dean, and Mr. Ollivander, @ and take them --" ..... @ They caught hold of the elf's outstretched fingers. There was @ another loud crack, and Dobby, Luna, Dean, and Ollivander vanished. @ Too bad Regulus didn't think of this. > Pippin: > Harry disapparates with Dobby, not the other way round. Mike: Yes, apparently once out of the dungeon, humans could (dis)apparate. Though that doesn't seem logical based on Dumbledore's explanation in HBP about wizards protecting their homes with anti-apparation charms. Maybe one can (dis)apparate out but not in? I remember that both Tonks and DD went out to the Burrow's garden before disapparating in HBP. Was that because of the additional protections? Did Arthur ever disapparate from inside the house, or does he go outside first, in the earlier books? Mike, who noticed that others have already made some of his points while he was typing this post, but is going to post it anyway cuz he's obstinant that way. :-P From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 00:21:19 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:21:19 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Yes, apparently once out of the dungeon, humans could > (dis)apparate. > Though that doesn't seem logical based on Dumbledore's explanation > in HBP about wizards protecting their homes with anti-apparation > charms. Maybe one can (dis)apparate out but not in? > > I remember that both Tonks and DD went out to the Burrow's garden > before disapparating in HBP. Was that because of the additional > protections? Did Arthur ever disapparate from inside the house, or > does he go outside first, in the earlier books? zanooda: In GoF Arthur could both apparate and disapparate directly from the house. He apparated from the Dursleys to the Burrow's kitchen: "... there was a faint popping noise, and Mr. Weasley appeared out of thin air ..." (p.52). He also disapparated (again from the kitchen) to go and sort out that trouble with Mad-Eye the morning of September first (p.161). I think that only wizards who really care about their privacy have anti-apparition spells cast on their homes. The Weasleys probably just didn't care before LV's return :-). As for Malfoy Manor - maybe you are right and Malfoys saw no point in protecting the house from disapparition, only from unwanted apparition. From drcarole71 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 00:42:01 2007 From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:42:01 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179472 Why in the world would "countless generations of children" not get to read Harry just because Dumbledore was gay? That doesn't make any sense. Carole From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 04:21:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:21:51 -0000 Subject: Moody's death / Dumbledore's authority / Dumbledore's portrait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179473 Pippin: It's not about *trying*. In the immortal words of Yoda, "There is no try." The Ministry tried -- it tried all sorts of things that didn't work just to show that it was doing something, and it didn't do things that could work because they'd be perceived as risky or unpopular. I think we're supposed to contrast that with Dumbledore's methods, and respect Dumbledore because he was willing to do unpopular things and frankly told people that they would have to fight what seemed to be a losing battle. He was indeed a flawed leader, but one of the things that canon shows us is that those who won't respect a flawed leader are only placing themselves in the hands of leaders clever enough to con people into thinking that they're flawless. *We* were tricked into thinking that Dumbledore was flawless--but JKR did that, not Dumbledore himself. *He* never claimed to be the epitome of goodness. (And as I've pointed out numerous times, that was a tricky statement all along. "Epitome" means a typical example, not a perfect one.) Alla: We agree that Dumbledore is flawed leader, I think we again are disagreeing about the degrees, no? Or maybe it is stronger disagreement about the kind of flaws Dumbledore has and whether he deserves respect despite of them? I mean as I mentioned before Dumbledore's idiotic plans work perfectly for me for the most part, when I view them as complete idiocy because of their secrecy and complete ruthlessness and lack of caring for his soldiers. But when I am asked to look at this idiocy as something that deserves respect? No, sorry. I mean, of course goals are worthy of respect, execution - no way in my book. Nobody can know about horcruxes' hunt? I mean, really? Nobody can? Why is that Dumbledore? Don't you trust the members of the order? I mean they seem to follow you blindly to death, etc. You cannot let Harry share with them? Eh? IDIOT. Diadem could have been found so much faster. Why do you not bother to at least try to get into the heads of the people you lead, Dumbledore? To look at things from their POV, etc. I find Dumbledore's character very consistent in this regard. And share every word Aberworth said about him, but I cannot for the life of me to look at it as positive character's trait. His goals are worth following, I know, but his means? I am so glad that Harry realises that he does not want to turn to Dumbledore in that aspect and shares information with others. Too bad Dumbledore did not do that. I do wonder what exactly do you mean by saying that the book is not about trying? The book is not about trying to save as many lifes as possible? because this was the sort of trying I was talking about and I beg to differ, but I think this is one of the things the book is about. I do not know about you, but I have no idea how the methods of ministry and Dumbledore's are all that different. Did Dumbledore's methods do the job done? Or is the job being done often inspite of them? For all Scrimgeour's ineffectiveness, I think I respect the way he died way more than Dumbledore's. Man died tortured and not giving away any secrets **under torture**. Dumbledore died because he was stupid enough to hurt himself and then he was ruthless enough to ask another man to risk hurting his soul to advance Dumbledore's plans. Which were towards the good goal, I know. Oh and again, I am not sympathicising with Snape much here, please do not get me wrong. But that does not stop me from saying that Dumbledore was rather jerk here. You want to die, Dumbledore? Please do everybody involved a favor and kill yourself then. I mean, on the whole I have very little problems with Dumbledore's treating Snape the way he did, especially when Snape came to him. I thought Dumbledore realised perfectly that Snape came ONLY because of Lily and was disgusting DE follower otherwise. I thought his "you disgust me" was a shock therapy that was exactly what doctor ordered for Snape. I loved that. But at the end, this is how you treat a man who did so much for you? Oy. I hate Snape. I will never forgive him that he did not make an effort to treat Harry differently, but still... And you are right, Dumbledore never claimed to be epitome of goodness, too bad though that I now sure that JKR did lie to me in the interviews by calling him as such. This is actually the kind of thing I cannot quite get. I do understand and respect the need to protect the plot, but I think it would have been so much more honest of her to not give any such characteristics while she could not. IMo of course. As I mentioned before I **can** forgive him and I do, but respect or love? Um, no not from me. Pippin: OTOH, if Snape had done nothing, neither informed the DE's of the Order's plans nor suggested the Seven Potters idea, what would have been gained? Voldemort would have had spies in the area in any case, as Moody points out, and canon shows they could have summoned their master and he in turn could summon other Death Eaters almost instantly. We're talking about a few minutes at best. Even if Harry did escape the DE's by dis-apparating, he would then have had the whole Ministry after him for breaking wizarding law. Alla: Who says that Voldemort would have necessarily learned about the plan at all had Dumbledore not told Snape to do that? As an aside. All this talk about Dumbledore's plans and orders Snape in DH made me think. Eh, isn't his portrait way too smart for portrait? Isn't what he did looked more like alive person than portrait? Didn't JKR say that portraits are only imprint of the person or something and they only know stuff before they died? I do not remember if I asked this question before or not, but DD seems way too smart for potrait for me. JMO, Alla From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 04:44:22 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:44:22 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179474 > a_svirn: > Here is from OED: > expendable, a. (and n.) that may be expended; considered as not worth > preserving or salvaging; > The key connotation here is "considered as not worth preserving". In > other words ? canon folder. Sirius did not mean that at all. He meant > it as a free choice, he did not mean ? could not mean ? that any > member of the Order can be sacrificed by other members of the order > because he or she is not worthy of preserving! lizzyben: And constrast this with what Kingsley Shacklebot said in DH: "Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving." That's probably one of the only statements in DH that really expressed a clear moral vision. But to DD, it seems like every life was expendable, & worth losing. DD's methods went directly against the ideals that they were supposedly fighting for. But Kinglsey's statement is later echoed by Snape, who mentions saving every life he could. I don't think we're meant to accept that DD's way is the right way or the moral way. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Nov 30 05:39:38 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:39:38 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179475 > > a_svirn: > > Here is from OED: > > expendable, a. (and n.) that may be expended; considered as not > worth > > preserving or salvaging; > > The key connotation here is "considered as not worth preserving". > In > > other words ? canon folder. Sirius did not mean that at all. He > meant > > it as a free choice, he did not mean ? could not mean ? that any > > member of the Order can be sacrificed by other members of the > order > > because he or she is not worthy of preserving! > > lizzyben: > > And constrast this with what Kingsley Shacklebot said in DH: "Every > human life is worth the same, and worth saving." That's probably one > of the only statements in DH that really expressed a clear moral > vision. But to DD, it seems like every life was expendable, & worth > losing. DD's methods went directly against the ideals that they were > supposedly fighting for. But Kinglsey's statement is later echoed by > Snape, who mentions saving every life he could. I don't think we're > meant to accept that DD's way is the right way or the moral way. Magpie: Or else it's a contrast between what the books say and what they do. Certain speeches sound good being spoken and in certain contexts, but that doesn't mean they are intended to contradict Dumbledore. I don't remember the contexts for those two lines, but I feel like Kingsley was talking about saving Muggles, which is a chance to make a point about the good guys being not cruelly anti-Muggle like Voldemort (though they certain never consider them equals) and Snape ruefully referencing his own dark past. I'm not sure the author might not consider both those statements as supporting Dumbledore's choices overall. It doesn't work for me, but I'm not sure they're intentionally supposed to be saying Dumbledore was wrong or treating people as expendable. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 07:26:45 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:26:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders WAS: Moody's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179476 --- "a_svirn" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > Even so there is something particularly unsavoury in the idea > of using them blindly. They might have been ready to die for > Harry, but what right had Dumbledore to play God and decide > for them? > bboyminn: So, was General George Patton playing God when he send countless thousands of soldiers to their deaths? They called him 'Blood and Guts' Patton. Upon meeting Patton a soldier remarked, 'yeah, our blood, his guts'. While thousands went to die, Patton sat safely in a war room pushing toy soldiers around on a map. The point I'm making now, and the point I have made many times before, is that some one has to lead, some one has to make these dark and terrible decisions. Some one has to weight 'collateral damage' as a fact of war. Dumbledore had to make hard decisions, decisions that had no easy answers. Every decision he made resulted in deaths. So, he made the best decisions he could in the moment. Keep in mind that there are Civil War buffs who are still analyzing and criticizing Civil War Battles. Analyzing and criticizing is easy, especially after the fact, having the responsibility of making the hard decisions and living with the consequences is hard. It is easy to second guess when you know full well that no blood will actually be on your hands. But when you hold that blood and those live in your hands, when the mantle of God has been thrust upon you, suddenly the 'easy' decisions are not so easy after all. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 07:50:03 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:50:03 -0000 Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179477 > lizzyben: > Warning - this got pretty long & rambly! Mike: I've rearrainged this post into a more chronological order (according to the story). Still a bit long and rambly, though. ;) > lizzyben: > -- > DD said that he was just about to leave when Trelawney began > prophicizing. ... As soon as DD heard the first > sentence ... he must have realized that something odd was > happening - it's directly related to Voldemort, predicting > the LV's defeat, and who will ultimately defeat him, etc. Mike: Add to this that DD knew Trelawney was decended from a famous seer. Quite probably DD guessed he was hearing a real prophesy. > lizzyben: > DD casts the silencing spell at this point, protecting the rest > of the prophecy from possible (or known) eavesdroppers. Then, > Aberforth comes in with a Death Eater who had been listening > outside the door. Mike: Except, DD related that the eavesdropper was *"detected"* a short way into the prophesy. Not that no more than the first part of the prophesy could have been heard by the eavesdropper. From subsequent reveals, we know he was "detected" by Aberforth, not by Albus. If Albus had chose this point to cast the silencing spell you are crediting him with, why the convoluted answer to Harry's question? Wouldn't he instead have simply said, "I cast a silencing spell on the room part way into the prophesy"? This is the man who once said "It was one of my more brilliant ideas, and between you and me, that's saying something." And he's not going to take credit for his quick thinking and spell casting? > lizzyben: > And DD lets him go, knowing that he will take the prophecy > straight to Voldemort. Because only DD had heard the 2nd half of > the prophecy, & only DD knew that acting on the prophecy would > lead Lord Voldemort to his downfall. Mike: Yes, he let's Snape go, a poor choice. But I think you give Dumbledore too much credit of forethought. In the short time between the completion of the prophesy and Snape's expulsion, you have him conceiving of a complex plan to see Voldemort act on the prophesy, create and mark his eventual vanquisher, yet somehow not succeed in killing that self-same vanquisher. I don't think DD is that good nor that quick at formulating plans. > lizzyben: > What makes you think that DD didn't put any stock in the prophecy? Mike: DD told Harry that he put "too much store by the prophesy". DD admitted to not having studied the subject (divination) himself. He said he was disinclined to continue the subject. He makes light of Sibyll's second prophesy about Wormtail, and does nothing to prevent it coming to pass. All indications are that DD neither believed in prophesies' truthfulness, nor thought them unavoidable. IMO. DD knew of the Hall of Prophesies. He's sure that all those prophesies haven't come true. Instead, he takes the more common sense approach of ignoring prophesies and they become just incoherent ramblings. I feel confident in the assessment that DD would not have taken Trelawney's prophesy seriously. > lizzyben: > He knew that LV was afraid of death, so he knew or should have > known that VOLDEMORT would take the prophecy seriously and act > upon it. Mike: I don't see how one follows after the other. Why would LV's fear of death translate into believing in prophesies? That LV, like all tyrants, would be on the lookout for "the one who would challenge him", would not leave one such as Dumbledore with the impression that he'd think prophesies are a reliable source of information. > lizzyben: > By letting Snape go, DD was endangering every family that fit the > prophecy's description. But DD didn't care - he'd finally found a > way to defeat LV. Mike: Agree with your first sentence. However, at this point in the timeline, we don't have evidence enough to deduce your second imprecation. Therefore, I disagree with that sentence. If you want to charge DD with that proclivity after Harry has survived GH, I'll concur. > lizzyben: > > DD may have contempt for prophecies, but he has caught a real live > Death Eater outside his door. ... But he lets Snape go to LV, > knowing the prophecy could endanger an innocent family if LV takes > it seriously. Because DD knew that LV believed in prophecies, most > especially anything foretelling his own death. DD doesn't have > contempt for prophecies; in HBP, he just says that one party has > to *act* upon it to make it come true. DD let the prophecy go to > ensure that LV would act upon it, & make it come true. Mike: I don't disagree that letting Snape go here was poor judgement. History bears that out. But I've made my case for DD not believing in prophesies. I also don't see anything besides hindsight that shows that LV believes in prophesies at the time of Trelawney's first. And DD didn't actually make a sweeping *self-fulfilling prohesy* case. He just said that by acting on the prophesy, LV caused the first part to happen. But I'd rather doubt that DD would have predicted the things that happened at GH at the time that Snape was thrown out of the Hog's Head. > lizzyben: > > Nah, why would DD bother casting a spell just to muffle the wind? > I think it's pretty clearly a silencing spell of some kind, which > encases Snape & DD in a bubble of silence - they can't hear the > wind anymore, and outsiders can't hear them anymore. Mike: I stand corrected. I think your assessment is more logical than mine. > > Mike: > > Unless DD is Legilimensing Snape just then. > > lizzyben: > > ... or unless he knows that he cast a Silencing Spell halfway > through the prophecy. Snape's assurance that he took everything > he'd *heard* to LV would reassure DD that Snape hadn't heard & > relayed the entire prophecy. Mike: You are, of course, entitled to conjecture. I've stated my doubts towards this being the what happened. I think canon favors my read. Remember, I was convinced of Snape's complicity with DD before DH. But the new canon convinced me I was wrong. > Mike: > > Now, as to your assertion that DD would sacrifice the Potters; > > lizzyben: > > -- I'm not sure if he did or not, but IMO there's a > lot of circumstantial evidence tying DD to the crime. > First of all, DD asked for the Potters' invisibility cloak > a week or so before the murders. Mike: I think DD's obsession with the Hallows explains this better than some possible conspiratorial intent. > lizzyben: > Secondly, how did DD know what had happened so quickly? He sent > Hagrid to take Harry before the authorities had even shown up. And > he also knew about the "blood protection" that Lily's sacrifice had > created for Harry. Meaning he knew that Lily had stood in front of > Harry & sacrificed her life. How does he know this? Really, how > would he know what happened in Godric's Hollow? There were no > witnesses, but within hours of the attack, DD knew exactly what had > happened, how it had happened, & why Harry survived. Mike: I'm afraid this one has to be chalked up to a new author, not expecting that anyone would explore her story to the degree that we have here. There are just too many inconsistencies with the whole GH plotline to pin one or two things on specific characters. How was the whole WW celebrating LV's demise the next morning? What about the 24 hours? If Hagrid told Minerva about bringing Harry to the Dursleys in time for her to be sitting outside their house by the morning of November 1, why did it take until midnight for Hagrid to actually retrieve Harry and show up? How did DD know it was an AK that LV cast? Conversely, if it's given that DD knew it was an AK, then DD, the big ancient-love-magic proponent, would deduce that was the only way Harry could have survived the AK. And, as brought up by Shelley on a different thread, both James and Lily threatened enough to go under the Fidelius don't keep their wands handy? I have to conclude that the GH events and subsequent actions by the characters happened because the author needed them to happen. Also, the holes happened because she didn't choose to fill them or she couldn't fill them without giving away too much, too soon. > lizzyben: > > LV had to *mark* the child to make him his equal - and DD wouldn't > know exactly how that would happen, but he knew that LV and Harry > had to have a confrontation for it to happen. Mike: To get to this point we've had to make quite a few assumptions. 1) DD cared about prophesies. 2) DD thought LV would believe in prophesies and act upon them. 3) DD deduced all this in the short time between prophesy completion and the go ahead to throw Snape out of the Hog's Head. 4) DD believed in prophesies so much that he would purposely enable LV to attack a child figuring that child would somehow survive. 5) DD didn't think the boy was *born* with "power the dark lord knows not", but that instead the prophesy would somehow provide it. Or maybe some unknown interaction was sure to happen to give him this. There's more, but those will do to make my point. This is way too much for me to believe that DD believed and/or was capable of conceiving. Now you want to add a couple more. That DD understood prophesies so well as to know that *marking* required some confrontation, yet non-lethal for the "chosen one", and that there would be some transfer or incurring of power into the "chosen one" through this confrontational marking. More than I'm willing to accept. > lizzyben: > > But a Harry that's kept safe & far away from Voldemort won't > become the Chosen One. -- > DD doesn't need to know exactly how the prophecy would play out, > or how Harry would become an equal, he just needs to know that > this attack will create one w/special powers to defeat LV. Mike: You have not convinced me that DD would put *that* much store in prophesies to just blindly go along with them/it. Besides, where in the prophesy did it say the attack would create the powers? AND, wasn't it "power the Dark Lord knows not"? How could that come from LV's marking? It didn't, did it? Harry's "special power" is LOVE, that's what LV "knew not", and it didn't come from LV. We are not talking about Lily's love protection, the ancient magic stuff. That saved Harry from death (something that only an uncritical believer of prophesies would believe *had* to happen). No, Harry's Love is inborn. DD explains this in OotP and reiterates it in HBP, and it follows that the prophesy foretold this as the prophesy was about the boy *to be born*. > Mike: > > I don't think the trip to the graveyard was in DD's > > plan, but luck saved Harry on that one. > > lizzyben: > > Well, I'm not so sure about that. -- > > Yeah, IMO DD owned the Riddle estate. He knew exactly what > was going on there, and exactly why Harry's name was entered > into the TWT. Both DD and LV wanted Harry to end up in that > graveyard. When LV used Harry's blood to resurrect, that gave > Harry the ability to survive an AK from LV. DD's plan *worked*, > which is why he had a "gleam of triumph" at the end of GOF. Mike: I snipped the stuff that I mostly agree with. That DD wasn't unhappy that Harry got in the TWT. Concerned as to how, and to what end the GoF confunder was aiming, but happy that Harry would get another place to "try his strength". I also agree that DD should have expected some LV involvement in getting Harry into the TWT. Which got me to here. DD owned the Riddle estate and therefore he knew why Harry was entered into the TWT and knew he would end up in the graveyard. It works as a conspiracy theory, but theres no evidence to back the accusation. It's pure conjecture based on an interpretation of DD's character. The "Gleam", on the other hand, comes because an unexpected but welcomed boon has just fallen into DD's lap. > lizzyben: > Isn't it odd how often LV's & DD's interests coincide? They both > .... planned for Harry to die. It's more than complicity - it's > almost *collaboration*. Mike: Wait, so it was DD's plan for Harry's blood to get into LV so he would survive the AK, yet DD also planned for Harry to die. But of course you don't mean DD wanted Harry to die in the same way LV wanted Harry to die. Yet it's "more than complicity". Sorry, but the level of complicity, deviancy, and intricacy you've imbued in DD's *plan* would seem to require that Voldemort was in on and agreed with the *plan*. > lizzyben: > > Oh, I don't like him either. I think he's downright evil, maybe > more evil than Voldemort. Mike: I wouldn't have guessed. ;) > lizzyben: > But he just might be my favorite character in the series. He's > incredibly complex, conflicted, ruthless and idealistic. Mike: You know, most readers claim this mantle for Snape. But I think you're right. I suspected DD before DH, but the final installment definitely ratcheted his character up into a new level malignancy. > lizzyben: > LOLOL, Dumbledore, what an asshole. And he's a consistent one! > Is this a man who's grieving over the Potters' death & his > inability to protect them - or one who's quite smug & pleased > about the success of his Plan for a chosen one? You decide. Mike: Well, I don't think DD planned the GH massacre of the elder Potters. But I agree with your overall assessmnet of DD - he's an asshole! A quipping, nonsense-spouting, talking-behind-your-back, twinkly-eyed, jerk that you'd best not turn your back on. JMO, mind you. ;) Mike From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Nov 30 08:13:04 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:13:04 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179478 a_svirn: > I don't know. Do you? Personally I find it most improbable that any > sane person would join an organisation under such terms. No doubt > the Dark Lord thought his death eaters and their nearest and > dearest *expendable*, but the good guys are supposed to be > different, aren't they? Being ready and even eager to risk your > life is not the same thing as being *expendable*. If you appreciate > the distinction. > > As for Fletcher, it is painfully obvious that he does *not* want to > sacrifice himself. He is compelled to do so by the other members of > the Order. Because they think him expendable. Which is not only > immoral, but also stupid, because force and compulsion can only > help so far. Surely after the Kreacher debacle they shoul have > learned their lesson? If Moody wanted to get rid of the most > unreliable member of the order he would have done better to simply > kill him. It would have been just as immoral but far more > practical. Dana: Well I agree no one would join an organization with the idea that you are just an expendable element and I agree that being prepared to risk your life is not the same as being considered expendable but I do not agree with the idea that no one would accept the dangers of joining an organization that could appose a threat to your life. All members of that organization know perfectly well that being part of this group could be a potential threat. You can only join such an organization if you are prepared to sacrifice your life for it, because there is simply no way of telling who is going to end up death next and there are no guarantees that it wouldn't be you. So in this sense I do not agree with your conclusion that the Order used Fletcher as canon folder because he was not willing to sacrifice his life. He did willingly join the Order and with it came the dangers of being the next in line, he was even a member of said Order in the first war. No one made him join, he did so out of his own free will. Even if it was just out of loyalty to DD than still this would mean that he WAS prepared to sacrifice his life for said Order merely by joining them at all. Secondly he was very willing in accepting the Orders protection (even if it was just for his illegal doings), he was very willing to accept DD's help in sticky situations but when it comes to the Order depending on him, they all suddenly should understand that Fletcher actually never wanted any part of the Order because he didn't want to sacrifice his life for the cause. How? How could they have known this? He was present at Order meetings and in the case we are specifically discussing here, he was the one that came with this plan in the first place. So it would be okay for him to contribute in this plan by offering the idea to begin with but the Order members are cruel for actually making him partake in it too because it could be a danger to his personal safety? All Order Members risk their life's in this plan which he brought to the table. They do not know he was coerced in offering this plan. They didn't know that the plan was actually a trap waiting for them. What they did know is that Fletcher was willing to be part of this plan by coming up with it himself. So it is okay for the individual members of the Order to risk their butts for Fletcher but they should not expect him to do the same thing for them? In organizations like these, members are entirely dependent on one another and they should be able to count on every single member in equal terms as the other members count on them. Besides being prepared to accept the consequential dangers of being part of such an organization is not the same thing as wanting to die. None of them wanted to die, no one expected LV to show up personally or that the DE would show up in such large numbers. They expected some DE's to be on the look out and that they could easily overcome them if it came to fighting them. In this sense Dung got the safest bet with one of the most experienced fighters of the group, just as Hermione did with Kingsley. Although we do not actually know how a cunfonding charm works, it does seem very reasonable to me that Dung actually knew that he got the information from Snape, who is at that time believed to have killed DD and thus a loyal DE. So in this sense it seems to me that Dung's actually hesitations came from this knowledge although he probably doesn't know what he was specifically agreeing to when he offered the Order this specific plan but that he did know that this actually might be a trap but could not get out of it because it would put the suspicion on him directly. Or at least I believe that JKR wrote Dung's hesitations to give notion to the idea that Dung was the traitor to later show that Snape actually had cunfunded him to do so and not to the notion that the Order coerced him to partake in this plan. So at least to me, your notions or conclusion still seem unreasonable in relation to specific Order Members coercing Dung to be part of this plan. It was still Snape who did so under orders of DD. And it therefore would actually make more sense to me that Snape actually ordered Dung to cooperate with the Order, for the plan to actually be accepted because his unwillingness to actually go along with the plan himself (even if we see his hesitations in the kitchen scene) would arouse suspicion of a possible trap. Therefore again the hesitation was in my opinion not to show Dung's unwillingness to sacrifice himself for the cause (as I stated above is a occupational hazard that comes with being an Order member by definition and he joined this group by his own free will) but because we were supposed to suspect Dung of being the one who sold out the Order. He did but not by his own free will. It is not the Order in itself that sees people as expendable by taking advantage of the individual willingness of Order members to sacrifice themselves for the cause but it is DD (or to be more precise JKR) who actually thinks it is okay to actually sacrifice members of the Order unknowingly because by joining the Order you show that you consider yourself to be expendable to serve the cause. It is JKR who seem to actually think that a person could be forgiving to do such things as long as it serves the greater good. And although this does happen in RL, where leaders sacrifice their minions to further their wartime efforts, it still is never acceptable practice to me. This kind of practice will go on and on because people WILL actually only look at the end result and then make the conclusion that the ends seemed to have justified the means. That is why it is so disturbing to me to find such a thing within this book, especially because it is considered a children's book. This book actually seems to say that it is okay to lie and cheat those that depend upon you and lose their life because of it, because they offered their service and thus their life to serve you anyway and so it doesn't matter how they die as long as it serves a greater purpose. That it takes away free will doesn't seem to have been something JKR actually noticed herself. I think we should ask her if it would have been okay for DD to sacrifice one of her own kids for the greater good and see if she still thinks he would be such a great guy for doing so. All wartime leader's do so but the question is; does it make it okay for people unknowingly being sacrificed by the people they trust and are willing to fight for? To me, it makes me sick that human beings can actually do such a thing and not lose one night sleep over it. Those people were willing to fight for the freedom of others, the least thing someone could do is properly respect that what makes these people willing to fight for you and your cause. So the least thing that should always be number one is not betray your own and thus not betray that what makes them willing to follow your lead -> trust. These people should certainly not have been reduced to mere numbers of casualties as JKR seemed to have done here too. All those who lost their lives willing to fight are still individuals and without each individual effort you wouldn't have an army in the first place. I wish people could remember this when they say that it was okay to sacrifice one in order to safe the many. The many are still made up out of many ones and thus if no one is looking out for the one individual then actually no one is looking out for the many either. It is just an illusion to think you are part of the many, because in the end you are still an individual no one is actually looking out for. That is why the Harry Potter series isn't working for me even though JKR wanted Harry to be the person who actually was looking out for the individual by sacrificing himself, all the other conflicted messages in the book completely overshadow the idea behind his sacrifice. This could have been so different if she had let Harry learn about what he needed to do half way through the book and looking for alternative ways to defeat LV and then coming to the conclusion there would be no other way then give his life as an ultimate sacrifice, instead of him following DD's plans for him all the way through thus making DD right in the end. Which thus tell us that the end DOES justifies the means. Well I think I am done with the ranting ;o) JMHO Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Nov 30 11:06:25 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:06:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders WAS: Moody's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179479 bboyminn: > So, was General George Patton playing God when he send countless > thousands of soldiers to their deaths? They called him 'Blood > and Guts' Patton. Upon meeting Patton a soldier remarked, 'yeah, > our blood, his guts'. While thousands went to die, Patton sat > safely in a war room pushing toy soldiers around on a map. > > The point I'm making now, and the point I have made many times > before, is that some one has to lead, some one has to make > these dark and terrible decisions. Some one has to weight > 'collateral damage' as a fact of war. Dana: I think you are missing the point entirely or at least in my opinion. In war the soldiers on the battlefield no longer just look at the bigger picture, they just fight for the person next to them and they depend on their war leader's to do the best they can to actually make it possible for these soldiers to not only win the battle but to survive it too. General George Patton could not have done anything without the willingness of the individual soldier to actually be there to execute his plans and so the General could never claim victory for the brilliance of his plans if those soldiers had not be willing to serve him. So for him to actually be successful he IS entirely dependent on those serving him on the battlefield and not him merely having a great plan. So at least he could do is consider the amount of danger that would come with each individual plan. To me, if a General is just looking for fame by coming up with the boldest plan, which if it works would give him timeless fame, should be relieved of duty as fast as possible because actually they are precisely that what they say they are fighting against. Everybody going into a war knows of the possibility of casualties but no one goes to war with the expectations or hopes of not coming back and certainly no one is expecting to die because the one they trusted would betray their willingness to serve this cause and thus lead them into an ambush by telling the enemy not only where and when to find them but to actually tell the enemy what they are going to do next. It is not about war leader's being able to prevent every possible loss of life's but they should always consider the probabilities of loses with each plan they make. Many General's were not willing to actually boldly risk the life's of the man serving under them if the probability of great loss was eminent. They looked for other possibilities to reach the same goal without endangering their men unnecessarily, it is predominantly politics that sends young men to an early grave unnecessarily by making these men fight for a false cause but most General's know what it is like to be a soldier as they once were just soldiers themselves. Personally I think you are confusing politics with actual war strategies. It are mostly the politicians who do not care about the numbers of casualties as long as their forces are still on the winning end. It are also predominantly them who are selling a war to the public and as long as there is still public support then they actually do not care how many of their soldiers die or at least most politicians do not care as some certainly do. It is actually the political leader who sells the idea of serving the Greater Good and that the end justified the means (see the propaganda machinery behind the many wars). It is never in the best interest of an army leader to actually consider those that serve under them to be expandable. If he gives his men the feel that they do not matter by making decisions that increases the probabilty of large casualties then it hurts the moral of these man hard and you'll risk losing the willingness of your men to serve you and thus risk your plan to actually becoming unsuccessful. That is why the American Army has the rule that no one is left behind, death or alive because it gives the sense that all of them matter equally. So men even risk their lives to get their fallen comrade out of enemy territory. That doesn't mean that unpopulair decisions are never made but there is still a profound difference between considering the probability of loses in a specific plan or willingly betray your men which increases the probability of death because no one can prepare themselves to the situation they are about to face. Also the men before they go into battle are actually debriefed of what is going to be asked of them and what is their objective, so they do not go in blindly into a war situation where they are fed a plan while their leader is actually trying to serve another. Like DD actual reason for this plan wasn't Harry's safe transport but actually trying to get Snape into the headmasters position. There was no other need for this betrayal at all. Not letting LV know the MoM plan was bogus would have given the Order a safe opportunity to move Harry from the Dursley's to a different location. It wasn't the plan in itself that put the Order at great risk but the fact that this plan was part of another scheme that DD seemed necessary to betray them for. If you want to know what I am talking about (although it is not specifically about generals) then I want to suggest watching Band of Brother's episode 7 and 8. You can see what lack of a devoted leader can mean for your battalion. Of course if you want to see a natural great compassionate leader at hand I surely recommend watching the entire series. Anyway the discussion is not about DD not putting himself on the frontline of the battle because essentially he did in OotP, for me the major problem is that I can't reconcile with is DD's betrayal of those serving under him and in the end it being considered a good thing because it served some greater purpose. It was entirely unnecessary, disrespectful to those willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause and in the end it served no one because kids still died at Hogwarts. And with this last I include DD's plan for Snape to kill him because in the end (which I still consider another betrayal) I still do not see how it served Draco or the school because essentially someone still died because of the loss of the protection of Hogwarts too. Saving one life to lose another seems meaningless to me but maybe I am just entirely ignorant to what is considered to be good. For me, I can only see a lot of people depending on a man that wasn't worthy of their trust at all and I do not care if Harry saves the day by sheer luck and get rewarded for it because essentially DD has done nothing for him either because his survival was a result of LV using his blood and not something DD did for him and neither was the Hallow thing something DD set up so Harry could safe the day by being the Elder Wand's owner. Also I saw someone stating that of course Harry would forgive DD because DD was his friend and was there for him when no one else was. Sorry but I am not convinced that DD did not perfectly set this up so Harry had no other choice but to be dependent on DD. If Harry had been raised by a loving family (even other then Sirius himself) then he would never have been so willing in accepting what DD had to offer and in the end this still wasn't much at all. This has nothing to do with friendship but with depriving a kid of enough love that he would actually cling to that what is given to him. DD says he had an interest in Harry wellbeing but the funny part is that if DD's plan would have worked then even if Harry would have gone after the Hallows he could never get the power of all three because DD's plan was for the wand to end up without a owner never to be claimed again. Of course this is just another plothole and JKR writing with the knowledge that the plan failed but unfortunately when DD made up his will he still didn't know the plan would actually fail. JMHO Dana From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 13:01:56 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:01:56 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179482 Re: Dumbledore and other leaders WAS: Moody's death > > a_svirn: > > Actually, you got it backwards. The Greater Good philosophy *is* > > moral relativism. > > Pippin: > IIRC, moral relativism is the belief that morals can only be judged in > relation to one's culture or beliefs. a_svirn: And world domination versus "saving thousands lives" is about cultural differences? I wouldn't have guessed! I suppose the concept of culture can be just as relative as the concept of morality. Anyway, consider the grammar. GreatER Good, LessER Evil. Relative in form just as surely as in content. Nothing is absolute, everything is subject to negotiation. At best a compromise, more commonly merely an excuse. Carol: However, it doesn't really matter whether there's canon for House-Elves Apparating with wizards in tow. What matters is whether Harry knows that it can be done, and, as of "The Seven Potters," he doesn't. And even if he did, he can't summon Dobby at will (he doesn't own Dobby) and he's certainly not going to trust Kreacher to help him. a_svirn: I don't know what is so certain about that. In HBP he used Kreacher without trusting him. And in any case it is a moot point, because it wasn't Harry, who planned the operation. Surely the senior members of the order new all about joint elf-wizard apparition? And if Aberforth could send Dobby to the Malfoys, he certainly could send him to the Dursleys. Dana: Well I agree no one would join an organization with the idea that you are just an expendable element and I agree that being prepared to risk your life is not the same as being considered expendable but I do not agree with the idea that no one would accept the dangers of joining an organization that could appose a threat to your life. a_svirn: That's not what I said. I said *Fletcher* did not accept the dangers. Dana: So in this sense I do not agree with your conclusion that the Order used Fletcher as canon folder because he was not willing to sacrifice his life. He did willingly join the Order and with it came the dangers of being the next in line, he was even a member of said Order in the first war. No one made him join, he did so out of his own free will. a_svirn: Are you certain about that? Sirius told Harry that the Order tolerated Fletcher because he was "useful", and that he owed Dumbledore a favor. Fletcher himself told Harry that he is not a "bleeding hero" and that he never pretended that he was up to killing himself. Sounds to me his will was not all that free. More likely Dumbledore knew a certain something about him and used it to press-gang him into the Order. Dana: Secondly he was very willing in accepting the Orders protection (even if it was just for his illegal doings), a_svirn: I didn't get the feeling that the Order "protected him in his illegal doings". Surely it would make the phoenixes at the very least accomplices? Molly was beside herself when he tried to use the headquarters as a store for his ill-gotten gains, and Harry almost mashed him into a bloody pulp when he caught him redhanded. Dana: he was very willing to accept DD's help in sticky situations but when it comes to the Order depending on him, they all suddenly should understand that Fletcher actually never wanted any part of the Order because he didn't want to sacrifice his life for the cause. How? How could they have known this? a_svirn: Well, you know how it is with sticky situations? I suppose he was made an offer he couldn't refuse. But there is a world of difference between doing Dumbledore's bidding and actually "killing hisself". And whatever he owed Dumbledore he obviously did not consider himself in Harry's debt. Dana: He was present at Order meetings and in the case we are specifically discussing here, he was the one that came with this plan in the first place. So it would be okay for him to contribute in this plan by offering the idea to begin with but the Order members are cruel for actually making him partake in it too because it could be a danger to his personal safety? a_svirn: Personally I find it hilarious that the least reliable member of the Order took part in the planning of the operation of the topmost priority. That's Rowling for you. But as for making him to participate in the operation, and not just participate, but to become a target #1, yes, I think it was cruel. And unethical. Everyone else was their on their free will. Fletcher wasn't, and they shouldn't have compelled him, much less set him up as canon folder. They knew that if there was an attack Flecher and Moody would be in the worst danger. Dana: So it is okay for the individual members of the Order to risk their butts for Fletcher but they should not expect him to do the same thing for them? a_svirn: When exactly did they risk their lives for Fletcher? Dana: Therefore again the hesitation was in my opinion not to show Dung's unwillingness to sacrifice himself for the cause (as I stated above is a occupational hazard that comes with being an Order member by definition and he joined this group by his own free will) but because we were supposed to suspect Dung of being the one who sold out the Order. He did but not by his own free will. a_svirn: These two goals aren't mutually exclusive. I accept you point about Rowling's intention to fling yet another red herring in our way. But then my point is still valid. They suspected him *because* of his unwillingness. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 13:35:35 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:35:35 -0000 Subject: Moody's death / Dumbledore's authority / Dumbledore's portrait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179483 > Pippin: > OTOH, if Snape had done nothing, neither informed the DE's of the > Order's plans nor suggested the Seven Potters idea, what would have > been gained? a_svirn: Moody would have stayed alive? A mere trifle, but still. > Pippin: Voldemort would have had spies in the area in any case, > as Moody points out, and canon shows they could have summoned > their master and he in turn could summon other Death Eaters almost > instantly. We're talking about a few minutes at best. a_svirn: Not *almost*. Some time still needed as we know from canon. And even few minutes would have been enough time for the rest of the decoys to escape. As Moody points out even Voldemort can split himself in seven. At least, he can't do it with his body. > Pippin: Even if Harry > did escape the DE's by dis-apparating, he would then have had the > whole Ministry after him for breaking wizarding law. > > Alla: > > Who says that Voldemort would have necessarily learned about the > plan at all had Dumbledore not told Snape to do that? > a_svirn: No one. Certainly not Dumbledore. It was all about proving once again Snape's usefulness to Voldemort. So that he could continue to sit at Voldemort's right instead of ceding his place to Yaxley. I wonder would Sirius consider this goal as "worth dying for?" Something tells me that he wouldn't. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 30 15:14:43 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:14:43 -0000 Subject: J.K. Rowling!Existentialist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thetrojanvabbit" wrote: > > Existentialist!JK Rowling > > "Of course it's happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth > should that mean it's not real?" > > Warning: Deathly Hallows spoilers and Heidegger > > Rowling said she would reveal what book she had been writing from > with Deathly Hallows, and apart from a plot trope that far predates > the New Testimate, it wasn't the bible. It was an existentialism > textbook. I wonder if that's why some Christians hate Harry Potter so much! > > --gatesreaver Geoff: Having read your post, I felt I needed to comment on the last two sentences. Starting at the end(!), I wondered why you wrote your last sentence "I wonder if that's why some Christians hate Harry Potter so much!"; it seems to be something of a red herring. You might just as well add the converse that a lot of Christians like Harry Potter. I am a practising Christian and know many people in my own church who are. And, in the four years and more that I have been a member of HPFGU, I have made contact and formed friendships with several other group members who profess the Christian faith. However, coming to the penultimate sentence, you wrote: "It was an existentialism textbook". Sadly, I suspect that you have fallen into the trap which other groups, such as the alchemical theorists have in the past, namely, presenting your hypothesis as a statement of fact. If you had said "I believe it was .", then good enough. But to categorically write "It was " is, in my view incorrect and possibly misleading. I haven't heard or seen any reports of JKR making the assertion that this was the basis of her story. Only this month, she has given an interview to the Dutch newspaper "De Volkskrant" and, in the translation which I have seen, she says that she was raised in the Church of England and held Christian belief until she questioned it at University but has now returned to believing and, as we know, worships at the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh. So, although I agree that you have every right to hold your existentialist view as I have to hold my pro-Christian view, without some definite evidence from Jo Rowling, you can only put it forward as a possibility. For my part, I believe that there are many pointers to Christianity in the books and that, like Tolkien and Lewis before h er, she has used her own position as a starting point. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 15:27:12 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:27:12 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179485 > > lizzyben: > > > > And constrast this with what Kingsley Shacklebot said in DH: "Every > > human life is worth the same, and worth saving." > > Magpie: > Or else it's a contrast between what the books say and what they do. > Certain speeches sound good being spoken and in certain contexts, but > that doesn't mean they are intended to contradict Dumbledore. I don't > remember the contexts for those two lines, but I feel like Kingsley > was talking about saving Muggles, which is a chance to make a point > about the good guys being not cruelly anti-Muggle like Voldemort > (though they certain never consider them equals) and Snape ruefully > referencing his own dark past. I'm not sure the author might not > consider both those statements as supporting Dumbledore's choices > overall. It doesn't work for me, but I'm not sure they're > intentionally supposed to be saying Dumbledore was wrong or treating > people as expendable. > > -m > lizzyben: Well, I'm pretty sure we're meant to see DD as wrong (though probably not EVIL). Kingley's & Snape's statements are reinforced by Harry the hero's own actions. Harry doesn't sacrifice people for "the greater good", or see people as expendeble. Instead, he has a "saving people thing" - saving people even when it could risk his own mission. He saves the muggle-borns, Draco, etc. when it's not necessary for the overall mission. So, Harry's own philosophy comes much closer to that ideal espoused by Shacklebot. And Snape also comes closer to that ideal when he tries to save Lupin, though saving that life could risk his cover. Or protecting Harry, even though he doesn't even like the kid. Because every human life is valuable. So, in contrast to all that, are we supposed to look at DD's illogical "Seven Potters" plan, his "sacrificial lamb plan," his "chase-the-Hallows,no-don't" plan, his description as the "master of secrets & lies" and think that this guy has the right idea? IMO no. (At least, I hope not!) Harry forgives him, but we don't have to. I don't think we're meant to see DD as an "epitome of goodness", or believe that his strategies were always appropriate or necessary. So I'm not sure if the echoes between Shacklebot & Snape are intentional, but they're there. And the contrast between DD's own Utilitarian philosophy is stark. This novel is a moral mess, but every so often a good message sneaks through inadvertantly. lizzyben From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Nov 30 15:48:58 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:48:58 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179486 > lizzyben: > > Well, I'm pretty sure we're meant to see DD as wrong (though > probably not EVIL). Kingley's & Snape's statements are reinforced by > Harry the hero's own actions. Harry doesn't sacrifice people > for "the greater good", or see people as expendeble. Instead, he has > a "saving people thing" - saving people even when it could risk his > own mission. He saves the muggle-borns, Draco, etc. when it's not > necessary for the overall mission. So, Harry's own philosophy comes > much closer to that ideal espoused by Shacklebot. And Snape also > comes closer to that ideal when he tries to save Lupin, though > saving that life could risk his cover. Or protecting Harry, even > though he doesn't even like the kid. Because every human life is > valuable. Magpie: It's not that I don't think JKR thinks this is the right thing to do, but that I don't know if we're supposed to see Dumbledore as seeing people as expendable either. I wouldn't be surprised if in JKR's mind Dumbledore sees people as just as worth saving as Kingsley does (which I would even say is different than Harry's "saving people thing" and is put in different terms). I think it was Steve who recently talked about how the General has to make the hard decisions and while I don't buy that for Dumbledore I'm not convinced I'm not supposed to buy it so that everyone who died wasn't Dumbledore's intention. Lizzyben: > > So, in contrast to all that, are we supposed to look at DD's > illogical "Seven Potters" plan, his "sacrificial lamb plan," > his "chase-the-Hallows,no-don't" plan, his description as > the "master of secrets & lies" and think that this guy has the right > idea? IMO no. Magpie: IMO, yes. At least in the general sense. Sure Dumbledore made mistakes in thinking Harry would be tempted by the Hallows but I think his plan was supposed to have been done for the best possible reasons. I don't think his flaws necessarily include the ones I would see (I thought it was like in OotP where Dumbledore again claims he's going to blame himself and own up to his faults and then owns up to the faults he allows himself and Harry doesn't challenge him). I could totally believe that Moody's death is just supposed to be the unavoidable price you pay when you oppose Voldemort and that it was all for the Greater Good. I think Dumbledore is still supposed to have the right idea for the most part, definitely. That Mundungus is pushed into joining the fight isn't Dumbledore's doing but the other Order members, right? And it's hard for me to imagine the guiding force of the books really having a problem with that. Courage is the most important virtue, after all, and it's great when cowards get pushed into acting as brave as they ought to be. I think Harry's forgiveness is more about not telling him the truth etc. and isn't even that big of a deal. Lizzyben: > So I'm not sure if the echoes between Shacklebot & Snape are > intentional, but they're there. And the contrast between DD's own > Utilitarian philosophy is stark. This novel is a moral mess, but > every so often a good message sneaks through inadvertantly. Magpie: Oh, I think they're there intentional. I just think Kingsley's especially is more like the "right versus easy" message, one that is self-consciously put into somebody's mouth because it's what we think we should think, but that doesn't mean that any time the books go blatantly against it it means the characters or the author would see it that way. I would assume she thinks everybody's been choosing right versus easy as well, but I never see that anywhere. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 15:49:23 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:49:23 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179487 > Magpie: > Or else it's a contrast between what the books say and what they do. > Certain speeches sound good being spoken and in certain contexts, but > that doesn't mean they are intended to contradict Dumbledore. I don't > remember the contexts for those two lines, but I feel like Kingsley > was talking about saving Muggles, which is a chance to make a point > about the good guys being not cruelly anti-Muggle like Voldemort > (though they certain never consider them equals) and Snape ruefully > referencing his own dark past. I'm not sure the author might not > consider both those statements as supporting Dumbledore's choices > overall. It doesn't work for me, but I'm not sure they're > intentionally supposed to be saying Dumbledore was wrong or treating > people as expendable. > a_svirn: Considering that the Fake Potters episode didn't even rate mentioning during the chat at King's Cross, I'd say that from canon's perspective it was OK for Dumbledore to decide who is worth preserving (Harry and Snape up to a certain point) and who isn't (everyone else). He didn't ask Harry's forgiveness for treating his nearest and dearest as chess pieces or for raising him like "a pig for slaughter", he only carved his pardon for not trusting him enough. And Harry accepts this philosophy. At least, I don't exactly remember him challenging it. I wonder though would the others agree to it as easily? Would Arthur and Molly agree that it was OK for Dumbledore to serve their children (not to mention themselves) on a silver platter to Voldemort, so that Snape's position as Voldemort's favourite wouldn't be threatened? From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 16:28:28 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:28:28 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179488 > Magpie: > It's not that I don't think JKR thinks this is the right thing to do, > but that I don't know if we're supposed to see Dumbledore as seeing > people as expendable either. I wouldn't be surprised if in JKR's mind > Dumbledore sees people as just as worth saving as Kingsley does lizzyben: Well, I've been wondering what JKR actually meant for us to think of Dumbledore, & found this quote somewhat reassuring: Q: During their search Ron, Hermione and Harry talk about Dumbledore as if hears God. They thought that behind his words and actions there was a grand scheme; they are disillusioned when this doesn't turn out to be the case. JKR: He's a complex character. I don't see him as God. I did want that the reader would question Dumbledore's part in the whole story. We all believed that he was a kind-hearted father figure. And to a certain extent he is. But at the same time he is someone who treats people as puppets; who caries a dark secret from his past and who never told Harry the full truth. I hope that the reader will love him again in the end. But that they love him like he is, including his faults. Is Dumbledore divine? No. He has certain divine qualities though. He is merciful, and in the end he is just." I'd argue w/the merciful & just description, but I am glad that JKR said that we're meant to question DD's actions. His plans are so dumb, how could we not? And we are supposed to notice that he treats people as puppets, not as human lives worth saving. So in a general kind of way, the Seven Potters Plan plays into that fault of DD's. And his lack of regard for human life is seen & portrayed as a fault, IMO. lizzyben From laurel_lei at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 12:26:53 2007 From: laurel_lei at yahoo.com (Laurel Lei) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:26:53 -0000 Subject: The Greatest, the Chosen and the Brightest Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179489 In reading and following some of the various threads... I noticed the "Down With Dumbledore" theme. I think that people, since J.K.'s public revelation, are now trying to find more ways to show that Dumbledore is a "bad" or "cruel" or a "terrible" person...(and please insert your own adjective here and this is not a new topic, by the way). Unfortunately, it's human nature to see fault... and now in some people's eyes he's even worse by being viewed as gay. Just another layer to categorize or to rationalize dislike. To each his own, I say. Live, Love and be Happy! While reading any of the books in the series, I had always thought of Dumbledore as a great, caring wizard. But, I never thought of him as the "greatest wizard". Just like I never totally "bought into" the idea that Hermione was the "brightest witch of her age". Nor did I buy into Harry as the "Chosen One" and that he, alone would save the Wizarding World. Dumbledore, Hermione and Harry, like the rest of us, are only human, have faults and make mistakes. Not all of Dumbledore's, nor Harry's, nor Hermione's "plans" have had the best outcomes. They may have had "people's" best interest in mind, but things simply didn't work out. I think that Dumbledore, Harry and Hermione all may have believed or "bought into" the comments of others (Greatest Wizard, Chosen One or Brightest Witch) and reveled in that a bit... (again, human nature... who doesn't like compliments?) and perhaps, like the humans that they are, let that go to their heads (on more than one occasion) and helped them make some poor choices (choices, another theme of the books). Humans learn by trial and error (I hope) and hindsight is 20/20. Harry and the other characters learned much during these seven years at school. But I think they learned the most from each other (Dumbledore included) about simply being human. One thing I took from the stories is that intelligence, no matter how great, cannot replace common sense and it certainly cannot predict the future. And in my opinion, character is greater than intelligence. My two knuts... -Laurel Lei From wynnleaf at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 16:52:56 2007 From: wynnleaf at yahoo.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:52:56 -0000 Subject: The Greatest, the Chosen and the Brightest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179490 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Laurel Lei" wrote: > > In reading and following some of the various threads... I noticed > the "Down With Dumbledore" theme. > > I think that people, since J.K.'s public revelation, are now trying > to find more ways to show that Dumbledore is a "bad" or "cruel" or > a "terrible" person...(and please insert your own adjective here and > this is not a new topic, by the way). > > Unfortunately, it's human nature to see fault... and now in some > people's eyes he's even worse by being viewed as gay. Just another > layer to categorize or to rationalize dislike. To each his own, I > say. Live, Love and be Happy! wynnleaf I disagree. Even before DH, there were many, many readers who were very concerned with the ethics of Dumbledore after reading his many manipulations and decisions and apparent willingness to risk even the lives of children in his care in order to win the war. Immediately following DH, the increased dissatisfaction with Dumbledore escalated dramatically, well before JKR's announcement that he was gay. When JKR announced that she thought of him as gay, I personally felt it was a pity that she waited to announce that until i after so many readers had developed such a negative view of him. It's too bad that she couldn't have revealed that piece of information when more readers revered him. But while there are certainly some who dislike Dumbledore *because* of his sexuality, that is only, as far as I see across the fandom, only a small contingent compared to many, many people who aplaud JKR having a gay character, but very much dislike Dumbledore's ethics. > Laurel Lei > While reading any of the books in the series, I had always thought of > Dumbledore as a great, caring wizard. But, I never thought of him as > the "greatest wizard". Just like I never totally "bought into" the > idea that Hermione was the "brightest witch of her age". Nor did I > buy into Harry as the "Chosen One" and that he, alone would save the > Wizarding World. wynnleaf Although it seems that Hermione *is* supposed to be the brightest witch in her age group. And Harry was necessary to the destruction of Voldemort. And as far as I can tell, especially since JKR shows that apparently only Dumbledore could defeat Grindelwald and Voldemort really was only afraid of Dumbledore, than Dumbledore is supposed to be the "greatest wizard" living at the time. Although I completely agree that they all have their faults. I've been thinking a lot lately about how Dumbledore's revealed faults changed the rest of the books for me. While many considered his decisions questionable all the way through, I was able to be comfortable with many of his decisions - especially those that risked the lives of children - because I hoped JKR would reveal that Dumbledore had special ways of knowing that his plans really would work, that children would not die due to the risks he allowed, and so on. But in fact we did *not* learn that. Instead, we learned that many of Dumbledore's plans were so faulty, that the only reason kids didn't die was because of good luck. We learned that some of Dumbledore's decisions were probably just dead wrong, and others highly questionable. It helps, in a story like HP, for there to be a "great wizard" who can actually be trusted to give wise advice, to kind of "know" what's going to happen, and when he appears to risk the lives of innocents he actually *knows* that either they will really be okay, or the particular risk is either unavoidable or truly worth it. To discover that was not correct pulls the "safety net" out from under all of the books. No longer can I pretend that Dumbledore had some higher or deeper knowledge that his plans would really work, or that he was actually correct in his assumptions. Instead, I discovered he was often wrong and his plans didn't always work. If we'd been presented initially with a character who admitted that this was the case, and therefore shared his plans with others, included others in his secrets, and sought out the council of others, I could still believe that he was truly wise, even though - like all humans - imperfect. But instead, Dumbledore approaches his decisions as though his assumptions, plans, and decisions are the only possible solutions - as though he must be correct. He holds secrets and seeks no counsel, in some belief that his incredible brilliance makes him above all others. I no longer see him as wise. He did eventually see *some* of his flaws, but he never sees what I considered one of his biggest weaknesses, his unwavering faith in the infallibility of his own intellect. wynnleaf From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 18:33:11 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:33:11 -0000 Subject: The Greatest, the Chosen and the Brightest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179491 > >>Laurel Lei: > > Unfortunately, it's human nature to see fault... Betsy Hp: More unfortunately, in DH fault is just so darn easy to see. I *wanted* to like the conclusion to the series, I *wanted* to like Dumbledore. JKR dragged me kicking and screaming to the rather distasteful conclusion that DH was an unmitigated mess and Dumbledore an unbelievable asshole. > >>wynnleaf: > > I've been thinking a lot lately about how Dumbledore's revealed > faults changed the rest of the books for me. > While many considered his decisions questionable all the way > through, I was able to be comfortable with many of his decisions - > especially those that risked the lives of children - because I > hoped JKR would reveal that Dumbledore had special ways of knowing > that his plans really would work, that children would not die due > to the risks he allowed, and so on. But in fact we did *not* learn > that. Instead, we learned that many of Dumbledore's plans were so > faulty, that the only reason kids didn't die was because of good > luck. We learned that some of Dumbledore's decisions were probably > just dead wrong, and others highly questionable. > Betsy Hp: It's a great pity isn't it? I had a whole wonderful theory that explained how Dumbledore didn't throw an eleven year-old to the wolves to do a "character" check in PS/SS. And it involved Dumbledore being incredibly human and fallible. Unfortunately, it seemed JKR wanted Dumbledore to really be in control of everything. But for him to be in control of everything, it means he has to have little to no care about the suffering of those around him. Makes it kind of hard to be the "good guy". As was the case with a lot of JKR's moral choices, she seemed to want to have her cake and eat it too (have it both easy and right, I suppose). And it ended in disaster. And it ruins the story too. Because it means that all of these characters have to either be incredibly stupid or incredibly self- serving to fall in behind this idiot. For example: McGonagall, as I'd always pictured her, should have questioned why three first year students under her care were put into such danger. Either she didn't question (self-serving) or she questioned and was easily appeased (stupid). Ditto with the TWT for that matter. Betsy Hp (who has no internet at home ::the horror -- no, I'm serious, it totally sucks:: is doing this from work and must now, well, work ::again with the horror:: hope this makes sense!) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 19:56:41 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:56:41 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179492 Dana wrote: > > > Although we do not actually know how a cunfonding charm works, it > does seem very reasonable to me that Dung actually knew that he got > the information from Snape, who is at that time believed to have > killed DD and thus a loyal DE. So in this sense it seems to me that > Dung's actually hesitations came from this knowledge although he > probably doesn't know what he was specifically agreeing to when he > offered the Order this specific plan but that he did know that this > actually might be a trap but could not get out of it because it would put the suspicion on him directly. > > Or at least I believe that JKR wrote Dung's hesitations to give > notion to the idea that Dung was the traitor to later show that Snape actually had cunfunded him to do so and not to the notion that the Order coerced him to partake in this plan. Carol responds: I agree with your (snipped) points that Mundungus joined the order of hiw own free will, surely knowing that it could cost him his life, and that it's perfectly reasonable for the Order to expect him to participate in a plan that he himself suggested. (They can't possibly know that it was Snape, under orders from DD, who implanted the notion in his head.) It's also true that we don't know exactly how a Confundus Charm works (though we've seen a lot of them) or how it differs from an Imperius Curse. It's odd that the Confundus Charm would be perfectly legal (Hermione uses it on Cormac McLaggen in HBP) while the Imperius Curse is illegal Dark magic. Possibly, the Confundus Charm only *confuses* the victim but can't be used to control him (make him commit murder, for example). And yet Snape not only makes Dung believe that the polyjuiced Potters idea is his own; he orders Dung to present it to the Order as his own. What he does not say is that Mundungus is not to mention that he's meeting and talking with Snape himself. Naturally, Mundungus is unlikely to do that out of self-protection, but why is he meeting with Snape in the first place? *Is* he a traitor to the Order whom Snape is using for his own and Dumbledore's ends and pretending to use for Voldemort's? Why would Dung betray the Order? Or does he not know, having been in Azkaban, that Snape "murdered" Dumbledore? Maybe he has always served as one of Snape's contacts and continues to do so, believing (rightly, as it turns out) that Snape is under deep cover as a DE but is really loyal to the now-dead Dumbledore? Perhaps Snape has confessed as much, telling Dung to keep his secret, but that seems unlikely since Dung could not be trusted not to talk. Or maybe this isn't the first Confundus Charm Snape has placed on him. ("You will meet me at such and such a bar and tell me the Order's plans.") Snape can't have Imperiused him or he wouldn't need an additional Confundus Charm. Dung would just do as he was told without needing to be Confunded. (I suspect that, like Dawlish, he's "known to be susceptible.") At any rate, unless Dung is a traitor, willingly consorting with a former Order member he believes also to be a traitor, I doubt that he knows that Snape has (nonverbally) Confunded him or that the idea is not his own. And note that it's only the idea of using Polyjuice to produce multiple Potters that Snape suggests. He does not say how many there will be or who will take part or how they will leave 4 Privet Drive. He leaves that up to the Order itself. And meanwhile, he tells LV only what Mundungus must have told him: that the Order is laying a false trail and the time and date at which Harry will be leaving 4 Privet Drive (before the blood protection spell breaks on its own). He also says that Harry will not be Apparating or using Floo powder because the Order are aware of Pius Thicknesse's restrictions. IOW, snape is passing what seems to be valuable information but withholding the key fact, the one he suggested himself rather than having obtained it from his source (who can only be Mundungus). At any rate, I don't attribute Dung's hesitation to be involved in the plan to knowledge that it came from Snape, a supposedly loyal DE. Why one earth would a loyal DE supply a plan that would offer additional protection to Harry (making him less of a target through the use of decoys)? I think Dung hesitates because he knows that the plan is dangerous and because he's a scummy coward. It's one thing to obtain important information for the Order from the lowlifes in Knockturn Alley or to take a turn at guard duty (guarding Harry or the entrance to the DoM) if he doesn't have a deal involving dodgy cauldrons in the making, and another thing altogether to risk being killed by Voldemort by transforming into the double of the very person Voldemort most wants to kill (now that DD is dead). Dung at first hesitates to line up to take the polyjuice because "I've toldjer, I'd sooner be a protector," to which Moody responds, "As I've already told you, you spineless worm, any Death Eaters we run into will be aiming to capture Potter, not kill him. . . . It'll be the protectors who have got the most to worry about, the Death Eaters'll want to kill them." Although Dung doesn't "look particularly reassured," he takes his polyjuice with no further arguments (DH Am. ed. 50-51) other than "Why'm I with you?" ("Because you're the one that needs watching," 52), which leads me to believe that he's participating in what he thinks is his own brilliant plan. If he reacts when Snape is mentioned 53), we don't see it. Snape has told him to forget that he has suggested the use of decoys and Polyjuice potion. Chances are, he's forgotten that he's met with Snape at all. The only question for me is how Snape convinced Mundungus to meet with him in that unfamiliar tavern in the first place. Maybe he followed him there and Confunded him before speaking to him. But that doesn't explain why Snape would refer to him to LV as "the source we discussed" (4). Maybe they had only discussed the possibility of Snape's waylaying Mundungus at a tavern he was known to frequent and Confunding him to obtain information. so Snape would have followed through on the plan and obtained the information before the meeting in chapter 1 and then Confunded Mundungus to get him to claim the Polyjuiced Potters plan as his own after he had learned everything he needed to know. And yet DD's order to Confund Mundungus and plant the decoy plan (688) seems to occur *after* Snape has obtained the information about the date and so forth, which suggests that he met with Mundungus more than once. BTW, since DD only states that Snape must plant the idea of decoys with no details, either he and Snape have already discussed the plan or the details (polyjuice, etc.) are Snape's own. Carol, thinking that JKR has left us free to make up our own explanations, rather freer than Confundungus, who can't weasel out of what even he believes to be his own plan From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 20:17:56 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:17:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179493 --- "Dana" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > So, was General George Patton playing God when he send > > countless thousands of soldiers to their deaths? They > > called him 'Blood and Guts' Patton. ... 'yeah, our blood, > > his guts'. > > > > ...some one has to make these dark and terrible decisions. > > ... > > Dana: > I think you are missing the point entirely or at least in > my opinion. ...big snip... bboyminn: I don't think we are so much disagreeing on this issue as we are merely looking a different aspects of it. You made some very good points within the bounds of your perspective, but I think there are aspects that you and your perspective are ignoring. (Most likely there are aspect my perspective is ignoring too.) > Dana continues: > > ... Like DD actual reason for this plan wasn't Harry's safe > transport but actually trying to get Snape into the > headmasters position. There was no other need for this > betrayal at all. Not letting LV know the MoM plan was bogus > would have given the Order a safe opportunity to move Harry > from the Dursley's to a different location. It wasn't the > plan in itself that put the Order at great risk but the fact > that this plan was part of another scheme that DD seemed > necessary to betray them for. > bboyminn: Again, while you have made some good general points, on this particular point I have to disagree. Corruption in the Ministry had made sure Harry would be captured if you used Floo or Apparation to escape. That left walking, riding (in a car), or flying. Walking and riding in a car are too slow and too easily overcome. I'm not saying plans couldn't have been made that involved them, only that those plans are as risky or more risky than any other. Regardless of our opinion, Dumbledore and the Order weighed the options and selected flying. Was it right or was it wrong, we and they can only know for sure after the fact. Now let's address Dumbledore's alleged betrayal. According to Moody there were very likely DE's paroling the area, and when Harry's protective enchantment broke, they, the DE's, were very likely to come swooping in. So, the attack was inevitable. What Dumbledore did was take an inevitable attack and turn it to his advantage. Knowing an attack was coming, he did his best to confuse the enemy. Snape telling Voldemort of the attack didn't change whether it was going to happen, it only changed the timing a little. And, the Seven Potter's more than offset whatever timing advantage the DE's might have had. Also, note that the Order knew that Snape was spying on Voldemort. The Order would have had to be addle minding not to understand that information and misinformation flowed both ways. They may or may not have specifically known about L-V being informed of the date of the attack. It seems not, but again, General's never confide everything to their troops. Each is inclined to know as much as the General feels he needs to know to do his job. So, the difference that Dumbledore's alleged betrayal cost was merely a slight shift in the timing, a shift that was offset by the confusion of Seven Harrys. It is hard to say that the Order/Guard were betrayed when they always expected an attack, and in the end, the plan succeeded. In wartime, that is called 'victory'. The 'Plan' always was /indeed/ to get Harry away safely, Snape getting some 'brownie points' out of it was merely a side benefit. A great side benefit for Snape, with little difference in the out come of the 'escape'. At least in my opinion. > Dana continues: > > And with this last I include DD's plan for Snape to kill him > because in the end (which I still consider another betrayal) > I still do not see how it served Draco or the school because > essentially someone still died because of the loss of the > protection of Hogwarts too. Saving one life to lose another > seems meaningless to me but maybe I am just entirely ignorant > to what is considered to be good. ... > bboyminn: I'm slightly confused here, you are aware that Dumbledore was already dying, and more so that he was very close to the end of his life. It wasn't a matter of Dumbledore dying, it was a question of whether they could turn Dumbledore's death to their advantage. I would say they very much turned Dumbledore's inevitable death to their advantage. Perhaps, just a mis-phrase but I don't understand - " ...because of the loss of the protection of Hogwarts too." How did Hogwarts lose any protection that it wasn't already going to lose? I mean it lost Dumbledore, but Dumbledore was close to lost already. If you mean 'other' protections, that's were I'm really confused. > Dana concludes: > > Also I saw someone stating that of course Harry would forgive > DD because DD was his friend and was there for him when no > one else was. Sorry but I am not convinced that DD did not > perfectly set this up so Harry had no other choice but to be > dependent on DD. ... bboyminn: Understanding comes with explanation, forgiveness comes with time. Too many people in modern society confuse the two. The classic 'mommy didn't love me', 'daddy didn't hug me', 'it's all societies fault' might explain why someone committed a crime, but it doesn't justify it and it doesn't forgive it. At the end of the final book, Harry understands why Dumbledore did what he did, why he made the choice he made. Those choices weren't perfect, but they were the best that Dumbledore could do, and /understanding/ that, would likely lead Harry to eventually forgive Dumbledore faults and mistakes. You mentioned alternative scenarios under which Harry could have been raised, but you are only looking at the 'rosy' part of those scenarios. Dumbledore certainly weighed and even spoke about Harry being raised under alternate circumstances. But while they would be better social environments for Harry, they would not have been as well defended and would have left Harry exposed and vulnerable. Dumbledore weighed his priorities, and a LIVE Harry was preferable to a happy but quickly dead Harry. Was it the perfect choice, maybe and maybe not, but it was the best choice that Dumbledore could come up with on such short notice. And it must have been fairly good because Harry is alive and victorious, and that means a lot to everyone including Harry. Just a few more thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 21:01:38 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:01:38 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179494 a_svirn wrote: > Considering that the Fake Potters episode didn't even rate mentioning > during the chat at King's Cross, I'd say that from canon's > perspective it was OK for Dumbledore to decide who is worth > preserving (Harry and Snape up to a certain point) and who isn't > (everyone else). He didn't ask Harry's forgiveness for treating his > nearest and dearest as chess pieces or for raising him like "a pig > for slaughter", he only carved his pardon for not trusting him > enough. And Harry accepts this philosophy. At least, I don't exactly > remember him challenging it. I wonder though would the others agree > to it as easily? Would Arthur and Molly agree that it was OK for > Dumbledore to serve their children (not to mention themselves) on a > silver platter to Voldemort, so that Snape's position as Voldemort's > favourite wouldn't be threatened? > Carol responds: First, everyone except Mundungus (who is *not* the person who dies) is participating in the Seven Potters mission voluntarily. And, of course, they're putting Harry's life above their own--again, *choosing* to do so--because they know he's the only one who can defeat Voldemort. The Chose One, the one LV has been trying to murder since he was a baby. Second, it isn't merely a matter of Snape's sitting at Voldemort's right hand. Dumbledore wants Snape as headmaster of Hogwarts to protect the students from the Carrows (DH Am. ed. 688). While Snape can't completely protect the students from the Carrows without giving away his loyalties (and being murdered as a tratior), no one dies while he's there, the teachers other than the Carrows retain their positions, and Snape as much as invites the D.A. to reform by reposting one of Umbridg'es old decrees. Imagine how different it would be if the Carrows actually ran the school rather than having to answer to Snape. They'd bring in DEs to (ostensibly) teach every subject. Under Snape, the students are safe when they're in their dormitories (the Carrows can't get into the Ravenclaw common room without Flitwick's help--why he let Alecto in I have no idea) and they're taught all but two of their classes by competent teachers who have the students' safety in mind and will do everything in their power to thwart the Carrows as they thwarted Umbridge in OoP. He also closes off the secret passageways, which serves the dual purpose of keeping students from sneaking into Hogsmeade, where the DEs are staked out, and of keeping DEs out of Hogwarts. *That's* the primary reason why Snape must maintain his credibility. But Portrait!DD also needs him alive and at Hogwarts so he can deliver the sword to Harry at the crucial moment and, ultimately, deliver the message that will ensure Harry's willing self-sacrifice (which DD, both in HBP and as a portrait in DH, knows will probably not result in his death, though Snape can't know that or the message will not serve its purpose). Snape performs a role, actually, several roles, that only he can fill. He cannot be replaced by any old Order member. The mission to destroy Voldemort depends on him almost as much as it depends on Harry. So, yes, it's crucial for Snape to maintain his credibility, both to protect the students in general (only those who earn detention are Crucio'd; they're not torturing and killing each other in the hallways) and to aid Harry in destroying Voldemort. But Snape really tells LV only two crucial bits of information, the time and date of the planned escape. And, as Pippin points out, LV would have had DEs on the watch, perhaps on call nearby. And they can Apparate instantly to that spot. You say that LV can't appear instantly, but I believe that you're mistaken. He normally flies without a broom when he needs to go a long distance, but I would be very surprised if he can's Apparate like any other of-age wizard if the need arises. If Fenrir Greyback can do it. Voldemort can. And in this instance, he would know why he was being summoned and would want to be there instantly. IOW, important as the information Snape gave LV on DD's orders sounds, it didn't make much difference in the end except to maintain his standing with Voldemort, which was crucial. No one else could do Snape's very important job. What did matter was the information that Snape withheld, the seven Potter decoys. And if LV questioned him, he could use Legilimency to prove that Mundungus hadn't given him that information. (*He'd* given it to Mundungus, possibly on a different occasion). As for Moody's death, Mundungus caused that by Disapparating instead of fighting back. It wasn't inevitable that he would be killed, or that LV himself would take part in the chase. And it would have happened whether Snape revealed the date and time or not because the watching DEs would have summoned LV, who in turn would have summoned the DEs, at least some of whom would have been standing by, brooms at hand, waiting to be summoned, and the rest of whom could have arrived in short order. Carol, who agrees that the Seven Potters plan isn't perfect, but disagrees that it was a suicide mission doomed to failure and that nothing would have been different (except Moody's death) if Snape had not revealed it under DD's orders From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 21:22:32 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:22:32 -0000 Subject: Timing: Trelawney and Dumbledore's version of the Prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179495 I'm always amazed that so many fans see Trelawney and Dumbledore's version of events that lead to the original hearing of the Prophecy as being so diametrically opposed. I've always felt the two version we completely consistent the way any two accounts of a single event are different yet still consistent. Each speaker merely emphasizing aspects that seem momentarily important to them. It is entirely possible that two separate accounts by the /same/ person could deviate as much as Trelawney and Dumbledore's account. As an experiment, I waited until the second hand on my watch reached '12' and started reading the prophecy out loud. It took 25 to 30 seconds depending on the length of dramatic pauses. Then I constructed the scenario below and timed it as I played it out in real time. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aberforth climbed the stairs in the dusty old inn that he ran. Upon reaching the top he saw a man crouched in front of a door. Moving forward, Aberforth cried, "You there. What are you doing?" "What? ...I... I'm not... I just... dropped something", said the dark man has he rose suspiciously to his feet. "You were listening at the door." "No", said Snape nerviously looking around for a means of escape. "I thought I saw something on the floor, and bent to have a look." Aberforth stepped forward giving Snape a furious glare. Snape retreated a few paces looking nervously about. "You were eavesdropping," Aberforth said as he grabbed Snape by the nape of he neck. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Twenty (20) seconds to play out in real time. Twenty seconds distraction from a 30 second Prophecy. Note as soon as Aberforth speaks, Snape is pulled away from the Prophecy in progress. Following this scene, Aberforth pushes Snape through the door into Trelawney's room to see what Albus wants to do with him. They decide to throw Snape out. Now, as far as I can tell, this scene is consistent with both Trelawney's and Dumbledore's account. Especially given that no one ever speaks in absolutes. Neither Trelawney or Dumbledore is saying that their account is a precise second- by-second account of the events. In each case, the accounts are a summary. Each account emphasizing what it feels is relevant to the listener and the speaker in the moment, and equally hiding what the speaker feels is not relevant to the speaker and the listener. Any deviations between the two accounts are common variations that you would find in the account of any two witnesses to the same event, and are even consistent with the same telling by one person on two different occasions. As to why they chose to throw Snape out, I think is a matter of timing. The event just happened and Albus hasn't had time to analyze it. He's not sure if Trelawney is for real and doesn't know how much weight to give to the Prophecy. If Trelawney is a fake, then she merely faked a nonsensical Prophecy about the most notorious Dark Wizard of the time. That's not too far from Trelawney's normal mode of operation. She is constantly making dramatic dark sounding, but generally half-baked predictions. In the moment, I suspect Dumbledore let Snape go because he wasnt' sure it mattered. Plus, exactly what is the legal penalty for eavesdropping? To what extent did Dumbledore or Aberforth have the authority to hold Snape? What were they going to do, lock him in the bell-tower for eavesdropping? Hardly a crime against humanity. So, again, even though they don't match, I have always held Trelawney and Dumbledore's account of the event as consistent. But then, that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 30 21:38:47 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:38:47 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179496 Lizzyben: > So I'm not sure if the echoes between Shacklebot & Snape are > intentional, but they're there. And the contrast between DD's own > Utilitarian philosophy is stark. This novel is a moral mess, but > every so often a good message sneaks through inadvertantly. > > Pippin: I don't think Dumbledore is a Utilitarian. The statement "Dumbledore would have been happier than anybody to think there was a little more love in the world" (HBP ch 29) gives the game away. Apparently, that's Situational Ethics in a nutshell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics Situational ethics differs from Utilitarianism in that it recognizes Agape, absolute unconditional unchanging love for all peoples, as the only law. I think we are to see Dumbledore as trying to live by this principle, though failing whenever he's subverted by his instincts for domination and secrecy, and Harry as doing the same thing more successfully, though failing when he gives into his anger and arrogance. Dumbledore's intellectual superiority clearly tempted him to think that only he possessed enough reasoning power to determine whether his chosen course could be expected to bring more love into the world. In the end, IMO, he recognizes Harry's saving people instinct as a better guide. Anyway, those who are allergic to teleological ethics are bound to find Situational Ethics revolting, as this is definitely a consequence-based system and not only do the ends justify the means, but *only* the end justifies the means. Provided, that is, that the end achieved is more love in the world. This philosophy differs from Utilarianism in having Christian origins and in its absolute acceptance of love as the only good. The founder of situational ethics, the Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher, presented ethical dilemmas in which traditional moral values might have to be set aside to achieve the greatest amount of love. He did not offer any final judgement about the morality of the outcomes, which certainly resembles the way Rowling treats dilemmas in DH. I think we are supposed to recognize that this system has flaws, but we are to see it as more successful than legalistic ethics, whose pitfalls are illustrated by Percy and the young Hermione, and definitely preferable to the anti-nomian non-ethics of Voldemort or Grindelwald. Dumbledore did some harm, but it seems clear that he would have done vastly more if he had abided strictly by the WW's rules. I'm not an expert on this stuff: does anyone else see this? If so, do you think Rowling gives a fair presentation of the weaknesses of situational ethics? Does love in the books have the power of a of a god, or of a deus ex machina, actually influencing events in its favor? Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 22:22:02 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:22:02 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179497 > Carol: > > First, everyone except Mundungus (who is *not* the person who dies) is > participating in the Seven Potters mission voluntarily. And, of > course, they're putting Harry's life above their own--again, > *choosing* to do so--because they know he's the only one who can > defeat Voldemort. The Chose One, the one LV has been trying to murder > since he was a baby. a_svirn: Except that Snape fed the information to Voldemort not to protect Harry (it had, in fact, increased the danger considerably), but to improve his own standing. > Carol: > Second, it isn't merely a matter of Snape's sitting at Voldemort's > right hand. Dumbledore wants Snape as headmaster of Hogwarts to > protect the students from the Carrows (DH Am. ed. 688). While Snape > can't completely protect the students from the Carrows without giving > away his loyalties (and being murdered as a tratior), no one dies > while he's there, the teachers other than the Carrows retain their > positions, and Snape as much as invites the D.A. to reform by > reposting one of Umbridg'es old decrees. Imagine how different it > would be if the Carrows actually ran the school rather than having to > answer to Snape. a_svirn: Let's see. No muggle-borns. Students are tortured, magically and physically, hung up in chains etc. and being taken hostages, while their families are being threatened. Teachers are threatened, humiliated and sometimes killed, like Charity Burbage. But wait! It happened under Snape's regime as well. Ok, technically Charity Burbage was killed before Snape was appointed. But where is the difference? Do you think that Snape would have said or done something besides murmuring "Ah, yes" and watching impassively her being murdered? I don't think so. He had clear instructions as to whose life is worth preserving. And he would have preserved it whatever the cost. I think the regime would have been exactly the same under the Carrows. (Except, perhaps, Ginny and Co wouldn't have been so lucky as to get detention with Hagrid.) > Carol: They'd bring in DEs to (ostensibly) teach every > subject. a_svirn: So would Snape have done, if Voldemort had asked it of him. Or do you think he'd have refused? But then he would have given away his loyalties and would have been murdered as a traitor. Wouldn't he? > Carol: Under Snape, the students are safe when they're in their > dormitories (the Carrows can't get into the Ravenclaw common room > without Flitwick's help--why he let Alecto in I have no idea) and > they're taught all but two of their classes by competent teachers who > have the students' safety in mind and will do everything in their > power to thwart the Carrows as they thwarted Umbridge in OoP. a_svirn: Actually, they didn't thwart Umbridge all that much. The twins and Peeves were the only ones who rebelled openly. Harry and others humbly turned up at her detentions and scribble "I must not tell lies", the Quidditch team had to make do without its captain etc. And as for the Carrows exactly how were they thwarted?! They had their fun. Michael Corner let out a first year? Well, he got beaten and had to lie low. I think they even enjoyed it. And that first year, probably, was hung again for a longer period. Hagrid hosted a "Support Harry Potter Party"? Well, he had to flee and lie low in the cave. They did everything they would have done if one of them had been a headmaster. > Carol: He also > closes off the secret passageways, which serves the dual purpose of > keeping students from sneaking into Hogsmeade, where the DEs are > staked out, and of keeping DEs out of Hogwarts. a_svirn: He doesn't keep even Voldemort from Hogwarts. Death eaters did not need to enter Hogwarts in secret. They could just waltz in openly. > Carol: > *That's* the primary reason why Snape must maintain his credibility. a_svirn: Not at all. The primarily reason Snape had to retain his office is that Dumbledore needed his puppet close at hand. There are certain disadvantages in being dead, though in the WW and with a well-chosen puppet they may be overcome to a reasonable extent. > Carol: > Snape performs a role, actually, several roles, that only he can fill. He cannot be replaced by any old Order member. a_svirn: Of course. In a scenario written by Dumbledore. > Carol: > But Snape really tells LV only two crucial bits of information, the > time and date of the planned escape. And, as Pippin points out, LV > would have had DEs on the watch, perhaps on call nearby. And they can > Apparate instantly to that spot. You say that LV can't appear > instantly, but I believe that you're mistaken. a_svirn: By the time he appears, seven Harrys would have gone to seven different directions. Where would he have apparated? To Privet Drive? They would have gone out of sight by then. The two death eaters on the look-out would have gone after Moody and Kingsley. They would have pressed their marks constantly moving. And you aren't even considering the possibility of attacking them, before they press their Marks. If it were only two of them (a usual number on the look-out) it would be feasible wouldn't? > Carol: > As for Moody's death, Mundungus caused that by Disapparating instead > of fighting back. It wasn't inevitable that he would be killed, a_svirn: Actually, the odds were that Moody and Kingsley would die almost certainly. And some others as well. It is most improbable outcome that the Order lost only one member, while being outnumbered more than two to one and with Voldemort himself participating. It's just another example of Rowling's contrivances. > Carol: or > that LV himself would take part in the chase. a_svirn: Are you joking? Voldemort not taking part in the chase? When it was the only reasonable chance to get hold of Harry? > Carol, who agrees that the Seven Potters plan isn't perfect, but > disagrees that it was a suicide mission doomed to failure and that > nothing would have been different (except Moody's death) if Snape had > not revealed it under DD's orders a_svirn: Yeah. Except that. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 23:48:57 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:48:57 -0000 Subject: Moody's death / Dumbledore's portrait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Eh, isn't his (DD's) portrait way too smart for portrait? > Isn't what he did looked more like alive person than portrait? > Didn't JKR say that portraits are only imprint of the person or > something and they only know stuff before they died? > > I do not remember if I asked this question before or not, but DD > seems way too smart for portrait for me. zanooda: This is an interesting question and I must say that I wondered about it as well. The problem is, I have very little understanding of this "portrait magic" to answer the question :-). The only idea that I had was that, maybe a portrait's "liveliness" depends on how magically powerful the wizard depicted in it used to be. For example, all Hogwarts' headmasters were supposed to be very able wizards (I hope :-), and their portraits seem "smarter", in your words, than others. At least Phinneas Nigellus definitely knows more than "stuff before he died" :-). He seems perfectly aware of the present situation, IMO. If (and only if) this theory is true, then DD's portrait have to be closer to his former alive self than the others, because DD was the most powerful wizard of the century. Maybe someone who used to have the most magic when alive, leaves the most deep "imprint" :-). Anyway, this is the only thing I could think of. Maybe others, who understand better how "portrait magic" and magic in general work, can answer better :-). From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 30 23:56:39 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:56:39 -0000 Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 179499 > a_svirn: > By the time he appears, seven Harrys would have gone to seven > different directions. Where would he have apparated? To Privet Drive? > They would have gone out of sight by then. The two death eaters on > the look-out would have gone after Moody and Kingsley. They would > have pressed their marks constantly moving. Pippin: Your plan seems to rely an awful lot on Voldemort being stupid. If I was Voldemort, I'd leave two watchers for the Order to catch and have twenty more better hidden. He has hundreds of dementors, he can put animals under the Imperius curse, and DE's are just as capable of using invisibility cloaks and disillusionment charms as the Order is. As a man at rest has the advantage over one in motion, it would be easier for them to spot the fleeing Harry than vice versa. Not to mention the difficulty of getting Harry to disapparate from anywhere once his friends are under attack. You are also completely ignoring the Ministry's prohibitions. If the Order flouted those, they'd either be arrested or they'd have to go into hiding, leaving the Ministry unprotected. Voldemort's coup would have happened before Scrimgeour delivered Dumbledore's legacy. There would have been no resurrection stone for Harry to use, and if Voldemort succeeded in opening the Snitch he'd have realized that the horcruxes were compromised. > a_svirn: > Are you joking? Voldemort not taking part in the chase? When it was > the only reasonable chance to get hold of Harry? Pippin: And you think Voldemort wouldn't have been able to find out when Harry was planning to leave unless Snape told him? Um, aren't there other DE's just as capable of using a confundus spell on a susceptible order member as Snape is? Wouldn't Voldemort already know which ones were susceptible from having to cover Peter's tracks for an entire year? If Voldemort took part in the chase there would be casualties -- that's a given since he can outduel every other wizard on the planet. While Harry's life is not worth more than any other man's, Harry's death would mean the deaths of countless others. Moody understood that. Given the choice between dying and letting Voldemort kill Harry, Moody would have preferred to die, I'm sure. Do you doubt it? He may have been wrong not to give Mundungus the same choice, but if so, he paid a price for it. Pippin